Cardinal Bertone says prayer for conversion of Jews in Latin Mass could go

[Petergee]

The issue here is the condemning language of the 1962 Missal’s Good Friday prayers for the conversion of “the Jews” vs. the language NO Liturgy which is essentially positive. Though its technically irrelevant because the MP prohibits the 1962 liturgy in the triduum, its meaninglful in revealing the insensitivity of those who would so easily slip back into categorically hurtful old language. And if you don’t think that 1962 language is hurtful, ask a Jew. In fact the 1962 Missal just barely missed including using the adjective “perfidious” to decribe “the Jews”. That word was only dropped from the text a few years earlier.

We lose none of our “Catholicity” by use of respectful language when including the Jewish people and Judaism in Catholic texts.

Wait, first you said the issue was that the prayer “singled out” the Jews, and that it was wrong to pray for their conversion in any way.

Now you say the problem is"condemning language". There is nothing in the language of the prayer that condemns the Jews or anyone else. And as stated before the word “perfidious” was changed only because, through the natural changes in the English and some other languages (though not in Latin because its meaning was fixed), it had in modern times acquired a new pejorative meaning which it did not have previously. I have actually asked a couple of Jews what they think of this prayer, and none of them thought it “disrespectful” or “hurtful”.

And as stated before the MP does not ban the John XXIII Mass during the Triduum, only private celebrations of it.

 

[DWPC]

Wait, first you said the issue was that the prayer “singled out” the Jews, and that it was wrong to pray for their conversion in any way.

Now you say the problem is"condemning language". There is nothing in the language of the prayer that condemns the Jews or anyone else. And as stated before the word “perfidious” was changed only because, through the natural changes in the English and some other languages (though not in Latin because its meaning was fixed), it had in modern times acquired a new pejorative meaning which it did not have previously. I have actually asked a couple of Jews what they think of this prayer, and none of them thought it “disrespectful” or “hurtful”.

And as stated before the MP does not ban the John XXIII Mass during the Triduum, only private celebrations of it.

I’m not going to play parsing games. Read my posts again. Devout Jews **are **offended by the language of the 1962 Missal. Hell, just referring to them as “*the *Jews” is a telling phrase. I had a hunch you’d jump on “perfidious” when I mentioned the word. Its English meaning became an insult in the 18th Century, but it took until 1959 for the Church to drop it. Better late than never. And it must stay that way.

HH BXVI knows the language in question is inappropriate. Thankfully, his MP renews access to the Latin Mass while properly isolating the archaic Good Friday affront that should have been abandoned generations ago.

 

[Petergee]

I’m not going to play parsing games. Read my posts again. Devout Jews **are **offended by the language of the 1962 Missal. Hell, just referring to them as “*the *Jews” is a telling phrase.

Should we be “offended” then if somebody refers to us as “the Catholics”? The further we go on with this conversation, the less sense you’re making to me.

I had a hunch you’d jump on “perfidious” when I mentioned the word. Its English meaning became an insult in the 18th Century, but it took until 1959 for the Church to drop it. Better late than never. And it must stay that way.

HH BXVI knows the language in question is inappropriate. Thankfully, his MP renews access to the Latin Mass while properly isolating the archaic Good Friday affront that should have been abandoned generations ago.

Re-read your own posts. It was you, not I who made an issue of the word “perfidious”, which is NOT in the John XXIII Mass and **no-one **is suggesting that it should be restored. There were NO changes in the wording of the liturgy from the 16th to the mid-20th century. Nobody “singled out” the word “perfidious” to remain unchanged out of some supposed anti-semitic sentiment, the whole liturgy was unchanged because they thought it was very important not to change anything. (As when Blessed Pius IX refused to add St Joseph to the Roman Canon because “I’m only the Pope”.)

I’m not trying to “play parsing games”, I’m genuinely confused just what your objection is.
Are you afraid some secretly anti-semitic priest will slip in the word “perfidious”?
Are you objecting only to the wording of the 1962 prayer?
To the fact that we pray for the Jews at all?
Do you object to the prayer for the Jews in the Paul VI Mass which says the same thing in different words? If not, why not?

 

[DWPC]

Should we be “offended” then if somebody refers to us as “the Catholics”? The further we go on with this conversation, the less sense you’re making to me. Re-read your own posts. It was you, not I who made an issue of the word “perfidious”, which is NOT in the John XXIII Mass and **no-one **is suggesting that it should be restored. There were NO changes in the wording of the liturgy from the 16th to the mid-20th century. Nobody “singled out” the word “perfidious” to remain unchanged out of some supposed anti-semitic sentiment, the whole liturgy was unchanged because they thought it was very important not to change anything. (As when Blessed Pius IX refused to add St Joseph to the Roman Canon because “I’m only the Pope”.)

I’m not trying to “play parsing games”, I’m genuinely confused just what your objection is.
Are you afraid some secretly anti-semitic priest will slip in the word “perfidious”?
Are you objecting only to the wording of the 1962 prayer?
To the fact that we pray for the Jews at all?
Do you object to the prayer for the Jews in the Paul VI Mass which says the same thing in different words? If not, why not?

The wording of 1962 Good Friday liturgy **is **an affront to Jews, the 1970 version is not. This thread (and some others on the same subject) is largely comprised of defenses for that 1962 language, some quite callous.

My objections and rationale were clearly stated. But your mind is apparently closed and you seem only to think in absolutes.

As for “perfidious”: I explicitly mentioned its late expungement as an example ot the insensitivity of the era; it only missed being in the 1962 missal by three years after all. Do you *really *believe that no one with reasonable grasp of English brought the common meaning of the word to the attention of liturgists until the late 1950s? Do you *really *think any literate English-speaking priest could just blow right past a word like “perfidious” *in a special prayer *without recognizing its inference? Until 1959? Seriously??

Compassion toward a people who’ve been persecuted and periodically brutalized by so-called Catholics and other “Christians” for centuries should not be treated as a Logic 101 quiz problem. Their sensitivity is rooted in millions of mass graves and should be respected, especially when there is no valid reason to oppose it.

 

[nilofc]

Bottomline, we should pray for everybody.

And we desire everyone to be catholic, to be in full communion to the fullness of the truth, the Holy Roman Catholic Church.

Jesus taught us to pray even for our enemies.

So we pray for the Jews, the Muslims, the Protestants and all people that they may see the light and the truth and become catholic since this is the only path carved by God himself for us to attain salvation because outside of it there is no salvation.

God instituted only and only ONE church and He specifically said that unless we eat His body and drink His blood then we don’t have life within us. So do we desire everyone to be catholic for the sake of that person’s soul. YES ABSOLUTELY.

 

[ChristianVet]

This is definitely an internal matter for Catholics, and definitely out of the pervue of other religions to dictate.

As Catholics we need to pray more often and more intensely for our priests and bishops, particularly those in leadership positions. Let them not be persuaded by worldly opinion, but instructed by the Holy Spirit and the Word of God.

 

[Petergee]

The wording of 1962 Good Friday liturgy **is **an affront to Jews, the 1970 version is not.

OK, now we’re getting somewhere I hope. Which wording exactly in the 1962 prayer, which does not appear in the 1970 prayer, do you find “an affront”?

This thread (and some others on the same subject) is largely comprised of defenses for that 1962 language, some quite callous.

True, but no more callous than the rabid attacks on the Church from some (admittedly a very small minority) in reaction to B16’s Motu Proprio.

My objections and rationale were clearly stated. But your mind is apparently closed and you seem only to think in absolutes.

Not at all, my mind is open and you had stated a number of different and partly contradictory objections. As I said I have no particular affection for the old-style Mass; I have never been to one and probably never will (Maybe if my local parish had one I might go once out of curiosity.) But I suspect that most of the extreme reactions to the MP purportedly based on the relatively trivial matter of one short prayer on one day of the year, are in fact more based on people’s hatred of the old-style Mass in general, and on the false idea that Vatican II founded a “new Cathiolic Church” totally unrelated to the “previous” one.

As for “perfidious”: I explicitly mentioned its late expungement as an example ot the insensitivity of the era; it only missed being in the 1962 missal by three years after all. Do you *really *believe that no one with reasonable grasp of English brought the common meaning of the word to the attention of liturgists until the late 1950s? Do you *really *think any literate English-speaking priest could just blow right past a word like “perfidious” *in a special prayer *without recognizing its inference? Until 1959? Seriously??

I’ve said nothing to suggest I think that. I pointed out at some length that the only reason that the word “perfidious” was not changed earlier was a belief that nothing in the Mass could be changed, no matter how objectionable.

Compassion toward a people who’ve been persecuted and periodically brutalized by so-called Catholics and other “Christians” for centuries should not be treated as a Logic 101 quiz problem. Their sensitivity is rooted in millions of mass graves and should be respected, especially when there is no valid reason to oppose it.

Compassion and sensitivity, certainly. But not taken to the extreme of denying who we are and what our beliefs are.

 

[Godi]

As it is it seems many US bishops are basically going to ignore it.

The Vatican was quick to point out that this was NOT a reflection of the US Bishops shall we say “neglect”. The MP, to me, reflects the Vaticans exasperation with the indifference that the USCCB maintains with Papal issues. (Humanae Vitae etc.) Is this the Vatican’s acknowledgement (MP) of the almost Schismatic attitude of the USCCB?

 

[Teelynn]

That people can still defensively ignore 500 years of virulent and overt Christian anti-semitism is appalling. Singling out “the Jews” in prayer, though rationalized as a charity, effectively put them in the same category to average people as pagans, heretics, and the plague.

The Holocaust was not a religious persecution, but could not have happened if devout Christians and Catholics hadn’t been conditioned to anti-semitism by a medieval “pray for (those evil) Jews” mentality; the same mentality being defended here.

There were many Christians that risked their very own lives to save as many of the Jews that they could. Have you any knowledge of the WHOLE history of this? Maybe there were some that were of anti-semitism mind set but certainly not all. Not even close. In today’s world, our particular area is anything BUT anti-semitic. Christian people love Jesus and what was Jesus BUT A JEW!!! I have heard of some parishes actually having a sader(sp?) meal on Holy Thursday before mass. Prayers and all, BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT JESUS DID ON THE NIGHT HE WAS BETRAYED!!! HE FOLLOWED JEWISH TRADITION. HE WAS A JEW.

This kind of sensitivity for a prejudice that the Jewish people claim that Christians had for them a lifetime ago, and are still holding on to, is sheer ridiculousness.

 

[Godi]

There were many Christians that risked their very own lives to save as many of the Jews that they could. Have you any knowledge of the WHOLE history of this? Maybe there were some that were of anti-semitism mind set but certainly not all. Not even close. In today’s world, our particular area is anything BUT anti-semitic. Christian people love Jesus and what was Jesus BUT A JEW!!! I have heard of some parishes actually having a sader(sp?) meal on Holy Thursday before mass. Prayers and all, BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT JESUS DID ON THE NIGHT HE WAS BETRAYED!!! HE FOLLOWED JEWISH TRADITION. HE WAS A JEW.

This kind of sensitivity for a prejudice that the Jewish people claim that Christians had for them a lifetime ago, and are still holding on to, is sheer ridiculousness.

Is that a complex?