We Still Pray for Heretics, Schismatics and the Conversion of the Jews

[EcceAgnusDei]

The Jews are not “faithless”. They have a faith and worship the one true God. However, we believe their faith is incomplete because they do not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior. They also were and remain God’s Chosen People.

At the death of Christ (and ratified by the destruction of the Temple and the ending of Jewish sacrifices), the Jews were no longer God’s chosen people. That role was taken over by the Catholic Church, made up of Jew and Gentile, slave and free, all united in Christ. The old covenant was fulfilled by the death of Christ and the new covenant began, a covenant offered to all through the Sacraments of Holy Mother Church.

• PAX

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

This is a personal issue for me. I don’t look for it. It jumps out and hits me over the head. When I am church and hear that prayer, I have such a visceral reaction that I feel almost physically ill.

Look at these words:
“Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption.”

Do you see the word conversion? Do you see anything about faith in Christ? This prayer can easily be misunderstood to mean that Jews just need to continue being good Jews to be redeemed. Sure, those of us who know that they need Christ for “fullness of redemption” can read that in, but it is not explicitly stated.

Very well said. The lack of clear wording and clear teachings (not just in this prayer but in general) has led many Catholics to believe that there is no need for people to convert to the True Faith for salvation. Our charity is not charity if our lack of clear teaching helps lead souls to hell. People need to hear the clear truth, kindly spoken but clearly spoken, so that the Paraclete can grant them grace to believe it.

• PAX

 

[floresco]

Look at these words:
“Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your Church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption.”

Contrast this with the prayer composed by Pope Benedict in 2008 for use with the EF: “Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men. Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Thy Church, all Israel be saved.”

While it leaves out the ambiguous word “perfidious” and other phrases known to be offensive to Jews, this prayer is nevertheless clear about the role of Jesus Christ in the salvation of the Jews and all mankind. It even alludes to the eschatological dimension of the question in a way consistent with Church teaching. We would be better off having Pope Benedict’s prayer at both forms of Good Friday liturgy.

 

[CB_Catholic]

At the death of Christ (and ratified by the destruction of the Temple and the ending of Jewish sacrifices), the Jews were no longer God’s chosen people. That role was taken over by the Catholic Church, made up of Jew and Gentile, slave and free, all united in Christ. The old covenant was fulfilled by the death of Christ and the new covenant began, a covenant offered to all through the Sacraments of Holy Mother Church.

• PAX

I am not sure this is correct Church teaching, according to the Catechism 839 and following, and I am going to research this. I have always been taught that they are still the Chosen People, as the Covenant was eternal, even though it was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and a New Covenant was established, which we are under.

 

[newyorkcatholic]

I am not sure this is correct Church teaching, according to the Catechism 839 and following, and I am going to research this. I have always been taught that they are still the Chosen People, as the Covenant was eternal, even though it was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and a New Covenant was established, which we are under.

Then there would be two covenants. 2000 years of Catholic teaching must be followed even if the CCC isn’t the clearest on this point.

There are not two covenants, just One Covenant in Jesus Christ. The Old Covenant made with Moses and his people, sealed with the blood of animals, is superceded.

And those who are blessed to be in the Church, the elect chosen by Him (may we persevere and be of the Elect in Heaven) are God’s Chosen People.

This is not a teaching that can change, even though since Vatican II most church leaders speak about such things differently. Frankly some even deny the traditional teachings, but they still cannot change.

 

[floresco]

I am not sure this is correct Church teaching, according to the Catechism 839 and following, and I am going to research this. I have always been taught that they are still the Chosen People, as the Covenant was eternal, even though it was fulfilled in Jesus Christ and a New Covenant was established, which we are under.

I think that EcceAgnusDei did a good job of explaining Church teaching. However, this is a complex area and there is more to be said. The Church has long taught about a special role for Jews. If you are interested in researching the subject I think this article could be a useful starting place: sungenisandthejews.blogspot.ca/2007/02/ongoing-role-of-jews-in-salvation.html

 

[MarkThompson]

"This misunderstanding is based on an inadequate understanding of medieval Latin. In classical Latin, perfidus did have a meaning similar to its present English analogue, derived as it was from the phrase per fidem decipere, “to deceive through trust.” However, by late antiquity and the early Middle Ages, perfidus and perfidia simply meant the opposite of fides and fidelis. (K.P. Harrington, Mediaeval Latin (1925), p. 181, fn 5) Thus perfidus in medieval Latin is best translated as “faithless” or “unbelieving”, meaning lacking the Christian faith."en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Good_Friday_Prayer_for_the_Jews#cite_note-10

Yes, I was already aware of that footnote from Wikipedia, which slightly mischaracterizes the text it references. It does not, however, seem to be particularly borne out by other sources. The dictionaries and glossaries I have checked do not reflect such a meaning, and those include the Oxford (mostly class.), Lewis & Short (incl. post-class. and med.), Dict. of Ecclesiastical Latin, Cassel’s, Riddle and Arnold, the Revised Medieval Latin Word-List (ironically, giving “very faithful” as a possible meaning), and the Glossarium Mediae et Infimae Latinitatis. The fact is, it is infidelis or incredulus, not perfidus, that generally means “unbelieving.”

The best that can be said is that the situation is substantially more complicated than merely saying, “perfidus in medieval Latin is best translated as ‘faithless’ or ‘unbelieving’, meaning lacking the Christian faith.” Notwithstanding the facile-sounding claims about Bede and other late-Latin writers which are made in the book to which you are referring, rather to the contrary:
Augustine of Hippo employed perfidus with particular frequency in his treatise against the Donatist bishop Petilianus, where he rejected the rebaptism of those unknowingly baptized by ‘faithless’ priests. In this context, perfidus, while retaining strong connotations of betrayal, had come to characterize those who remained obdurately separate from the catholic church, whether through false belief or apostasy.

The word seems to have retained these dual overtones in the seventh century; for Isidore perfidus could be defined as ‘deceitful’ (fraudulentus) and lacking in faith. For Bede, a century later, it carried a complex nexus of associations. As among the African Fathers, while still strongly associated with treachery, it was used principally in the context of betrayal of, or violent hostility to, the Christian faith. That is apparent in the Historia Ecclesiastica, in which, besides the two references to the British already mentioned, perfidia and its compounds occur 11 times. In four cases the word is connected with heresy – it is the quality ascribes to the doctrines of Arius and Pelagius, to those who sell the sacraments and to heretics in general. In four others it is applied to those whom Bede thought of as apostates, that is, to Insular rulers who tried to overthrow the Christian religion as established by their predecessors. In the remaining three it is used to distinguish pagans who persecuted or violently attacked catholic Christians: Roman officials in Britain, Saracens in Gaul, King Penda of Mercia. In the Historia Ecclesiastica, then, Bede’s use of perfidia does not extend beyond the enemies and persecutors of the church. And in the later books at least it is mostly confined to persecutors of the nascent English church.

[continued]

 

[MarkThompson]

… In [Bede’s] commentary on Samuel, as in the Historia Ecclesiastica, perfidia is the quality particularly associated with the enemies of the Christian faith and the catholic church. These, in Bede’s analysis, fell into several related and overlapping categories: the heretics, namely those with a perverted understanding of the faith; the Judaei infideles, who persist in their rejection of the Christian faith down to the present age (in contradistinction to the Judaei credentes who had willingly received the message of Christ); the false brethren, who ally themselves with the open persecutors of the church and betray to them its holy mysteries; and the bad catholics – generally those who are nominally within the church but who betray their faith by bad practice. … While all these groups are at one time or another in this commentary tarred with the brush of perfidia, the term occurs most frequently in connection with heretics and the unfaithful Jews. And significantly, if not perhaps surprisingly, while heretics are also associated with other related qualities, such as cunning (versutia) or madness (vesania), unfaithful Jews – the Judaei reprobi, the sinagoga perfidorum – are remorselessly and unremittingly characterized by perfidia. They even more than heretics are thus the treacherous ones.

– Alan Samuel, Bede, the Britons and the Book of Samuel, in Early Medieval Studies in Memory of Patrick Wormald (1988)
It is undeniable that perfidia often did mean “treachery” in mediaeval Latin. Thus the question is whether, at least, it sometimes meant simple “unbelief,” such that we can read it that way in the prayer in question. The answer to that seems to be no: a mediaeval writer would not have applied the word to merely unenlightened, unevangelized peoples (pagani, Deum nescientes), but rather, inasmuch as it may refer to unbelievers rather than outright traitors, it describes unbelievers who are dangerous, violently opposed to the Church, who have betrayed it and proven themselves false.

Thus, even in the very selection that appears in the Harrington book which your Wikipedia footnote cites, the sentence in question is “… Albanus paganus adhuc, cum perfidorum principum mandata contra Christianos saevirent, clericum quendam persecutores fugientem hospitio recepit” – “Albanus, still a pagan, while the mandates of the perfidorum rulers were savagely raging against Christians, received as a guest a certain cleric who was fleeing his persecutors.” Note the sharp contrast drawn between the simple paganus and the principes perfidi, who are violently persecuting the Christian faithful. No writer would ever have thought to call Albanus “perfidus” merely because he was an unbeliever. That’s just not what it means or connotes.

If one wants to talk about unbelievers in a prayer, there are perfectly simple, straightforward ways to do so – and then there are ways that are inextricably tied up with a history of rhetoric about Jewish treachery, deceit, violence, and national hereditary bloodguiltiness. When, in such a case, particularly against the background of a society which widely believes Jews to be treacherous, to poison wells and conspire secretly, one deliberately picks the latter term, it strains credulity to paint this as a sort of innocent choice between alternative synonyms.

 

[floresco]

It is undeniable that perfidia often did mean “treachery” in mediaeval Latin. Thus the question is whether, at least, it sometimes meant simple “unbelief,” such that we can read it that way in the prayer in question. The answer to that seems to be no: a mediaeval writer would not have applied the word to merely unenlightened, unevangelized peoples.

The exact connotations for medieval writers are not especially relevant. Back when the word perfidis was still part of the prayer, there was papal teaching on how the word should be understood:
“The English cognate “perfidious” had, over the centuries, gradually acquired the sense of “treacherous.” In order to eliminate misunderstanding on this point, Pope Pius XII ordered in 1955 that, in Catholic liturgical books, the Latin word “perfidis” be properly translated “unbelieving”, ensuring that the prayer be understood in its original sense: praying for the Jews who remained “unbelieving” concerning the Messiah.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Catholicism_and_Judaism

Father Z alludes to this teaching in a blog article on the subject: wdtprs.com/blog/2008/01/jewish-prayer-about-gentiles-and-catholic-prayer-for-the-jews/
“It bears repeating that, just as Pius XII explained, perfidus in this context has nothing to do with being “faithless” in the sense of “shifty” or “untrustworthy”. It means “faith-less” in the sense that they don’t have Christ faith, they do not believe, they are unbelieving. It is not a pejorative, as I hear it.”

We can see historical development in the Church’s approach to this prayer. Under Pius XII the word perfidis was left in the prayer but its meaning clarified. Under John XXIII, in 1959, the word was removed altogether. In 1970, a new version of the prayer was introduced that went so far in its attempts to be inoffensive to Jews as to potentially obscure Catholic doctrine. In 2008, Pope Benedict composed the most recent version, which I happen to think is the best.

 

[Bezant]

Of course it does. The Jews are God’s chosen people! He wants them to taste the fullness of His revelation.

Practically speaking, I think it says more about the Church’s relations with the Jewish community, and the Church’s self-perception of her origins, than about God’s will.

 

[MarkThompson]

The exact connotations for medieval writers are not especially relevant.

Then I’m not sure why you made such a point of quoting a footnote concerning what the connotations of the word would have been for mediaeval writers.

Back when the word perfidis was still part of the prayer, there was papal teaching on how the word should be understood:
“The English cognate “perfidious” had, over the centuries, gradually acquired the sense of “treacherous.” In order to eliminate misunderstanding on this point, Pope Pius XII ordered in 1955 that, in Catholic liturgical books, the Latin word “perfidis” be properly translated “unbelieving”, ensuring that the prayer be understood in its original sense: praying for the Jews who remained “unbelieving” concerning the Messiah.” en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relations_between_Catholicism_and_Judaism

Father Z alludes to this teaching in a blog article on the subject: wdtprs.com/blog/2008/01/jewish-prayer-about-gentiles-and-catholic-prayer-for-the-jews/
“It bears repeating that, just as Pius XII explained, perfidus in this context has nothing to do with being “faithless” in the sense of “shifty” or “untrustworthy”. It means “faith-less” in the sense that they don’t have Christ faith, they do not believe, they are unbelieving. It is not a pejorative, as I hear it.”

We can see historical development in the Church’s approach to this prayer. Under Pius XII the word perfidis was left in the prayer but its meaning clarified. Under John XXIII, in 1959, the word was removed altogether. In 1970, a new version of the prayer was introduced that went so far in its attempts to be inoffensive to Jews as to potentially obscure Catholic doctrine. In 2008, Pope Benedict composed the most recent version, which I happen to think is the best.

This is wrong on several counts. First, the year was 1948, not 1955 (I think somebody is confusing it with the restored order of Holy Week). Second, “Pius XII” did not offer a “papal teaching” that the word was to be “properly translated” as unbelieving. Rather, the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued a brief response to the complaints it had received, which read in its entirety (my translation, with the relevant terms left untranslated):
In two places in the prayer by which Holy Mother Church, in the solemn intercessions of Good Friday, implores God’s mercy even for the Hebrew people, these words occur: “perfidi iudaei,” and “iudaica perficia.” Furthermore, a question has been raised about the true sense of this Latin phrase, chiefly because in various translations done for the use of the faithful in vernacular languages those words have been rendered in phrases which seem offensive to the ear of that people.

This Sacred Congregation, queries about the matter, has decided to say only this: “We do not disapprove, in translations into various vernaculars, of locutions whose sense is ‘infidelitas, infideles in credendo’.”

Rome, 10 June 1948.
So you see that there is no sense of Pius XII “order[ing]” that the word “properly translated ‘unbelieving’,” still less “teaching” us what the word means.

 

[pnewton]

Very well said. The lack of clear wording and clear teachings (not just in this prayer but in general) has led many Catholics to believe that there is no need for people to convert to the True Faith for salvation

Interesting. I have no problem at all understanding the words to the prayer and find them more clear than the older wording.

 

[EcceAgnusDei]

Interesting. I have no problem at all understanding the words to the prayer and find them more clear than the older wording.

Can you elaborate? I’m curious. It seems to me that the old wording points out the need for salvation through Christ and conversion, where such ideas are rather hidden in the new. How do you find the new wording more clear on this?

• PAX

 

[pnewton]

Can you elaborate? I’m curious. It seems to me that the old wording points out the need for salvation through Christ and conversion, where such ideas are rather hidden in the new. How do you find the new wording more clear on this?

• PAX

Okay. First, neither prayer mentions conversion. I find this line unclear in the old prayer.

"mercifully
grant that, as the fullness of the Gentiles
enters into Thy Church, all Israel may be
saved.

Israel is not save. People who are Jewish are saved. I think the word “people” in the current prayer to be clearer. Also, I simply have no problem with the "may attain the fullness of redemption."
I know what this means and am not confused by it. I would be surprised if anyone here was.

 

[CarloMagnus]

We should definitely pray for the conversion of heretics, schismatics and Jews. I think it would be our Catholic duty to do so; otherwise, we go against ourselves.

-Karl

 

[floresco]

Then I’m not sure why you made such a point of quoting a footnote concerning what the connotations of the word would have been for mediaeval writers.

It seemed representative of various claims that I have seen, including the one attributed to Pius XII, that the correct translation of perfidis is faithless.

This is wrong on several counts. First, the year was 1948, not 1955 (I think somebody is confusing it with the restored order of Holy Week). Second, “Pius XII” did not offer a “papal teaching” that the word was to be “properly translated” as unbelieving. Rather, the Sacred Congregation of Rites issued a brief response to the complaints it had received, which read in its entirety (my translation, with the relevant terms left untranslated):
In two places in the prayer by which Holy Mother Church, in the solemn intercessions of Good Friday, implores God’s mercy even for the Hebrew people, these words occur: “perfidi iudaei,” and “iudaica perficia.” Furthermore, a question has been raised about the true sense of this Latin phrase, chiefly because in various translations done for the use of the faithful in vernacular languages those words have been rendered in phrases which seem offensive to the ear of that people.

This Sacred Congregation, queries about the matter, has decided to say only this: “We do not disapprove, in translations into various vernaculars, of locutions whose sense is ‘infidelitas, infideles in credendo’.”

Rome, 10 June 1948.
So you see that there is no sense of Pius XII “order[ing]” that the word “properly translated ‘unbelieving’,” still less “teaching” us what the word means.

I have the impression that this claim about Pius XII teaching about the translation of perfidis is based on more than the response from the Sacred Congregation. It is hard for me to say, since I don’t have access to primary sources. I’m thinking of this account from an article based on an interview with Miriam Zolli (the former chief Rabbis daughter) catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?id=1067&CFID=43259807&CFTOKEN53900454 “When Eugenio Zolli met Eugenio Pacelli — the conversation was in German from the first to the last word — the ex-rabbi asked the Bishop of Rome to excise from the Good Friday liturgy the adjective “perfidious” in reference to the Jews. The Pope responded with a public declaration explaining that in Latin “perfidious” means “unbelieving” not “treacherous.” He couldn’t do more at that time.”

 

[floresco]

Okay. First, neither prayer mentions conversion. I find this line unclear in the old prayer.
Israel is not save. People who are Jewish are saved. I think the word “people” in the current prayer to be clearer. Also, I simply have no problem with the "may attain the fullness of redemption."
I know what this means and am not confused by it. I would be surprised if anyone here was.

You are quoting the 2008 prayer (the most recent) and referring to it as the old prayer. I think you might not have correctly followed the sequence of events. Here is a very good article by Taylor Marshall that explains this: cantuar.blogspot.ca/2012/04/good-friday-prayer-for-jews.html

 

[pnewton]

You are quoting the 2008 prayer (the most recent) and referring to it as the old prayer. I think you might not have correctly followed the sequence of events. Here is a very good article by Taylor Marshall that explains this: cantuar.blogspot.ca/2012/04/good-friday-prayer-for-jews.html

I wasn’t clear. I should have had a paragraph break. It is the old prayer that refers to Israel as a whole. That I think is unclear.

It is the new prayer that uses “people” which I think is better. It is the new prayer that uses “fullness of redemption”, which I find understandable and believe everyone here understands it.

 

[TrueLight]

I wasn’t clear. I should have had a paragraph break. It is the old prayer that refers to Israel as a whole. That I think is unclear.

It is the new prayer that uses “people” which I think is better. It is the new prayer that uses “fullness of redemption”, which I find understandable and believe everyone here understands it.

No not everyone. It confuses me. Fullness of redemption doesn’t tell me that the Jewish people need salvation through Christ.

As compared to this prayer:

FOR THE **CONVERSION **OF THE JEWS
Let us pray for the Jews: May our God and
Lord enlighten their hearts, so that they
may acknowledge Jesus Christ, Saviour of
all men

Almighty and Everlasting God, who desirest
that all men be saved and come to
the knowledge of the truth; mercifully
grant that, as the fullness of the Gentiles
enters into Thy Church, all Israel may be
saved. Through Christ our Lord. Amen.

 

[pnewton]

No not everyone. It confuses me. Fullness of redemption doesn’t tell me that the Jewish people need salvation through Christ.

I guess then we all have our own opinions on this. I just see the current prayers as better and more accurate.