Pope's Revised Prayer "Insulting to Jews"

[RobbyS]

for your own enlightenment, please review the Vatican II revision of the prayer (highlighted in blue in the OP).

well jewish groups around the world find Benedicts version to be UNFRIENDLY.

Yes, and I suggest you read it for what it is, rather vapid. The Jews were indeed the first to hear the Word of God, but as so often in their history, not to listen. Observe what was posed over the head of the crucified Christ: King of the Jews. The Jews didn’t like that either. We and they have a fundamental difference in the way we read their Scriptures. To us, Jesus is the key that unlocks the meaning of it all, makes sense of it ALL. They disagree.

 

[Refugium]

The Pope is not really wrong, just a bit careless on the feelings of others. Like why change the Vatican II’s version of the prayer now? Its been working swell for half a century.

Actually it was working well for the last 700 years before Pope Benedict XVI changed it. The prayer originally said, *Let us pray also for the faithless Jews: that almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Let us pray. Let us kneel. Arise. Almighty and eternal God, who dost also not exclude from thy mercy the Jews: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.
*
I would have been happy if Pope Benedict XVI had left the venerable prayer alone. Would you rather have had this older form of the prayer? Anyway, why should Catholics give a **** what the Jews think? Their Talmud contains A LOT of offensive, blasphemous material about Jesus Christ but you don’t see us whining for them to remove it! We can’t change their religion, and they should have no say in ours! The least we can do is PRAY for their conversion to the one Catholic faith outside of which is no salvation. I understand that their feelings may be hurt , but what’s going to hurt worse? Their feelings, or the eternal flames of hell where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched?

By the way, the NOVUS ORDO prayer, circa 1970, which you are probably referring to, has remained the same. The new Good Friday applies to the 1962 Missal, which only 1% of Catholics observe. The Novus Ordo prayer is a problem, though, because it falsely implies that the Jews still have a valid covenant with God distinct from the new and everlasting covenant between Christ and His Church, the New Israel. The ADL already controls everything we read or watch on television; must they also control the prayers we say at Mass??

 

[Steadfast]

Oh, I’m talking about examples of the contradiction inherent in the idea of free expression being a quintessential American outlook. You don’t have to just keep on giving examples of the problem with the paradigm; once was, actually, quite enough.

Thank you but enough is enough.

Forgive me. I am just a stupid American.

What the heck are you talking about?

I didn’t see anything at all in what I wrote as paradigmatically antithetical to the libertarian principles I assume.

I would appreciate your guidance.

 

[Kaninchen]

Forgive me. I am just a stupid American.

Well, that may or not be the case but just why do you suddenly have to confess it?

What the heck are you talking about?

1. You talked about an American ‘quintessential’ position on free expression.
2. I said that perhaps one had to be an outsider to see problems with that assertion (nothing about me being clever and you being stupid, nothing about Europeans - I’d used the word ‘outsider’ - nothing about Americans being bad or stupid or anything*, nothing about Europeans being clever, more sophisticated or anything.).

*This is what I said:

“to see such sentiments as yet another way in which Americans congratulate themselves without thinking too deeply about what they’re congratulating themselves on.”

1. You immediately got extremely cross with me, extremely cross about Europeans etc.
2. I said how wonderful it was that you’d provided such an immediate example of the contradictions in your original assertion about quintessential Americanism.

I didn’t see anything at all in what I wrote as paradigmatically antithetical to the libertarian principles I assume.

Perhaps one does have to be an outsider.

I would appreciate your guidance.

Well, either you’re stupid, as you proclaimed earlier so there would be little point in such guidance or I reckon you’re probably able to work it out for yourself.

 

[Gara3987]

From my understanding the Jews hated Our Lord Especially when he told them that he was God. That is why they wanted Him crucified so badly, I don’t remember our Lord trying to build bridges, He simply told them the truth, they did not except.

Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father. He that confesseth the Son, hath the Father also. *1John 2:23]

*Whosoever revolteth, and continueth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that continueth in the doctrine, the same hath both the Father and the Son. *2John 1:9]

Our Lord did not conform to the Jew even though they hated Him.
*

 

[unixfudotnet]

Who cares if he insults or offends the Jewish people?

 

[Valke2]

From my understanding the Jews hated Our Lord Especially when he told them that he was God. That is why they wanted Him crucified so badly, I don’t remember our Lord trying to build bridges, He simply told them the truth, they did not except.

I agree. Jesus was not a bridge builder. He didn’t care much for peacemakers a/k/a bridgebuilders.

Of course, even a few minutes of reflection would lead me to believe that he did in fact build a bridge. Offering montheism and the ethics emboded in Judaism, to all the gentiles.

 

[Valke2]

Who cares if he insults or offends the Jewish people?

Well, Jewish people, for once. I would like to think the Church cares as well.

 

[unixfudotnet]

Well, Jewish people, for once. I would like to think the Church cares as well.

The Church shouldn’t censor what it feels needs to be said or written based on if it would offend someone.

 

[Steadfast]

Well, that may or not be the case but just why do you suddenly have to confess it?

It was a trope, dear.

1. You talked about an American ‘quintessential’ position on free expression.
2. I said that perhaps one had to be an outsider to see problems with that assertion (nothing about me being clever and you being stupid, nothing about Europeans - I’d used the word ‘outsider’ - nothing about Americans being bad or stupid or anything*, nothing about Europeans being clever, more sophisticated or anything.).

*This is what I said:
"to see such sentiments as yet another way in which Americans congratulate themselves without thinking too deeply about what they’re congratulating themselves on."3. You immediately got extremely cross with me, extremely cross about Europeans etc.

1. I said how wonderful it was that you’d provided such an immediate example of the contradictions in your original assertion about quintessential Americanism.

What you have done here is declare a contradiction without demonstrating it.

This is a kind of burden shifting and is very weak sauce indeed.

Here is my declaration then:

Everything I said was ideologically and logically consistent and unless you’re prepared to show me where I was not I am going to have to suggest that you refrain from playing with ideas you are, apparently, ill-equipped to handle.

Perhaps one does have to be an outsider.

Or maybe you just have to be a snob with poor communication skills.

 

[Kaninchen]

It was a trope, dear.

What you have done here is declare a contradiction without demonstrating it.

This is a kind of burden shifting and is very weak sauce indeed.

Here is my declaration then:

Everything I said was ideologically and logically consistent and unless you’re prepared to show me where I was not I am going to have to suggest that you refrain from playing with ideas you are, apparently, ill-equipped to handle.

Or maybe you just have to be a snob with poor communication skills.

Hilarious, quite hilarious.

But enough, before one or the other of us gets moderated.

 

[Steadfast]

Hilarious, quite hilarious.

But enough, before one or the other of us gets moderated.

Yuck it up, you still look silly.

 

[Freshman88]

I am absolutely ecstatic that he revised the prayer. The extraordinary form of the Roman missal is not dead, behold its growth!