Prayers of Good Friday in 1962 Missal

Those that went to Catholic schools in my diocese were always taught that people of other religions could indeed go to heaven, yet of course under blah, blah and blah circumstances. Those circumstances primarily being that those other people live a good and moral life within their religion; assuming that those religions were not evil worshiping. There was no doubt that all of the major religions offered salvation to their adherents but not in the way those religions understood why. We of course, were more fortunate because we had received the teachings of Our Lord and understood the forgiving nature of God and what it took to obtain that forgiveness. On the other hand, we Catholics could not simply change religions because we already had the Truth of Our Lord and therefore could not ignore it.
Perhaps it is in the parsing of the words and syllables, but would it not be too cruel of God and contrary of our understanding of Him that there should be only one religion on earth that could bring a soul to salvation? God is a mystery we can never fully understand, but surly he did not put all these other souls on this earth simply to have them rot in hell because He had not been revealed to them. Therefore, the whole collection of present day Jews, Protestants, Christian Scientists, Mormons, Buddhists, Muslims and Multi-Theists can receive salvation within their religion, albeit by the grace brought to mankind through the suffering of our Lord, Jesus Christ.
... as we forgive ...

Where do you get the idea that modern Judaism has "no salvific value"? That's quite a statement.

"Christ, present to us in His Body, which is the Church, is the one Mediator and the unique way of salvation." Lumen Gentium, 14

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

Jesus entered history and, we believe, He chose to remain. We Catholics believe also that the center of His presence is the Catholic Church. He loves from there. He does not rule from there like a stern accountant and insist on our cowtowing. All these quotes based upon a domination theology and or mode of thought that is in fact warped by human control fetish and untethered maleness bereft of nurture denatured by a slavish dependency upon Thomist (God rest his soul) structuralism are not Jesus loving. Heretoday and JPBoberg and those others who spout orthodoxy like some over-the-hill vigalantes do seem, I must admit, to reflect the Church, my Church, as it is percieved by most outside it and many within.

They may have the quotes right and the numbering but they have more, they have what seems to be an arrogance founded maybe on fear that bespeaks of something missing...faith. And they seem to have less, much less they lack the love, the love of humanness raised to His message and divinized by his presence that only we can make visible. That was His choice, His route. He, as it is said, humbeled Himself so that noone sees Him except through us, yet we insist on closing doors, shutting windows, reinforcing barriers thinking that we can stop history, alter His personalit, stop His mission. Maybey we can. We really do need a new chatachesis.

To repeat myself, Jesus loves from and through His church, and we are His church and if the world, our non Chrisitan and even Christian brothers and sisters do not see Jesus loving in, through and from us it is because we don't. We judge. Cafeteria catholics of the world unite. We can, we must be Christ in the world.

Are you saying that the Church's teaching is that Judaism has "no salvific value"?

Let me go ahead and reply to myself: no, you know that it is NOT the church's teaching that Judaism has "no salvific value."

It is the Church's teaching that there is one, and only one, Way to salvation. Can Jews be saved, certainly, bu not by Judaism, but from seeking the Christ with their whole being. Any grace they receive comes through the cross. So Judaism is no more salvific then Buddhism or pantheism.
++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

I think it's Galatians, but I'm not sure where Paul talks about
God's covenants. He says the convenant of Moses does not abrogate the covenant of Abraham. All God's promises remain intact. We, says Paul, have been grafted in to the covenant of Abraham. We share in their promise. It would seem then that the covenant in Christ's blood is eternal, but so are those of Moses and Abraham.

Here today--You shall not pull your ass out of a ditch on the Sabbath--does this attitude really reflect your theology?

I am arguing against the Law, not that it is not good, but that it will not save. Ask Annie and Marie.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

The church also teaches that all that is love is a part of God, who is Love. And the church has always taught that all paths may lead to salvation in ways that the Christ figures out, not us or even the Church. You want to make it sound as though the only way for salvation is through baptism, but I guess the Church then has room for different kinds of baptisms when it gets to the final word since that is also what is taught. I don't disagree that grace comes through the cross; I just disagree that someone has to know that this is what's happening at the time. They may find that out in the next life rather than this.

I don't know exactly what to say to your belief that Judaism is no more salvific than Buddhism or pantheism. There is obviously a closer belief between Jews and Catholics than that would suggest and I think the church recognizes that relationship pretty clearly. I have a few promised discussions already on here, but eventually will spend more time in our documents. I don't think your statement will hold up.

You're right, Jesus didn't say: "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit." (Jn 3:5)

Yes, there are different forms of baptism, but Baptism remains necessary. The fact that someone comes, in the end, to be saved trough Baptism by desire does not mean that whatever religion they followed was salvific. Indeed it means the opposite, that whatever religion the followed failed to save them.

And yes, we have more in common with our older brothers in the faith, but the Law has no power to save (Gal. 2:15-16).

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

The assumption that the religion failed to save someone is itself flawed. Not all religions are formulated to "save" the "individual". Judaism, for instance, as I understand it, has more of a collective sense of salvation of a people. It may be that a religion has created a context for baptism of desire, and it would seem that our older "brothers" in the faith have done that and done that well. As I understand Scripture, God has declared a soft spot--and a perpetual committment--to this people (a LOVE thing), so I will assume that God sees the context of the baptism to be quite present, even if some Catholic Christians don't.

But I am glad you have eased up a tad in your response, and I know you know the documents of our Church are not going to hold up such tense and terse language as you have interpreted us to have.

Might Jews "seeking Christ with their whole being" include not knowing that they are seeking Christ but seeking something beyond Judaism? Is there anyone that does not seek? Does Christianity provide relief from the inclination to seek, or is it giving direction to it?

Jews know that they seek "the Christ", or at least they ought to. (I guess it would be akin to a Christian denying that the Gospel events occurred, but that is another thread).

There are many people who do not seek, and even more who do not seek honestly. Christianity by no means dispenses us from the hunt for God, but is a clear trail to follow.

++++++
nightwalker on Catholic Answers

Here today most of the early Christians were converts from Judaism and praying for enlightenment for them might be marginally acceptable to them but on Good Friday we did not pray for enlightenment of the jews but we prayed for the conversion of the PERFIDIOUS [or 'treacherous'] JEWS. I think the word perfidious was struck by decree during the first weeks of Vatican 11. Maybe we should pray for the conversion of the 'perfidious' conservatives!!

The words of the prayer are 'perfidis judaeis', which does not translate to treacherous, but to unfaithful. The meaning of the English word perfidious had changed, from unbelieving to treacherous, and thus the English translations were mandated to be changed in 1955. The word perfidis was dropped in 1960, and does not appear in the 1962 Missal. Perfidious is thus a double straw man arguement, it is not the prayer that was used, and that version of the prayer is still not to be used.

If the Jews have a problem with us praying for their conversion, that is their problem, not ours. We pray for the conversion of the whole world, and it would be contrary to Christian charity and the spiritual works of mercy to do otherwise.

I appreciate the attempt at apologetics heretoday, and I also need to reitterate something I have written elsewhere. Vatican I theology and ecclesiology maintain within them a very virulent antisemitism which was not addressed until Vatican II.

One of the reasons my mother stated for leaving the Church was the loss of the Latin Mass, but another of her reasons was her perception that the Church had become way too soft on issues like the Jews, and the Blacks. In her mind Vatican II betrayed the supremacy of place held by European whites, and unjustly leveled the playing field for people not of 'our' kind.

She and I had numerous intense discussions concerning these issues, and over time she relented to some extent. Although she continued to donate to our local parish she never did return to regular Mass attendance.

In my mind, there's a lot more behind this return to Latin to which JPII youth such as yourself, are conveniently blind. There was a huge price paid by some 'others' inculcated in the very theology of the Tridentine Latin Mass. The dissension from the radical right was never just about the loss of Latin. Latin was just a convenient excuse to extricate oneself from the sudden level playing field.

Not apologetics, but accuracy and history. Just as my denial at being a JPII youth (yes I know, I fit the profile), but a Catholic; faithful to the Papacy (not just a particular Pope), to the Church, to Tradition (the great democracy of the dead), but most of all to Christ, through the Blessed Virgin, in union with all the Saints and Angels.

The fight of young Catholics who desire tradition is not for any real or perceived racism, but for the faith of our (grand) fathers. The reverence of the Mass and faithfulness to the liturgical texts (which all state that "Latin is to be retained") are a large part of that desire, and the most visible part, but not the full extent of what we seek.

Shake my memory a bit, those who were there then, but it seems to me that the uproar over the changes of V2, which have somehow largely become focused on the use of Latin, actually were a response to the civil rights movement. The disquiet in my family and in my church frankly began with TV coverage of Catholic priests and sisters joining in the Southern civil rights movement, then many priests speaking in homilies about the Christian demands for equality. THAT'S what got some folks revved up against V2, and the rest of these liturgical changes became the strawman. It's social change that were still dealing with, and the lack of social trust that now exists between people as a result, yes?

I can't speak to the motivations of the past, but in my family their is a deep divide over the civil rights movement.
My mother, who grew up in the sixties and seventies, is very race cautious (trying to avoid the racism that has existed in her family). My siblings and I are not race cautious, because we were raised in an otherwise color-blind society. As we have reached college age we have been turned sour on the current "civil rights movement" as it no longer seeks equality, bu preferential treatment. Affirmative Action hurts those of us who are not considered minorities (the white male is not the majority anymore...). Scholarships based on merit are decreased to fund those based on race. We recognize that all ought to be equal, but that cannot happen as long as people are being treated differently because of their race.

The liturgy is not a strawman, but our chief concern. We feel that we have been robbed of our cultural and theological patrimony. The lack of trust that exists is fostered by the intellectualism of the left, that denies the legitimate aspirations of the faithful.

As long as the liturgy is your chief concern, and you feel you've been robbed of your cultural and theological patrimony you will be blind to much more than race in your spiritual life. You will continue to be blind to the 'self' serving aspects of that culture and theology you find so 'self' transcending. Blaming everything on the intellectualism of the left is also a strawman.

I am not, by their definition, a traditionalist. I know that there were problems with life in the Church before Vatican II, and that the legitimate reforms of the council were necessary. I also think that the illegitimate actions taken in the name of the 'spirit' of the council have done greater harm to the Church, in far less time.

The changes to the liturgy are the single largest change done in the name of the council, and yet were nowhere called for by the council. Many smaller, but perhaps more telling, changes came largely as results of the changes in the liturgy: the decrease in belief in the real presence, the decrease in Mass attendance, the decrease in confessions, the decrease in pious devotions.

My generation has been denied nearly two thousand years of Church history, culture, and teaching. We are not blind to your generation's concerns, just largely sick of them being presented as the sum total of the Catholic Faith. Yes, social justice issues, summed up so succinctly in the spiritual and corporal works of mercy, are important. But works do not save, only the grace of God given to mankind through the Sacrifice of the Cross can save.

I didn't blame everything on the intellectualism of the left, only the lack of trust, which is engendered by the "we do enough for you people" response to legitimate aspirations of the faithful (alternatives to this "party line" vary from "shut up and go away", to "well, jump through these hoops first and we'll think about it", to "why do you care so much about the liturgy anyway, there are more important things to do"). These answers, which contradict the rights of lay Catholics, are the product of a diseased intellectualism, that expects the "uneducated" masses to do as they're told.

I don't believe the changes to the liturgy were the single largest change done in the name of the Council. They were symbolic of the sweeping changes brought about by the Council in areas all across the Catholic theological spectrum. The idea was to take us outside the framework of personal salvation as an individual private devotion and make us understand we were all in this salvation thing together.

Heretoday, you ended your post with the following sentence: "These answers, which contradict the rights of lay Catholics, are the product of a diseased intellectualism, that expects the "uneducated" masses to do as they're told."

I could have written this exact sentence forty years ago to describe the attitude of the clergy prior to Vatican II. Apparently, some attitudes in some clerical circles don't change. Either that or the message of collegiality never did penetrate ecclesiastical thinking.

"I could have written this exact sentence forty years ago to describe the attitude of the clergy prior to Vatican II. Apparently, some attitudes in some clerical circles don't change."

Agreed, I am aware that things needed to change, but some important things have not changed while other things that only needed minor adjustment were turned on their heads.

"The idea was to take us outside the framework of personal salvation as an individual private devotion and make us understand we were all in this salvation thing together."

I don't think this is entirely accurate, especially as it goes against Catholic teaching. The Church has held a more moderate position on the balance between corporate and individual salvation than the protestant denominations, and I think V-II emphasized more the individual relationship with God and the community in contrast to the rules (while not changing many of the rules). The principal of collegiality is not a sudden development, but a return to a more ancient understanding of the Papacy (and closer to that of the E.Orthodox).

But any theological emphasis, for the average Catholic, is felt largely at Mass on Sunday (well, some Sundays now). Whether we focus on corporate or individual salvation, it is only made known to them through the Mass. The law of prayer becomes the law of belief, if for no other reason than laziness. This is why I feel that the liturgical changes were the largest change.

"We feel that we have been robbed of our cultural and theological patrimony. The lack of trust that exists is fostered by the intellectualism of the left, that denies the legitimate aspirations of the faithful." Interesting sentence.

The skepticism of selective tradition revival is warranted by the obvious lack of credibility earned by the self-rightious fundamentalist right which decries "intellectualism" while applying significant intelligence rendered questionable by self-interest, pseudo good faith, abuse of history and logic and the trashing of that with which they do not agree.

As the dissertation on race and affirmative action would imply, being "robbed of our cultural...patrimony" would appear to mean loss of the security in presumption of white superiority and preference. Is it any wonder that there is a "lack of trust" in the "theological" dimension of the fundamentalist revival (selectively defined as "legitimate aspirations of the faithful)?

How do I dare speak thusly? Because I am one of the faithful and my aspirations are also legitimate. How come I don't agree with you?

I addressed two issues in my post: racism and the liturgy. AnnieO and colkoch raised the issue of their parents' generation resisting the changes of Vatican II due to racism, and that the liturgy was just a red herring to get back to the good ole days of societal racism.

The Civil Rights Movement in the USA has done a lot of good, however it no longer seeks equality but preferential treatment. Dr Martin Luther King spoke of a dream of a colorblind society, this dream will never occur as long as affirmative action is in place. Affirmative Action feeds racism, both in the white males who are denied scholarships and jobs to meet quotas, and in the minorities who seek power over those who never did them any wrong. In my generation there is no need for affirmative action (although W.E.B. DuBois argued against it from the beginning.) This is not part of our cultural patrimony, but the rights and equality of all men.

Your deliberate twisting of my words on the issue of the liturgy to meet you pre-conceived notions regarding racism (nicely done though, worthy of any major newspaper), would be despicable if it were not so easy for anyone to scroll up to see what I said.

You will note that I did not say that the legitimate aspirations being denied were the only legitimate aspirations, as you imply. Different groups of the faithful indeed desire different things, many of them are legitimate (ie within the law) desires. Many bishops are still trying to prevent the priests and the faithful whom they supposedly serve from having access to a liturgy that the Church acknowledges they have a right to use. Those who desire what is arguably the highest expression of Western and Christian culture (as argued by many atheists and other non-Catholics) are told given few opportunities to do so, and are told that this is a "generous" response. We are told that the destruction of historically and artistically significant altars is "necessary" but when we produce documents that say that care is to be taken to preserve such cultural treasures that we don't understand what is written in black and white.

BTW, that opening quote... two sentences.

I realize that you have written this quite some time ago, but I stumbled upon it today and thought that I would reply.

In particular, you said: "The Civil Rights Movement in the USA has done a lot of good, however it no longer seeks equality but preferential treatment. Dr Martin Luther King spoke of a dream of a colorblind society, this dream will never occur as long as affirmative action is in place. Affirmative Action feeds racism, both in the white males who are denied scholarships and jobs to meet quotas, and in the minorities who seek power over those who never did them any wrong. In my generation there is no need for affirmative action (although W.E.B. DuBois argued against it from the beginning.) This is not part of our cultural patrimony, but the rights and equality of all men."

My son, who is the same age as you are, said essentially the same thing to me. He recently went on an interview at a community college and then heard that the position which was to be filled was vacated by a minority, so that a minority would have to fill the position. What a waste of my son's time and energy in applying for the job, if they were only going to hire a minority anyway. Very sad situation. I agree with what you have said about this and something needs to change here. It also makes me wonder how many job interviews I have gone on, but was not hired due to my race. Getting a job should be based on whether one is the best qualified to perform the work and that should be an equal opportunity for all.

Amazing grace, we agree on something here today.

I wish I lived in this color-blind society. I live in Brooklyn. Where do you live?
Would you explain the difference in theology between the Latin and lately-vernacular Masses? (theological patrimony?)
Finally can Holy Mother, the Church endow a patrimony? What's the feminine?
Matrimony? No, that's something else.

Just a two hour drive south, but it is not the society in general. My main social group growing up was the homeschool community, nearly all conservative Christians, including the few of us Catholics. ;-) When it came to 'socializing' age, race, and creed disappeared (gender too, outside of the 10-12 age range).

The difference in theology is not positive, that is there is nothing in either Mass that is strictly counter to the other. There is however a great deal of Catholic theology that was present in the old form that is not in the new. Many explicit references to the saints and the theology of the Eucharist (Real Presence and re-presentation of the Sacrifice of Calvary) were removed, along with most of the prayers dealing with our own sinfulness and need of forgiveness. A comparison of both Missals (in English) can be found here.

An example: The Confetior (apart from it being optional in the Ordinary Form)

Extraordinary Form I confess to almighty God, to blessed Mary ever virgin, to blessed Michael the archangel, to blessed John the Baptist, to the holy apostles Peter and Paul, to all the saints, and to you, father, that I have sinned exceedingly in thought, word, and deed: (All strike their breast three times saying:) through my fault, through my fault, through my most grievous fault. Therefore I beseech the blessed Mary ever virgin, blessed Michael the archangel, blessed John the Baptist, the holy apostles Peter and Paul, all the saints, and you, father, to pray to the Lord our God for me.

Ordinary Form I confess to almighty God, and to you, my brothers and sisters*, that I have sinned through my own fault** (all strike their breast)in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do; and I ask blessed Mary, ever virgin, all the angels and saints, and you, my brothers and sisters*, to pray for me to the Lord our God.

The litanies were essentially chopped out, as well as the emphasis that we sin through our own failing (see note). Sacrosanctum Concilium can be read as desiring that one instance of the litany be removed (as a unnecessary repetition). While this is probably not the best comparison to show the extent of the change, it is the most convenient, as it is one of the few where the prayer was not altogether removed.

---
* The Latin in both cases is "frater", perhaps more concisely rendered as bretheren
** The Latin here has not changed, "mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa" remains but was not translated in the English. IIRC, this will be corrected in the new ICEL translation.

Thank you, thank you. You are truly blessed to have grown up in such a wonderful environment. I lived for 5 years in the city of brotherly love during the late '60's and I saw how truly and how ironically the name was applied.
. I never took the time to examine both versions and to think about the implications of the differences. I like the addition of "and what I have failed to do," since my failures of charity far outweigh my intentional nastiness. Perhaps the 'bretheren' was inserted to bring the prayer in line with the biblical injunction to 'confess your sins to one another (Jas 5:16)'.
I never studied theology. My ideas of God come from the prayers I was taught, especially the prayers of the Mass. I will use the link and examine more closely the differences.
Thanks again.

"Perhaps the 'bretheren' was inserted to bring the prayer in line with the biblical injunction to 'confess your sins to one another (Jas 5:16)'."

Yes, that would seem to be correct, and not at all an inappropriate change in my mind (in the EF there are actually two confetiors, the priest's and the people's, the use of 'brethren' is more in line with the priest's). It is a shame that we traded asking directly for the prayers and aid of such great saints as St Michael, whem we could have just changed the one word.

Thank you for making the effort to look at the past. Most Catholics have never studied theology (I have only had one formal course, myself), but learn instead how you have, through the Mass.

---
PS.: You know something is wrong when the mayor of "the city of brotherly love" says something to the effect of "Let's take it back for the brothers."

Not really sure where to pop in here with a comment about your perception of racism being a thing of the past because you have not developed racist attitudes. I think that, yes, you are not personally responsible for someone else's suffering due to racism in society and that affirmative action might provide someone else opportunity at your expense. I do not encourage you to see the big picture either.

I would, however, encourage you to advocate for something with which affirmative action might be replaced, rather than for its abolition, remembering, of course, that not every person who is qualified is provided all the opportunities of which he or she is worthy. My son was waitlisted at 7 out of 13 colleges to which he applied and rejected by 3, which means he was qualified for many more than he was given the opportunity to attend.

It is my understanding that homeschooled individuals are given even less than average respect in the college admissions process. Further, in the world of work, it almost matters not at all where you were educated so long as you can convince someone that your attitude and intelligence level is appropriate for the job. After that, its mostly based on your performance and your ability to get along with people.

------

On another note, why such an emphasis on "my own fault", isn't it sometimes someone else's fault despite your best efforts? Shouldn't the emphasis properly be on God's forgiveness, and shouldn't that be a model for our own? Isn't that the more appropriate theological interpretation of Jesus and salvation?

I know that there is still racism, but I also know that it is not limit to caucasians. It is also fostered by a system that treats people differently based on the color of their skin.

Affirmative action needs to be replaced by a colorblind process. Assign each student an application ID, so that admissions cannot be swayed by the name (although I have to recommend that parents stop trying to be unique with names). Purely base admissions on academics and service and leadership activities. (Frankly I would cut athletics, but that won't happen any time soon.)

Homeschoolers are not accepted at all at some colleges, but there are others who actively recruit homeschoolers. And yes, business is all about your abilities (although getting hired is still a matter of 'who you know'), although depending on the job not necessarily your personal skills.

-------

Our sins are our own fault. We choose to entertain that thought, speak those words, do (or not do) this other thing. In the moment we make a conscious choice, and there is no-one else to blame. Forgiveness can only be based on repentance, and much of the Mass was about forgiveness. But in order to seek that forgiveness we first have to realize our failings, and own up to them.

I think part of the problem is that because of their race some people find themselves in deprived socio-economic settings so that by the time of college applications some who might have the ability have been deprived of so much that they cannot hope to compete in a color-blind process.

----

Yes our sins are our fault, but does it not belabor the point to repeat it to such a degree?

HT, you have access to your "patrimony" in a new way, as of September 15, I think. Enjoy it. If the liturgy is your chief concern, it's been addressed. There is no longer a reason to try to amputate the left arm of the Body of Christ now, is there?

It is not so much a done deal, despite that it seems clear as the pope's intention. Many bishops are throwing obstacles in the way of any celebration of the Extraordinary Form (the Bishops of Eire, Pittsburgh, and all seven dioceses in Florida), with at least one forbidding it outright (Steubenville). But you are right, the healing process has begun, now to set the broken bones on the left arm... :-P

Always a bit behind the curve on these things, but--for you, HT--I went so far as to look up 'emoticons.' Only to find that you were trying for cheeky, nyaahhh, nyahhhh, nyahhh, kind of thing. So if my previous post is not in the same spirit, let me say that I might have changed it a little had I "gotten" it earlier...:-)

Smart sharp response, as usual, HT. It has been an interesting long year on here in which you have slowly moved out of the amputation mode into now "setting broken bones." So I will take that as progress...

I suspect part of the Pope's intention, since rarely are such things singular, is to end the discussion so that the church can move into some other issues. With any luck, the vatican will find ways now to separate itself from each and every complaint about some liturgical practice somewhere, which is hardly how they are likely to be wanting to spend their lives. I'm guessing that they think that's something bishops should be concerned with, sort of a "state's rights" issue. There is a little more to this world than American church politics, I mean really. There will be people still unhappy with bishops and pastors, as there have been from the earliest of times in the church, and some of that will have to do with the bishops and pastors and some of that will have to do with the unhappy people. We all have brokenness. We all have blinders and splints and boulders in our eyes.

Now, I will hope that you understand that these popes that you express loyalty to in another post on this thread have not all sought to make all these changes in the "left's" bones that you are, and perhaps that is interesting. Perhaps they only want to use the "left's" money and talents for their own selfish reasons, or perhaps they do not see such brokenness in other "sides" as you would like. I could say 'time will tell', but it is really seen in the words of the final judgment, which I will refrain from reminding (one such as you) of. People can get to a similar place from different places, or what's an earth for?

I did mean it as a tongue in cheek comment: half joke, half serious.

I think that the Pope intends to rebuild the understanding of the liturgy as something not our own, but of God's that we are entrusted with, so that the complaints stop because the problems have stopped. The Holy See has stepped in after decades of complaints, first allowing the older missal, than insisting that it be permitted 'generously'. The bishops continued to deny the faithfuls' legitimate requests. So the Pope, who has sworn like Peter to feed Christ's sheep, had to step in again, and this time with some muscle behind his words.

Subsidiarity would hold that most issues should be decided by the local bishop, but so many have been cut off by their bishop that it will be a long time before we see this principle in action. The changes in the wake of V-II were like a train wreck, no-one has escaped unscathed. Forty years later the Pope is trying to straighten things out, pointing out to both extremes that V-II, properly read, in not a break in continuity.

But to straighten out these bones, they must first be re-broken, which will be an extremely painful process for the Church. Healing of the wounds, however, can only come with unity to the whole.

I have no idea what bones you think must be "re-broken" as you love the drama (without any specifics, who can respond to such drama with anything but higher drama or collapsing fear?) when it comes to your frightening plans for the future, but it is obvious that you have a plan afoot. It does sound painful indeed, so I'm glad that there will be such a happy ending together in heaven for us all. Peace this holiday weekend, young friend! :-)

How can you say that? If Jews have a problem with us, then, of course we have a problem. Not just for all the reasons we've spoken about here: salvation is from the Jews, we are a grafted-in people, the first Christians identified themselves as Jews etc. We are family. If there's a problem, it's everybody's problem.

Charity and mercy. Think. Here's a community so ravaged by the holocaust that survival itself is a victory. From their perspective anything that threatens the integrity of the community may be seen as an extension of that violence. I know your heart is good and filled with love. But look at the situation through their eyes. Surely that is the least that love can do.

Whenever I am present at one of these prayers, I have a sense that it could just as easily be rephrased as "thank you God for not making me Jewish (or Lutheran, Muslim, etc)". What do you envision when you imagine this prayer for conversion being answered?

I wonder if the reason the Jews have a problem is for the same reason many Catholics have a problem. By this action the Pope is giving encouragement to Vatican I minded people who do not Accept Vatican II as presenting a theology and ecclesiology that departs RADICALLY from the ecclesiology/theology of Vatican I.

Nor does any comfort come to Jews, other Christians and Catholics from the July statement of the Vatican that other Christian churches "suffer from defects". It isn't good for any church, religion or people for Rome to be pointing a finger in the eyes of others and saying "our Church is truthier than your church". Nor does it validate Church credibility. Who in the Roman Catholic Church can say that the Roman Catholic Church does not "suffer defects"? And I am a partisan Roman Catholic! Jesus's admonition still applies: REMOVE THE SLIVVER FROM YOUR EYE BEFORE FAULTING THE SPECK IN OTHERS' EYES.

In his opening address to the Second Vatican Council, Pope John XXIII said: "The Spouse of Jesus Christ prefers to make use of the medicine of mercy rather than that of severity. She considers that she meets the needs of the present day by demonstrating the validity of her teaching rather than by condemnations"

Even John Paul II in "Ut Unum Sint" (that all may be one) acknowledged that the papal office is always subject to criticism and improvement, notwithstanding the fact that it is an essential structure of the Church. He specifically invited other churches to help him find ways of better exercizing the papal office in conforming faithfully to the gospel. The advice of these two venerable Popes well serve popes who follow and should be taken to heart in the matters above. The Jews, other Christians and Catholics have every right and reason to be unsettled by what obviously seems to be Vatican backsliding into Vatican I.