With a biretta tip to Fr. Blake, o{]:¬) I offer for your consideration a piece in the Jerusalem Post. This fits the famous "Tridentine template" which includes the obligatory elements of any ignorant article about the Motu Proprio.
But this piece, below, is something else entirely. It includes a couple very interesting images, juxtaposed. As yourself why, after reading this (My emphases and comments)
The Vatican is expected to publish this week a document authorizing the use of a controversial Latin Mass, parts of which are deemed anti-Semitic, [By whom? And, is this claim actually true?] the Holy See announced Thursday.
According to a report in Britain’s Independent newspaper, some clergy fear that if the Latin Mass [Ooopppsss] were brought back into common use, it would limit the Church’s dialogue with Jews and Muslims, as well as create a schism among Catholics worldwide. [Again and again, the issue of ecumenism pops up. However, what non-Catholic critics really want is that Catholics not actually be Catholic, that they sacrifice their identity for the sake of dialogue. However, as I have written many times elsewhere, Pope Benedict believes the Church has a right to her own language, symbols, forms of prayer and identity. She has a right to a voice in the public square, using her own language and symbols, expressing her own identity. This is one of the deeper purposes of the MP. This is what smarter critics of the Church and MP are really afraid of.]
The 16th-century Tridentine Mass – recited every Good Friday – refers to Jews as "perfidious," and claims they live in "blindness" and "darkness." The Mass prays that God might "take the veil from their hearts" so that Jews can come to acknowledge Jesus Christ.
Rev. Keith Pecklers, an expert on Jesuit liturgy, [Which is really a good way of saying it, though it sounds like a contradiction of terms.] told the Independent that elements [Note well the ideologically charged label "element"] in the Church who embraced the old Mass tended to oppose "collaboration with other Christians and [the Church’s] dialogue with Jews and Muslims." [Again, its all about dialogue with non-Catholics.]
Currently, priests who wish to recite the Latin Mass, which was replaced in 1969 with liturgy in the vernacular, must receive permission from their bishops.
Pope Benedict’s decision, some believe, is an attempt to bring the ultra-traditionalist Society of St. Pius X group back under the auspices of the Vatican. The move has been opposed by many senior representatives of the Catholic Church in Britain, including Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O’Connor, leader of the Roman Catholic Church in England and Wales, as well as Jewish leaders. [AND??? SO???? We are really supposed to make decisions about what we believe or how we pray on the basis of objections of non-Catholics? Apparently.]
The images:
The caption:
A woodcut showing Jews performing a ritual to extract a Christian child’s blood. These prints were popular in Germany and the Netherlands in the 15th Century.
The next image just below:
Loading ...
Dishonest, intentionally deceptive, and brazen. It’s just the beginning – expect much more of this.
We didn’t think that a good thing, such as liberating the Classical Roman Rite would not be subject to attack, did we? It’s funny that those most against it, are not forced to assisting at it, nor are they denied access to the Novus Ordo. This angle – with some in the Jewish community upset is saddening. However, are there not other Jewish people who do not find the old Mass threatening?
Fr. Z: Your “Jerusalem Post” link – cycles back to this post.
Also, the caption is overlapping in a way that is not visible to me (upper and lower lines). What does the caption say under the picture and what in Sam Hill is this ghastly thing they are “performing”?
This article has been picked up by the Jerusalem Post, by the way, without correcting the factual errors:
http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1183053069268&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull
Ok, I found the link to the Jerusalem post, and the caption, but I still don’t get it.
Jerusalem Post article link
Does anyone know why they even have such a wood-carving up next to this story? What does it mean? (Sorry, I have no background in history of this nature).
Opps. I read the article without the caption. I assumed the version here was from the Independent. The link I posted does go to the Post.
They are referring to “blood libels,” which were spurious tales about Jews killing Christian children as part of their religious ceremonies. They are obviously trying to portray Benedict (a German) as someone who believes such stories and is trying to start a persecution of the Jews.
Inexcusable, but unsurprising.
I wonder how the press would react if the Pope made a statement on how Jewish liturgy should be conducted?
The headline:
“Pope Benedict tries to force Jews under Vatican control”
My brother in law is an orthodox Jew.Back in the late 50’s he was seriously thinking of becoming Catholic.He went to mass and loved the liturgy.He had no problem with the Latin since he was used to having a liturgical language.Why did he not convert? Because of the changes in the church after the Council.