Vatican faces ticking clock on prayer for conversion of Jews
Print Friendly VersionBy JOHN L. ALLEN JR.
New York
The Vatican notoriously does not like to make decisions down the barrel of a gun, and with good reason – moments of crisis driven by outside pressure rarely make for careful policy. Yet there’s an important choice facing the Vatican these days, accompanied by a ticking clock that could create an unusual sense of urgency.
Here it is in a nutshell: What to do about a Good Friday prayer for the conversion of Jews contained in the old Latin rite, which has been authorized for wider use by Pope Benedict XVI? The ticking clock is created by the liturgical calendar: Good Friday falls this year on March 21, just nine weeks away.
(As a footnote, I refer to the “old rite” rather than “old Mass” because, of course, Mass is not celebrated on Good Friday. Pre-consecrated hosts are distributed during a liturgical commemoration of the Passion of Christ.)
While this would be of concern under any circumstances, the timeline is further complicated by the fact that Benedict XVI will arrive in the United States just three weeks after Good Friday, and will meet with an inter-religious delegation expected to include Jews. The last thing organizers want is a cloud of Jewish/Catholic tension hanging over the event. It’s an especially acute sentiment given memories of Joseph Ratzinger’s last visit to New York, in 1988, when a handful of rabbis refused to meet him in protest over comments allegedly suggesting that Christianity is the “fulfillment” of Judaism.
If a reminder were needed of Jewish sensitivities about the Good Friday prayer, which among other things asks God to “lift the veil from their hearts,” the Anti-Defamation League included it on a late December list of “Top Ten Issues Affecting Jews in 2007.” The ADL called the possible revival of the prayer “a theological setback to the reforms of Vatican II, and a challenge to Catholic-Jewish relations.”
(To be sure, the ADL statement did not go down well in some Catholic circles. Putting Benedict XVI on the same list of anti-Semitic offenders as Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, for example, struck even some Catholics deeply committed to Jewish/Christian dialogue, and who are themselves concerned about the Good Friday prayer, as excessive. Nonetheless, it’s an indicator that the prayer remains a live issue.)
At one level, this may seem an easy fix. Last July, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, the Vatican’s Secretary of State, said the problem could be solved by substituting the prayer for Jews found in the post-Vatican II liturgy for Good Friday, which no longer refers to conversion but rather asks that Jews “may arrive at the fullness of redemption.” Since the original texts of the new liturgy are in Latin, it would be fairly simple to ask communities celebrating the old rite to use the Latin version of the more recent prayer.
(In a mid-November consultation between the U.S. bishops’ conference and the National Council of Synagogues, Fr. Dennis McManus, a liturgical expert, also floated the idea of finding another ancient prayer, or creating a new one, but most experts regard these as more complicated and long-term possibilities. Aside from questions of content, the advantage of the prayer in the post-Vatican II rite is that it’s already been approved for liturgical use.)
So, why not just decree immediately that the Latin version of the more recent prayer be used by everyone, thereby defusing the bomb before it goes off?
Part of the answer, of course, is simply the normal leisurely course of affairs in the Vatican. More deeply, however, experts say the real problem is fear of a slippery slope: If church authorities are willing to revise the Good Friday prayer for the Jews on the grounds that it’s not consistent with the teaching of Vatican II, what about other elements of the old rite that, according to some, raise similar questions?
For example, the Good Friday liturgy also contains prayer for heretics and schismatics (meaning Protestants) and for pagans (meaning non-Christians). Should those prayers too be revised, since they don’t reflect the more sensitive argot of Vatican II? More broadly, some critics charge that much of the symbolism and language of the old Mass is inconsistent with the vision of the council. Should all that be put on the operating table? If so, one might fairly ask, what was the point of Benedict’s ruling in the first place?
Creating a precedent for selective editing of the old rite, in other words, could open the door to death by a thousand cuts.
Given that concern, it’s not clear how the uncertainty over the Good Friday prayer might be resolved, and perhaps equally critically, when. Bertone announced this week in an interview with the Italian magazine Famiglia Cristiana that the Vatican is working on a document clarifying implementation of the pope’s ruling, but offered no sense of timing.
Those interested in Jewish/Catholic relations, and in the outcome of Benedict’s trip to the United States, will certainly be watching.
Two other points are in order. I’ve made both before, but since this controversy hasn’t gone away, they bear repeating.
First, Catholics have been able to celebrate the pre-Vatican rite with permission from their local bishop since Pope John Paul II authorized it with a special indult in 1984. For the last 24 years, therefore, a handful of Catholics have been reciting the old prayer for the conversion of the Jews each Good Friday – without, in the eyes of most experts, any appreciable impact on Jewish/Catholic relations. Of course, the difference this time around is that Benedict’s motu proprio has raised the profile of the old rite, ensuring that saying the prayer this time would be a cause célèbre.
Second, a bit of misunderstanding continues to circulate in some quarters about Benedict’s ruling, one which affects the Good Friday controversy. Because the pope decreed that priests should not celebrate private Masses in the old rite during Holy Week, some have concluded that the Good Friday prayer would never be used in any event. In fact, however, the pope made a distinction between private Masses and public celebrations for stable communities. Where Catholics routinely worship according to the old rite, they will continue to do so during Holy Week, and therefore would use the old Good Friday prayers – absent any contrary instructions from the Vatican.
In August, I published a comment that makes the point: “There is no doubt that the motu proprio permits public celebration of the ‘62 Missal during Holy Week in parishes with a stable group of faithful,” said Msgr. James Moroney, former executive director of the Secretariat for the Liturgy for the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.
You might be surprised by
You might be surprised by what has not changed. Slavery, yes, the Church took its time to say this was wrong always and everywhere. It never proclaimed it a good thing, though, did it? When?
Usury -- is still forbidden as a means of ensnaring people into a form of, get this, slavery. Bear in mind that charging interest and usury are two different things, though. Evidently, the average rate charged during the Middle Ages was somewhere around 8-10% -- compare that to your credit card.
Extra ecclesiam nulla salus -- are you sure that's something the Church backed away from? If I deny the Eucharist, or if I deny that Jesus was the Son of God and died for the remission of sin, how are my chances of salvation? And if I accept that Jesus is the Son and I believe the Eucharist is His Body and Blood, then what am I properly called?
Abstaining from meat was a discipline required by the Church. What Friday mortification does your bishop prescribe in its place? You do know you're still supposed to perform acts of mortification or penance on Friday, as prescribed by your local ordinary, right? And willfully defying the Church is still called what?
Making mistakes and recognizing them and having the grace to correct them is important. But sticking up for the Truth requires that we sometimes do not yield, just as surely as we can never say that 2+2=5.
Father Anthony's comments to
Father Anthony's comments to the contrary not withdstanding, it is possible to know when to stop editing the old rite. One stops when all the passages which contradict the official theology of Vatican II have been amended or removed.
I appreicate that Father Anthony at least shares my position that the old rite and the new eucharistic prayers reflect incompatible theologies--and it appears that Paul VI's secretary of state preceeded us in that view. It would be an advance if Benedict XVI would admit the accuracy of that position.
However, the difference between Father Anthony and me is that I affirm the authority of the bishops and the pope at Vatican II to surpass the old theology, ecclesiology and rituals, while Father Anthony and like-minded traditionalists want to assert that such authority ended sometime before Vatican II.
John Allen is right in
John Allen is right in stating that once you start editing the old rite, it's impossible to know where to stop.
If the prayer for the Jews at the Good Friday service has to be changed, what about the Good Friday Matins (Tenebrae) readings that those who use the 1962 Breviary (Fraternity of St. Peter, Institute of Christ the King, etc. will be chanting? Passages like the following (from St. Augustine) will send Abe Foxman straight to ER:
"But O ye, his own Jewish people, ye in full truth did kill him. And how did ye kill him? With the sword of the tongue. For like a sword ye whet your tongue. And when did ye strike the blow, but when ye cried out : Crucify him, crucify him?"
For a translation of the whole text, see: http://www.breviary.net/propseason/passiontide/propseasonpass206.htm
That's just the tip of the iceberg. In a short study I published several years ago (Problems with the Prayers of the Modern Mass; TAN Books 1991), I demonstrated that on several points ("negative theology," detachment from the world, ecumenism, etc.) the doctrine of the old prayers was substantially different from that of the new.
In the dispute with Abp. Lefebvre (who ordained me) during the 1970s, Paul VI's Secretary of State, Archbishop Benelli, said that the old Mass was no longer acceptable because it represented "a different ecclesiology."
Perhaps some people are only now starting to realize that.
Father Anthony Cekada
St. Gertrude the Great Church
West Chester OH
www.sgg.org
www.traditionalmass.org
Look. It is a bit silly to
Look. It is a bit silly to focus so much attention on what amounts to a VERY small number of people enjoying the Eucharistic celebration in a ancient language. So, let's take something small and focus on something even smaller: The conversion line that (some say?) bothers the Jews.
Stir thee pot, stir the pot.
Well, of course it will bother some.
When they hear such a line, some will hear: Hey, God doesn't accept you, man. Well, how would you feel if you heard this? Especially when as a Jew, you know you ARE acceptable to God.
You would feel hurt and you would think. That person must be a fool. Or worse, a hypocrite.
For any Jewish person who feels this line is offensive, I would simply say, I'm sorry. It's NOT intended to be. And maybe we shouldn't ever say it again, especially, if it does no good. For the rest of the Jews who see it as part of an arcane litany of pious Christians, I would say, yeah, we got old people too.
Let us continue to pray, that ANYONE who has yet to accept Jesus as the Lord, and His invitation to enter His Kingdom, WILL.
It is, after all, and most importantly, HIS MESSAGE that brings salvation, first to the Jews and then to the rest of the world. This should be the focus of our conversations.
So now that the OLD cat ( an innocent and sincere plea to God for the benefit of those He loves) is out of the OLD bag ( myopic inspection by religious gadflies ) We, the Catholic church, need to assure our Jewish friends, that we, that is the Spirit, who prays in us, intends only love for them, in these prayers. We beseech God for their good, as we beseech Him for our own good, and that of all mankind.
Prior to Benedict's decree,
Prior to Benedict's decree, Jews raised public objection to the news that he planned to reauthorize the offensive language. But he went ahead with it anyway and could not be bothered to even address their concern in his decree or the documents that accompanied it. Allen sees it is positive that “the Vatican is working on a document clarifying implementation of the pope’s ruling,” but he concedes he detects no sense of urgency. This is especially remarkable when the Vatican's Secretary of State has already suggested a very simple fix.
So why not do that? Because the pope would have to admit that he screwed up in not addressing the Jews’ concern and in other particulars of reauthorizing use of the Latin texts. If Benedict revises the prayer for the Jews because it reflects a theology that was surpassed at Vatican II, won’t he also have to replace Latin formulations which do the same on several other theological issues? The answer is yes. Precisely.
Benedict tried unsuccessfully to avoid this issue in his decree, by mischaracterizing the old Latin Mass and the 13 official eucharistic prayers that resulted from Vatican II as “two usages of the one Roman rite” or “a twofold use of one and the same rite.” The old ritual reflects an old theology which the church eschewed in several specific pronouncements at Vatican II. Because the new rituals reflect an improved theology, they surpassed the old one. The officially surpassed rituals should not be allowed to revive the officially surpassed theology.
In my blog at http://creativeadvance.blogspot.com/ I argue in multiple postings (7/17/06, 5/4/07, 5/24/07, 7/12/07, 7/19/07, 9/6/07) that no one church or liturgy can possibly capture the living God or exhaust the mystery of Jesus Christ. Therefore, the Catholic church needs both a normative liturgy and the widest possible variety of alternative liturgies. The latter should include experiments aimed at improving the liturgy and limited use of older liturgies that have been surpassed by better ones. But I have also drawn the line at liturgical language and practices that contradict sound theology or even undermine the church’s mission to proclaim the gospel.
The objections of the Jews and the numerous other theological issues Allen mentions show how much of the old Latin language needed to be corrected or replaced before use of the 1962 Latin missal was reauthorized. Benedict erred in not doing so.
It is ironic that on this point the Jews are being more accurate than the pope and more faithful to Vatican II. But the Jews are clearly stakeholders in Vatican II, and this won’t be the first time that their insights have reformed Christianity.
In response to padrepadre:
In response to padrepadre: It is impossible that the theology of the Mass of the Extraordinary Rite, as it is now called, is wrong. This form of the Holy Sacrifice has been celebrated for hundreds of years without interruption (licitly, in places like Ottawa, Canada, for one), stating that the theology is wrong now means that it has been wrong for all those hundreds of years. God has not changed, and the need to worship and sacrifice to Him in an ordered way has not changed. The Church's fundamental theology has not changed, so I have no idea to what padrepadre is referring when he says that the prayer has to be modified to "keep up". Pope Benedict knows well what he is doing for the good of souls. Having attended this rite regularly since 1989, and daily since 2000, experiencing it's great beauty and prayer filled silence, on Sundays accompanied by Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony, ("sounds lousy"??? I think not!!) has helped my spiritual life tremendously because of it's God-centeredness. It is sublime, and those of us who love it so and attend regularly certainly do not do so because of nostalgia. Nor is nostalgia the reason why seminaries such as Our Lady of Guadalupe Seminary, the North American seminary of the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter, a fraternity dedicated to the celebration of this rite and the sacraments of it, are receiving many more applications for entrance than they are able to accept.
Do I love the Church and desire that all should come to know and love the Truth that it teaches? You bet!! That is why I will pray for the conversion of the Jews and others who remain outside of the Church.
What if the ticking clock
What if the ticking clock expires? What if Passover and Good Friday come and go and people who celebrate the old rite pray for the conversion of Jews? ADL will be mad, and, so what? They are Professionally Offended, and will always be offended by anyone who sticks up for 2000 years of Catholic teaching.
Observe the other comments here, wherein we evidently have new theology or new ecclesiology after Vatican II. If V-2 changes everything, then it is not consistent with Tradition. Undoing the teachings of V-2 -- what are the dogmatic teachings of V-2?
And final irony of ironies, what will ADL and the others say if Benedict shows up at an interreligious dialogue and starts taking offense at the patently anti-Christian comments in the Talmud?
Sometimes playing old music
Sometimes playing old music with the original instruments is intellectually interesting but it sounds lousy. Similarly, to use the tridentine rite which has not been modified to keep up with theology since '62, with a sense of historical re-creation and nostalgia is a train wreck waiting to happen. Let's face it, the theology associated with the rite is wrong. (no pun intended)
How could centuries of
How could centuries of Catholic theology simply be wrong? How are we to make sense of the lives odf the saints who drew nourishment from this theology? The co-called "hermaneutic of rupture" is an easy way to avoid the essential task of guaranteeing our continuity with the past (namely, by disregarding the need for such continuity.)
I am not old enough to be nostalgic for the Tridentine Rite, but I See in it a profound connection to my heritage and a spiritual anchor. The real train wreck are the sentimental and childish liturgical abuses that have all but swept away a Catholic identity in many places, leaving the faithful confused as to what the church really believes.
Finally, to dismiss an entire body of thought as wrong, is not in keeping with the Spirit of VII. If we can open our liturgy to the pre-Christian customs of native peoples in Africa, and modern dance in LA, then at the very least we should have an open mind with respect to the church's collective patrimony!
Matthew Gagliardi
This is the most clear and
This is the most clear and concise explanation that I have yet heard on the subject. Apparently, there are many more urgent and important priorities than intelligent and creative focus upon the central rite of the Catholic experience.
Beauty is not opposed to truth. It is simply truth in its most attractive form.
Is there really a ticking
Is there really a ticking clock and is this not feeding into the ADL (in my view anti-Catholic/Christian) agenda?
First the Motu Proprio is clear that the new liturgy has to be used for Good Friday unless the parish is a personal parish devoted solely to the extraordinary form of the liturgy. Hence the use of the old liturgy on Good Friday will be minimal.
Second, Bl John XXIII already changed the language of the petition "pro perfidis Judaeis" before the Council so this is a red herring. If you look at the '62 Missal for Good Friday, it says the following: "Oremus et pro Judaeis."
Thirdly we have to be careful if we start censoring the liturgy when it quotes Scripture because people are going to be offended. For example the petition goes on to ask the Lord that the "veil be removed from their hearts so that they recognize Jesus Christ." The "veil language" is quoting St.Paul who indicates that the Jews to this day have a veil over their hearts 2 Cor 3:14-17.
Fourth does not the current liturgy's prayer that the Jews arrive at the fullness of Redemption in effect pray for their conversion to Christ?
Fifth the Latin "perfidus" does not have the same meaning as the English perfidious, which has a much more negative and sinister connotation.
Let us pray also for the
Let us pray also for the Jews: that almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Let us pray. Let us kneel. Arise. Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy the Jews also: 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 delivered from their darkness. Through the same Lord Jesus Christ, who lives and reigns with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.
This is the prayer translated from the 1962 Roman Missal. If the great objection is to "lift the veil from their hearts" or "blindness", I do not understand what great blow up is about that is to occur. This is more making mountains out of molehills. We pray for the conversion of all to Catholicism out of solicitude for them not out of some disrespect.
People can pray for whatever
People can pray for whatever and whomever they want, and there is nothing those who are the object of these prayers can do about it.
However, the wording of this prayer reflects an ignorance about modern day Jewish people, who have diverse beliefs, including atheism and Christianity, and diverse citizenship, and who might object more to being referred to as "that people" who are blind and have veiled hearts than to having prayers said regarding their inability as individuals to accept Jesus's divinity.
If this is prayer is not intended specifically for people of Jewish ancestry, but only for people who follow the teachings of Judaism, which would not really make them identifiable as "that people", the consequence of this prayer being answered would be quite mind-boggling as rabbis throughout the world would suddenly declare Jesus the Messiah and all the congregations would concur without objection or question.
However, the Catholic theology is such that it is believed that God's convenant with the people of Jewish ancestry remains in force even though they may not accept Jesus as the Messiah, therefore it seems quite pointless to pray this prayer except as an act of self-righteousness, which might be better expressed as "thank you God for making us Christians and not Jews", but is often falsely understood to mean "thank you God for making us Gentiles and not Jews".
With all due respect, aren't
With all due respect, aren't you aware of the long, often violent, history of Catholic anti-Semetism? If you are, I don't see how you can be confused as to why this prayer is so controversial, or refer to it as "making mountains out of molehills." Wounds stretching back nearly two thousand years may very well be re-opened by this prayer. This is no small or inconsequential matter.
Tom Z~ Here is my take on
Tom Z~ Here is my take on your quote from the 1962 Roman Missal:
Let us pray also for ourselves, we Roman Catholics: Almighty God please remove the veil from our hearts, so that we may truly acknowledge the mission and message of Jesus Christ our Lord that lives in vibrancy beneath the veneer or our self-rightiousness, fear of the challenge of its purity, the literalism of the neo-pharasees and the unquestioning, especially those who even in good faith cling to and spread the message of the law you came to free us from. Lord we pray that you do not abandon us in our blindness that sees not the universality of your love and salvation nor the diversity that decorates the truth that You are and which marks the frailty of our search. Lord lead us from the darkness where we have buried your love; free us from citadel we ourselves have created that now shackles us so that we may toil and share with all of our brothers and sisters in the fields of your creation.
Lord God, help us arise from our knees, open our eyes, look my neighbour, my brothers, my sisters, and your son Jesus full in the eye and, with joy cry, AMEN.
For a church that moves
For a church that moves slowwwwwwwly to avoid just this kind of issue, it surely does seem that this would have been thought out a bit more wisely!!!!
I think that Pope Benedict
I think that Pope Benedict has acted mainly on strictly theological grounds, regardless of eclesiastical politics. For never before the Vatican II reform had been the old liturgy altogether abrogated by the new one (and formally the Vatican II did not do that either). This is an important matter of continuity within Catholic practice. Besides, the Pope intends to convince us that plurality is also open to traditional Christians, after so many years in which traditional catholics have been treated as more heretics than liberals and dissenters.
Cristobal Orrego
Professor of Natural Law
Chile
We need to change the
We need to change the wording from 'conversion of the Jews' to 'restoration of friendship and cooperation with those children of Abraham with whom we share our inheritance'
It is not difficult to
It is not difficult to recognize that all of the world's main religions hold totally different fundamental beliefs, or that each believes that it holds the Truth. That they all could be right is unreasonable. Therefore, any religion which does NOT promote prayer for the conversion of those who hold varying beliefs would not be serving the God in whom they believe! If the Jews believe that they hold the Truth, that they are right and that Jesus Christ was not truly the Son of God, that Catholics are all wrong in their beliefs, they should not be concerned about the possible efficacy of the prayers being offered for their own conversion, and should not be bothered at all that these prayers are being offered.
To the contrary, it IS
To the contrary, it IS "...difficult to recognize that all of the world's main religions hold totally different fundamental beliefs". It is not difficult to believe that each holds some element(s) of truth which may be shared and which might help us all better appreciate "The" truth.
I beg to disagree that the failure to pray for the conversion of the other is not serving "my" God. Someone quoted the Dalai Lama as pronouncing that the world does not need more Bhuddists, it does however need more compassionate people of peace. Let us start there in action and in prayer.
It is my understanding that
It is my understanding that this is the attitude that the Jews did adopt at different periods in history and discovered very painfully through pogroms, persecutions and holocausts that they had better pay attention to and complain loudly about the cultivation of potentially destructive attitudes and habits.
We need to listen very carefully to their take on the progress of historical events in order to form our constructive thoughts and actions. They are justifiably convinced that they are encountering the living God in their tradition. We can only share the Christian Revelation in that light. This is cause to reflect on the nature of our own conversion experience and its tactful relation on a common ground of trust. The hard sell tactics of the past have made finding the undiscovered country of trust quite the challenging adventure.
Beauty is not opposed to truth. It is simply truth in its most attractive form.
I have never understood
I have never understood BXVI's need to issue his moto proprio concerning the Tridentine rite. JPII apparently had a much better universal pastoral understanding of the significance of this issue in 1984. Why raise the bar? How on one hand can John Paul offer a sincere apology for the historic Catholic treatment of Jews, and then Benedict on the other hand, allow this issue to become prominant again.
Does the right hand even care what the left hand does or did?
Good for Bendict XVI because I have to edit this. Benedict is changing the good Friday prayer. He does care. Props to him.
Matthew: The history of this
Matthew:
The history of this church is replete with bad and wrong theology:
Slavery is OK
Usury can’t be practiced
Anyone who isn’t Catholic can’t be saved
Eating meat on Friday is a mortal sin
Making mistakes are not bad IF they are recognized, corrected and the church moves on. If, however, the only way to be “true” is to be absolutely rigid about everything that was ever said in the name of the church, then being true is not the same as possessing the Truth.