More on the Motu Proprio. Just don't hold your breath, and dress warm, 'cause I think hell has to freeze over first, before it's ever released. Interesting to note, though, that this article states there is a problem with some of the text from the Old Mass. It appears that Jewish people are offended by some of the wording and have petitioned the Vatican to change the words of the Mass.
Servite Fr. John Pawlikowski, an American, wrote to Kasper on March 29 on behalf of the executive body of the International Council of Christians and Jews. Pawlikowski, an expert in Catholic/Jewish relations at the Catholic Theological Union in Chicago, told Kasper that although the phrase "perfidious Jews" was lifted from the pre-Vatican II Mass by Pope John XXIII, the older Mass still contains other prayers for Jews, Muslims and other Christians that Pawlikowski called "profoundly demeaning."
"The expanded validation of such prayers," Pawikowski argued, "will rightly challenge Catholic integrity in terms of the proclamations of the last four decades," meaning advances in ecumenical and inter-faith relations, especially with Jews.
Pawlikowski's letter does not specify which prayers in the 1962 Missal his group finds objectionable. A Web site sponsored by the Center for Christian-Jewish Understanding at Boston College, however, offers a background document on the older Mass, along with a critical statement from a "Jews and Christians" group of the Central Committee of German Catholics. The two texts cite concerns widely voiced by experts in Catholic-Jewish relations.
For example, the Good Friday liturgy contains a prayer "For the conversion of the Jews," which reads: "Let us pray also for the Jews, that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. … Almighty and everlasting God, You do not refuse Your mercy even to the Jews; hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people so that they may acknowledge the light of Your truth, which is Christ, and be delivered from their darkness."
The background document on the Boston College site asserts that the prayer is problematic.
"The references to 'even the Jews,' 'their darkness,' and 'blindness' and for their conversion runs counter to the respect for ongoing Jewish covenantal life throughout historic time that was expressed in Nostra Aetate, 4," it says, referring to the Vatican II document on Judaism and other religions. "Similar problems might be found elsewhere in the Missal simply because it was uninformed by subsequent developments in Catholic understanding."
How can the Jewish people have any input into the Catholic Tridentine Mass? It's our Mass. Leave it alone!
.JPG)
Posts
24 comments:
One of the biggest mistakes the modern era Church Fathers made was to start caring about what non Catholics thought.
Can you imagine the Samaritans being asked on their input into the Temple rites?
Amen!
when HH Benedict XVI announces it i'll believe it will come.
I can hardly wait for this Motu Propio. One more bit of evidence that the church is fallible and must change her mind from time-to-time. This is a gift from heaven for dissenters. But then, all of these conservatives trashing Vatican II and trashing Norvus Ordo have always been dissenters in their own right anyway.
you know, i don't trash V2. it was a valid council, but that dooesn't mean i have to enjoy the change does it? i don't think so. i prefer the TLM to the No. so yes, that makes me a traditional Catholic. and conservative as well.
i don't like seeing liturgical dancers, hand claipping at Mass, female altar servers, people wearing immodest clothing to Mass, people laughing during Mass. i also call it the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. i know alot of NO Catholics who don't even understand what that means. I also believe in the Real Presence, and wonder why alot of NO Catholics don't.
Hi Marilena,
I agree with all of that except for the TLM bit, which I have never experienced so have no real opinion about. With regard to dissent, I wouldn't suffer calling myself a dissenter if I thought I could disagree with the magisterium in my heart but not in practice. Christ says that it is what is in our heart that counts. To my knowledge, my actions are in line with church teachings. But in my heart, I disagree with a few things.
iam no dissenter either. just because i don't enjoy some of the changes that were made doesn't mean iam going against the Magesterium. its not up to me to decide what things are done or not.
the pope is infallible in matters of faith and doctrine. this i firmly believe. and my actions are also inline with the faith and doctrine. the TLM can be a very touchy issue between modernists and traditional Catholics.
WC, are you gloating over the MP being stalled and the Mass being edited by the Jews? Sure sounds like it! Not very charitable of you, is it?
I wonder how many people who have posted on this site would feel if they remembered that Jesus, Joseph and Mary were devout Jews.
So in a sense Jews have always governed what us Catholics think and believe.
Matt, Catholics have three teaching authorities: The Bible, Tradition and the Magisterium of the Church. We are not accountable to religions who do not believe that Jesus Christ is God. Yes, Jesus, Mary and Joseph were Jews. The Jews of that day denounced Jesus, and had Him crucified, and they have been waiting for their Saviour ever since. Current day Jews have no say in the Church.
I appreciate the condescending nature of your post. However, each of the three teaching authorities have received large influence from the Jewish tradition.
No matter how much you say that our current day Jewish brothers and sisters have no say, it is impossible to contend that there was never any influence and that there isn't a connection between these Abrahamic traditions. This connection demands our respect.
We are accountable to the world.
Matt, the connection between ancient Jews and Catholicism is obvious, even to the uneducated. What is not acceptable, is that in the name of ecumenism, that Catholics should have their Mass of the Ages altered, to appease another religious group. I'm sorry if that offends you.
This isn't a matter of appeasement, it is a matter of respect. With the history of passion plays, and anti-semitic language in The Church this seems like an attempt at correcting possibly anti-semitic language.
We have become more sensitive to the language that we use because we know the damage that it can do. I am a fairly traditional Catholic, however I cannot argue against this change.
Do you have an argument to keep the current language?
Matt, you mention correcting anti-semitic language, so you must be referring to the word "perfidious." That has been removed, as it didn't translate well into English.
Yes, the Church should pray for the conversion of Jews. They do not accept Jesus as God, and we should pray for their conversion that they might come to know and love the Catholic faith and thus be saved.
the facts are these. does it really matter if our faith had some jewish influence? does it? if so, why does it matter? yes, we should respect what others believe. but why should their beliefs influence ours? our belief is entirely separate from what jews or any other religions on earth believe. our belief was handed down to us by Christ Himself. we follow what Christ has taught us. the jews of that day rejected what Christ taught, and most of them still do. should we have protestant tpye beliefs in our faith? no. the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was changed. why was it deemed necessary to change it? for hundreds of years it was deemed sufficient. why is it no longer sufficient? why for the last some odd 40 years has it been no longer sufficient? why should we change a tradition that is over 1000 years old? we don't ask others to change their way of praying or going to a service. why was it necessary to change the Mass? in my opinion, it was not necessary. anyone regardless of their background can become Catholic. so why change the Mas of All Time? why? what does it serve? has the change been good?
that depends on where one stands on the issue doesn't it?
Marilena, I agree that we need to be respectful of others, and we both agree that we need to do that without compromising our doctrines or our own beliefs. Changing or ommitting words in the sacred liturgy of the Mass to placate another religion is the current trend that ecumenism has led us to. I wonder if anyone can point out where this has happened in the past history of the Church.
Paramedic Girl:
There have been several jewish converts amongst the saints and it would be charitable of us catholics to remove any undue reference to our differences with other faiths. We do not speak of muslims, hindus, et cetera nor should we. It does not further our cause. This is an opportunity to go forward without introducing another error.
It's bad enough that we liberals will be able to point to the magisterium changing their mind yet again about non-infallible teachings; just as they did with slavery and the heliocentric solar system. But if it is introduced with a flaw, well that will be even worse, won't it.
And to answer your previous question, I am absolutely thrilled to have yet another change of heart by the magisterium. I look forward to the frosting they put on it to look like it isn't a change of heart.
'Orthodox' and 'Ultramontane' who reject VII or the liturgy in your hearts are dissenters in their own right. I don't know if that applies to anyone here or not.
Where all Christians should be concerned is not so much the attack on the TLM but the attack of the Bible, specifically the New Testament. It is what it is and we can't throw it out.
Having said that, isn't it ironic that the traditionalists more than the modernists seem to revere more of what the B.C. Bible is all about? Holy of Holies, Sacrifices of the high priests, etc.? Why are we not emphasizing what we have in common and our roots rather than on all the negatives?
BobP
WC, just for the ecord, I belive that VII was a vialid council. It is in the interpretation of the council that errors have been made. For example, VII called for actual participation, not active participation, and that is one area where it ahs been misunderstood, and wrongly applied. If you check Anita Moors'e blog, (she is on my blogroll), she has an outstanding post that I often reference to, called Betcha didn't know Vatican II said this.
Betcha didn't know Vatican II said this? Anita researched the actual documents of VII and this post is the result of what she found. Well worth reading. I give you this link so you can how VII has been mis-implemented.
Thanks PG, I'll have a look.
Bob,
your partially correct. but, the changes in the NO have not all been good. for instance, there is not a total lack of reverence, but there just is not the reverence for God that is at the TLM. if you've ever been to a TLM then you'd know what iam talking about.
to me, a NO Mass is like attneding a protestant service. it really is. i've never seen a reverent NO.
iam sure there is some, and i take others word for it that there is.
but for me, and for the ones i've been to, uh uh. not by a long shot.
the traditions of the church need to be preserved. that's a fact i think we can all agree on. but i don't see that happening when i attend a NO and see kids wearing demonic t-shirts, people hand clapping in church, people using cell phones in church, people laughing in church and acting like its their own personal entertainment center, women wearing trashy clothing to church,
people wearing shorts to church, exct exct exct. there seems to be no focus on Christ and His sacrifice. you'd never see any of this in the TLM where i go. no way.
there is total reverence for Christ and what He did for us all.
people dress modestly, no phones ringing in church, no laughing, no personal entertainment center, no hand clapping, no female altar servers, exct exct exct. i believe what the SSPX is doing is right when it comes to preserving the priesthood. i also believe that we all need to show Christ far more respect than we are doing not just at church, but in our daily lives.
He did after all, die for us. without Him, no life everlasting, no hope. so we owe it to Him to revere Him, and praise Him and respect Him. if Chrsit came to your home, iam quite sure you wouldn't wear a devil shirt or hand clap, or talk on your phone would you? unlikely. so if one would never do these things why do them at Mass?
Post a Comment