… the new prayer for the Jews for Good Friday is important, but not for the reasons most people will focus on.
I don’t think this is important for ecumenical dialogue.
It is, hwoever, very important for the liturgical life of the Church because the 1962 Missale Romanum is now demonstrably a living liturgical book of the Church again. It is not a museum piece or a fly in amber.
The Holy Father changed those prayers so that the older Missale could be used more readily on Good Friday.
The Holy Father wants the book to be used, even on those important days of the Church’s year.
Loading ...
Personally, I could have done without the change, but I have accepted the Holy Father’s decision. Most of all, I have been surprised by the reaction of traditionalists on the internet and elsewhere. There are the usual naysayers who keep reaching farther back into the 20th century in a desperate search for a Roman Missal free of “modernist tendencies.” On the other hand, a surprising number of trads have accepted the merits of the change. I was particularly impressed with Christopher Ferrara’s defense of the revision in a Remnant column recently. I have not always been known to agree with this gentleman, but I would consider this piece of his to be worth reading:
http://www.remnantnewspaper.com/Archives/archive-2008-a_papal_masterstroke.htm
Fr. Z.,
I think you are very much correct. This is very much in line with the thinking of the Holy Father when he was cardinal. He was very concerned with the traditional liturgy appearing as though it were a fly stuck in the amber and the domain only of those on the “fringe” (traditionalists). He had mentioned at the liturgical conference in Fontgombault in 2001 that the 62 missal needed to come back under the authority and direction of Rome by modest changes, so that once again the missal was a part of the living Magisterium rather than a museum piece. The Holy Father has in Summorum Pontificum allowed English scripture readings and has now changed a prayer in the mass itself. It no longer is a “relic of pre-Vatican II” spirituality but is now a post-conciliar liturgy–it is now modern (just without any modernism).
I wonder if B16 is setting an important precedent with this change.
BY doing this, he sets a modern precedent for the Pope unilaterally intervening and changing a liturgical text without going through either the CDF or Ecclessia Dei.
With any luck, this might spill over to Eucharistic Prayer #2?
I think applying the new prayer to the Missal for the Ordinary Form would be a positive step. Is it possible that we may be heading towards a sort-of convergence of the Missals?
By the way, then-Cardinal Ratzinger’s talk can be found here: http://www.amazon.com/Looking-Question-Liturgy-Cardinal-Ratzinger/dp/0907077420/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1202482763&sr=8-1
on pages 152-153 he talks about slight modifications to the missal of 62.
Also, by “English” in my previous post I really mean “vernacular”.
The doctrinal issue of the necessity of faith in Jesus Christ for salvation, even for the Jews, is the biggest issue. The Holy Father would be making a powerful statement, situating the Novus Ordo in more explicit continuity with traditional formulations of our faith, with the inclusion of this prayer in both uses of the one Roman Rite. The two uses should not be held in opposition to one another, as the Ordinary and Extraordinary Form Good Friday prayers already are by many.
Why the Secretariat of State, though? It’s weird.
Subtle point here:
In SP, there was some mention of NOT celebrating the EF during Holy Week. However, by revising the Good Friday prayers, His Holiness, to me, is saying that the EF may be celebrated during Holy Week.
Am I nuts?
I don’t know if anyone else is aware, but I believe that this is the first response from an SSPX affiliated order – the Translapine Redemptorists on this matter:
“In what concerns the Solemn Prayers of the Good Friday Liturgy, the Transalpine Redemptorists will obey with submission the newly promulgated Prayer for the Jews as ordered by His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI on February 4th 2008.”
http://papastronsay.blogspot.com/2008/02/solemn-prayers-of-good-friday.html
In 1959 the same prayer was revised by Bl. Pope John XXIII from the text “Oremus et pro perfidies Judaeis” (Let us pray for the perfidious Jews).
The revision of Pope Benedict XVI makes the prayer more concise and keeps with the Pauline teaching on the entrance of the Jews into the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church: Romans chapter 11.
So the clamor by the ueber-traditionalists and their accusations of “modernism” against the current Successor of Peter are not warranted, at least not in this instance. (The Pope’s September 2005 luncheon with Hans Kung is more worrisome.)
Besides, Abraham Foxman is complaining about the prayer so the current revision must be in line with the Magisterium of 2 millenia. http://www.adl.org/PresRele/VaticanJewish_96/5220_96.htm
Yes, Fr Z. Exactly. I think that the restriction regarding the Triduum may be dropped as part of result of the three year period of observations. More derestriction on the way!
==========
In one way, the Secretariat of State represents the Holy Father, more so than the rest of the Roman Curia. That’s just the way it is. Having them put out the statement helps to underline that this initiative is Benedict’s.
===========
I wouldn’t mind seeing the revised prayer used for the N.O.
Does anyone know if the Novus Ordo Good Friday prayers have been changed yet.
It would only make sense, unless the Holy Father has a plan to elevate the Tridentine Mass above the NO, which would make sense, what with all the extra attention he is giving the Traditional Mass these days.
Bye Bye Novus Ordo, hello Tridentine.
God bless you
This is exactly what I’ve been thinking. This change (whatever else we may think of it) has brought the 1962 liturgical books back to life again. Next perhaps some new prefaces will be added (we know the pope has his eye on this); a few saints inserted into the calendar; a little change here, a little change there, and before you know it we have a real, positive liturgical reform going on which is surely closer to the wishes of the Vatican II fathers than the more drastic post-conciliar reforms (even if it doesn’t go quite as far as fulfilling all of Sacrosanctum Concilium’s propositions).
JML: In SP, there was some mention of NOT celebrating the EF during Holy Week.
There was NO such thing. The paragraph you are most likely thinking of said that there could be no PRIVATE Masses in the OF or the EF during the Triduum. That has always been the case – no private Masses during the Triduum. Also, there can only be one Mass (Mass of the Pre-sanctified on Good Friday) on each day of the Triduum. That means that the one Mass can only be the OF or the EF.
techno: You’re exactly right. It’s amazing how common is the misconception that Summorum Pontificum somehow especially restricts the celebration of the EF during the Triduum.
As you point out, SP only extends to the EF the same prohibition of private Masses that applies (and previously applied) to the OF. There is no restriction of celebration of scheduled public EF Masses during the Triduum where pastorally appropriate — for instance, in EF parishes.
Specifically, only Article 2 of SP mentions the Triduum. It deals only with private (“without the people”) Masses, and mentions the 1962 and 1970 missals in parallel:
Art. 2. In Masses celebrated without the people, each Catholic priest of the Latin rite, whether secular or regular, may use the Roman Missal published by Bl. Pope John XXIII in 1962, or the Roman Missal promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1970, and may do so on any day with the exception of the Easter Triduum. For such celebrations, with either one Missal or the other, the priest has no need for permission from the Apostolic See or from his Ordinary.
The aut … 1962, aut … 1970 (either … 1962 or … 1970) construction in the Latin seems even more explicitly parallel:
Art. 2. In Missis sine populo celebratis, quilibet sacerdos catholicus ritus latini, sive saecularis sive religiosus, uti potest aut Missali Romano a beato Papa Ioanne XXIII anno 1962 edito, aut Missali Romano a Summo Pontifice Paulo VI anno 1970 promulgato, et quidem qualibet die, excepto Triduo Sacro. Ad talem celebrationem secundum unum alterumve Missale, sacerdos nulla eget licentia, nec Sedis Apostolicae nec Ordinarii sui.
“It is, hwoever, very important for the liturgical life of the Church because the 1962 Missale Romanum is now demonstrably a living liturgical book of the Church again. It is not a museum piece or a fly in amber.”
Beautiful!! I am now totally convinced that our Pope is nothing less than brilliant!
(And you ain’t so bad yourself, Fr. Z!)
Father Z.,
In your next Prayercazt, God willing, would you please read the new prayer. I haven’t seen it printed yet with the little accent markers on the letters and I’m not sure I’m praying it properly.
God Bless
“The Holy Father changed those prayers so that the older Missale could be used more readily on Good Friday.”
Here’s my question to everyone saluting this decision: do you think it will indeed result in more traditional Good Friday liturgies?
In the D.C. area, with almost 15 parishes that have regular or semi-regular traditional Latin Masses, a grand total of ZERO of them are offering the traditional Good Friday liturgy.
I know it’s a bold move for a parish to offer its one-and-only liturgy on Good Friday in the traditional rite, but if we’re going to be so supportive of the new wording, shouldn’t we be able to hear it?
The Triduum is not reserved for the Fraternity and Institute. (Despite the confusion over Article 2, which merely says no private liturgies those three days.) Any parish can offer the traditional Maundy Thursday, Good Friday and Holy Saturday liturgies. So far, all I’ve heard is talk on this subject with no scheduled liturgies.
The Traditional Latin Mass, which has always been alive within the Church, must be “brought back to life”?
To eliminate a prayer that has occupied a place within the Roman Liturgy during the past 1,700 (or so) years is to bring the Traditional Roman Liturgy back to life?
Just to make sure that I understand…we give “life” to the Traditional Roman liturgy when we shatter an ancient prayer to make way for a prayer written in 2007/2008?
Tom, the Holy Father did not “shatter an ancient prayer,” he altered a prayer that had been promulgated in 1961 (hardly ancient). And yes, by altering this prayer, the Holy Father demonstrated that this liturgy is still something living and active in the life of the Church.
Fr.Z: this take on the reasons behind revising the prayer is facinating. God grant Pope Benedict health and strength to carry through this reform of the reform.
I sense a real anxiety amoung probably older traditionalists who cleaved to the Old Missal in desperate times. In some ways, and I don’t mean this to sound disparaging, their attitude reminds me of fundamentalist Protestants who cling to the King James Bible as their unadulterated text. Change brings fear as well as hope.
Fr. Z is definitely right that the change brings the EF out of amber and into the world and others are correct that in doing so, the EF has a better chance of being used during the Triduum, but aren’t we all a little tired of liturgical change? There has been nothing but non-stop reform and counter reform since the beginning of the 20th century. Can’t we let the poor missal be for a while (10 years or so would be great), adding only new saints, before messing with it?
I have identified three main themes regarding the new Good Friday prayer in question.
1. “The new prayer does not actually call for the conversion of Jews today…I hope that priests will ignore said prayer.”
2. “What a wonderful way to enrich the Traditional Mass…to make said Mass ‘alive’.”
3. The new prayer is fine in itself. However, the post-Vatican II program to replace ancient liturgical prayers with prayers concocted today continues…and the Roman Mass continues to be modernized…with such a program in place, a future Pope may very well concoct a new prayer to replace Pope Benedict XVI’s Good Friday prayer.”
I don’t buy the themes 1 and 2.
I throw in with the third theme. The prayer isn’t horrible…it’s fine…but that isn’t the issue (to me).
Shattering prayers that have occupied a long-standing place within the liturgy is not a good idea. That program has brought us to today…the collapse of Roman liturgy.
The traditional prayer was fine…replacing said prayer was unnecessary.
When have seen over and over the effects associated with the shattering of traditional liturgical prayers…particularly when said practice is linked to ecumenical/interfaith concerns.
1. People who are outside the Church will continue to berate the True Religion…is impossible to please said folks.
2. A number of Catholics will always be upset (and should be upset) when the Traditional Roman Mass is subjected to novelties.
As Fr. Klaus Gamber indicated, our authentic Roman liturgical tradition is to at least question, if not resist, liturgical novelties.
In this case, I don’t believe that resistance is the manner in which to proceed. Our Holy Father has at least approved a prayer that is fine in itself.
I am thankful that His Holiness did not give us something akin to the Novus Ordo Good Friday prayer for the Jews.
However, I question the need to replace a liturgical prayer that has occupied a place within the Roman liturgy during the past 1,700 years (or so).
The shattering of traditional prayers is a poor practice. That practice helped to usher in the Novus Ordo and the collapse of Roman liturgy.
I certainly don’t accept the notion that the Traditional Roman Mass has been “brought to life” in 2008 via the shattering of the traditional “Prayer for the Conversion Of Jews.”
Finally, if Pope Benedict XVI is free to have eliminated the ancient liturgical prayer in question, then a future Pope is free to replace Pope Benedict XVI’s prayer.
What a slippery slope it is when Popes cast aside traditional prayers.
This change is interesting not only for its content but also because the manner of its release, at least in my mind, harkens back to pre-conciliar days. In the past, if the pope wanted to change a prayer or proper in the missal, Rome would simply issue the change. Since it was in Latin there would be no need for an intermediary. Today, with the prevalence of the use of the vernacular in the liturgy this is not possible. Usually things will come from the bishop’s conference with their stamp of approval (and also their theological and ideological take on whatever the change is as evidenced by the translation. e.g. the disparity of the Latin original to the ICEL translation of the Ordo Missae). If they do not want to make the change they can stall the translation or make it so ubiquitous that Rome will pull it and order it to be re-translated again and again. But with this prayer the Holy Father decided on a change, the curia issued the new text and it will be used as it is without having to be “made politically correct.” I wish that people who have misgivings about the new collect would just submit willingly and show Rome how much easier things could be if Latin were more widely used. And at the same time also show ICEL that their days of tyranny are numbered.
Tom: are you sure this prayer had been there for 1700 years?. Pius XII and John XXIII made so many changes to the Holy Week liturgy.
Tom, that is the point of a living, breathing liturgical book! There will be modifications and change. What do you think of the Missals of 1955 or 1962? 1962 was a minor change (with the addition of St. Joseph in the Canon) over 1955; does that mean that Blessed John XXIII was so callous and heinous enough as to change a prayer book that has been around fo 1700 some odd years? I think that with a competent authority in the person of the Supreme Pontiff, such changes are part of the liturgical life of the Church and perhaps one day we will see the true fruits of Vatican II and a liturgy worthy of being called a liturgy in the (true) Spirit of Vatican II. I don’t mean the Pauline Masses either!
Again, as was mentioned above, the prayer that was modified was changed in 1962, not really a “prayer that has occupied a place in the Roman Liturgy during the past 1,700 years (or so).” Also, I am no Church Historian but the Missale Romanum of 1962 or 1955 for that matter is not the same Roman Missal from the early Church in the least.
Benedict changed this prayer because he thought he had to had to. He wouldn’t make a change unless he thought it was necessary for the good of the faithful (or the survival of the Church). To do otherwise would be unconciliar. There was no way out. Judaei locuti sunt, causa finita est.
Nevertheless, although it might have been necessary (the lesser of two evils) but this KIND of change is unprecedented in the history of the liturgy. That doesn’t mean it’s worth going into schism over, but it is important to acknowledge this, in the same way many of the minor but unprecedented reforms of the 1950s are imporant. If anyone would like to give me an example of an instance where prayers this ancient were replaced in response to requests from outside the Church (before the Novus Ordo of course), I’d gladly stand corrected. Of course, most are insisting that this had nothing to do with Jewish requests that the prayer be changed! John XXIII altered a prayer by removing one word, and he was asked to do so by the Congregation of Our Lady of Zion, an order founded by a CONVERTED Jew with the purpose of promoting the conversion of Jews to Christianity. After his revision, it was the same prayer, in the same way that a song is the same song if I change one note, but not if I change the whole thing. It was still an ancient prayer in the end, just as the Canon is still ancient even though we’ve added the name of St. Joseph. What Benedict has done is write a new prayer for us to replace an old prayer. Benedict isn’t trying to pass this off as a minor revision. He asks us to replace the old prayer with the new one, and we must obey. As minor as the actual change might seem, the implications are major.
As for change for the sake of keeping the liturgy alive, this claim assumes that something isn’t alive unless its changing. That’s change for the sake of change. Does Chartres cease to amaze people because it isn’t constantly being renovated? Such a claim doesn’t make the distinction between good change and bad change. I especially question changes in our own era, where the Church is such a mess and the world is devering all connections with God and the past. This isn’t the Middle Ages, and we can’t afford to “develop” the liturgy at the same pace they did, which wasn’t all that fast to begin with. And even in those good eras, if history has taught us anything, it’s that when pope’s start messing with the liturgy, the results are either very good or very bad. Remember Quinognez and P*** VI?
I’d also like to remind everyone that changes were made to the 1962 Missal when the MP was released? We needed special permission before then to do the readings in the vernacular. Now we don’t. That is a real organic development that no one seems to be embracing, probably because they don’t have to.
I wonder what people here would think of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, or the Armenian liturgy, or the Syriac Rite. Are they dead because they aren’t constantly undergoing modifications? Of course not. Those liturgies are thriving and intact. In fact, they’re alive because they don’t change all the time. You’d have to be pretty dense to think of the Eastern liturgy as a fly in amber.
Precisely Fr. Z !
By changing and strengthening the prayer,rather than leaving the entire missal
preserved in amber, the Holy Father is saying it is still
relavant.
Had he left it alone as a Minority of trads wish he had,
the prayers could have been dismissed by the judaizers now
in vogue at EWTN and the USCCB as a fossil from the pre-JP2
era
Hung Doan
Good points. I wonder if there is a webpage that has the changes in the Roman Missal since 1570 (or so)? I know I can find one for the Book of Common Prayer (Church of England).
I said this the day I read about it over on athanasius contra mundo blog as well as on the Dom Gueranger blog. Dgsociety.wordpress.com the Holy Father is making a point. The 62 is not dead! it really was a strategic move why else would you change a text without changing a text?
Father,
I believe after reading Mr Ferrara’s explanation, in the Remnant magazine that the new prayers are beautfully and cleverly worded.
My question is, why did Pope John XXIII’s prayers have to be changed?
As someone said previously:”if it ain’t boke, don’t fix it”.
God bless you.
So, John Paul, who or what is the “P*** VI” in your post? A deleted expletive or just a way of showing contempt for someone? Just curious.
S******
The Holy Father, previously Cardinal Ratzinger, is not exactly known to cave in before pressure groups. So I don’t think this is a precedent.
Rather, he made a quite prudent decision (as usual). In changing the supposedly insulting wording of a prayer (while keeping the content), he eliminated the subterfuge and made visible the real issue at hand: Obviously, some people don’t want to be prayed for.
Hopefully, in the future the discussion will not deal with the Church’s supposed antisemitism (which doesn’t exist) but rather with Her exclusive self-understanding (which is very much existing and part of the teaching).
I love the Holy Father; he’s a genius.
By altering the prayer for a legitimate reason, he has not only shown that this liturgy is alive, he has given us an example of organic development in the liturgy! He is showing us how the previous reform should have taken place. He altered the prayer for a legitimate need without sacrificing or making ambiguous the doctrine behind it. He modified an existing prayer rather than scrapping it and making a totally new one. If only he had been in charge of the reform instead of Bugnini!!!
JML, try looking at this Roman Liturgy Timeline. It’s very interesting. There is somewhat of a bias that runs through the timeline as depicted, but it does lay out how several changes have been introduced or normalized over the centuries.
Someone was asking previously for the 1970 latin version.
I finally found it.
Oremus et pro Iudæis, ut, ad quos prius locutus est Dominus Deus noster, eis tribuat in sui nominis amore et in sui fœderis fidelitate proficere. (Oratio in silentio. Deinde sacerdos:) Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui promissiones tuas Abrahæ eiusque semini contulisti, Ecclesiæ tuæ preces clementer exaudi, ut populus acquisitionis prioris ad redemptionis mereatur plenitudinem pervenire. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.
Tom said: Finally, if Pope Benedict XVI is free to have eliminated the ancient liturgical prayer in question, then a future Pope is free to replace Pope Benedict XVI’s prayer.
Well, there’s no question that the Pope has the right to reform the liturgy, as the Council of Trent says — and there’s no question that the Pope does not have the right to prevent future Popes from reforming the liturgy. It is the Pope, not the liturgy, that is the Vicar of Christ.
Tom referred to the judaizers now in vogue at EWTN.
There are no Judaisers in vogue at EWTN. Whatever it is you’re objecting to about EWTN, it’s certainly not a Judaising heresy. EWTN is certainly not calling for the reintroduction and making obligatory of Jewish rites and customs such as circumcision, the Sabbath, or kashrut.
I do not think that the new prayer ‘pro Judaeis’ is a last minute draft for PR purposes. The Pope is an expert of the Hebrew problems for the Christian faith. For ex., he, as Chairman of the CDF, issued the document “Le peuple juif et ses Saintes Écritures dans la Bible chrétienne” (24 May 2001).
The modification of the first part of the prayer is in accordance to the self imposed style ‘be positive’. J. L. Allen calls it Benedict XVI’s “affirmative orthodoxy,” meaning a defense of classic Catholic doctrine phrased in positive fashion.
The modification of the second part is just to make clear to ourself first that we pray in such a way because of the Holy Scriptures, Romans 11 in particular, not because of PR.
The timing is understandable: between ‘Summorum Pontificum’ and Lent.
What does not fit well is the ‘bureaucratic’ communication. A letter of the Pope to the Secr. of State, or to some otherone, with a short presentation would have done better.
It seems that Benedict has set a precedent for any future reform of the 1962 missal, that it be in continuity with what has happened before. Yet we must bear in mind there is still the possibility that some in the liturgical establishment will seek to destroy the ancient Roman rite from within, and could see this reform as an opportunity.
Also, don’t forget that SP also anticipates the 1962 Missal incorporating some of the 1970 prefaces. We should expect more changes to come.
This is a very good thing. Eventually, these two missals should merge into a single, faithful implementation of Vatican II. Organic growth, brick by brick.
There certainly was a judaizing trend at EWTN. That and the
wacky sexuality peddled by Dr. Popquack were among the few
legitimate gripes in Ferrara’s lawyerly screed “Ewtn, A
Network Gone Wrong.”
Not that I agreed with ALL of the book
Now that the Missal is starting to change again, there are other changes I’d like to see in the liturgy. Perhaps the Pope can rewrite the other prayers on Good Friday? They are horribly offensive to non-Catholics, and the only reason they’re being kept around is becaue they’re traditional. Benedict could write new prayers for all of them. Not only has the Pope showed us that the Missal is alive by changing it, he’s showed us we shouldn’t fear changing the Missal just because something is old. And if a prayer like the Good Friday prayer that that isn’t broken can be replaced with something new and better, maybe we can start talking about removing complicated rubrics and senseless parts of the liturgy like the sign of the cross with the paten during the Canon or the numerous genuflections at the altar. Many of the texts of the Mass could be replaced with something that reflects the changes at the Council. We need to de-fossilize the liturgy, and changes are just the way to do it.
It would also be interesting to find out what the Good Friday prayers are within the other Catholic rites (Byzantine, Maronite, etc.)
Tommy said: There certainly was a judaizing trend at EWTN. . . .
Okay, I know this is a rabbit trail, so I’ll not prolong it other than to make this last observation: I’ve not read Chris Ferrera’s book, but if he thought there was, or is, a “judaising” trend at EWTN, then I’d say he doesn’t know what Judaising is and has leveled an unjust (and frankly weird) accusation against EWTN.
Ken said:
“In the D.C. area, with almost 15 parishes that have regular or semi-regular traditional Latin Masses, a grand total of ZERO of them are offering the traditional Good Friday liturgy.”
I ask:
“Has anyone – after getting the commitment of a significant number – approached the pastor of one of those parishes and asked for the Traditional Good Friday Liturgy?”
Perhaps if a pastor knew he would have large congregation he would be willing to schedule it and direct those desiring the Novus Ordo ceremony to a nearby parish. (That would not create a grave inconvenience in DC. For example, the famous St. Mary’s is situated between Holy Rosary (2 blocks one way) and St. Patrick’s (5 blocks another).)
We all know a coetus need not be large, according to the law, but going beyond the law for love of the liturgy, if a pastor knew he had a commitment that he would have a significant number (say 100-200) people present for the traditional liturgy on Good Friday he could deflect any flak he might receive from the chancery (which in DC has already moved against the Motu proprio).
Remember, canon law says the people of God must make known their intentions to their pastors.
Anon and the rest who are clamoring for more changes in the liturgy,
Think about what you’re saying…yes that’s the ticket, start tinkering with the mass again – more change that’s it – that’s the answer… and we’ll wind up with the same problems of the past forty years.
The Modernists(Bugnini et al.) did as much and we got the Novus Ordo…no thanks…that’s just what we DON’T need. Leave the TLM alone…
Thanks again Fr. Z. You hit the nail on the head with clear rational thinking.
Anyone who has seriously studied the history of the Roman Liturgy knows that it has NEVER remained constant. Excluding the Ordinary Form which was a completely new ordo, though structurally based on what preceeded it, the last major revision took place in the 1950s when Pius XII changed the rites of Holy Week. There was a heck of a lot more change then as the rites for every day of Holy Week were affected. Both Pius X and Pius XII made significant changes to the Divine Office. Pius V both added and removed elements from the Roman Mass, Divine Office, Pontifical(?). Other liturgical changes were made in the wake of the Council of Trent. Before that the Roman Mass was not standardized. Benedict has changed one prayer, which he himself composed, and in so doing he did not change the theology of the prayer but worded it to express more strongly that salvation is only found in Jesus Christ.
This change is not only directed at the Jews. Remember the document from the CDF clarifying certain points of the faith that came out just after Summorum Pontificum? The one that reaffirmed the teaching of the Church that there is no salvation apart from Christ? I’m pretty sure the Holy Father had this in mind in composing the prayer. The liturgy instructs everyone. Lex orandi, lex credendi. In this prayer is the creedal statement that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men. Though the prayer at issue is said for the conversion of the Jews, it is for all of us. It sends a strong message of Catholic doctrine for pagans, Jews, Moslems, Protestants, Orthodox, and Catholics that this is now and ever has been the teaching of the Church.
Change for the sake of change or to appease the Jews? No. Change to instruct everyone in Catholic Doctrine that takes advantage of a solemn prayer offered on the most solemn of days? Yes. Viva il Papa!
Anon… you’ve already got that. It’s called the Ordianry Form. And if the prayers are “horribly offensive” to non-Catholics, then so be it. You don’t hear Catholics screaming for other religions to change their prayers. And, if so-called Catholic find the prayers offensive as they are, there’s always the Episcopal or the Methodist group down the street. You can go there and beleive whatever you want and it won’t be offensive to anyone. They don’t do offensive. Heck, they even give up Christ so as not to be offensive.
“Change to instruct everyone in Catholic Doctrine that takes advantage of a solemn prayer offered on the most solemn of days?”
At best, the new prayer says the same thing in softer terms. When forced to make a decision, Benedict could just have easily reaffirmed Catholic doctrine by choosing to leave the prayer in place. Or beter yet, he could have reiterated this teaching by hundreds of other means that didn’t mean changing the Missal.
In case anybody cares, I am not the “Tom” who discussed “a judaizing trend at EWTN.”
I am the Tom who believes that the Pope “shattered” the Good Friday Prayer regarding the Jews.
To distinguish myself from the “other” Tom, I will sign this and future posts as “TLM Tom.”
Thank you.
Fr. Bailey,
I should point out that Pius X’s changes to the Breviary and many of the Holy Week liturgy reforms were inorganic changes that ought to be reversed. Dr. Reid discusses this in his book, “Organic Development of the Liturgy.” This book helped me realize that Pre-VII doesn’t necessarily mean pristine. In fact, the 1962 Missal has significant problems that need to be revisited. Remember our discussion on the violet cope at Candlemas? That was one of the many simplifications made throughout the Missal in the years prior to the council.
And how is changing the prayers for schismatic, heretics or infidels any different from changing the prayers for the Jews? Are the Jews more deserving of softened language somehow?
Looks like Anon above is being a bit sarcastic….but seriously, are you saying that nothing in the Missal should ever change? Are you OK with organic development?
From some of the reactions I’ve read, it would seem that the Holy Father has made NO-like changes to the TLM, which is absurd. A little perspective is in order and I thank Fr. Z for providing it.
May I respectfully submit that you may all be missing the point? or at least the most important point?
I suspect that the Holy Father did this for the best of all reasons.
Yes, it demonstrates that the ’62 Missal is a living thing that can change organically.
Yes, by setting out HOW the EF is to be celebrated during the Triduum it per force makes crystal clear that the EF CAN be celebrated during the Triduum.
Yes, changing the prayer may be important for ecumenical dialogue.
John Paul gets it right, IMO, albeit unintentionally. “He wouldn’t make a change unless he thought it was necessary for the good of the faithful.”
That is correct, it is for OUR good.
http://scelata.blogspot.com/2008/02/Jesus-christ-is-savior-of-all-men.html
The Pope has brilliantly opened a dialogue on the question of whether or not “Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men,” and whether or not the Church needs to pray (and work,) so that the Jewish people “acknowledge” it.
(Some of us already knew it, but some of us, even some of us who get to wear chasuables, and even some of us who get to wear point hats, needed to be told.)
We, the Faithful, you, me, Fr Pecklers, Cdl Kaspar, all of us need to remember this truth which has long been forgotten, obscured and even denied: it is every Catholics duty to pray for, hope for, and strive for the conversion of all mankind to the One True Faith.
(Save the Liturgy, Save the WORLD)
The judaizers aren’t EXACTLY like the ones in the NT. In fact,
some enjoy manipulating the ambiguity of what they’re actually
saying that it is hard to nail them down at times.
Sadly, it is all promoted by some well meaning convert preachers
who just can’t seem to give up the pulpit. And, unfortunately,
the ones most vulnerable to this “new” thinking (it goes back to era of Cromwell) are the cradle
catholics who first confront it. I’ve known examples of people
who took it and ran out of the Church into the arms of John Hagee
and Jack van Impe (who doesn’t come across as anti-Catholic as
Haggee)
This is a very welcome clarification by the Holy Father on an
issue that has been allowed to confuse people for far too long.
God did not make them blind! See page 13
http://www.catholicintl.com/catholicissues/ewtn.pdf
Arbitrary change is not what makes something a “living liturgical book.” The fly in the amber talk is offensive to me. Faithfully preserving and living out the liturgical tradition is what keeps it “alive” whereas tinkering which is not done out of authentic stewardship undermines the spiritual life and knowledge of the Church through the ages that these rites embody. The fly in the amber mentality seems to suggest that being hip to the times and the mentality of the current culture is the basis of a liturgical book’s life. The liturgy is the font from which the community receives its life in the Holy Spirit and the rituals themselves are far too valuable to be subjected to arbitrary tinkering. The only tinkering that is appropriate is that which prunes the rites of inauthentic accretions or errors but this must be undertaken with the greatest reverence and care lest something valuable be lost or a sacrilege committed.
I am only speaking generally and have no comments on the recent change of Pope Benedict. I do believe that the sense of the liturgy as something utterly sacred that we have received has been replaced by the idea that the liturgy is a work of man to be tweaked and reshaped on a whim. Of course the existence of the novus ordo is an embodiment of this idea so it is only natural – the novus ordo has proved to be quite catechetically effective. I don’t think that one can oppose the novus ordo falsification without opposing this fundamental attitude first and foremost. The liturgy is the womb in which we receive our formation and it is heterodox to think that we must “re-form” and reconstruct that which is the fontal source of the Church’s life simply because we find it challenging in some way or out of style. I believe that documents such as Auctorem Fidei, Mediator Dei and even Sacrosanctum Concilium express this point.
But when the whole theology of the liturgy is taken into account what other conclusion could there be? Arbitrary and/or unprincipled liturgical tinkering is not merely irresponsible; it is a grave sin against God and a betrayal of the true faith. The fathers and saints have convinced me of this and the precedents of a few rash individuals or historical scandals do not silence the voice of Christian theoria and phronema.
“Tom: are you sure this prayer had been there for 1700 years?. Pius XII and John XXIII made so many changes to the Holy Week liturgy.”
Pretty much.
The important point is that when Popes (certainly Pius XII and Blessed John XXIII) and Benedict XVI) began to tinker with ancient liturgy, we arrived finally at the logical conclusion to said tinkering:
The wholesale elimination of ancient prayers that have given way to prayers concocted in recent times…after all, Rome is consumed by ecumenism and interfaith “dialogue.”
The Good Friday Prayer for the Jews reached its logicial conclusion:
Initially, a complete rewrite in the Novus Ordo Mass…and now in the Traditional Mass.
Naturally, as each Traditional Good Friday prayer was eliminated in the Novus Ordo Mass and replaced by novelties, the same will apply to the remaining prayers in the TLM.
Rome’s own documents insist that the Church much proceed along ecumenical and interreligious lines.
Therefore, the Novus Ordo is the logical conclusion to Rome’s pursuit of ecumenism/interreligious “dialogue.”
Next…the TLM.
Rome will make the TLM “alive” with novel prayers that will eliminate traditional Roman liturgical prayers.
That just happened to the Traditional Good Friday Liturgy…and more “alive” novelties will follow.
Fr. Scott Bailey said it well:
“Benedict has changed one prayer, which he himself composed, and in so doing he did not change the theology of the prayer but worded it to express more strongly that salvation is only found in Jesus Christ.”
When might this fact of faith need to be expressed more strongly than now? So we have all sorts coming out of the woodwork with their opinions whether this was a good thing to do. But there is only one Vicar of Christ on Earth whose call this was to make.
We see statements like “he could have reiterated this teaching by hundreds of other means that didn’t mean changing the Missal.” But why some other way? What better way to make a teaching stronger than in the Missal where it matters most? (Lex orandi, lex credendi.)
All of us are sick of the multitude of changes in recent decades that have made faith and liturgy weaker. But why oppose changes for the better? Most changes in the 1962 missal that people suggest will likely be ill-advised, and surely Benedict will reject them. But what good does a knee-jerk reaction against changes for the better?
“The Pope has brilliantly opened a dialogue on the
question of whether or not ‘Jesus Christ is the
Savior of all men’ and whether or not the Church
needs to pray (and work,) so that the Jewish people
‘acknowledge’ it”
I forgot to add, perhaps unnecessarily, that the Pope’s having gotten the discussion, which would not otherwise be held so prominently, on the table, his prayer answers both of these questions, “yes.”
(Save the Liturgy, Save the World)
“The Holy Father changed those prayers so that the older Missale could be used more readily on Good Friday.”
But it won’t be used more readily on Good Friday. During the Triduum Sacram, the liturgies must be public liturgies. Therefore, Articles 2 and 4 of S.P. don’t apply here. If we turn to Article 5, we run into a problem. Only one such liturgy can be celebrated per day. But this must be the normative liturgy of the place, which is the version of the N.O. It is only in the following places that we can find public Good Friday Prayers in any Traditionalist form: personal parishes and quasi-parishes established for the 1962 books; chaplaincies, oratories, shrines, and non-parochial churches and chapels set aside for ‘special communities’.
If have watched the numbers for years now and analyse them on various lists. Very few of these special communities and personal parishes exist. Most of them are operated by traditionalist societies and institutes of consecrated life. Of those which are not, I can think of only the personal parish at Troy, Diocese of Albany; the non-parochial church at Richmond, Virginia; a chaplaincy at Dublin, Ireland; and a coming chaplaincy in the State of Maine. There will be a few others here and there.
Once again, in the territorial parishes, the N.O. version must be used for Good Friday regardless of whether or not the 2008 revision is imposed.
P.K.T.P.
The Pope has the right to make changes to the Rite. Whether he has the right to replace a Rite with a New Rite is open to question, but these are very different things. Benedict XVI has done the first, Paul VI did the second and they are not comparable.
While I certainly accept this change, I do not understand the urgency requiring the immediate action the Holy Father has taken.
I am very glad indeed that the 1970 Missal’s version was not imposed on the 1962 Missal as Cardinal Bertone suggested was to be the case.
Why is it that this matter requires immediate action while the correction of a greater harm — the mistranslation of “pro multis,” where it exists, is left to the future reprintings of the various vernacular versions of the revised Missale Romanum of Paul VI? My recollection is that when “men” was dropped from the “for you and for all men” in the words of consecration of the Precious Blood, it, like this revision of the prayer for the Jews, was done as of a date certain not on a delayed basis.
And what is the result of this change in the text of the prayer for the Jews in the 1962 Missal? An unambiguous prayer is replaced by an ambiguous one, which Cardinal Kasper and others can argue is the equivalent of the prayer in the 1970 Missal; the complaining parties are still complaining; and potentially our brothers and sisters who are not in full communion with the Roman Pontiff in the Society of Pius X will have additional cause for mistrust in their dealings with the Holy See.
I see little to rejoice in this change or for other changes to the 1962 Roman Missal. Festina lente!
P.K.T.P. — Can I ask where you got any of this information? It appears to be completely wrong.
“But this must be the normative liturgy of the place, which is the version of the N.O. It is only in the following places that we can find public Good Friday Prayers in any Traditionalist form: personal parishes and quasi-parishes established for the 1962 books; chaplaincies, oratories, shrines, and non-parochial churches and chapels set aside for ‘special communities’.”
As Fr. Klaus Gamber indicated, resistance to, or at least questioning, liturgical tinkering is authentic Catholic tradition.
Therefore, it is right and proper that many Catholics have questioned the Pope’s decision to shatter the Traditional Good Friday prayer for the Jews.
Other folks have decided that the best course is to claim that the Pope’s decision in question wonderful and that (somehow) the shattering of the traditional prayer proves that the TLM is “alive.”
I find that argument absurd.
However, I recognize that regardless as to which camp we occupy regarding the issue at hand, we are brothers and sisters in Christ and in communion with each and, of course, our great Holy Father.
That said, no matter where we fall on said issue, there is a sense that we shouldn’t have been surprised by the Holy Father’s action.
I stated several weeks ago (and have actually counted on the following for years) that the Pope would eliminate the traditional Good Friday prayer for the Jews.
Ecumenism and interreligious “dialogue” has consumed post-Vatican II Rome.
Rome shattered and replaced the traditional Good Friday petitions decades ago from the “Ordinary Form” of Roman Liturgy.
Therefore, it was simply a matter of time before Rome took the hammer to the prayers in question from the “Extraordinary Form.”
There simply was no way that Rome would have permitted the traditional Prayer for the Jews to have remained in place.
No way.
Next in line over time are the remaining Good Friday traditional petitions regarding schismatics, heretics, pagans…
Said prayers refer to our “separated brothers” in “offensive” terms.
Said prayers cannot possibly stand in our ecumenical/interreligious age.
The traditional prayer for the Jews was the first to go…other traditional prayers will follow.
They must…as Rome insists that we are committed “irreversibly” to ecumenism and interreligious “dialogue.”
I am simply being realistic…and, of course, have simply described the undeniable manner in which post-Vatican II Rome has operated.
You know it and I know it…and that is why the Church is engulfed in a crisis of Faith.
TLM Tom.
For Father Z and those who advance the “eliminating traditional prayers from the Traditional Liturgy proves that the TLM is alive” argument:
1. I recognize that you and I are brothers and sisters in Christ (and I’m sure that you are holier than I…and am sincere about that).
2. I disagree respectfully with the spin that you have placed upon the issue at hand.
3. Based upon your argument, the Novus Ordo, instituted by Pope Paul VI and supported by Popes John Paul I, John Paul II and Benedict XVI…everything from new Eucharistic Prayers to altar girls…proves that the Roman Liturgy is “alive” and not a museum piece.
Sorry, but that is why I do not buy your argument.
I believe that you have grasped at straws to attempt to defend the Pope’s decision.
Changing the traditional Good Friday prayer does not demonstrate in wonderful fashion that the liturgy is “alive.”
Just as having changed the Roman Canon, concocting new Good Friday petitions (in each “form”), creating EMs and altar girls, offering Mass facing the people, etc. wasn’t a sign that the liturgy is “alive.”
But based upon your argument, Novus Ordo novelties are wonderful signs that the Roman Liturgy is “alive” and not a museum piece.
Correct?
TLM Tom
Here’s an interesting comment from the current monthly reflection of the Provost of the London Oratory, The Very Revd Ignatius Harrison, Cong. Orat.
+++
In July 2001 a liturgical conference was held at Fontgombault Abbey in France. The then Cardinal Ratzinger took an active part in the proceedings. In a paper he gave to the conference on the future of the missal of St. Pius V, Cardinal Ratzinger quoted with approval some thoughts of the distinguished scholar Professor Robert Spaemann. “[Professor Spaemann] did also say – and I emphasize this – it would be fatal for the old Liturgy to be, as it were, placed in a deep-freeze, left like a national park, a park protected for the sake of a certain kind of people, for whom one leaves available these relics of the past … If it were to be reduced to the past in that way, we would not be preserving this treasure for the Church of today, and that of tomorrow. It seems to me that we should avoid, come what may, having this liturgy frozen, as if in a deep-freeze, just for a certain type of people.” (From: “Looking again at the Question of the Liturgy with Cardinal Ratzinger”. Edited by Alcuin Reid. Saint Michael’s Abbey Press, 2003, p.152)
I just can’t believe this was done. I would like to hear the Pope’s view or intent concerning this. I am unable to accept that this was his action. I am even more surprised that no one from ecclesia dei has made a comment (that I’m aware of). It is all very strange.
It’s all rather confusing to me. I’m not a brilliant man, so I can’t judge whether the Pope’s new prayer is a brilliant move or not. But if I were the Pope, I’d tell Abe Foxman to “deal with it” and leave the prayer as is. At the very least, I’d tell him, “You purify some of your prayers that are offensive to Catholics and then we’ll talk.” I agree that the new prayer is more “positive” and leaves no doubt that the Jews must still accept Christ or else, but it sets a bad precedent — appearing to cave in to Jewish pressure. Does the Pope think this will satisfy Foxman & Co?
I doubt it. Where and when will such subtle, fine-tuning end? As someone noted, Abe doesn’t think the change is all that brilliant, so maybe that proves it is. Nevertheless, I’m with those who say “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” Our Lord used some pretty blunt words when speaking to the Foxmans of His day, right to their faces. I can’t imagine Him softening his rebukes or changing them now just to advance dialogue.
After all, this prayer is addressed to the God they murdered. Will He appreciate the need for a softer approach? Their necks are still as stiff today as they were then. ROC
Henry Edwards: “We see statements like “he could have reiterated this teaching by hundreds of other means that didn’t mean changing the Missal.” But why some other way? What better way to make a teaching stronger than in the Missal where it matters most? (Lex orandi, lex credendi.”
Perhaps this sacred principle has been forgotten in the past 50 years, but the Missal itself it sacred. Our liturgical tradition has been handed down to us, and our law of prayer is divinely influenced, the product of centruies of grace. It only makes sense that the prayers are changed only when it is absolutely necessary for the good of the faithful. This is not one of those cases. With weekly Wednesday audiences, urbi et Orbi addresses, and even books, the Pope could have reiterated the traditional teaching in more effective ways that didn’t involve changing an aspect of our liturgical tradition. The media would have picked up on it instantly, and run with it longer than this. The Jews won’t be thinking about the new prayer in forty years. But all of us will when we hear it every Good Friday for the rest of our lives.
The Pope has not spoken about his motivations behind this change. I think it’s insulting to accuse the Holy Father of something so rash, of altering our liturgy to make a point to the world, that is, the world that even knows this happened. Even if this did cause people to look at the question of salvation once again, is there any reason whatsoever to believe that this was the Pope’s motivation? No. None of us can see inside his head. But since everyone assumes, with little evidence, that this was to reinforce a traditional teaching, changing a prayer in a missal used by .01 percent of Catholics and even fewer on Good Friday is a lot less effective than a weekly audience that expresses the need for a Jewish conversion. THAT would have been front page news. The world would never have recovered from that.
The liturgy is not a platform for the Pope’s agenda, no matter how noble. Lex orandi, lex credendi means that the law of prayer informs our law of belief, not that the law of prayer should be manipulated to make a statement to the world. Remember, the Good Friday prayer is to God, not to the Jews, not to the world, but to God. Therefore, the prayers is tailored to what we need to say to Him, not what Abe Foxman or anyone else needs to hear. Let’s find another way to make lemons out of lemonade that doesn’t involve making up far fetched excuses and clinging to them.
It’s painfully obvious that this change was in response to external pressure. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that. The Holy Father messed up at Regensburg. Nuns and priests died. To stand up to the Jews and the media would have been too costly.
Henry Edwards: “We see statements like “he could have reiterated this teaching by hundreds of other means that didn’t mean changing the Missal.” But why some other way? What better way to make a teaching stronger than in the Missal where it matters most? (Lex orandi, lex credendi.”
Perhaps this sacred principle has been forgotten in the past 50 years, but the Missal itself it sacred. Our liturgical tradition has been handed down to us, and our law of prayer is divinely influenced, the product of centruies of grace. It only makes sense that the prayers are changed only when it is absolutely necessary for the good of the faithful. This is not one of those cases. With weekly Wednesday audiences, urbi et Orbi addresses, and even books, the Pope could have reiterated the traditional teaching in more effective ways that didn’t involve changing an aspect of our liturgical tradition. The media would have picked up on it instantly, and run with it longer than this. The Jews won’t be thinking about the new prayer in forty years. But all of us will when we hear it every Good Friday for the rest of our lives.
The Pope has not spoken about his motivations behind this change. I think it’s insulting to accuse the Holy Father of something so rash, of altering our liturgy to make a point to the world, that is, the world that even knows this happened. Even if this did cause people to look at the question of salvation once again, is there any reason whatsoever to believe that this was the Pope’s motivation? No. None of us can see inside his head. But since everyone assumes, with little evidence, that this was to reinforce a traditional teaching, changing a prayer in a missal used by .01 percent of Catholics and even fewer on Good Friday is a lot less effective than a weekly audience that expresses the need for a Jewish conversion. THAT would have been front page news. The world would never have recovered from that.
The liturgy is not a platform for the Pope’s agenda, no matter how noble. Lex orandi, lex credendi means that the law of prayer informs our law of belief, not that the law of prayer should be manipulated to make a statement to the world. Remember, the Good Friday prayer is to God, not to the Jews, not to the world, but to God. Therefore, the prayers is tailored to what we need to say to Him, not what Abe Foxman or anyone else needs to hear. Let’s find another way to make lemonade out of lemons that doesn’t involve making up far fetched excuses for a questionable decision.
It’s painfully obvious that this change was in response to external pressure. You don’t need to be a rocket scientist to see that. The Holy Father messed up at Regensburg. Nuns and priests died. To stand up to the Jews and the media would have been too costly.
Thank you Michael C. Amen!
“In July 2001 a liturgical conference was held at Fontgombault Abbey in France. The then Cardinal Ratzinger took an active part in the proceedings. In a paper he gave to the conference on the future of the missal of St. Pius V, Cardinal Ratzinger quoted with approval some thoughts of the distinguished scholar Professor Robert Spaemann. “[Professor Spaemann] did also say – and I emphasize this – it would be fatal for the old Liturgy to be, as it were, placed in a deep-freeze, left like a national park, a park protected for the sake of a certain kind of people, for whom one leaves available these relics of the past … If it were to be reduced to the past in that way, we would not be preserving this treasure for the Church of today, and that of tomorrow. It seems to me that we should avoid, come what may, having this liturgy frozen, as if in a deep-freeze, just for a certain type of people.”
Of course. No one disputes change. The question is whether all forms of change are necessarily good just because they remove the liturgy from a “freeze.” If you read what Spaemann and Ratzinger were actually saying, they were talking about additions (ancients prefaces, saints days, etc.) not replacements. They weren’t looking to alter anything, only to enrich. Ratzinger’s comment about the need to withold any additions until the TLM is back on its feet and the chaos has passed is also very interesting. The recents alteration of the Good Friday liturgy is precisely the kind of modification the conference goers would have feared.
I haven’t read all the comments, but with this revision, EF becomes more up to date than the OF, reflecting the thought out theology of V2, rather than something hastily compiled. Mmm… “the Mass of the Council” could take on a whole new perspective.
For what it’s worth, I will throw my two cents in as well while acknowledging I an neither the Vicar of Christ nor a Magisterial custodian.
When SP was released I was very excited about this since it would open up Catholics, even if only in small articles found in secular newspapers and websites, the idea that there was some sort of Mass that existed prior to the NO. Why would we open our Catechism’s and Bible and LOH: we scantly recongize these things any more as individuals making up the Body of Christ. As foolish as that sounds, most Catholics you’d ask under the age of 50 would be at a loss to say much about the TLM other than that it was quieter, women wore mantillas and hats, and the priest “had his back to the people.” Time, and poor catechesis, engender a lack of how venerable and splendid the TLM was and I pray continues to be.
TLM Tom’s continual hammering at the Holy Father’s decision to change an ancient prayer and Fr. Z’s comment about the decision to make the TLM come “alive” again is absurd to me and here’s why.
1) As others have said in the archive, you only have to look at the past century and see how many times things changed within the liturgy alone. You could look at Pius XII’s reign as pope and see multiple changes to various things in the Liturgy. Flipping about blogs I heard enough that when SP opened back up the TLM to the average parish that the 62 missal didn’t go far enough and that certain 55 prayers were more appropriate. The Liturgy is Organic. Here is the crux of why I even decided to post: when SP was released, I wondered, ‘what now, certainly the missal can’t remain in stasis forever.’ The Holy Father made a change to a part of the mass for one day, which is not as significant as the insertion of St. Joseph’s name in the Canon seemed to many Catholics back in 1961. I caught the celebrant’s discretion to use the vernacular for the readings in the rite. As a primarily NO-worshipping Catholic, I haven’t interiorized the change.
2) I don’t see Fr. Z putting any such spin on this issue as TLM Tom seems to suggest. I think Fr. Z (correct me if I am wrong, Fr. Z) seems to be showing a continuity in doctrinal thought by Joseph Ratzinger that now can be leveled with the highest level of pastoral authority. Forget about PR and the opinions of those outside the Church: this is for Catholics so that we can be better lights to the world. The changed text still implies the Jews are not quite there yet…The next pope could change the prayer again to any other thing he feels necessary. We are still a Church Militant and Christ will more than rough out all of the edges we foolish men try to put on his priestly, seamless garment-but fail to nevertheless.
Praise God.
3) The “best” of the NO is perhaps too much “Alive” but let’s not count out a Holy Father who wants to be our spiritual father. Read his books as a priest-theologian and cardinal and I think you’ll see he is not in the least in favor of the novelties. I recently moved to a new area and participated in Mass from my pew in the round-shaped church while also losing grace for getting worked up about the liturgical abuses and not doing anything about it, no, not even pray for the monsignor and deacon who should more than know better. Please forgive me and pray for me.
Finally, 4) Let us pray for one another and for the Holy Father, that we be better Christians and that He and his brother bishops be better examples of Christ to guide us to Christ. If my responses seem oriented too much at your previous comments I apologize, TLM Tom.
Pax,
Joe
Michael C.
I agree 100% with your comment…very well put.
Thanks…
Ken: In the D.C. area, with almost 15 parishes that have regular or semi-regular traditional Latin Masses, a grand total of ZERO of them are offering the traditional Good Friday liturgy.
Ken, the schedule I have shows that a TLM is available on Good Friday (March 21) at Old St. John the Evangelist (Our Lady Queen of Poland & St. Maximilian Kolbe) Parish in Silver Spring, MD.
“It is of course possible to read the Old Testament so that it is not directed toward Christ; it does not point quite unequivocally to Christ. And if Jews cannot see the promises as being fulfilled in him, this is not just ill will on their part, but genuinely because of the obscurity of the texts and the tension in the relationship between these texts and the figure of Jesus. Jesus brings a new meaning to these texts – yet it is he who first gives them their proper coherence and relevance and significance. There are perfectly good reasons, then, for denying that the Old Testament refers to Christ and for saying, No, that is not what he said. And there are also good reasons for referring it to him – that is what the dispute between Jews and Christians is about.” (God and the World, Joseph Ratzinger, Ignatius Press, San Francisco, 2002, p. 209)
“The Holy Father, the Holy See, is conscious that the history between Jews and Christians is a difficult and complicated history. We must bear in mind that it involves many sensitivities. Therefore, the prayer for Good Friday was corrected, the one which appears in the so-called old liturgy, that is, today’s “extraordinary” liturgy. There the question concerned the blindness of the Jews. This was found insulting. This sentence was omitted.
But on the other hand the Pope could not, of course, omit what is specific to our faith, namely, faith in Jesus Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, the Saviour of all people, which is, according to our conviction, also for the Jews. The Pope wanted to give expression to this faith. This is not an obstacle for dialogue because dialogue presupposes the fact that one recognizes on both sides different positions, that is, the identity of the Jewish faith and the identity of the Christian faith and naturally also one has a conversation about it. We have very much in common with the Jews but that is a difference over which one cannot pass.
If the Pope is now speaking of the conversion of the Jews, then that must be properly understood. He is quoting verbatim from the eleventh chapter of St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. There the Apostle says that as Christians we hope that when the fullness of the Gentiles has entered the Church, then all Israel will convert. That is an eschatological hope for the end-time but does not mean that we have the intention of now conducting a mission to the Jews as we would conduct a mission to the Gentiles.
In the meantime, we must now mutually acknowledge ourselves as being side by side in our differences. At the same time, we Christians must, obviously, give witness to our faith in Jesus, the Christ. It is also a matter of religious freedom: we must have the opportunity both to say and bear witness to what we believe just as the Jews, for their part, have the opportunity to give expression to their faith. One could also say: The old language of contempt is now replaced with respect, a mutual acknowledgment in the midst of our differences. We must live with this difference, which consists in faith in Jesus Christ, we must acknowledge it; this in no way excludes us from being able co-operate in all the many things in which we are united for peace and justice in the world.” (Cardinal Walter Kasper, Vatican Radio, 7 February, 2008)
If I may take it upon myself to haltingly speak on behalf of Father Z, I do NOT take him as suggesting that change as applied to ANY liturgy is somehow DIRECTLY or ESSENTIALLY connected with establishing that the given liturgy is “alive” (as opposed to a “fly in amber”, a relic of the past).
His point, I take it, is (rather) that *in this particular instance* (viz., that of the 1962 Missale Romanum) where, _de facto_, the notion of its being, post-Vatican II, a mere “relic” or “museum piece” had become quite widespread within the Church, its *now* being revised (*especially when done in a manner that confirms the continuity of present doctrine with immemorial Church teaching*) has the INDIRECT or PER ACCIDENS effect of *confirming* or *manifesting* the FACT of its “living” status, antecedently true in any event.
Note, then, that such reasoning *in no way* implies that change is somehow “necessary” to manifest a given liturgy’s “living” status. For one thing, most liturgies’ living status isn’t, as a matter of fact, being called into question. Thus, apropos those who based their arguments against Father Z’s point on the unchanging character of the diverse non-Roman rites of the Catholic Church, the reason why said *lack* of change in no-way detracts from their status as “living” is clear: *in such cases as these, there is, in fact, no widespread belief that the respective liturgies are in any way “museum pieces”*! *Their* status as “living” isn’t being called into question, and, thus, there would in fact be no “accidental benefit” accrued in terms of “manifesting” or “confirming” the already undisputed fact of their being alive if, for good or ill, this or that revision were (hypothetically speaking) made to any one of them.
On the other hand, the “living” character of the _usus antiquior_ of the Roman Rite HAS been in great dispute for several decades (indeed, even after _Summorum Pontificum_ was promulgated). Now, whilst change merely for the sake of establishing a given liturgy’s “living” character would be ridiculous and silly, the *accidental* benefit that such change happens to afford the EF in terms of *manifesting*/*confirming* the previously disputed FACT of its “living character” is something noteworthy and entirely beneficial for the Church at large — _especially_, for all those who are rightly keen on preserving the great liturgical heritage of the Roman Rite, so abruptly and precipitously “replaced” (to all appearances) in 1970.
In sum: change for its own sake is ruinous, and change with regard to the liturgy is in NO WAY *necessary* for a liturgy to be, as a matter of objective fact, “living”; nevertheless, it can *happen* that, given certain concrete circumstances of history where a particular liturgy’s character _as_ “living” has been widely called into question, a sound revision apropos the self-same liturgy may well have the *indirect* effect of establishing the FACT of its “living” character.
(It goes without saying, of course, that such a revision is to be promulgated only when there are sound reasons for a revision of the given liturgy – and those *quite apart from the indirect propensity of said change to manifest the given liturgy’s living character*. That the Holy Father has prayerfully determined that such was the case regarding the Prayer for the Jews in the 1962 Missale Romanum should have weighty bearing in terms of our accessing the *a priori probability that such a revision was, in fact, a prudent judgment of the Holy Father*. Such an antecedent disposition to view favorably the liturgical judgments of a given Supreme Pontiff is, I take it, appropriate for the devout Catholic. Such a “favorable disposition” excludes, neither in principle nor in fact, the *carefully-considered opinion* that a *given instance* of such judgment _was_ ill-advised, e.g., as regards that cluster of papal judgments dealing with the initial promulgation of the _Novus Ordo Missae_. Nevertheless, that a considered judgment *against* the prudence of given liturgical decision of the Pontiff cannot be made hastily – almost by definition – casts into serious doubt the propriety of the *present*, very quick reactions of negativity made to the promulgation of the present revision.)
Michael C.
When a Pope makes a ruling which
– certain faithful consider of questionable merit
– nothing in the Pope’s historical writings or speeches indicate that such a ruling would be considered
– many souls of good orthodox Catholic faith object to the ruling
– there is ample evidence to suggest that the Pope is under duress concerning this ruling then
are we obliged to ignore the ruling?
Aussie Paul writes: “If the Pope is now speaking of the conversion of the Jews, then that must be properly understood. He is quoting verbatim from the eleventh chapter of St Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. There the Apostle says that as Christians we hope that when the fullness of the Gentiles has entered the Church, then all Israel will convert. That is an eschatological hope for the end-time but does not mean that we have the intention of now conducting a mission to the Jews as we would conduct a mission to the Gentiles.”
***
Suppose, then, that we do use the Apostle Paul, the “Apostle _ad gentes_”, as the exemplar for our *present* mission of evangelization (or lack thereof) toward any given Jew. (Indeed, I agree that one may do well to use Paul as such an exemplar, though Peter would be another figure worth emulating.) Now, St. Paul makes VERY CLEAR — *in the very context being implicitly cited by the Holy Father in the revised prayer* — that he is *NOT* content to wait for the *eventual* “plenitude of the nations” to enter *BEFORE* praying and indeed endeavoring for the conversion of this or that Jewish person. ON THE CONTRARY, Paul informs us that one of his motivations (*if not his primary motivation*) for his mission _ad gentes_ is to stir some of his own kinsmen of the flesh *presently* to true faith in Jesus as Messiah and Savior of the world. I refer, of course, to Romans 11:13 — “in order, perhaps, to thus save _some_”. Note, then, that if the prophecy regarding “all Israel” is, in some mysterious sense, applicable strictly to the end of time (and THIS itself is DEBATABLE, not theologically certain), this does NOT exclude the “mission” (in the sense of some sustained, always-current attempt at making happen) the “saving of SOME” of the very kinsmen of the flesh regarding whom Paul, under inspiration from God, clearly speaks – viz., the “saving of some” Jews.
Therefore, the “some” versus “all” contrast in Romans 11, if nothing else, establishes that EVEN IF the latter is exclusively eschatological in character (which, to reiterate, is by no means theologically certain), there is IN ANY EVENT a CLEAR *contemporary* component of our missionary activity that integrally relates the mission _ad gentes_ to a never-ceasing prayerful hope and (always-respectful) effort that some present-day Jews, being illuminated by God’s grace, will joyfully “acknowledge” (_agnitionis_, a word which often translates the Greek word for “full knowledge”, which from a NT perspective can only come from overt conversion to Jesus as Christ).
What is more (that is, besides the clear Scriptural foundation within Romans 11 itself), I likewise submit that the 1st part of the revised prayer brings the contemporary character of our hope for such conversion of Jews into overt relief. Also, as the recent 19-page document from the CDF makes clear, there can be absolutely NO exception to the “all” to whom each and every one of us has the duty of providing a clear and unequivocal witness of the necessity (moral and of consequence to salvation) for Christian faith and entry by way of Baptism into His Church.
I’ve posted this before, but it probably bears repeating.
In the TLM, there may be up to two additional low masses on Holy Thursday before the Sung Mass and reposition. Also there can be an additional service on Good Friday.
Both require serious necessity, but nothing else. In both cases the Rubrics are in the at the begining of each day.
Pax et Bonum.
Michael C.
First, let me say that I do not think the prayer needed to be changed. I wish it hadn’t been, if only to keep peace among Catholic bloggers. But I do think the Holy Father could have done much worse and I’m very glad he didn’t. We must get out of this attitude of conciliation. If the Church truly believes that she alone possesses the fullness of faith and that apart from her there is no salvation, then she needs to “man up” and stand by her principles. Non-Catholics either never accepted Christ or rejected the Church. She is ready to welcome them home at any time should they be receptive to grace. But that’s another issue.
You wrote: “I should point out that Pius X’s changes to the Breviary and many of the Holy Week liturgy reforms were inorganic changes that ought to be reversed. Dr. Reid discusses this in his book, “Organic Development of the Liturgy.” This book helped me realize that Pre-VII doesn’t necessarily mean pristine. In fact, the 1962 Missal has significant problems that need to be revisited. Remember our discussion on the violet cope at Candlemas? That was one of the many simplifications made throughout the Missal in the years prior to the council.”
Okay, I’m not a scholar on the subject, but where do we draw the line? How far back do we go? How do we determine who is/are the best scholar(s) to follow? I know my personal preferences but they really don’t matter. I don’t want to see the same thing happen to the TLM as happened post VII but going backwards. Do we take out the Prayers at the foot of the Altar or the Last Gospel since they were originally private prayers of the priest? Some say yes, some say no. I would hope not. Personally that is unthinkable. So I do understand the angst you and others feel. I just don’t think it’s as great an issue. Should this open the way to other changes in the TLM, well, I’ll certainly lose some of my optimism.
You also wrote: “And how is changing the prayers for schismatic, heretics or infidels any different from changing the prayers for the Jews? Are the Jews more deserving of softened language somehow?”
No they aren’t. As I said above I don’t think the prayer should have been changed, but it has been, and in this case there’s nothing I can do to change that. Having given it much thought I don’t think there are grounds to dissent. I think in this case obedience is called for. But, just as I offer my suffering through the travesty of the way the NO is celebrated I will offer this with Christ on the cross. That I can do.
What I would like to see is a very strong prayer for the conversion of the Moslems, especially given what’s happening in Europe and the Middle East, but that isn’t going to happen. I will be praying to Saint James Matamoros (sp) much more often.
Martin,
You said, “Aussie Paul says …”. Please do not confuse the opinions of the infamous Cardinal Walter Kasper with mine. I was merely quoting his words from his interview on Vatican Radio a couple of days ago. Have a closer look at my post!
Martin,
Well, actually you said, “Aussie Paul writes …”. But same difference.
My apologies, Aussie Paul.
I would, thus, re-direct my “rebuttal” or “response” toward anyone who would reason that the Holy Father’s implicit quote from Romans 11 within the 2nd portion of the revised prayer somehow implies support for the notion that there is a *lack* of a contemporary need to pray and endeavor for the present conversion of Jews to Jesus Christ. As I argue in my preceding post, Romans 11 itself ineluctably leads one to the opposite conclusion.
Look,let’s settle this right now. The present pope has every right to do anything that I like, and he has absolutely no right to do anything I don’t like. And that goes for all the popes before him. And furthermore, all these changes that have been made since the Last Supper are inorganic, like standing up at the altar instead of reclining as did the Lord and His Apostles. And while I am thinking of it, Jesus has a lot to answer for, as well, by charging ahead and changing the words of the Passover Supper before I was born. This problem of not consulting me has a long history and it needs to stopped. I have spoken, the case is closed.
Me Me MEEEEEEE: I agree with everything that you wrote but you have failed to take into account that that Pope is a really really old man and maybe after having a finely tuned theological and liturgical mind for all these years he might right now, like all of the sudden be going a bit crazy and that is why he did this. Thats more probable than that he acted on his own authority. And yeh, yeh , thats why he issued it by means of the Secretary of State cause he forgot which office it was supposed to go through, and yeh yeh, lets not forget Marini II , he may have something to do with this and be a liberal is a lace surplice. Now again maybe the reason is that the Masons are behind it…Wow, I’m getting confused cause i keep coming back to this Pope, Vicar of Christ, Benedict a smart guy, friendy to the traditionals stuff….well…really you did settle it…it is all about me and my likes and reasoning…yeh thats it….ok….but what about the Masons…yeh, the Masons…
I think most trads are conditioned, like some version of Pavlov’s dog, to expect a kick each time the bell of change is rung at the Vatican.
This time we did not get a kick, but a bone. Indeed, it will take time for the dog to get used to this new state of affairs.
But this is a major bone….a major boost to the intellectual push of Summorum Pontificum and the spread of the TLM and Traditional Catholic soteriology.
Habemus Papam wrote:
“The Pope has the right to make changes to the Rite. Whether he has the right to replace a Rite with a New Rite is open to question, but these are very different things. Benedict XVI has done the first, Paul VI did the second and they are not comparable.”
As to replacing rites: although it depends a little in what sense one means the term “rite,” surely since the Pope has plenitude of power, the basic answer is “of course he can?” A lay Catholic ruler even did so once: Pepin the Short, when in the 8th century he decreed abandonment of the Gallican Rite of North Europe and its complete replacement with the (very different) Roman Rite. The popes of the time accepted this decision, although they seem not to have been the prime movers.
What the pope clearly cannot do is create de novo a rite in the sense of a liturgical tradition–since traditions are handed on generations, by definition.
Of course, whether carrying so many changes in the Roman Rite as were effected by Paul VI was a prudent measure is another matter. But realize, the Novus Ordo was meant by him in part to *stop* unauthorized deformations of the old liturgy, which (I understand) were beginning to snowball out of all control in some places already in the 1960s. Rightly or wrongly he judged that he needed to cut the wild innovators off at the pass. And to that end, he sometimes vetoed Bugnini’s more radical projects, like stripping out the beautiful Orate Fratres.
The 1962 is INDEED a living book. The Holy Father wants it to be used. And he probably wants parts of it eventually to be said in the vernacular so that it can become mainstream and widely accepted. I am behind the Holy Father’s adjustment of the prayer 100%. He took away what DOES seem today to be somewhat harsh language, and at the same time reaffirmed our desire that all will embrace the Gospel. May the Holy Father be Blessed on Earth.
Habemus Papam said: The Pope has the right to make changes to the Rite. Whether he has the right to replace a Rite with a New Rite is open to question, but these are very different things. Benedict XVI has done the first, Paul VI did the second and they are not comparable.
Habemus Papam said: The Pope has the right to make changes to the Rite. Whether he has the right to replace a Rite with a New Rite is open to question, but these are very different things. Benedict XVI has done the first, Paul VI did the second and they are not comparable.
First of all, Paul VI did not replace the Roman Rite with a New Rite, for if he had, then Benedict XVI’s motu proprio Summorum Pontificum would have no legal force. Secondly, if the Pope has the authority to make changes in the liturgy, then even the drastic, unprecedented, and botched reform of the liturgy that we saw after Vatican II must be within his authority. That’s not to say it was a prudent thing to do, but the Pope’s authority to modify the liturgy is as real and as unquestionable as our lack of authority to reject his liturgical reforms. The development and integrity of the liturgy is under his patronage, not ours.
Fr. W said, “[The Pope] took away what DOES seem today to be somewhat harsh language”
What was taken away was based on the divinely inspired Word of God in the writings of St Paul, 2 Corinthians 3:12-16. While the Holy Father has the power to make such changes, the question is should he have done so? I don’t claim the right or competence to make such judgements and choose to remain silent.
However, Fr. W’s remarks may serve, perhaps, to illustrate that popolatry and ultra-montanism can lead eventually to the ridiculous: charging God himself, and his holy Apostle, with using harsh words that don’t seem appropriate today.
If I remember, that was the motivation for Bugnini’s deletion of three imprecatory psalms from the revised Liturgy of the Hours. A bit too harsh for modern man. But, of course, I don’t think anyone would claim that Bugnini’s malaise was either popolatry or ultra-montanism.
By the way, Fr. Christopher, do not think that there is some hidden sub-text in this post concerning the Masons – there is not.
Michael C said: It only makes sense that the prayers are changed only when it is absolutely necessary for the good of the faithful. This is not one of those cases.
In your opinion, that is. Perhaps you’re right, but can you be sure you are able to judge what is and isn’t absolutely necessary for the good of the faithful? After all, it is the Pope, not any of us, who has the charism to discern what is absolutely necessary for the good of the faithful.
TLM Tom said: Therefore, it is right and proper that many Catholics have questioned the Pope’s decision to shatter the Traditional Good Friday prayer for the Jews.
Replacing the 1962 Good Friday prayer for the Jews with a new preayer is not “shattering” the Traditional Good Friday prayer for the Jews. Such rhetoric is exaggerated and emotional.
Other folks have decided that the best course is to claim that the Pope’s decision in question wonderful and that (somehow) the shattering of the traditional prayer proves that the TLM is “alive.”
I find that argument absurd.
Fine, but you have not demonstrated that it is absurd.
Look, ever since the Allies carved up the Austro-Hungarian Empire, we no longer have a Christian Emperor. Conditions changed, so the Church eliminated the traditional prayer for the Christian Emperor and replaced it with a prayer for secular authorities in general.
Don’t you think that conditions have also changed in the way the Church interacts with unbelieving Jews, and that such changes might warrant some kind of change in the way we pray for them?
The Pope has the right to make changes to the Rite. Whether he has the right to replace a Rite with a New Rite is open to question, but these are very different things. Benedict XVI has done the first, Paul VI did the second and they are not comparable.
Comment by Habemus Papam
We’ve addressed this before. Like other popes Paul VI had the juridical right to promulgate a Missal. What is questionable is whether he had the moral right to promulgate a new mass to replace the old one. Even if he doesn’t have the moral right, he nonetheless has the juridical right.
Jordan Potter: It is of no use, of course, to pray to God for the Christian Emperor if there isn’t one any more. I think that God would think us quite mad! However, there are still plenty of Jews about who are in dire need of salvation and therefore our prayers.
You miss the point entirely. The Oremus et Pro Judaeis is addressed to God not to the Jews or some of their more outspoken and audacious leaders. Nor is it addressed to the French Bishops, the US Bishops Conference or the usual crowd of half-believing Modernists and Universal Salvationists. Its purpose is not to placate these groups but to petition the Lord our God in the most efficacious way, reverently making use of the very words of Holy Scripture.
AUSSIE PAUL cited Cardinal Ratzinger of yesteryear and Cardinal Kasper of today:
Thanks for that juxtaposition, Aussie Paul.
[ I repeat here what I said over at https://wdtprs.com/2008/02/wdtprs-the-new-good-friday-prayer-for-jews-in-the-1962mr/#comments , where you first cited Cardinal Ratzinger. ]
Looking at Aussie Paul’s comment just above ( Comment by Aussie Paul — 8 February 2008 @ 10:52 pm ), I’m guessing he agrees ? ! ?
Now, given the juxtaposition by Aussie Paul, I add that the excellent rebuttal to Cardinal Kasper by Martin, above: — 8 February 2008 @ 6:38 pm — does not negatively prejudice the similary excellent comments by Martin in defence of the Holy Father’s act of revision (see Comment by Martin — 8 February 2008 @ 5:54 pm ).
Thanks, all. Cheers!
Michael C`said– “Perhaps this sacred principle has been forgotten in the past 50 years, but the Missal itself it sacred.”
That’s an extraordinary claim- can you cite any authority to support such a statement?
This, and much of the sentiment expressed by those opposed to the Holy Father’s action, seem idolatrous, giving the old missal and its prayers a fetishistic worship that is a sin againstthe First Commandment.
Wow… I thought you were being facetious at first but now I realize that you’re just proving Micheal’s point. I wouldn’t be surprised if your last statement happened to be a Martin Luther quote. Gee, what do you consider to be sacred? The Divine Liturgy of Bugnini the Great? I’ll say a prayer to the historical Jesus for you…
Seriously though, I realize it usually doesn’t come packaged in those stylish “Breaking Bread” paperbacks, but do you really deny the sacrality of the Church’s highest prayer? Must Michael cite an “authority” before you will possibly believe such a thing? What is there about the missal (the embodiment of the Mass) that is not sacred and venerable? In the history of the Church the Mass has been a source of theology and mystical wisdom second only to the Scriptures (although of course the missal is scriptural through and through). The Canon in particular is seen as mysteriously inspired and hallowed. Of course we are enlightened now and will not reverence relics of a superstitious and naive past. What was utterly holy for ages became vulgar in one generation and now one is accused of audacity for even suggesting that the Roman Mass might be sacred.
Aussie Paul said: It is of no use, of course, to pray to God for the Christian Emperor if there isn’t one any more. I think that God would think us quite mad! However, there are still plenty of Jews about who are in dire need of salvation and therefore our prayers.
Yes, that’s why we still pray for them, just as we still pray for secular rulers. The Christian Emperor is no more, so we changed that prayer. The teaching of contempt is no more, so we changed the way we pray for the Jews.
You miss the point entirely. The Oremus et Pro Judaeis is addressed to God not to the Jews or some of their more outspoken and audacious leaders.
God is not going to be offended if we don’t mention the blindness or faithlessness of unbelieving Jews when we pray for them.
Correction: one is not accused of mere audacity here, it is apparently “idolatry” to assert the sacrality of the missal.
I realize I’ve only been Catholic for eight years, and that my conversion came about primarily through reading the fathers and medievals – naturally I’m not all that hip to the “new Catholicism” (Rahner’s term, among others; scoop up back issues of Concilium) – but if this perspective of yours is representative of the formation people are getting in the novus ordo believe system I truly fear for the future of the Roman Church. Heck, I’ll join that heterodox fellow from Commonweal in a bit of despair. Better yet I’ll go see what that wild and crazy guy Mel Gibson is up to.
Now I’m just being facetious; I know it isn’t that bad. Hopefully you were just tired and didn’t think your post through, kind of like what I’m doing right now.
Its interesting though hardly surprising that whenever the issue of Paul VIs creation of the Novus Ordo is broached one gets the impression of several highly sensitive raw nerves being touched.
Monsignor Klaus Gamber who was probably a greater liturgical authority than any of us concluded that the assertion that Paul VI had the authority to change the liturgical rite “would appear to be dabatable, to say the least”.
My point is that Benedict XVI undoubtedly has the authority to reform an existing Rite.
Aussie Paul wrote: ‘What was taken away was based on the divinely inspired Word of God in the writings of St Paul, 2 Corinthians 3:12-16.’
This is a worthy point. It is to be lamented how though Vatican II emphasized the importance of scripture, scriptural references have become less clear in the Mass. ICEL dramatically obscured scripture from the Mass. So one must be concerned about this.
Yet, though this is a scriptural reference as is pointed out, everything St. Paul writes is not necessarily to be dropped into the liturgy if, without proper catechesis, it confuses people about our love for the Jewish people. this can happen as the use of certain expressions change over the centuries. We do not for example use St. Paul’s words: ‘Would that those who are unsettling you would mutilate themselves.’ (Gal 5:12)
So even the Sacred Word of God is used in the liturgy of the Church in a way that forms us properly in the Faith. Of course some things will require catechesis regardless, but are kept, but the Holy Father is very wise.
So, I guess the question is, why was the prayer changed to allow for the eschatological interpretation only, by reference to all Israel coming into the Church, when this is a major controversy within the Church? I thought Christ instructed us to be clear in what we say, to use “yes, yes” and “no, no”, not maybe. Are Jews objectively required to join the Church? Yes. Do they endanger their salvation by not doing so? Yes. Every single word of the Pope written as Card. Ratzinger which implies otherwise should be ignored because their AMBIGUITY leads to both orthodox and unorthodox readings. Clearly Kasper takes the unorthodox, as he always does (don’t forget, this was one of the German bishops who thought cooperating with the German abortion industry was ok…fortunately Cardinal Ratzinger and John Paul II had other thoughts on the matter). The fact is that CATECHESIS and instruction from the Pope is needed to clarify that, yes, Jews are called just like everyone else to be Catholics and, unless they are inculpably ignorant or have some other excuse that is real, their salvation is endangered by not accepting Christ.
Habemus Papam wrote:
“Its interesting though hardly surprising that whenever the issue of Paul VIs creation of the Novus Ordo is broached one gets the impression of several highly sensitive raw nerves being touched.
Monsignor Klaus Gamber who was probably a greater liturgical authority than any of us concluded that the assertion that Paul VI had the authority to change the liturgical rite “would appear to be dabatable, to say the least”.
My point is that Benedict XVI undoubtedly has the authority to reform an existing Rite.”
Yes, I fully agree with your main point about Benedict’s authority. Klaus Gamber may be a great liturgical scholar whose specialized knowledge is worthy of respect, but he was not the Vicar of Christ; Paul VI was. We may conclude therefore that Christ wanted us to have the Novus Ordo. For exactly what reason Christ willed I leave others to judge, above all the Holy Father and his successors.
My “raw nerve,” as you so delicately put it :-) will remain raw so long as traditionalists seem to be–no doubt for the most part inadvertently–tempted to minimize papal power, which we know by faith to be a plenitude. It seems to me, at any rate, there may well be a great deal at stake in Paul VI’s having the authority to do what he did in the liturgical sphere.
And in case someone hasn’t noticed, the main vice of our day is certainly not papiolatry (I hold my nose as I use this term that has the smell of Protestant polemics), but flaunting of papal authority. We need to be careful of fouling our own nest.
Paul J.B: The purpose of my initial comment is getting lost in this discussion. It seems some traditionalists are fearful that this change to the 1962 Missal is the “start of a slippery slope” and if we are not carefull another Novus Ordo will replace the Old Missal. My point therefore was that far from creating a New Rite, something Paul VI acknowleged, even boasted he had done, Benedict XVI is merely excercising his legitimate authority to reform the liturgy. And that this is the begining of a building-up rather than a tearing-down of the traditional liturgy.
Habemus Papam wrote: “this is the begining of a building-up rather than a tearing-down of the traditional liturgy.”
How do we know this? Is it a question of trusting the person of the Pope? At this point in the history of the Church I think that a little caution, or even suspicion, would not be misplaced. After 40 years of building-up there’s practically nothing left to tear down. Please don’t mistake me: there’s nothing I would love more than a holy and trustworthy pope, and for all I know Benedict XVI is such a one; but experience has given the faithful reason to worry. I’m afraid of this precedent.
Pax,
One thing I must say about these comments. First, I am impressed that people are critiquing and responding to opinions and views for the most part, and that there isn’t a lot of rancor. Yes nerves are being touched, and that leads into my second point. It’s encouraging that there are some people that truly care about the liturgy. Having had to deal with people who, to quote Captain Butler in “Gone with the Wind,” just don’t give a damn, this really is a good thing. I wish more people would care enough to think, reflect, and discuss the liturgy with true love of the Church in mind and not their own agendas.
dob you asked Michael C.,
When a Pope makes a ruling which
– certain faithful consider of questionable merit
– nothing in the Pope’s historical writings or speeches indicate that such a ruling would be considered
– many souls of good orthodox Catholic faith object to the ruling
– there is ample evidence to suggest that the Pope is under duress concerning this ruling then
are we obliged to ignore the ruling?
I am responding because as a priest it is what I am charged by the Church to do.
– what certain faithful consider of questionable merit is of no consequence. Certain other faithful consider the Vicar of Christ’s ruling to be meritorious. The only thing which can justify disobedience (or ignoring the ruling) is that the ruling be immoral and this must be proven incontrovertably. Where is the proof, and by proof I mean solid Catholic moral proof based in the principles of moral theology that would stand up to close scrutiny. Without that there is no ground for dissent.
– the Holy Father has indicated that he was thinking about this issue. Go back and check the press releases from the Vatican. If you are referring to before Summorum Pontificum, it was that document that brought the issue to the forefront so of course there is nothing from before that.
– whether or not souls, no matter how many, of good orthodox Catholic faith object to this ruling is also of no consequence. Saints Thomas Aquinas, Bernard, Albert the Great, Bonaventure, and many others were objected to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. I believe they could be considered of good orthodox faith. Yet, it was later infallibly defined as a doctrine of the faith.
– there is ample evidence to suggest the pope was under duress concerning this ruling….really? Where? What is it? I only see it in people’s personal opinions and theories. To use this as a reason for dissent Catholic moral teaching is clear that you must have absolute incontrovertable proof that this ruling was made under duress, meaning in immediate fear of bodily harm or injury in Catholic moral teaching and canon law.
One can certainly dissent from papal authority. Howver, there are conditions which must be met and it is impossible to have done so within a few days. It took Archbishop Lefevbre years and much study to make the decisions he did.
I did not respond to attack you, but out of concern. Dissent, or ignoring a directive of the Holy Father, is a serious thing even though some see it of no consequence. In some way the Church is as it is today because so many priests and bishops dissent without meeting the requirements. They take the authority upon themselves and so endanger their souls and the faith of those that follow them. I do not think that’s what you intend…at least I hope not. You (if you are a priest) are obliged by obedience to conform to the Holy Father’s directive unless you can prove your points beyond the shadow of a doubt. If you are a layman, the point is moot. Of course you could go somewhere where the pope will be ignored, but again, you cannot do that without proving your points beyond the shadow of a doubt lest you sin.
As I said in a previous post, I don’t like the decision to change the prayer, but there is no other moral option at this point other than to submit and obey and offer my disagreement with Christ in sacrifice.
Paul VI was not speaking in the technical sense of the term “Rite.” There is nothing illegitimate in what he did–unwise perhaps, but legitimate.
I can only regret the blindness of those who think our recent popes have not been–by and large–genuinely holy. I think (hope?) most traditionalists are not of Neal’s opinion. If so, it is highly unlikely traditionalism will ever get traction in the wider Church, and the true modernists which plague the Church at present will prove much harder to root out as a result. To repent in Greek implies “to think again” and surely all groups within the Church who are faithful to it (or who wish to be) must do it, now more than ever?
Well, this Pope has caused me for one to think again. Why trust him? Look at liturgical history (the letter published by Fr.Z today being a good example). Benedict is by far the best Pope we could have hoped for. What is the alternative, another 50 years in the wilderness? No. We can trust him. The time for wariness may come with his successor. So much depends on him.
I mistyped the following in an earlier post: “but flaunting of papal authority.”
I mean “*flouting* of papal authority” of course. Those who flaunt papal authority have my full approval! :-)
If the Deposit of the Faith contains deprecatory language regarding the Jews
(blindness, veil, betryal, darnkess, hardness of heart etc.), and if the prayer
in the Good Friday liturgy is directed to One who reveales and saves, and
not to the Jews, then it is irrational to change the ancient prayer to please
any Jew (Christian or non christian) today.
Do we honestly think we offen God, by using the words of Our Lord Jesus Christ,
Isaiah, St. Peter, St. Paul, the Evangelists?
Do we honestly think that the liturgy is improved by accommodating it to
the senisibilities of unbelievers?
I think that those who would say yes to these questions, are failing
in their faith.
Unfortunately, this makes the 62 Missal not a “fly trapped in amber” but rather a horrific Jurassic Park abomination (or more so than it already was following the 55 and 60/62 changes). I utterly fail to see how these changes can be considered organic. Regardless of the content of the prayer, if one accepts the novel idea that it’s okay for the Pope to tinker with the Sacred Liturgy at a whim (or worse, at the behest of external forces), then why not simply accept the Novus Ordo with smells and bells?
Nicholas said: I utterly fail to see how these changes can be considered organic.
Well, there’s this at least: the Church returned again and again to the prayer for the Jews throughout the 20th century. In that historical context, it seems to make sense that, upon freeing up the 1962 missal, the Church would again turn her attention to the prayer for the Jews.
if one accepts the novel idea that it’s okay for the Pope to tinker with the Sacred Liturgy at a whim (or worse, at the behest of external forces), then why not simply accept the Novus Ordo with smells and bells?
It’s not okay for the Pope to tinker with the liturgy at a whim, though it’s inevitable that certain external forces play some part in the development of the liturgy. But what’s wrong with a Pauline Mass with smells and bells?
Jordan said: “But what’s wrong with a Pauline Mass with smells and bells?”
I can’t presume to speak for Nicholas, but in my opinion there is a lot wrong with the Pauline Mass in spite of how it is celebrated. I will admit that the novus ordo can be celebrated beautifully and traditionally in an external sense, but there would still remain a mountain of questions and issues pertaining to the redaction of the missal on the part of the Consilium and the impetus and principles of the general reform as such. Even if the novus ordo was an improvement of the Roman rite through and through, the orthodoxy of so radical a reform could be rightfully called into question. Of course there are a great many difficulties with the novus ordo Mass such that I think it would be frivolous to describe the novus ordo as a general improvement of the Roman rite. Beginning with a critique of the pre-Conciliar liturgical movement, followed by a critical evaluation of the Council, and ending with a systematic critique of the work of the Consilium, I believe it is possible to reach the conclusion that the novus ordo Mass is perhaps the worst “fruit” of the conciliar age.
Although this is my conviction after a good bit of study and reflection, I am still of the view that for practical reasons it can be apposite to keep such things on the back burner and support the reform of the reform in the sphere of the novus ordo Mass. As long as the traditional rites of the Church still have a place in her life I am content to hold on, but I must admit that if the traditional rites had been abrogated or anathematized I would be forced in conscience to become something of a Roman Old-Believer.
jack burton (and “jack” who I assume are coterminous)–
Thank you for your prayers, all contributions are gratefully accepted. I hope you will be as grateful when I say that I will pray to the living Jesus for YOU as well, that you find in your devotion to traditionalism an equivalent devotion to truth and accuracy, rather than sentiment.
The Roman Missal is venerable, important, glorious and a treasure; there is no tradition in the Catholic Church’s teaching that would justify calling it “sacred” in the context that Michael C does above. Words have meaning, which I think is more or less the point of Father Z’s blog, and to dismiss with scorn a request for citation and authority from the Church’s teaching and traditions is to say, like Lewis Carroll’s Humpty-Dumpty, that words mean only what you want them to mean.
But nonetheless, perhaps it would have been well to reread my post before exploding with outrage. You seem to have inferred a number of things I didn’t say, among them an accusation against all defenders of the EF. That some, here and elsewhere, are indulging in apparent “Missal-worship” is the guise of traditionalism is both misguided and irreligious, and as a traditionalist who believes that truth must be the bedrock on which we (re)build, I object to sentimental assertions that cannot hold up to scrutiny being presented as given fact. And I more strongly object to those who are making of the Missal a golden calf before which the Pope must bow. Those may be few, but look around the blogosphere– they’re there and they’re not shy about it.
To say, as you do, that no authority should need to be cited is to acknowledge that there is none, and that your arguments are rhetorically empty. To compare asking for a citation for the initial statement sounds to you like Martin Luther is to deny the intellectual superiority of the catholic Church’s teaching over the centuries, teaching that is amply supported by thought and and debate.
And, to say that a question about a flat claim that “the Missal is sacred” means that I am saying the Mass itself is not sacred implies that you were not only tired when you posted but your eyes were closed completely. (And we could certainly go far into philosophical deepwaters if we begin to discuss the fundamental distinction between the Mass and the Missal, but that way lies madness– or at least long, long diiscussions).
Defend the Missal. If you oppose the Holy Father’s decisions and think you know better, well, argue away. But if you base arguments on bold assertions that can’t be supported, your assertions are worthless. I would personally prefer to see strong arguments made on this topic, instead of fuzzy, “everybody knows this” ones. If one objects to ambiguity and vagueness in other sources, it should be clear that traditionalism demands more.
Mike,
Thank you for such a lovely reply. I admit to being reactionary in my previous response to your comment and I thank you for holding me accountable to this. I think your criticisms of my response is in fact true and I wouldn’t try to pretend that it was anything more than fuzzy “everybody knows this” kind of crap.
Having said this I must yet content with the following statement: “To say, as you do, that no authority should need to be cited is to acknowledge that there is none.”
In fact I am sure that a documented case could be made for said assertion and I believe that I myself might even be capable of putting together such a presentation given the time. The truth is I lacked sufficient motivation to glean quotes and/or compose a systematic defense of my viewpoint. Not that I don’t care about the topic, I care very much in fact, but it would be a bit of work and the pertinent books are all the way upstairs.
To clarify another thing I do not suggest that a particular missal book is sacred simply for being a book. It is the proximity of the book to the Holy Mass and the words contain therein that make it a sacred item. To intentionally desecrate a missal would be comparable to desecrating the Holy Bible. Perhaps we are speaking of different things? In any case the Roman rite contained in the 1962 missal is radically venerable and holy (this statement is easily backed up) and as such a book that contains this rite in print form is certain sacred in a sense; but the point isn’t that a particular copy of the missal is sacred, the point is rather that the missal in general is sacred, venerable, holy, divine, et cetera. It just seems like a funny thing to argue about.. Could this whole dispute be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the other person means to say? That would save me the trouble of digging up quotes. :-D
Jack said: I can’t presume to speak for Nicholas, but in my opinion there is a lot wrong with the Pauline Mass in spite of how it is celebrated.
I don’t disagree with your criticisms and qualms regarding the drastic reform of the Roman Missal after Vatican II. I was only referring to Nicholas’ possible suggestion that we shouldn’t, or couldn’t, accept the Pauline Mass, even with “smells and bells.” Anyway, for all the dubious and erroneous premises on which the liturgical reform was based, and for all the botched implementation of the reform, the Pauline Missal still is not the result of the Pope “tinkering with the Mass at a whim.”
Jack B–
“Perhaps we are speaking of different things? In any case the Roman rite contained in the 1962 missal is radically venerable and holy (this statement is easily backed up) and as such a book that contains this rite in print form is certain sacred in a sense; but the point isn’t that a particular copy of the missal is sacred, the point is rather that the missal in general is sacred, venerable, holy, divine, et cetera. It just seems like a funny thing to argue about.. Could this whole dispute be based on a fundamental misunderstanding of what the other person means to say? That would save me the trouble of digging up quotes. :-D”
I’ll buy this! It was the initial implication (not by you) that altering/editing the Missal is wrong because it’s sacred that inspired my own hyperbole. If we argue that, then where do we stop? Saints have altered the Missal, as have, ahem, non-Saints; we should perhaps debate changes on their own merits instead of cutting off discussion with defense by divine influence, almost elevating the Missal to the Scripture it freely quotes. If we mean sacred in the sense of sacred music, sacred architecture, etc, then no objections here (and that isn’t to belittle that sense of the word “sacred” either).
I agree, I think we were talking at cross-purposes, easy to do on the internet. So no, no quote-digging needed. Pax.
Jordan,
I agree and I must say that one of the greatest difficulties I experience in discussing this subject is that it is nearly impossible to do justice to the new Mass in short comments because it is such a complex reality. Describing the new missal as the result of “whimsical tinkering” is of course radically simplistic and while I am forced to disagree with many of the decisions and directions taken by the Consilium, I still believe it is only fair to acknowledge the fact that it was a large and multifaceted work to which many obviously well-intentioned clergymen devoted years of their life. It is unfair to write off all of their work as silly “tinkering.” On the other hand I think some very serious criticism and objective evaluation is in order as there are clearly a great many questionable elements. A recurring personal temptation of mine is to get so caught up in the faults of the new missal (quite frankly it is a source of deep scandal to me) that I forget it is still radically holy and indeed manifests the very source and summit of the Christian life. Of course this is a double-edged sword since it is precisely this radical sacrality and mystery which makes me so passionate about the abuses and botched reforms.
What I think most proponents of Sacrosanctum Concilium, the Consilium
or the Novus Ordo fail to answer adequately, is that there never was
any necessity to change the prior Missale.
And if it was only a question of understanding participation, then
the Old Missal in a very slavishly accurate English translation
would have sufficed.
The very existence of Sacrosanctum Concilium and the NO presuppose
a theological critique of the liturgy and the Missale which is at
odds with and incompatible with Trent and Nicea II.