The New Good Friday Prayer

This is a photographic reproduction of a 1558 Roman Missal, published twelve years before Quo
Primum. In it (see black lines on bottom 2 and top page 3) the Good Friday Prayer for the
conversion of Jews appears exactly as it did up until the time of Pope John XXIII. Should we not
rankle at the attempted abolition of a liturgical prayer hallowed by long usage?

By John Vennari

            A mere seven months after the release of the Latin Mass Motu Proprio, Pope Benedict XVI struck the traditional Good Friday prayer for the Jews from the Missal and replaced it with a new one. This latest tampering with the Good Friday prayers fills me with immense sadness. I cannot rejoice over it.
            Why was the ancient and venerable prayer sacrificed? If St. Teresa of Avila said she would give her life for one rubric of the Mass, should we not rankle at the attempted abolition of a liturgical prayer hallowed by long usage? Should we so easily accept the shucking of yet another piece of our Sacred Heritage?
            A photographic reproduction of the Good Friday prayer from an 1558 Roman Missal appears at the top of this page. This missal, published twelve years before Pope St. Pius V’s 1570 Quo Primum, displays the exact same Prayer for the Jews as was in use for centuries until Pope John XXIII.
            The traditional Good Friday prayer for the Jews is of ancient lineage. It is part of our Catholic patrimony for 700 years, and probably much longer.¹ It was prayed by St. Joan of Arc, Saint Bernardine of Sienna, St. Charles Borromeo the Fathers of the Council of Trent and St. Jane Frances de Chantal. It was prayed by St. Ignatius of Loyola, St. Alphonsus Ligouri, St. Joseph of Cupertino, St. John Vianney, St. Theresa of Lisieux the Fathers of Vatican I and Pope St. Pius X.

Churchmen in an age saner than ours treated this venerable prayer as untouchable, as sacred. Under Pope Pius XI, for example, a Catholic group called Friends of Israel wanted the word “perfidious” removed from the Good Friday prayer for the Jews claiming it smacked of anti-Semitism. Cardinal Merry Del Val, Secretary of the Holy Office, refused. He explained that the liturgy of Holy Week goes back to “respectable days of old” and thus excludes any reformability.² The Holy Office ruled “Nihil esse innovandum - nothing is to be modified”. Pope Pius XI endorsed the decision of the Holy Office and fortified it by numerous clarifications. The proposers of the “Amici Israel” were obliged to reject their goal and the association was dissolved.³ In the past forty years in the Church, however, due to lust for change and novelty that is the hallmark of the Vatican II era, even good Catholics have lost the sense of the sacred untouchability of Catholic liturgy. We have lost the reverence for our Sacred Rites that was integral to the Faith of our Catholic forefathers. Continuous Aggiornamento is so much part of the Catholic world since the Council, that a superstition now grips the minds of those in high place that serious problems can be solved through ever more liturgical change.

The Good Friday Controversy

            Immediately after the release of the Latin Mass Motu Proprio (and for weeks prior to its release as well), Jewish groups complained about the reappearance of the Traditional Good Friday prayer within diocesan structures worldwide. This does not surprise, since numerous Jews have despised the Good Friday prayers for centuries.
            But these are the days of dialogue, of reciprocal sharing and listening, and Jewish groups “shared” in a vociferous manner. The Vatican appeared ready to listen.
            So that on July 17, 2007 – ten days afer the release of the Motu Proprio – Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Bertone publicly stated that the traditinal Good Friday prayers will perhaps be replaced by the 1970 Prayer for the Jews contained in the Novus Ordo cermonies.⁴ Rumors of change in the prayer came and went over the months, and surfaced in early January. Msgr. Perl of the Vatican’s Ecclesia Dei Commission called the controversy an “artificial problem” regarding which “for the moment, nothing has been done and probably never will”.⁵             As it turned out, Cardinal Bertone was wrong, as the 1970 prayer was not inserted into the Tridentine Missal; and Msgr. Perl was wrong in his projection that nothing probably will be done regarding the Good Friday prayers.
            Instead, Pope Benedict XVI composed a new Good Friday Prayer and ordered it to be used immediately, that is, for Holy Week 2008 and from now on (see box at end for the latest selection of Good Friday Prayers for the Jews).The new prayer, as is characteristic of many of Pope Benedict's actions, has positive aspects and negative aspects. We will look at the positive aspects first.

Positive Aspects of New Prayer.

1) It appears to restate traditional Catholic teaching on the necessity of Jews to convert - the first post-Conciliar Papal act to do so.
Pope Benedict XVI’s prayer is not the insipid prayer of 1970 which prays that the Jews “continue to grow in the love of His name and in faithfulness to His covenant” but retains the heading: “For the Conversion of the Jews”. It is safe to say this is something Pope John Paul II, whose appeasement of the Jews was legendary, would never have published.

            2) It has infuriated Jewish groups, causing some to consider suspending the bogus Catholic-Jewish dialogue practiced since the Council.
            • The Italian Rabbinical Assembly announced it necessary to “pause for reflection in the dialogue” with Catholics after the modification of the Good Friday prayer for the Jews. It called Pope Benedict's modification of the prayer “an abandonment of the very conditions for dialogue”. The Assembly stated this in a note signed by its president, Rabbi Giuseppe Lara.⁶             • At a meeting in Washington from Feb. 10-14, the Rabbinical Assembly is to vote on a draft resolution, which, while subject to revision, says the group is ''dismayed and deeply disturbed to learn that Pope Benedict XVI has revised the 1962 text of the Latin Mass, retaining the rubric, 'For the Conversion of The Jews.'⁷             • Rome's Chief Rabbi Riccardo Segni called the revised prayer “a serious step backwards that poses a fundamental obstacle” to Catholic-Jewish relations and which has put “decades of progress into doubt”.⁸             • Abe Foxman from the Anti Defamation League complained, “While we appreciate that some of the deprecatory language has been removed from a new version of the Good Friday prayer for the Conversion of Jews in the 1962 Roman Missal, we are deeply troubled and disappointed that the framework and intention to petition God for Jews to accept Jesus as Lord was kept intact. Alterations of language without change to the 1962 prayer's conversionary intent amount to cosmetic revisions, while retaining the most troubling aspect for Jews, namely the desire to end the distinctive Jewish way of life. Still named the ‘Prayer for Conversion of the Jews,’ it is a major departure from the teachings and actions of Pope Paul VI, Pope John Paul II, and numerous authoritative Catholic documents, including Nostra Aetate.”⁹             It should be noted that in 1999, I attended an evening of Jewish Catholic dialogue in East Aurora, NY. The speakers were Dennis McManus for the USCCB and Rabbi Leon Klenicki of the Anti-Defamation League. During the course of the evening, one of the speakers complained even complained about the 1974 Good Friday prayer for the Jews, claiming that it was better that the 1962 versions, but that the “subtext is still anti-Jewish”.
            In a similar vein, in November 2000, the Institute for Christian and Jewish Studies in Baltimore held a symposium in which the alleged anti-Semitism in Bach’s St. John’s Passion was studied. The Symposium was entitled “When Words Hurt: The Gospel of John, Bach’s Music and Religious Intolerance.”; at least four papers were delivered that spoke of Bach’s St. John’s Passion as part of a “legacy of religious hate”.¹⁰
            These examples demonstrate that it is not too great a feat to offend Jewish certain groups, as they are easily offended.

3) It appears to shake up John Paul's teaching that the Jews have their own valid Covenant apart from that of Christ.
If the Jews are furious that they are asked to “accept Jesus as Lord”, then this is a positive aspect of the prayer, since Pope John Paul II’s twenty-six year reign never suggested such a course of action for them. It reminds Jews that their own “covenant” (which, according to true Catholic teaching is obsolete and superceded by the New Covenant) is not sufficient for salvation.

            4) It may teach Benedict XVI a hard lesson on the true nature of “Jewish-Catholic” dialogue.
            Cross these Jewish groups in any way and out come their claws. If this episode helps demonstrate to the Pope the phoniness of interreligious dialogue, if it drives home to the Pope how truly anti-Christ these groups are, then this is something gained.
            A word should be said about the current backlash from Jewish groups.
            There can be no doubt that Pope Benedict XVI was under tremendous pressure from these organizations to make some sort of change to the prayer. The pressure must be of a magnitude we can barely imagine. A source close to the Vatican, whose name I do not have permission to divulge, said that most of the favorable decisions for the Jews during the reign of Pope John Paul II were enacted due to some form of blackmail.
            Likewise, the revered Catholic author Jean Madiran spoke of the “Jewish problem” inside the Church. In the March 1986 issue of Itineraires, commenting on a radical pro-Jewish document released from the Vatican,¹¹ Mr. Maderin wrote “In 1972, we had written publicly to Paul VI stating our view that at present it is as though the Church Militant was a country occupied by a foreign power. Since that time the Church has not ceased to give the impression that it is an occupied Church. But occupied by whom? We are driven today to suspect that it is by Judaism...”¹²            Thus, whether or not we believe the new Good Friday prayer a good idea, the Pope is entitled to our sympathy and support if, as a result of publishing this new prayer, he is attacked by the ancient enemies of Christ. We could write urging him to begin to apply in all things the maxim of the great 19^th Century counter-revolutionary Msgr. Henri Delassus who said, “The role of the clergy in the world, the role of the clergy alongside the faithful, is to create trends around true ideas, without asking whether or not these ideas are attractive to the multitude. This is what the Apostles did.”¹³            From here we move to what I consider to be the negative aspects of the new prayer. These are more numerous.

Negative Aspects of the New Prayer:
1) Why did the prayer have to be changed?
The prayer for the conversion of the Jews is of hallowed usage. Was it necessary to change it? Could not a short theological defense to keep the original prayer be included in the upcoming “Instruction” on the implementation of Summorum Pontificum? This would have been a valid restatement of the traditional teaching without changing the ancient prayer, and would have yielded all the positive results mentioned earlier. As noted already, the 1558 Missal pictured above — published twelve years prior to Quo Primum — contains the exact same prayer for the Jews as the Church used continuously up until the time of John XXIII. The prayer itself, doctrinally perfect, has been part of the Church’s Sacred Rites for more than 700 years. Do we readily jettison this ancient and venerable prayer due to pressure from those who are adamantly anti-Christ? The traditional prayer is being stamped out in the only circles in which it can be kept alive.

2) The ending of the new prayer is open to bad interpretation.
            The original prayer of used for centuries was unambiguous in its intention for the conversion of the Jews. Now, due to the reference to “fullness of the Gentiles” placed at the end of the new prayer, people are debating if the Pope only intends the prayer to be the conversion of Jews at the end of time. I do not say that this “end-time” interpretation is the Pope’s intention, as I do not know either way. I simply point out that the debate now rages where it did not rage before.
            Commenting on the new prayer, Cardinal Kasper said, “We think that reasonably this prayer cannot be an obstacle to dialogue because it reflects the faith of the Church and, furthermore, Jews have prayers in their liturgical texts that we Catholics don't like.” He also said “I must say that I don't understand why Jews cannot accept that we can make use of our freedom to formulate our prayers,”
            Kasper further stated, “When the Pope speaks now of the conversion of the Jews, one must understand this correctly. He quotes verbatim the eleventh chapter of the Apostle Paul's letter to the Romans. There the Apostle says that we as Christians hope, that when the fullness of the Gentiles enter the Church, that then will all of Israel be converted. That is an eschatalogical end-time hope, and thus does not mean that we have the intention of pursuing the conversion of the Jews as one pursues the conversion of the Gentiles (pagans).”¹⁴            This latter statement of Kasper, for whatever reason, was removed from the Haaretz website that initially reported it. Nonetheless, the debate goes on as to what are Pope Benedict’s true intentions. We have moved from certainty to uncertainty. This all the more worrisome when we consider some of Cardinal Ratzinger’s novel statements in Many Religions, One Covenant;¹⁵ in the Vatican document The Jewish People and Their Scripture in the Christian Bible;¹⁶ and in his 2003 book-interview: God in the World,¹⁷ none of which ever mention the need of Jews to convert to Christ’s one true Church for salvation.

3) The division among traditional Catholics.
In a speech I gave on Pope Benedict XVI only two weeks after his election, I predicted the danger of him splitting the traditional movement in two. This appears to be playing itself out. While the present division is not of a nature to sunder long-standing friendships, it is a palpable division nonetheless. Some even wonder if the Society of St. Pius X will be internally divided on the issue. This is cause of concern when we consider that Cardinal Ratzinger has been richly associated with the traditionalist movement for more than twenty years. He has been in touch with our leaders, he knows our concerns, our psychologies, our fears, our suspicions, our temperaments. He is well aware of the ins and outs of the traditionalist movement, and the various personalties in it. How could he not foresee the consternation and division that would inevitably foment in the traditionalist camp by issuing the new Good Friday prayer?

4) Tridentine Mass now open to change.
In a recent column on the New Friday Prayer, the National Catholic Reporter 's John Allen mentioned traditional Catholics who are disturbed not so much by the new prayer itself, but “by the precedent that the old Mass can be bowdlerized in response to external pressure.” Allen then went on to note, “ Some liturgical experts, by the way, think this may be the lasting significance of the Pope's decision. As one put it to me this week, 'It shows that the '62 missal can be reformed, that it's not inviolable or frozen in time'.”¹⁸ Many Catholics who remember the principle of gradualism applied to the liturgy in the 1960s fear this new prayer may be the thin end of the wedge, an opening for more changes to come. There are enough Catholics around who still remember the 1960s when change after change was grudgingly accepted because the initial changes themselves initially were not “necessarily heretical”. As one prominent traditionalist layman posed to me, “Will we now make the same mistake”?

In ancient artwork of the Church, we encounter the blindfolded woman as an image of the blindness of the synagogue. Today's “Catholic” proponents of Jewish- Catholic dialogue have striven since the time of Vatican II to remove all such Catholic imagery so that new generations will have no idea what these images mean.¹⁹ Pope Benedict's new prayer, which drops the traditional reference to the spiritual blindness of the Jews, serves to aid those who wish to erase all such Catholic catechetical Iconography.

6) Perfect Prayer Changed: Insipid Prayer Untouched
The 1962 prayer which reflects the teaching of the Church, and is virtually faithful²⁰ to the liturgical practice of the Church for over 700 years, is substantially altered. Meanwhile, the doctrinally deficient Good Friday prayer of the Novus Ordo, in which the minister prays that the Jews “may continue to grow in the love of His name and in faithfulness to His covenant” is left untouched. Many Catholics wonder why the Tridentine prayer that needed no correction was “corrected”, and why the 1970 prayer in desperate need of correction is left unaltered.

Continuity Through Change?

In making the above comments, I know I speak for many concerned Catholics – priests and laity – who are disturbed at this latest Good Friday development. These Catholics wonder why there had to be this trade-off; a swapping of the traditional prayer for a new one, even if the new prayer is not heretical. Where did this “continuity through change” principle come from?
Unfortunately, the old Roma locuta est, causa finite est has lost much of its force for a great number of battle-weary Catholics, especially with regard to the introduction of something new. This is not due to any sense of rebellion or lack of filial piety on their part. Rather, it is due to the fact that for the past 40 years, post-Concliair pontiffs have abused their authority by acting more as apostles of novelty than apostles of Christ.

            Even Pope Benedict XVI, only two weeks ago, established another ecumenical precedent, celebrating a Rome service of the Week of Christian Unity with the General Secretary of the World Council of Churches at his side²¹ – something never done before that was lauded by ecumenical journals, and something that Pope St. Pius X would have condemned with pitiless severity.
            The 40-year promotion of activities and ideas previously condemned by the perennial magisterium has betrayed the trust of the faithful. Nothing takes so long to repair than a broken trust. Catholics who are wary of the latest Good Friday change cannot be blamed for their caution and misgivings. In connection with these misgivings, it is worth repeating the decision of Pius XI's Holy Office that noted the liturgy of Holy Week goes back to a “respectable days of old” and thus excludes any reformability: “nothing is to be modified”.
            In conclusion, speaking for myself, I will not type up a little index card of the New Prayer to insert in my Missal for Good Friday, but will pray the pre-John XXIII prayer, as did St. Maximilian Kolbe, St. Charles Borromeo, St. Teresa of Avila, St. Francis de Sales, St. Isaac Jogue, St. Gerard Majella, St. Margaret Mary Alocoque, St. Dominic Savio, Blessed Abbot Marmion and all faithful Catholics for more than 700 years.

¹ St. Pius V’s Quo Primum maintained all Catholic liturgies in use for at least 200 years prior to 1570.
² The Cardinal explained that the word “perfidus” in the ancient rite bring expressed “the detestation of the rebellion and treason” of the chosen people.
³ The decree of dissolution was written by Pius XI and contained a sharp condemnation of racially motivated anti-Semitism. See:Zenit: German: “Karfreitagsfürbitte - eine lange Geschichte”, Feb. 6, 2008. Translation supplied by “Catholic Church Conservation”.
⁴ “Vatican: We May Drop Revived Prayer Offensive to Jews”, Reuters, July 17, 2007.
⁵ http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/search/label/Summorum%20Notes
⁶ http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2008/02/italian-rabbinical-assembly-suspension.html
⁷ “Conservative Rabbis to Vote on Resolution Criticizing Pope's Revision of Prayer”, New York Times, Feb. 7, 2008.
⁸ “Decision to Retain Jewish Conversion Prayer Criticized”, Irish Times, Feb. 7, 2008.
⁹ Prayer for Conversion of Jews Remains Troubling Despite Vatican Changes. ADL Press Release. Published in Targeted News Service, Feb. 5, 2008
¹⁰ Service International de Documentation Judeo-Chretienne (SIDIC), Vol. XXXIV, No. 3 - 2001, pp. 19-28.
¹¹ “Notes for a Correct Presentation of Jews and Judaism in the preaching and Catechesis of the Cathlic Church”. Issued by the Vatican’s Pontirical Council for Promoting Christian Unity under Johannes Cardinal Willibrands, 1986.
¹² The sentence concludes: “and that what is now coming out into the open is the goal which has been the objective of all the manouevres and persecutions of the last twenty years: namely, to obliterate or play down any conflict betwen the Christian and Jewish religion in order to ‘prepare the world for the coming of the Messiah’ by ‘working together for social justice, respect for the rights of persons and nations and for social and international reconciliation’. What a secular programme! IF that is what we must preach, what need do we have of a pope? The Grant Orient Lodge and the United Nations are enough.” Jean Maderin, “The Jewish Question in the Church”, Translated [into English] by G. Lawman from the March 1986 issue of Itineraires. Published as a Supplement to Approaches, No. 93. [Editor, Hamish Fraser. No date].
¹³ Americanism and the Anti-Christian Conspiracy, Msgr. Henri Delassus, French edition published 1907 [Orlando: CTC Books, 2007 English edition], p. iv. Emphasis added.
¹⁴ Original web verison of “Vatican Rejects Criticism of New Prayer for Jewish Conversion”, Haaretz, Feb. 7, 2008
¹⁵ For example, the following are quotes from Cardinal Ratzinger: “What could be the reason for so much historical hostility between those who must actually belong together [Christians and Jews] because of their faith in the one God and commitment to His will?” (p. 22); “Do confession of Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of he living God and faith in the Cross as the redemption of mankind contain an implicitly condemnation of the Jews as stubborn and blind, as guilty of the death of the Son of God?” (P. 23); “Hans Kung uttered what we were all thinking when he said, ‘No world peace without peace between religions’; in these words he declared that peace between religions, ecumenism across the religions, is a duty imposted on all religious communities.” (p. 94); Many Religions, One Covenant,Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999].
¹⁶ The document which contains a lauding Introduction by Cardinal Ratzinger, says: “Jewish messianic expectation is not in vain. It can become for us Christians a powerful stimulant to keep alive the eschatological dimension of our faith. Like them, we too live in expectation. The difference is that for us the One who is to come will have the traits of the Jesus who has already come and is already present and active among us.” The Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Jewish People And Their Sacred Scriptures in the Christian Bible, 2001, No. 5. http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/pcb_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20020212_popolo-ebraico_en.html
¹⁷ Cardinal Ratzinger said, “...Israel still has a mission to accomplish today. We are in fact waiting for the moment when Israel too, will say Yes to Christ, but we also know that while histiory still runs its course even this standing at the door fulfills a mission, one that is important for the world ... we can see that Isreal has a way to go. As Chrsitians, we believe they will in end end be together with us in Christ. But they arenot simply done with and left our of God’ plan; rather, they still stand within the faithful covenant of God”, God and the World. Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger [San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 2002], pp. 129-130.
¹⁸ “All Things Catholic”, John Allen, National Catholic Reporter, Feb. 8, 2008, http://ncrcafe.org/node/1600
¹⁹ “Update on Catholic Education on Jews and Judaism”, Paper deliverd at the International Catholic-Jewish Liason Committee, Jerusalem, 23-26 May 1994 by Eugene J. Fisher (of the USCCB).
²⁰ This despite the fact that the word “perfidious” which means “faithless” and not “wicked” as some Jews claim, was stricken from the ancient prayer by Pope John XXIII; despite the ruling of the Pius XI”s Holy Office just a few decades earlier.
²¹ “Pope and WCC Look to Christian Unity at Ecumenical ‘Festival’”, Ecumenical News International, Jan. 28, 2008. http://www.eni.ch/featured/article.php?id=1577

Posted: Feb. 13, 2008
Catholic Family News
MPO Box 743 * Niagara Falls, NY 14302
905-871-6292

CFN is published once a month (12 times per year) • Subscription: $28.00 a year.
Request sample copy