Prayers for the conversion of the Jews to be abolished

  • Thread starter Thread starter Caesar
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

Caesar

Guest
If this is true then the local SSPX chapel might just be getting another member in time for Holy Week…

Having followed, and somewhat participated in, the heated discussion over at Father Zuhlsdorf’s blog; I am now distraught at the idea that this change could take place. The repercussions of this in the temporal and theological spheres will be great- not only will a prayer of the traditional liturgy (a prayer made in charity) be changed to accommodate the wishes of another religion, but it will open the door for greater revision of the 1962 Missal. It will show that, yet again, the Catholic Church is willing to compromise it’s liturgy and it’s doctrines in the pursuit of political correctness.

Pope to change controversial prayer on Jews: report

VATICAN CITY (Reuters) - Pope Benedict has decided to modify a controversial prayer for the conversion of Jews, an Italian newspaper reported on Friday.

Il Giornale newspaper said this would involve at least the removal of a reference to Jewish “blindness” over Christ but the changes could be more extensive.

A Vatican source said he expected changes to be announced before Good Friday on March 21 this year, but had no details. Good Friday is the day Christians commemorate Christ’s death.

The Vatican had no official comment on the report.

Controversy arose last year when the Pope issued a decree allowing a wider use of the old-style Latin Mass and a missal, or prayer book, that was phased out after the reforms of the Second Vatican Council, which met from 1962 to 1965.

The Good Friday prayer in Latin asks that God remove the “veil” from Jewish hearts so that they would recognize Jesus Christ and speaks of the “blindness” of the Jewish people.

Jews have called for a change in the Latin prayer which, if left as stands, would be used by several hundred thousand traditionalists who follow the old-style Latin rite.

The overwhelming number of the world’s some 1.1 billion Catholics would use a post Second Vatican Council missal, which includes a Good Friday prayer for Jews but makes no reference to Jewish “blindness” over Christ

The strongest criticism to the Pope’s decree has come from U.S. Jewish communities and there have been fears controversy could come up during the Pope’s U.S. visit in late April.

Benedict’s decree, issued on July 7, authorized wider use of the old Latin missal, a move which traditionalist Catholics had demanded for decades but which Jews and other Christian groups said could set back inter-religious dialogue.

Implementation of the decree has been difficult. The Pope’s number two, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, said recently the Vatican was preparing a document on how it should be introduced around the world.

Before the Second Vatican Council, Catholic mass and prayers were full of elaborate ritual led in Latin by a priest with his back to the congregation.

Many traditionalists missed the Latin rite’s sense of mystery and the centuries-old Gregorian chant that went with it.

Some denounced Council reforms that included a repudiation of the notion of collective Jewish guilt for Christ’s death and urged dialogue with all other faiths.
 
I really hope not.

I mean, if Jesus is who the Church says he is, then people ought to say this prayer out of charity.

If you drop it, then who are we worshiping as God?
 
I really hope not.

I mean, if Jesus is who the Church says he is, then people ought to say this prayer out of charity.

If you drop it, then who are we worshiping as God?
Exactly. I suppose the change to this prayer would indicate that Rome is antisemitic and wishes for all these people to burn in Hell.
 
This is STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, STUPID, STUPID!!!

Political Correctness is a disease, a terrible disease. I was hoping Pope Benedict XVI was running away from this course, but alas, I guess he’s not. Letting the secular Jews win is NOT the answer. “Negotiations” with the SSPX are going to go out the window after this one. Can’t say I would disagree with their actions either. Looks like I might have to make a trip to a SSPX Chapel for Good Friday this year.

I can not post enough of these to show my disappointment, but it’ll only let me post eight of them so here we go:

:banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead:
 
Orthodox Jews pray a far more offensive prayer regarding us every day. Will they remove this from their prayers in the name of interreligious dialogue? I think not.

The Talmud reeks of anti-Catholicism. Can we expect the Jews to revise it and remove any offensive material? I think not.
 
I won’t even repeat what the Talmud says about Jesus. Kathy Griffith has nothing on the Rabbis who came up with that stuff.
 
“A Vatican source said he expected changes to be announced before Good Friday on March 21 this year, but had no details.”

To my mind we should wait and see before criticising.
 
Frankly, I think the pope is smarter than this. You have to read between the lines in the article. It states that while the “perfidious” reference will be eliminated, it also says that the substance of the prayer will remain. Now how many times have we stated on here that the reason Latin is better as a liturgical language is because the meaning doesn’t change. Well, here we have an example of the use of the word “perfidious” becoming more offensive over time. I think that what the pope may in fact do is carefully rewrite the prayer to say the exact same thing in different words. If he can make the prayer less offensive, while at the same time keeping the precise meaning (a tall order), then this isn’t bowing to political correctness, but simply practical ecumenism. I would caution everyone to reserve their judgment until the actual translation is released. The pope has done pretty well so far regarding the liturgy…
 
As someone said on Rorate Cæli, “not exactly joyous news, but I will trust the Pope”. 👍 …besides, AFAIK, only Il Giornale has actually covered this.
 
Frankly, I think the pope is smarter than this. You have to read between the lines in the article. It states that while the “perfidious” reference will be eliminated, it also says that the substance of the prayer will remain. Now how many times have we stated on here that the reason Latin is better as a liturgical language is because the meaning doesn’t change. Well, here we have an example of the use of the word “perfidious” becoming more offensive over time. I think that what the pope may in fact do is carefully rewrite the prayer to say the exact same thing in different words. If he can make the prayer less offensive, while at the same time keeping the precise meaning (a tall order), then this isn’t bowing to political correctness, but simply practical ecumenism. I would caution everyone to reserve their judgment until the actual translation is released. The pope has done pretty well so far regarding the liturgy…
Good post…if a prayer does not accurately convey the intention, then it isn’t much good as a prayer even if it has been around for a long time. If the word “perfidious” is commonly used to mean “treacherous” and that is not the original intention of the prayer, then it doesn’t make sense to use it. It makes sense to use a word that will communicate the intended meaning of the prayer.
 
Frankly, I think the pope is smarter than this. You have to read between the lines in the article. It states that while the “perfidious” reference will be eliminated, it also says that the substance of the prayer will remain. Now how many times have we stated on here that the reason Latin is better as a liturgical language is because the meaning doesn’t change. Well, here we have an example of the use of the word “perfidious” becoming more offensive over time.
The “perfidious” word was not in the 1962 missal in the first place; it was taken out by 1959. It also meant ‘unbelieving.’

Let us pray that His Holiness may become a true “trad” and break once and for all with the infernal “spirit of Vatican II.”
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rolltide
Frankly, I think the pope is smarter than this. You have to read between the lines in the article. It states that while the “perfidious” reference will be eliminated, it also says that the substance of the prayer will remain. Now how many times have we stated on here that the reason Latin is better as a liturgical language is because the meaning doesn’t change. Well, here we have an example of the use of the word “perfidious” becoming more offensive over time. I think that what the pope may in fact do is carefully rewrite the prayer to say the exact same thing in different words. If he can make the prayer less offensive, while at the same time keeping the precise meaning (a tall order), then this isn’t bowing to political correctness, but simply practical ecumenism. I would caution everyone to reserve their judgment until the actual translation is released. The pope has done pretty well so far regarding the liturgy…

Good post…if a prayer does not accurately convey the intention, then it isn’t much good as a prayer even if it has been around for a long time. If the word “perfidious” is commonly used to mean “treacherous” and that is not the original intention of the prayer, then it doesn’t make sense to use it. It makes sense to use a word that will communicate the intended meaning of the prayer.

Either way ---- the truth of the matter says —Rome is open to being manipulated by outside forces.

But we should wait and see — if this rumour turns out to be true.
 
Exactly. I suppose the change to this prayer would indicate that Rome is antisemitic and wishes for all these people to burn in Hell.
I would say ceasing to pray for the conversion of the Jews would indicate either show a loss of faith, or a loss of charity.

Either they lost the faith and think the Jews don’t need to convert; or they have no charity towards them and thus don’t care if they burn in hell.
 
If anyone wants to take a look at this article , it makes clear that the plans for revision of the Good Friday Prayer will retain the part which specifically calls for the conversion of Jews while removing those parts deemed more “viscerally offensive.”
 
It just doesn’t make sense to me. Why would non-Catholics care what Catholics believe? If a Jew thinks only Jews will be saved, I really don’t care, because I personally do not believe that. They can even pray for my conversion- if Judaism is false it will have no effect, but if Judaism is true then hopefully it would lead me to Judaism.
 
Good for the Pope! There is absolutely no reason in this day and age to use such inflammatory language. The prayers can be re-formulated and made inoffensive without losing even a hint of power or efficacy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top