Praying for the Conversion of Jews...

[AJV]

n handmissals used by the laity to follow the Latin Mass, the word was always correctly translated as “faithless” or “unbelieving”.

Hyperbole? I don’t think he could have managed to look at all the hand-missals. Definitely he must have missed this one: published by Henri Proost, Revised Sylvester P. Jurgens, same company that did the translation that is used in the Baronius, 1954 “Let us pray also for the perifidious Jews”…“who drivest not away thy mercy even form the perifidous Jews…”. Same translation another 1958 missal, and also one from 1910 and also in the first hand missal in the USA in the 19th century.

In 1967, the prayer was revised as this:

[pedantic] 1965.

Oremus et pro Iudaeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster faciem suam super eos illuminare dignetur; ut et ipsi agnoscant omnium Redemptorem, Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum.

Oremus.
Flectamus genua.
Levate.

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui promissiones tuas Abrahae et semini eius contulisti: Ecclesiae tuae preces clementer exaudi; ut populus acquisitionis antiquae ad Redemptionis mereatur plenitudinem pervenire.

[/pedantic]

Motto: Never trust Wikipedia.

And whether one likes it or not, you can’t deny that in the Middle Ages there were progroms based on sermons based on this very prayer. It may be exaggerated in the modern times (oooh, look how WICKED the Church was back then) with convinient forgetting of those who spoke out against it, but it was there. St. Bernard writes to Henry, archbishop of Mayenne, who had started one such progrom, refuting him on the basis of this same prayer which he had included in the sermon

 

[porthos11]

Perfidis simply means “non-believing”, but translates into English as “perfidious” which has a much more negative connotation. “Perfidious” is not suitable for the English translation.

In any case, the Good Friday liturgy has not dropped the prayer for the conversion of the Jews. I wonder why people seem to think that? All they did was drop “perfidious.”

 

[AJV]

n handmissals used by the laity to follow the Latin Mass, the word was always correctly translated as “faithless” or “unbelieving”.

Hyperbole? I don’t think he could have managed to look at all the hand-missals. Definitely he must have missed this one: published by Henri Proost, Revised Sylvester P. Jurgens, same company that did the translation that is used in the Baronius, 1954 “Let us pray also for the perfidious Jews”…“who drivest not away thy mercy even form the perfidious Jews…”. Same translation in one from 1910 and also in the first hand missal in the USA in the 19th century.

The switch in most vernacular missals was a result of Pius XII, and his conversation with Jules Isaac. (cf. Wgoder Jewish-Christian relations) This also notes that he also intended to strike out the word, but it was done by Bl. John XXIII.

In 1967, the prayer was revised as this:

[pedantic] 1965.

Oremus et pro Iudaeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster faciem suam super eos illuminare dignetur; ut et ipsi agnoscant omnium Redemptorem, Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum.

Oremus.
Flectamus genua.
Levate.

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui promissiones tuas Abrahae et semini eius contulisti: Ecclesiae tuae preces clementer exaudi; ut populus acquisitionis antiquae ad Redemptionis mereatur plenitudinem pervenire.

[/pedantic]

Motto: Never trust Wikipedia.

And whether one likes it or not, you can’t deny that in the Middle Ages there were progroms based on sermons based on this very prayer. It may be exaggerated in the modern times (oooh, look how WICKED the Church was back then) with convinient forgetting of those who spoke out against it, but it was there. St. Bernard writes to Henry, archbishop of Mayenne, who had started one such progrom, refuting him on the basis of this same prayer which he had included in the sermon

 

[DustinsDad]

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t think its ever been an official teaching of the Church (under either papal or ordinary infallibility) that the entire Jewish race carries the guilt of Christ’s crucifixion from generation to generation?

Of course not - as a “race” it would be impossible to condemn it and the Church never has. Our Lord, Our Lady, the Aposltes, etc - all Jews. The Church has always welcomed and prayed for the conversion of those of the Jewish “race”.

What is condemned, however, is the current theology of the Jewish religion, which by definition denies (and has denied for 2000 years) Jesus as Lord and Savior, as the promised Messiah, as the Christ, as the Son of God. That denial of Jesus as the Christ is what is condemned, and what is prayed for is the conversion of those hearts who deny Him.

Here’s the prayer from my Roman Catholic Daily Missal:
Let us pray also for the Jews: that our God and Lord would remove the veil from their hearts: that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ.

Let us pray.
Let us kneel down.
Arise.

Almighty and everlasting God, Who drivest not away from Thy mercy even 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 rescued from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, Thy Son, Who liveth and reigneth with Thee in the unity of the Holy Ghost, God world without end. Amen.
Confusion today notwithstanding, the Church has prayed for 2000 years, prays for today, and will pray for until the last day - that every living soul will convert to Christ for the glory of God and for their own salvation!

AMEN!

Peace in Christ,
DustinsDad.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

Perfidis simply means “non-believing”, but translates into English as “perfidious” which has a much more negative connotation. “Perfidious” is not suitable for the English translation.

In any case, the Good Friday liturgy has not dropped the prayer for the conversion of the Jews. I wonder why people seem to think that? All they did was drop “perfidious.”

Words change their meaning over time. Perfidious means “partially faithful” as opposed to an infidel, who has no faith. However since it was usually only used to apply to Jews, anti-Jewish sentiment gradfually gave it a worse overtone, and now it means “untrustworthy”.

 

[TLMassAcolyte]

This always confuses me, how far is too far when it comes to blaming the Jews of the time. I can understand why people didn’t kneel to pray for the Jews and the priest referred to them as non- believing. But I don’t understand why Pope Pius XII ordered kneeling and Pope John XXIII ommited the word for non-believing. I wouldn’t like to go as far as being anti-semetic that shouldn’t be any Catholics intention. Once I was in religion class taking notes, Q&A form, Q:’ Who ordered Jesus Christs death?’ A:‘The Roman governor Pontius Pilate’, or similar phrasing but I had to put my hand up and ask the teacher to add the phrase ‘…at the desire of the Jews.’ This is what I learned from my little catecism approved by the Bisops of Ireland,1951 Question 96.

 

[m134e5]

According to wikipedia the original version of the prayer is as follows:

Overall, I don’t think that it is anit-semitic per se - it does say that they are faithless, but it states that god doesn’t exclude them from his mercy, and asks that they may know Christ.

Catholig

When we look at the way things were done in the past, things often seem harsh. We are used to a politically correct society that sees no difference between open disagreement with somebody else’s views and hatred.

 

[paramedicgirl]

When we look at the way things were done in the past, things often seem harsh. We are used to a politically correct society that sees no difference between open disagreement with somebody else’s views and hatred.

A politically correct society that waters down the truth to make everything seem acceptable to others. Hopefully it will go away soon and be replaced by the truth again,.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

A politically correct society that waters down the truth to make everything seem acceptable to others. Hopefully it will go away soon and be replaced by the truth again,.

That’d be nice. But I think the excellent point that people on this thread are edging toward is that the English word “perfidious” does not succeed in communicating the truth that the prayer was meant to invoke–on the contrary, the word’s modern connotations give the prayer the quite untruthful and undeserved appearance of uncharity, viciousness, and slander. Altering the translation of “perfidious” to something more accurate would be a service to the truth, not a watering-down or betrayal of it.

 

[paramedicgirl]

That’d be nice. But I think the excellent point that people on this thread are edging toward is that the English word “perfidious” does not succeed in communicating the truth that the prayer was meant to invoke–on the contrary, the word’s modern connotations give the prayer the quite untruthful and undeserved appearance of uncharity, viciousness, and slander. Altering the translation of “perfidious” to something more accurate would be a service to the truth, not a watering-down or betrayal of it.

Yes, I agree. I was just responding to a specific post:

When we look at the way things were done in the past, things often seem harsh. We are used to a politically correct society that sees no difference between open disagreement with somebody else’s views and hatred.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

That’d be nice. But I think the excellent point that people on this thread are edging toward is that the English word “perfidious” does not succeed in communicating the truth that the prayer was meant to invoke–on the contrary, the word’s modern connotations give the prayer the quite untruthful and undeserved appearance of uncharity, viciousness, and slander. Altering the translation of “perfidious” to something more accurate would be a service to the truth, not a watering-down or betrayal of it.

Actually it is the reverse. If you use a euphemism then you are admitting that the referent is either disgraceful or evil.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Actually it is the reverse. If you use a euphemism then you are admitting that the referent is either disgraceful or evil.

First: I don’t see how that holds water, even when the substituted word retains its accuracy. If I knew some man whose parents hadn’t married, and I used a euphemism in place of calling him a “b_____d,” I wouldn’t be admitting any sort of wickedness or disgrace in him. I’d simply be using the manners my mother taught me, and avoiding a well-deserved punch in the snoot.

Second: Such exercises of common sense are all the more important when the word has lost all the connotations that once made it accurate. If I avoided calling a farmer a “villain,” that wouldn’t be an admission of his dastardlyness, or PC weaselling on my part. It would be simple acknowledgement that, even though the word “villain” once meant a countryside-dweller or husbandman, it doesn’t now; and only someone with a yen for being misunderstood or an actual grudge against the farmer would think of using it.

 

[Le_Cracquere]

Yes, I agree. I was just responding to a specific post:

Good point; my statement was more of a response to the post you quote than to your reply–sorry.

 

[Herod]

According to wikipedia the original version of the prayer is as follows:

Overall, I don’t think that it is anit-semitic per se - it does say that they are faithless, but it states that god doesn’t exclude them from his mercy, and asks that they may know Christ.

Catholig

Catholig, my problem is not with the prayer, overall. And I certainly have no issue with you. In fact you have done us a service in raising this matter. It is with the word ‘perfidious’, which seems to have been changed (at least in the version you quote) to ‘faithless’. If this is accurate (I have cause not to trust Wikipedia), then it is a softening of tone. But it is less than ideal. The idea of praying for the Jews while at the same time using less than prayerful terminology seems a dichotomy to me. However, my understanding was that Pope John XXIII had dropped the adjective altogether.

By all means we should pray for the Lord’s people. But the word ‘faithless’, if it still remains, adds nothing to the intention of the prayer. Rather it hints at something else - a disposition that is somewhat lacking in charity?

 

[TNT]

I see. I sat up and watched this late last night. I try to watch it during Holy Week. I don’t see how people could ever have complained that it was anti-semitic, the Romans (standing here for the whole Gentile world) were base brutes. It was, however, a good exercise for my soul.

Interesting:“the Romans (standing here for the whole Gentile world)”
But to the contrary, the Jewish religious & the Jews who followed them in the demand for crucifixion "(DO NOT stand here for the whole world of Judaism) ".
Discriminating & speculative, I must say.

Secondly, it seems the posters keep switching back n forth from JUDAISIM (a religious belief system…Torah, Talmud, etc.) and JEWS as a race.

Let’s identify which it is you each are posting ABOUT.
After all, there are countless Jews that are or were Christian throughout history to the present day. So, Race, therefore “anti-semitism”, is simply a confusion factor.

 

[TNT]

We’re into our 5th Conciliar pope and I have NO recollection of any even mentioning that the Jews be converted to the Catholic religion.
However, I have heard where the very opposition could be construed.

 

[Catholig]

Catholig, my problem is not with the prayer, overall. And I certainly have no issue with you. In fact you have done us a service in raising this matter. It is with the word ‘perfidious’, which seems to have been changed (at least in the version you quote) to ‘faithless’. If this is accurate (I have cause not to trust Wikipedia), then it is a softening of tone. But it is less than ideal. The idea of praying for the Jews while at the same time using less than prayerful terminology seems a dichotomy to me. However, my understanding was that Pope John XXIII had dropped the adjective altogether.

By all means we should pray for the Lord’s people. But the word ‘faithless’, if it still remains, adds nothing to the intention of the prayer. Rather it hints at something else - a disposition that is somewhat lacking in charity?

Herod, I honestly have a bit of trouble fully understanding your dislike of the prayer, because when I posted I only knew the word perfidious to mean, as Chatterbox said, “unfaithful”. I’d never heard it in conversation, and even now knowing that it means “treacherous” in addition to simply “faithless” (which I also find to be a bit harsh, although I can understand it to mean lacking faith in our lord Jesus Christ) I have a hard time understanding the “shades” or “tone” of the word. I don’t quite understand the force behind it.

In any case, I certainly don’t know what the original composer of this prayer meant, because it is quite possibly that the composer’s use of the latin “perfidus” was meant as “partly faithful” - or according to Cassell’s he could also have meant “faithless, treacherous, or false” just as in English. Simply I don’t know the original composer’s motive - I was only pointing out that the prayer as it now stands doesn’t ask for them to come to the Church, or to accept Christ as the earlier version did.

Catholig

 

[Herod]

Catholig, I think you misunderstand me. My issue is with one word only. The word is ‘perfidus’. It most certainly means ‘faithless’, but its core meaning is closer to what we would understand as ‘treacherous’. And yes, I have checked my Latin dictionary, which confirms what I say.

Being unfamiliar with the board, I managed to come in on page 2 without realising I had missed page 1. One of the contributors there gives an insight into the attitudes and actions of Christians against Jews over two milennia. This simple, single word played a part in all of that, providing justification, in some minds, for unjust actions. In fact, the history of Christian dealings with Jews is mind-boggling.

You simply cannot label a whole people as treacherous, yet that is what the prayer did.

On further checking, however, I see that the word has been removed. Deo Gratias!

 

[KMXV]

Why can’t we accept that it has changed and we no longer use the word?

It may have changed in your parish, but my pastor uses the pre-1955 Holy Week ceremonies.

Ah, liturgical diversity. Don’t you love it, Vegas? Makes a Spirit-filled Vatican II Catholic like me feel all warm inside.

 

[JKirkLVNV]

Interesting:“the Romans (standing here for the whole Gentile world)”
But to the contrary, the Jewish religious & the Jews who followed them in the demand for crucifixion "(DO NOT stand here for the whole world of Judaism) ".
Discriminating & speculative, I must say. **BECAUSE of the tendency to blame all Jews for the conduct of the mob. It’s more of a lesson in “ain’t fair, is it?” **