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.
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.
Why are you trying to compare us to the Jews? This isn’t the playground where we throw a tantrum from being told to do something because Johnny doesn’t “hafta.”

Why be content with being equal to what you perceive to be low? Our model should be the Imitation of Jesus Christ and not parity with some Orthodox Jews.
 
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.”
Ain’t gonna happen. Pope Benedict XVI is a wonderful Catholic Christian. He would never accept some of the views projected by some self-labeled “trads” as he is a champion against relativism and more often than not, many “trads” seem to possess relativist qualities.
 
Ain’t gonna happen. Pope Benedict XVI is a wonderful Catholic Christian. He would never accept some of the views projected by some self-labeled “trads” as he is a champion against relativism and more often than not, many “trads” seem to possess relativist qualities.
How? I found it to be the other way around. I’m not saying that everybody non-trad is a relativist, but I fail to see how a trad would possess relativist qualities. :confused:
 
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.
What prayer is that?
 
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.
First of all, its not inflammatory. Second of all, yes the Pope has the authority to make such a change. That is not the issue. The question is whether it’s prudent or not, since the Motu Propio took effect only four months ago. Second, why should what Catholics pray be changed at the whim of a secular and somewhat atheistic sub-set of Jews? I don’t know too many Conservative and Orthodox Jews who are offended. It’s only the ultra-liberal, secular type, who most often that not, don’t even go to synagogue. Third, this would completely destroy any foreseable change with restoration with the SSPX. So, good for the Pope? Absolutely nothing good can come out of this, but plenty of bad can come out of it. Whatever “tweak” he makes is going to do no good. Traditional Catholics will be upset because of it, and in the end, the Jews who are currently upset will probably still be upset, as there is a good chance it will still mention that Jews need to convert. Either way: nobody wins, everybody loses. I pray that the Pope isn’t that shortsighted.
 
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.”
I wonder what parts of the prayer are deemed viscerally offensive.

And to whom are they offensive? God? I doubt that. Christ? Probably not. The Holy Spirit? Nope. The Jews? Why? They will more than likely never hear them. Why would it bother them in the least? I really don’t get it.

I really think that by changing the way you worship just so someone else who doesn’t worship that way won’t be offended is the wrong way to go. Where does it end? Most protestants find our belief in the Real Presence offensive. Do we change that as well?
 
The somewhat-silly bit of all this is that the number of churches using the EF liturgy on Good Friday will probably minutely increase (if at all) from those who have been using in for the past years under the Indult. Apparently it didn’t occur to people to complain then?
 
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.
This is a prayer in Latin, so let’s look at what the prayer actually says.

perfides does not mean “treacherous” and never has.

“Per” means “lacking” and Fides, is of course, faith.

It means that the Jews lack Faith, which is quite true, the Theological Virtues of Faith, Hope and Charity are imparted at Baptism.

Besides, as many people have pointed out, the prayer is not in the 1962 Missal anyway, so how could the Pope remove something that isn’t there in the first place?
 
Here’s the prayer for Jews in my Angelus Missal:

"FOR THE CONVERSION OF THE JEWS

Let us pray also for the Jews, that our God and Lord might remove the veil from their hearts: that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ.

Let us pray.
Let us Kneel down.
Arise.

Almight and everlasting God, who drivest not away from thy mercy even the Jews: Hear our prayer which we offer for the blindness of that people: that acknowledge the light of thy truth, which is Christ, that they may be rescued from their darkness. Through the same Lord.

R. Amen."

Doesn’t sound too offensive to me. Actually, it seems kind of compassionate–prayer for them to be rescued and such. It sounds even less harsh in the original Latin.

Actually, the prayers for Unbelievers and Schismatics are much more harsh, yet Protestants and Atheists don’t seem too offended.
 
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…
It is only the English word “perfidious” which changed in meaning over time. The Latin word “perfides” means exactly what it always has, without faith.
 
if this is indeed true, I trust the Holy Father on this decision.
 
How? I found it to be the other way around. I’m not saying that everybody non-trad is a relativist, but I fail to see how a trad would possess relativist qualities. :confused:
I know Catholics who definitely consider themselves “trads” who routinely ignore what the Church actually directions in favor of what they feel is “better.” This is certainly in no way unique to “trads” – no way, but around here variance from what the Church actually directs in terms of liturgical matters most often seems to come from people who consider themselves to be “trads.”
 
First of all, its not inflammatory. Second of all, yes the Pope has the authority to make such a change. That is not the issue. The question is whether it’s prudent or not, since the Motu Propio took effect only four months ago. Second, why should what Catholics pray be changed at the whim of a secular and somewhat atheistic sub-set of Jews? I don’t know too many Conservative and Orthodox Jews who are offended. It’s only the ultra-liberal, secular type, who most often that not, don’t even go to synagogue. Third, this would completely destroy any foreseable change with restoration with the SSPX. So, good for the Pope? Absolutely nothing good can come out of this, but plenty of bad can come out of it. Whatever “tweak” he makes is going to do no good. Traditional Catholics will be upset because of it, and in the end, the Jews who are currently upset will probably still be upset, as there is a good chance it will still mention that Jews need to convert. Either way: nobody wins, everybody loses. I pray that the Pope isn’t that shortsighted.
Simply put the prayers can be re-formulated without loss of strength or efficacy. They’ll just no longer be offensive. The change will be made by the Church and not by Jews – of any sort.

I doubt changing the prayers will destroy any possibility of the sspx returning to the Church. However if that were the case, then the sspx has some thinking to do.

As an example, on the last First Friday we had a Rosary. As people were voicing their intentions, someone gave a beauty – something along the lines of “may all our Christian and Jewish brethren experience the absolute fullness of the Christian faith by taking the steps necessary to enter into perfect communion with His Church, the Catholic Church.” A gorgeous intention.

Sadly it was followed by someone else with something like “may all heretics and apostates, particularly the Jews and the Muslims repent from the evilness of their ways and enter the Church.” Talk about offensive! By the sneer on her face she KNEW that she was being offensive too. Down deep it was an important intention, but the crude and ignorant language turned it into nothing more than an insult.
 
Indeed. I thought part of the so-called “trad” mindset was not pandering to the modernist attitude of personal opinion! 🤷
Are you serious? I will attend Mass tomorrow and the “trads” will do or try to do a number of things that are not allowed by the Church. All because they choose to follow their personal opinions rather than the Church.

Do you even know what “modernist” means within the context of the history of the Church? 99% of the time when I hear “modernist” come out of someone’s mouth at my parish I cringe because it’s almost sure to be followed by:

Proof that the person have no idea what “modernism” is with regard to the Church.

Unfounded vitriol towards those who do not share their personal view. Views which are often at odds with the Church – the primary reason they are often not taken too seriously.
 
I do know what modernism is, and my apologies for applying the term loosely. Maybe I am just fortunate with the so-called “traditionalists” I have met.
 
As an example, on the last First Friday we had a Rosary.** As people were voicing their intentions, **someone gave a beauty – something along the lines of "may all our Christian and Jewish brethren experience the absolute fullness of the Christian faith by taking the steps necessary to enter into perfect communion with His Church, the Catholic Church." A gorgeous intention.

**Sadly it was followed by someone else **with something like "may all heretics and apostates, particularly the Jews and the Muslims repent from the evilness of their ways and enter the Church." Talk about offensive! By the sneer on her face she KNEW that she was being offensive too. Down deep it was an important intention, but the crude and ignorant language turned it into nothing more than an insult.
Now you are making things up. That didn’t really happen now did it.?
 
I know Catholics who definitely consider themselves “trads” who routinely ignore what the Church actually directions in favor of what they feel is “better.” This is certainly in no way unique to “trads” – no way, but around here variance from what the Church actually directs in terms of liturgical matters most often seems to come from people who consider themselves to be “trads.”
I think we would all like some clarification or examples of this if you would provide some. Throwing out blanket statements on this forum really isn’t the best way to advance your position…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top