Prayers for the conversion of the Jews to be abolished

[guanophore]

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.

I agree with you, but using pejorative language toward any certain race or religion does not express the love of Christ. It most certainly does not reflect His own sentiments and actions as He was being nailed to the cross.

 

[guanophore]

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.

It sounds like you are saying that the Pope should have more concern for Traditional Catholics concept politically acceptable than Jews.

Prayers for conversion of all people need to be said, and the unbelieving Jews are no more perfidious than unbelieving "catholics’, Protestants, or Pagans. It was all of our sins that nailed Him to the cross, and projecting our wickedness onto the Jews is wrong.

 

[guanophore]

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.

This is a baseless assertion. It is not scriptural, and not Catholic.

Baptism is the manner whereby people are brought in to Christ’s Church. To say that people who have never been baptized “lack faith” is grossly erroneous. You are basically saying that none of God’s chosen people really believed!

 

[somepurpose]

Prayers for conversion of all people need to be said, and the unbelieving Jews are no more perfidious than unbelieving "catholics’, Protestants, or Pagans. It was all of our sins that nailed Him to the cross

True. Well said.

and projecting our wickedness onto the Jews is wrong.

My goodness, that would be wrong. Do you see anyone here who is doing that or advocating it?

 

[AlexV]

The Jews do not believe in Christ. Therefore, it is quite correct to say they lack the Faith.

 

[guanophore]

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.

The change is not to be made to the missal, but to the Liturgical Rite (the wording in the priest’s book).

 

[SemperFidelis]

Prayers for conversion of all people need to be said,

They are, read below:

and the unbelieving Jews are no more perfidious than unbelieving "catholics’, Protestants, or Pagans.

You’re right about that…

Clearly you haven’t checked out the 1962 Prayers for Good Friday. There are Prayers for Holy Mother Church, the Pope, “all Orders and grades of the Faithful,” “those engaged in public affairs,” Catechumens, “the needs of the Faithful,” heretics and schismatics, conversion of the Jews, and conversion of unbelievers.

 

[SemperFidelis]

This is a baseless assertion. It is not scriptural, and not Catholic.

Really? It’s not Catholic? What you are forgetting here is Catholics dont’ believe in sola scriptura, so the fact that it’s not explicately stated in scripture just means it’s not protestant. The fact that the Good Friday Prayer most recognize as the traditional Good Friday Prayer was composed in the seventh century means its most definitely Catholic.

You are basically saying that none of God’s chosen people really believed!

Where has anybody said this? I, in fact, said the exact opposite not but a few posts ago. Why does this always have to be a racial issue? Take the blinders off for just one second. This Prayer is obviously not aimed at the Jews who converted in the beginning of the Church or the ones who do so today. It’s aimed at the Jews who still refuse to believe. Last time I checked, there’s still a few of those out there.

 

[jj2011]

I agree that it’s a good organic development for the 1962 missal.

I can’t see a good reason to call the Jews blind or perfidious in our liturgy.

The original prayer in Latin does not mean “perfidious,” but unbelieving, and this term was taken out in 1959.

 

[Claudius]

I am going to get the prayer from my missal and add it to my compline every night. I love Jews, I want to pray for them as much as I can. God save America and the Jewish race.

 

[Sagefrakrobatik]

Orthodox Jewish males have a prayer where they bless God that He has not made them a woman, a slave or a goy (Gentile).

First of all can do you have a refrence for this prayer.

second here are a few points to counter act your claim

1. According to the Talmud (and i didnt get this from Google search, my University has nearly all 70 tracates of the Talmud from 1950) it says that an ignorant high priest is worst than a Rightegeous gentile.
2. Have read anything by Maimonides, the physician for the Sultan of Egypt who wrote the 7 Noahide laws.

3 According to the Talmud again, all nations had received their own version of Torah

1. What about dual theology? Jews believe that God has a covenant with non jews as well.

 

[Valke2]

THere’s a prayer we say in our services thanking God for not making us a Gentile, or alternatively, depending on the translation, for making us a Jew.

It is a way of thanking God for giving us the Torah and the obligation to observe all the mitzvot, which we would not have to do if we were gentiles.

The same logic is used in thanking God for not making us a woman (assuming He didn’t), because women do not have to observe most of the positive mitzvot.

There is also, however, the undeniable fact that this prayer was written during a time when gentile behavior toward Jews was horrific. So it is not hard to imagine why we would thank God that he did not make us that way.

 

[SemperFidelis]

First of all can do you have a refrence for this prayer.

There are far more offensive prayers in the Talmud then that one. Here’s a few:

Balaam [Jesus] fornicated with his jackass. (Sanhedrin 105a-b)3

Jewish priests raised Balaam [Jesus] from the dead and punished him in boiling hot semen.(57a Gittin)4

She who was the descendant of princes and governors [The Virgin Mary] played the harlot with a carpenter. (Sanhedrin 106a)

[Jesus] was lowered into a pit of dung up to his armpits. Then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead. (Sanhedrin 52b) 5

Read this article for more:

iahushua.com/JQ/factsR4.html

1. According to the Talmud (and i didnt get this from Google search, my University has nearly all 70 tracates of the Talmud from 1950) it says that an ignorant high priest is worst than a Rightegeous gentile.

What’s your point? I would say that an ecumenical and heretical priest is worse that a righteous Jew. However, that doesn’t prove anything about what the Talmud actually says about Jesus, the Virgin Mary, Christians, etc.

1. What about dual theology? Jews believe that God has a covenant with non jews as well.

Dual covenant theology is completely contradictory to Catholic Dogma, contradicts “outside the Church there is no salvation,” and is a completely heretical and false theology.

 

[SemperFidelis]

There is also, however, the undeniable fact that this prayer was written during a time when gentile behavior toward Jews was horrific.

Well since this is no longer an issue in most of the world, should Catholics and other Christians be clamoring to change parts of the Talmud and certain Jewish prayers as many Jews have done with our prayers?

 

[Valke2]

Well since this is no longer an issue in most of the world, should Catholics and other Christians be clamoring to change parts of the Talmud and certain Jewish prayers as many Jews have done with our prayers?

The prayer that was discussed here is not from the Talmud.

You can clamor away. If it makes you feel better, many Jews have already begun the clamoring and this prayer has been changed in many communities.

And if it makes you feel any better, Jews have already changed the Talmud because of violence by and threats of violence by christian communities.

I’ll address some of the “Talmud quotes” in a bit.

 

[Valke2]

There are far more offensive prayers in the Talmud then that one. Here’s a few:

Balaam [Jesus] fornicated with his jackass. (Sanhedrin 105a-b)3

This appears on David Duke’s website. Complete with the “footnote 3” that is part of your quote. A quick google finds this passage used almost if not entirely, by racist/antisemit websites only.

Here’s what is actually written regarding Balaam in the Talmud, in the pages your referenced:

FOUR COMMONERS, VIZ., BALAAM, DOEG, AHITOPHEL, AND GEHAZI.
Belo’-am [denotes without the people].(19) Another explanation: Balaam denotes that he corrupted a people.(20) The son of Beor [denotes] that he committed bestiality.(21)
*A Tanna taught: Beor, Cushan-rishathaim and Laban the Syrian are identical; Beor
denotes that he committed bestiality; Cushan-rishathaim, that he perpetrated two evils
upon Israel: one in the days of Jacob,(22) and the other in the days of the Judges.(23)But what was his real name? Laban the Syrian.
Scripture writes, the son of Beor;(24) [but also] his son [was] Beor.(25) R. Johanan
said: His father [Beor] was as his son in the matter of prophecy.(26)
Now only Balaam will not enter [the future world], but other [heathens] will enter.(27)
On whose authority is the Mishnah [taught]? — On R. Joshua’s. For it has been taught:
R. Eliezer said, The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget
God28) The wicked shall be turned into hell — this refers to transgressors among
Israel; and all the nations that forget God — to transgressors among the heathen.(29)
This is R. Eliezer’s view. But R. Joshua said to him: Is it stated, and [those] among all
the nations?(30) Surely all the nations that forget God is written! But [interpret thus:]
The wicked shall be turned into hell, and who are they? — all the nations that forget
God.(31) Now, that wicked man [Balaam] too gave a sign for himself [that he would
not enter the future world by saying, Let me die the death of the righteous(32) —
meaning, If I die the death of the righteous [i.e., a natural death], my last end will be
like his;(33) but if not , then behold I go unto my
people.(34)
Good luck deducing from this that the Talmud says Jesus made love to a donkey. BTW, the Talmud itself seems to explain that Baalam is a reference to Israel. Below for your added information are the footnotes in the Talmud referenced above:

1. [H] Belo’am, i.e., he has no portion in the future world together with other
   people.
2. [H] balah’am, (or [H] bala’-'am, ‘he devoured the people,’ Aruch). Both meanings
   are a play of words on his name. The reference is to Israel, as explained further
   on.
3. Lit., ‘had connection with an animal’. Heb. be’ir [H].
4. When he pursued him, wishing to destroy him (Gen. XXVI, 23 et seq.).
5. Judges III, 8; Therefore the anger of the Lord was hot against Israel, and he sold
   them into the hand of Cushon-rishathaim, king of Mesopotamia. Rish’athaim is
   taken as dual of Rish’ah, [H] ‘evil’.
6. Num. XXII, 5.
7. Ibid. XXIV, 3: so [H] may be translated.
8. I.e., he was a greater prophet than his father.
9. This follows as a corollary to the Mishnah.
10. Ps. IX, 17.
11. [Heathens, however, who do nor forget God will share the bliss of eternal life.]
12. Which would denote only some of them.
13. [Yad Ramah preserves a more preferable reading: 'this refers to the heathen.
    This is R. Eliezer’s view. But R. Joshua said to him: Is it stated, and all nations,
    surely all nations etc. i.e., without a waw copulative, and hence in apposition to
    the first clause.]
14. Num. XXIII, 20.
15. I.e., ‘I will enter the world to come.’
16. Ibid. XXIV, 14; i.e., into the Gehenna.*

 

[Freshman88]

The prayer that was discussed here is not from the Talmud.

You can clamor away. If it makes you feel better, many Jews have already begun the clamoring and this prayer has been changed in many communities.

And if it makes you feel any better, Jews have already changed the Talmud because of violence by and threats of violence by christian communities.

I’ll address some of the “Talmud quotes” in a bit.

I for one could care less.
Let us pray for the conversion of Jews - and the Jews can do their prayers and read their Talmud - whatever it says.

I also saw the comment that it was unfair that the Jews are singled out. I disagree, it is with good reason that there is a focus on the Jews - their role in the history of the faith has been vital, and it would seem important that those who were once faithful, remain faithful to the True faith. Let’s not forget who exactly the People of God are today.

I understand that no one likes to be told or hear that they are outside of the one true faith, but this is an essential belief. Whether I actually publicly say this prayer or not, does not matter, I and many other Catholics will continue to believe this whether this prayer is removed or not.

It is not because of this belief that the Jews have been persecuted in the past, it is because of sin and fallen humanity that they have been persecuted.

Also, the belief that there is one true faith to which Catholics alone have the fullest revelation, should go hand in hand with the belief that faith cannot be forced with violence. Thus one can violently rip away this prayer from the liturgy because it will not change the fact that this is what is believed. This act of violence to the liturgy will not change anything. It seems to be a selling out of our beliefs in the name of diplomacy.

I pray it does not occur - if it does, its just one more reason to consider the SSPX and only makes it clear that they are right to say that the problems of the modern Church go much further then just liturgy. This specific example seems to suggest that its okay to sell out our belief in the fullness of revelation when it offends other people. Guess what, the truth will always offend some people - I pray the Church keeps its courage.

 

[Walking_Home]

The secular Jews will still be offended until a prayer is composed that contains nothing short of no mentioning of conversion. So, what’s the point, especially when you’re changing a prayer that has been around (for the most part) for thirteen centuries? The “trads” as you so call them, will be upset. Either way, it’s a lose-lose situation for everybody except a few vocal Jews, and even they won’t be happy in the end. They just want to see the Church “dance.”

---

Just to expand on your pt. —let us take a look at the following statement. Some jews concern might be Church doctrine etc---- so what should we then do — how far would we be expected to go. Alter/change our Church doctrine to alleviate their concern.

Quote=Valke2
On the other hand, some jews might be concerend that** Church doctrine,** driving Church policy, driving chrisitan behavior towards jews, has been an issue in the past.

 

[Valke2]

Here is more fromthe same area of the Talmud that you can review and conclude as to whether it speaks of Jesus or not. Either way, I think you might find it useful to see what is actually written in the “worst parts” of the Talmud and what it actually says and means:

R. Johanan said: Balaam limped on one foot, as it is written, And he walked
haltingly.(43) Samson was lame in both feet, as it is written, [Dan shall be a serpent by
the way,] an adder in the path that biteth the horse’s heels.(44) Balaam was blind in one
eye, as it is said, [and the man] whose eye is open …(45) He practised enchantment by
means of his membrum. For here it is written, falling, but having his eyes open; whilst
elsewhere is written, And Haman was fallen on the bed whereon Esther was.(46)
It was stated, Mar Zutra said: He practised enchantment by means of his membrum.
Mar the son of Rabina said: He committed bestiality with his ***. The view that he
practised enchantment by means of his membrum is as was stated. The view that he
committed bestiality with his *** [is because] here it is written, He bowed,(47) he lay
down as a lion and as a great lion;(48) whilst elsewhere it is written, At her feet he bowed and fell.

 

[Freshman88]

---

Just to expand on your pt. —let us take a look at the following statement. Some jews concern might be Church doctrine etc---- so what should we then do — how far would we be expected to go. Alter/change our Church doctrine to alleviate their concern.

Valke2:

On the other hand, some jews might be concerend that** Church doctrine,**

driving Church policy, driving chrisitan behavior towards jews, has been an issue in the past.

it seems clear to me that Church doctrine is NOT the problem rather it was the application of this doctrine - coupled with selective reading of Church doctrine.