Sorry, this is coming very late, as it is most definately yesterday's news. However, as we haven't yet commented on it, John and I thought we would post about the changes Pope Benedict made to the Extraordinary Formof the Roman Rite's prayers for Good Friday. For those of you who do not follow the news regarding the Traditional Latin Mass as closely as we do, and have no idea to what I am referring, here is a summary:
Until the 1950s, the Good Friday intentions for the Jews said (of course, in Latin):
"Let us pray also for the perfidious 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. Arise. Almighty and eternal God, who does not repel from your mercy even the Jews: hear our prayers, those which we offer for that blind people, that by acknowledging light of your truth which is Christ they will be delivered from their darkness. Through the same Lord."
In the 1962 missal, the word "perfidious" had already been removed.
In the Novus Ordo missal, the Good Friday prayer says (ICEL translation):
"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. Let us kneel. Let us stand. 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. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen."
Note that in the Novus Ordo missal, we are not explicitly praying for the conversion of the Jews. We pray that they may be saved, without any reference to Jesus Christ being the way of their salvation, which is one explanation as to why so many Catholics (and the USCCB) today believe the Old Covenant to be salvific for the Jews. Curiously, this seems quite contrary to everything that St. Paul says in the New Testament.
Since the Motu Proprio, many Jews (and specifically the Anti-Defamation League led by Abraham Foxman) have been pressuring Pope Benedict to change the Good Friday prayers, because the prayers in the 1962 missal are considered "anti-semetic". This "anti-semetism" of the Extraordinary Form has been one reason bishops cited for refusing to allow the older form, regardless of the fact that this is in direct opposition to Summorum Pontificum. When we first heard rumors that the Good Friday prayers were to be changed, we were most upset. Allowing those who are not even Catholic to dictate how we pray is absurd. I've never gotten into a tizzy that many Orthodox Jews thank God, not only once a year, but each and every day, that He did not make them a woman or a Gentile. Why should they care if I pray that they be converted? However, care they do.
Over a week ago it was announced that the prayer was changed. Here is the new Good Friday prayer for the Jews in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite (what a mouthful!), translated by Fr. Z at What Does the Prayer Really Say?
"Let us also pray for the Jews: that our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge that 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 Your Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen."
Now, there are a lot of traditionalists who are unhappy about this change, and there are a lot who are either content, or even happy with it, and both sides offer good points. However, this post is getting long, and I won't go too much into that debate. He is the Pope, he has the authority to change the prayers (having the authority to do something does not always mean that what you do is prudent, but I digress), and there have been many positives since this change was announced, and here are just two: Traditionalists can no longer be considered "nostalgic," or "stuck-in-the-mud," as we now use the 2008 Roman Missal, while the Novus Ordo missal is practically medieval, dating back to 2002. And, most reassuring of all, Abe Foxman is very upset.
Since the change, many Jewish leaders (as well as many Catholics) have complained that while it's great that we no longer refer to the "blindness" of the Jews in our Good Friday prayers, the new one still prays for their conversion to Christ. Jewish leaders have even stated that they will no longer continue dialoguing with us. Which begs the question, if all this "dialogue" since Vatican II has been so wonderful and enlightening, why are they so incredibly shocked that, gasp!, the Church actually wants them to become Catholic? Well, Catholics are partly to blame, since so many Catholics are shocked that the Church still teaches that outside the Church there is no salvation! Pope Boniface VII infallibly declares in the Bull Unam Sanctam:
"Furthermore, we declare, we proclaim, we define that it is absolutely necessary for salvation that every human creature be subject to the Roman Pontiff."
If you really think about it for more than a second, it would be quite anti-semitic if we did not pray for the conversion of the Jews, since we pray for the conversion of everyone else, beginning with ourselves.
6 comments:
I wrote to the other blog on this. Took my home away before, now they want to remodel it. I see a schism coming.
And, I'm to headed to Josephat permanently here in about a week. Thanks to both of you, at least it's home for now.
We must absolutely pray for the conversion of all men...including the Jews! There is NO other name in heaven or on earth by which men must be saved, other than that of Jesus Christ the Lord! This is one understanding that the charismatic renewal has sought to reinvigorate among the faithful...it is a hard battle when the prayers of the Church seem opposite!
Nana,
I agree that the charismatic movement deserves high praise for not bending on this essential point in an era when so many - including Cardinal Walter Kasper, the President of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity - have abandoned this teaching.
What concerns me is that the necessity of conversion to the Catholic Church is at best glossed over, if not even denied by some (not by you, I know). It is not possible to stand in the good graces of a man (Christ) while despising his bride (The Catholic Church).
I also could not agree more with your complaint about the difficulty of teaching the truth when the very prayers (I would also include actions) of the Church seem to contradict it. This indeed is the reason why we consider the Novus Ordo so deficient.
One needs only to consider the widespread plummet of belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist among Catholics in the midst of the proliferation of such novelties as taking Communion in the hand, taking Communion while standing, the constant use of Extraordinary Ministers of Holy Communion (this one, at least, has been explicitly condemned by the Church, although sadly to no effect), the removal of tabernacles from the center of the Church, etc.
I could go on and on, but in short you've hit upon the reason exactly why we have decided to worship as much as possible exclusively in the Traditional Latin Rite or in the various Byzantine Rites.
Can we reform the reform? would it even be worth it? I am planning to read Thomas Kocik's book on the matter, but am curious about your opinion.
1-2-3
double-dipping at the comment site! I also wanted to say that you could separate the Catholic charismatic renewal from the ecumenical community movement...there are lots of Catholic charismatics in all-Catholic communities or not part of communities at all... who are very concerned about Truth in the Catholic Church. Don't know where I was going with this, but could be an important distinction...
Can the reform be reformed? This would mean going way beyond just the use of Latin, ad orientem, no EMHCs, no girl altar boys, Communion kneeling at the altar rail, etc. Such measures would be moving only toward a proper celebration of the New Mass as it exists.
Reforming the reform would mean going back to VII's actual documents and rewriting the Roman Missal again. For example, did the "genuine good of the Church certainly require" (VII's words!) that the Last Gospel be suppressed? In a reform of the reform this could be reintroduced, the handshake of friendliness could be suppressed, etc.
The first option, a proper ars celebrandi, is possible in individual parishes with a strong priest who decides that offering pleasing worship to God is more important than making his parishioners happy. Assumption Grotto in Detroit is one excellant example.
As for the second option, it seems incredibley unlikely because it would either create a third Roman Missal (two is absurd enough!) or it would suppress the Novus Ordo, which is certainly desirable, but which would make no small number of prelates extremely unhappy.
I would also have to ask, what is the point? We already have a perfectly good Missal - known to all our forefathers and thousands of saints - ready to use. Why allow the "scholars" to take such a treasure back to their desks again and start the whole disastrous cut and paste process over?
I hope you do get a chance to read Kocik's book. He actually ends up advocating the reform of the reform option.
Post a Comment