Crittenden…so THAT’s were you're coming from...

The program on Wednesday 12 March contained a sad note as it included a tribute by Mr Crittenden to his “...dear friend and mentor for more than 20 years, John Russell, who died suddenly in hospital last week.”

Requiem aeternam
Dona ei Domine
et lux perpetua luceat ei.
Requiescat in pace. Amen

We were particularly interested in the insight in gave into Mr Crittenden’s own viewpoint. A viewpoint he seems to wear on his sleeve during his interviews and introductions.

Let’s look at the remainder of that piece (our emphases):

John Russell joined the ABC as a Current Affairs reporter in 1970 and left after
several years to do other things. I met him when I went to work at the New
South Wales Cabinet office in the mid-1980s. He was a man of extraordinary
erudition, generosity and wit, a former Franciscan seminarian with a vast
circle of friends, who promoted a sympathetic, enlightened life-affirming kind of Catholicism.

In retirement John returned to journalism and broadcasting with a string of wonderful programs for the ABC Religion department and articles that were
amongst the best things to appear in Quadrant Magazine in recent years.

Making a radio program involves conversations and collaborations with all kinds of people, both on-mic and off-mic. Of course most of all it's an ongoing conversation with you, dear listener. But in a very special way over these past few years, with his daily phone calls and his constant stream of books and ideas, for me, The Religion Report has often seemed like one long public conversation with him.

I think I only ever interviewed John once. He loved Germany, and in 2002 he
described his last visit to the East German town of Bautzen, where he had
wonderful friends.

John Russell: Bautzen in the old times of the GDR, was a word that sent fear and loathing through the souls of all Germans, not just in the East but also in the West, because it was the place where the Stasi maintained its two prisons, and in fact one of those prisons has been closed and is now a museum, and to walk through the Stasi prison, which of course also before the Second World War a Gestapo prison, and see the way people were treated is a spiritual experience in itself.

Stephen Crittenden: Bautzen's got a stunning, stunning, East Saxony kind of church, very light and airy, very beautiful.

John Russell: Bautzen has the most incredible 'Dom' as they call it, that I have seen, because it dates back to 1200. It had a new roof and ceiling installed in the 1600s, but it's divided in half between Catholics and Protestants and has been divided since the Reformation. The Lutheran half is at the back, you come in the back door, you walk up the aisle, there's a little picket fence, there's a Lutheran altar and a pulpit, and then you go over the picket fence and there's the Catholic half, with an altar and
pulpit, and of course it being Germany, both halves have wonderful organs. And
it's a stunning building, and people who visit that area of Germany should make
some effort to see it. It is incredible. To my knowledge it's the only shared church in Germany, it certainly was the only shared church in the old East Germany.

Stephen Crittenden: And presumably these days both sides get on pretty well in the ecumenical environment?

John Russell: I understand both sides have always got on. There was a contract made in the late 1500s between the Catholics and the Protestants about the times of services, and that contract is still in force. Saxony is a very interesting place. Saxony,
Luther was a Saxon, Wittenberg is in Saxony, but Saxony always maintained some
degree of peace between the two groups, the Catholics and the Protestants. The
Thirty Years' War came, all sorts of problems came, they tended to come from
outside, and this was an area hidden to the world during the GDR years. It's an
area very few people know much about and it's an area worth seeing. The
churches, Catholic, Protestant, whatever you like are stunning, many were untouched by the Second World War, but I think we have a lot to learn from people in those areas. I met a wonderful Lutheran pastor who was 89, and he was the former Superintending Pastor for the area of Bautzen. He spoke perfect English, he'd learnt it in school, and he told me that during the Communist years, none of his children had been allowed to go to high school. The children of pastors couldn't go to high school, so they had to be taught at home and pick up what education they could along the way.

But I asked him how the Communist years were for the church, and he said, 'They were wonderful years for the church'.

Stephen Crittenden: Why?

John Russell: Because they bought the church, the Catholic church and the Protestant church back to essentials. They took away the flummery at the top and made people look inside and look about what it was all about and where they were going. Some of us in the West have not had that opportunity, thank God, but those in the East who've had it, have, it seems, benefited by it.

Stephen Crittenden: John Russell, who died in Sydney last week.

Dear Listener, a “sympathetic, enlightened life-affirming kind of Catholicism”?? A church brought back to “essentials”?? We all know what these are code for don’t we.

The line Mr Crittenden and his guests seem to repeatedly push is just this: the Catholic Church has lost the Faith (and is probably the Whore of Babylon too, who knows). Benedict XVI and any orthodox Catholic misrepresent and distort true catholick faith, suffering from the accretions of the decadence of mediaeval times and renaissance Rome. They stand for hatred, bigotry and intolerance. And Benedict XVI is at their head.

Oh how tawdry and passé.

May these people reflect sincerely on the facts, the writings and the thoughts of, for one, Pope Benedict, especially in the Holy Father’s first encyclical Deus Caritas Est, along with most of his daily output (eg on the Zenit news site).

Gregorian Chant? Beautiful, Great, Awesome, Popular…just banned by Catholic priests that's all.

In this week’s Religion Report, Stephen Crittenden tangentially covered one of the abiding ironies (disgraces?) of the Catholic Church since the Second Vatican Coucil: the virtual suppression and destruction of Gregorian Chant in the life of the Church especially at the parish level.

Crittenden discussing the apparent anomaly of an old Italian manuscript of Gregorian Chant being held in the State Library of New South Wales’ collection. And Crittenden did so in very respectful tones. A recognition of a great artform, no less.

The twist is, that the manuscript has been “brought to life” through a series of secular concerts so popular, that more are having to be scheduled.

“This is not surprising”, might you say, Dear Listener. “It’s great music and a great artform, what’s the issue”. Hasn’t every Pope and Congregation responsible for the Liturgy and Sacraments exalted Gregorian as a priceless treasure?

Well, yes.

But these days the only place you are likely to hear any Gregorian Chant is in a concert hall or some Anglican churches.

Thing is, the majority of Catholic bishops, priests and Liturgy Committees, have in a practical sense FORBIDDEN the use of Gregorian Chant in church. The tawdry tale is repeated in parish after parish all over the Catholic world. In the Catholic world, you’ll find Gregorian Chant at the Vatican and in some of the more important churches and Catholic Cathedrals, but only where the Archbishop or Dean has orthodoxy and taste to boot.

Driven by the egregious modernistic tendencies that seem to interpret the Second Vatican Council as establishing almost a new church that ditches everything that came before, those people revile Gregorian Chant (and its language of Latin). They are things to be shunned and expunged from all use in the liturgical life of the Church because it is foreign to the modern mentality, stands for another faith. And are just a bit too-Catholic. We don’t do that here. We won’t even raise the issue of the complete drivel that has replaced it.

These views have been driven by the - at best - neglect - or more likely, deliberate program to destroy – this destroy this great art form and its accompanying language that both the Second Vatican Council and every Pope and Congregation responsible for the liturgy has exalted as a priceless treasure.

Not that Crittenden would tell you this of course, because to do that would actually give you a window on the authentic role and power of the Greogorian chant in authentic Catholic worship AND Greogorian Chant is, of course, most readily associated with…THE TRADITIONAL LATIN MASS and there is no way that there should be an publicity for the riches of that, should there dear Listener (cf Crittenden’s contemptuous tones on the liberalisation of the Traditional Latin Mass).

For the record, and before we look at the interview, let’s see what the Second Vatican Council really thought about Latin and Gregorian Chant. From its Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy (Sacrosanctum Concilium):

“116. The Church acknowledges Gregorian chant as specially suited to the Roman liturgy: therefore, other things being equal, it should be given pride of place in liturgical services.”

And, what about Latin?

36. 1. Particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites.

Yep. That’s right.

Hang on, Vatican II didn’t abolish Latin and the Gregorian Chant?

Nup, Dear Listener, on the contrary: when the Fathers of Vatican II voted for the Constitution on the Sacred Litrugy, they sought to ensure that what was promoted was the congregation's authentic (not superficial) involvement in the prayer of the Church - their prayer - and the Mass, to encourage their profound prayerful "interior" participation and thereby to encourage their authentic understanding of the Mass, so they could derive the maximum fruits from it. They also wanted the congregation to play the role proper (ie special) to them in the appropriate external by singing their chants and praying the Mass with the Priest. When it comes to singing, the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy said:

“54. In Masses which are celebrated with the people, a suitable place may be allotted to their mother tongue. This is to apply in the first place to the readings and "the common prayer," but also, as local conditions may warrant, to those parts which pertain to the people, according to tho norm laid down in Art. 36 of this Constitution.

Nevertheless steps should be taken so that the faithful may also be able to say or to sing together in Latin those parts of the Ordinary of the Mass which pertain to them.”

In your ordinary Catholic parish this does not happen. Why? The reasons you’ll hear are:

1. we don’t do that any more / we don't believe that any more
2. Vatican II abolished all that old stuff
3. we don’t do that in Australia
4. the people don’t understand
5. the people don’t sing
6. the people can’t sing
7. we don’t have the resources
8. no one knows Gregorian Chant

In other words, everything is being done on the practical level to ignore official directives and the Church’s tradition and timeless heritage, which belongs to ordinary Catholics in the pews as much as to anyone else.

Were this a question of taste, we would call it the appalling lack of taste.

But it's much more important than that. It has the effect of killing Latin and Gregorian Chant, depriving Catholics of their birthright and heritage and giving the ordinary Catholic the misleading impression that we just don’t do that any more.

Wethinks what is really happening is the individuals (Bishops, Priest, Laity, Liturgical Committees, Liturgical Commisions etc) involved either:

1. have no idea about what Vatican II said; or

2. don’t want to know about what Vatican II said; or

3. have an ideological position that they refuse to do what Vatican II (and every Pope since, including Pope Paul VI) said; or

4. will use every excuse in the book to keep the people in the dark, and finally kill off Latin and Gregorian Chant for good, given the evil these modernists perceive Latin and Gregorian Chant represent: Catholic faith and tradition.

“We don’t do that here”.

Let’s look at the interview:

CHANTING

Stephen Crittenden: Well that's Gregorian Chant from a manuscript that's thought to be one of the oldest European manuscripts in Australia, the Rimini Antiphonal of 1328. It's owned by the State Library of New South Wales, which has had the bright idea of not only giving the public a rare opportunity to see this beautiful illuminated manuscript in an exhibition, but giving the music its first Australian performance. So far there have been two sold-out concerts in the vestibule of the State Library, and we're told that demand is such that there'll be at least one more, possibly two.

The music archivist of the State Library of New South Wales is Meredith Lawn, and she's here in the studio with Dr Neil McEwan who lectures at the Conservatorium of Music and conducts the concerts. Meredith, a Franciscan manuscript from Rimini; describe it to us.

Meredith Lawn: Well it's an antiphonal and it contains music for the commons of the saints, which are Gregorian chants used in the service of the office. What it looks like, it's covered in hard oak wooden boards, and inside the pages are vellum. There are 155 folios which in today's pagination would be 310 pages because they're front and back. The music on the page is in the old style of notation, square black notes on four red lines, and we have illuminations on some of the pages, the most beautiful, brightly coloured illuminations with gold leaf, and they're by an artist called Neri Da Rimini.

Stephen Crittenden: Right. So this is not an anonymous manuscript, it's somebody we know.

Meredith Lawn: The artist has been identified. We even know the scribe who did the music and the text, and that was someone called Bonfontino da Bologna, but in the 16th century the manuscript was revised on some pages by an unknown scribe who actually scraped away some of the old notes and text, and wrote over the top of them, sometimes even pasting a piece of paper over the old text.

Stephen Crittenden: And 1328 by this time I guess in the history of music, we're into some quite spectacular polyphony starting to emerge.

Neil McEwan: By a longshot, yes.

Stephen Crittenden: By a longshot, but this is not polyphony this is pure, monophonic chant, isn't it?

Neil McEwan: It is, yes. It's just one line, could be sung by a soloist but I would suggest it would be sung by a schola of, you know, a number of people.

Meredith Lawn: I just think it's interesting to comment on the contents of the antiphonal for the different groups of saints. It doesn't come with a table of contents, but we could say that we start of with chants for the apostles. And then we have martyrs, several martyrs, and then we have confessors who were bishops, confessors who were not bishops, and it gets quite specific. Then we have virgins, virgins non-martyrs, non-virgins non-martyrs, and then it goes into the office for the dedication of the church and the office of the dead.

Stephen Crittenden: They loved classification, those people, didn't they? Meredith what can you tell us about the provenance of the book? Who owned it and how did the Library come to acquire it?

Meredith Lawn: Yes, a lot of people are surprised that this mediaeval Italian manuscript could end up in the State Library of New South Wales, but we received in 1928. It was a bequest from an English gentleman called Nelson Moore Richardson, and it was part of a collection of 300 rare early English bibles. But why did this Englishman choose to send them to Australia? Well, I've looked back through the correspondence files, and in a letter that Richardson wrote in 1917, he explains that there was an Australian army camp based on his land in Dorset, and he got to know the Australians that were passing through that camp. Many of them had actually been at Gallipoli, and this was a convalescent camp. So he writes in his letter:

'It occurred to us that it would show in a small way our appreciation of the Australians and of the noble way in which they have come forward to help us in this war, and of all the sacrifices they have made. If we were to arrange that these Bibles should eventually find a home in Australia.'

Now apparently Richardson was not sure whether they should go to Sydney or Melbourne, but the Chaplain at the Australian army camp, Reginald Pitt-Owen, he was from Sydney and he suggested Sydney, of course, so that's how they eventually came to us.

Stephen Crittenden: Neil, there's been surprising public interest in the concerts around this exhibition. There have been two sold-out concerts so far, I understand public demand is so big in Sydney that you're planning a third and perhaps even a fourth concert?

Neil McEwan: That's correct.

Stephen Crittenden: What's behind this level of interest, do you think?

Neil McEwan: Well I think that in much of what we do in life, everything's geared towards the future and the present, but within all of us there's a sense of wanting to know about mediaevalism. Gregorian chant seems to capture the imagination of people who don't know anything about it, and you'll remember some years ago where it hit the top of the hit parades in England.

Stephen Crittenden: The monks in Montserrat in Spain.

Neil McEwan: That's right.

Stephen Crittenden: Is it a straightforward matter to perform the music, or is that a matter of detailed reconstruction?

Neil McEwan: Well we're actually singing exactly what's on the page, in terms of notes. But by the time of the Rimini manuscript, practically all the semeology - that means the musicality and the expressive musical side of singing chant - had practically disappeared, because we got four lines and we can read the music. But I went back to the 10th century when those four lines of pitches hadn't been invented, and I crossed many of the manuscripts, but the important manuscripts of the 10th century are this proliferation of signs which tell us how to sing the chant, and that was just recently discovered by a Solesmes monk who published a book in 1979. But what's important is that I transcribed the 10th century nuances onto the manuscript which would give us pretty close to maybe what a performance practice was like, singing from the Rimini. But how they actually sang it and what the sound was like I have no idea. But I think we might be, well, pretty close.

Stephen Crittenden: Dr Neil McEwan of the New South Wales Conservatorium, and Meredith Lawn, of the State Library of New South Wales. There'll be one more concert in the coming weeks, perhaps two, and if you're interested in going you'll need to register your interest on the State Library's website. Details are on our website.

We think the good Dr McEwan is being a little reductionist with the emphasis on mediaevalism. Sure, that might be right in the secular sphere, but in the Catholic Church it's more an integral part of the Catholic Liturgy, and how beauty evangelises.

How he stirs the pot II

In our second piece, we look at the Religion Report Program from two Wednesday's ago (that preceeded our first posting below).

Stephen Crittenden got the...sorry...got a "Catholic view" of the issue of the change by Pope Benedict XVI of the Good Friday prayers for the conversion of the Jews in the Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite of the Mass.

So that we know who the interlocutor is, he is one Father John Pawlikowsky, whom Crittenden describes as "one of the most senior figures in the church, involved in dialogue with the Jews. In fact he's the international President of the Council of Christians and Jews". Okay, so we have a pretty good idea of where this is likely to take us, don't we...let's see:


Well you may remember the debate in the Catholic church last year when Pope Benedict reintroduced [Wrong. See our comments on the last post. "Liberated" / "confirmed the non-abolition of" would be more accurate. Or, to use the words of the Holy Father from the Apostolic Letter to the Bishops: "I would like to draw attention to the fact that this Missal was never juridically abrogated and, consequently, in principle, was always permitted." ] the old [note the common implication of the Modernist (i.e. Regressivist) mentality...anythiny OLD is BAD, anything NEW is GOOD] pre-Vatican II Latin missal [Presumably, Crittenden doesn't know - why doesn't he know?? - that all the official text of the Missal is in Latin because that's the normative language of the liturgy!] of 1962 in an effort to build bridges with Catholic traditionalists. [It's not entirely clear from the text, but if the implication here is that this is solely a sop to the Society of St Pius X (who, presumably are the "traditionalists" he refers to, given that the only traditionists really in existence are at the fringes of the church not in the heart of the Church...), then that's wrong too. More on that later. At this point the Pope's words are interesting: "We all know that, in the movement led by Archbishop Lefebvre, fidelity to the old Missal became an external mark of identity; the reasons for the break which arose over this, however, were at a deeper level. Many people who clearly accepted the binding character of the Second Vatican Council, and were faithful to the Pope and the Bishops, nonetheless also desired to recover the form of the sacred liturgy that was dear to them. This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church." Sounds like the Pope things there are traditionalists in the heart of the Church, too and, wethinks, he ought to know]

Critics were quick to point out that the old rite contained at least one prayer [To our knowledge there is only one prayer (consisting of two parts) that is in issue. Is it possible that Crittenden is reverencing somethingelse (eg the Office)?] , a Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews, that used language which was really no longer acceptable. [Note how Crittenden simply imposes a judgment: of course, it's no longer acceptable because the views of the anti-Catholic within and outside the Catholic church deem it to be so, and this uncritical, irrational position, should and will be accepted by you, Dear Listener, because Crittenden saith it is so] This is it. [Gird your loins, Listeners...]

'Let us pray also for the Jews, that the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts [Fr Z in the post below, reminds us that this is a direct biblical allusion. Not that Crittenden would INFORM you of that, of course.] and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ. [would have thought that's fair enough] Almighty and everlasting God, you do not refuse your mercy even to the Jews [Clearly the "even" gets the Modernist's goat: it's better translated into English as "also"]. Hear the prayers which we offer for the blindness of that people [a further direct biblical allusion. Not that Crittenden would INFORM you of that, of course.], so that they may acknowledge the light of your truth.'

Well that kind of language went out with [Crittenden's contempt is obvious, no?] the Second Vatican Council's declaration on the church's relation with non-Christians, called Nostrae Aetate. Mainstream Catholics [Behold, the men and women of straw have arrived. Those nasty traditionists couldn't possibily be "Mainstream Catholics" , could they dear Listener. No they do weird things like actually believe that the consecrated bread and wine are actually the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. Shameful] these days [As opposed to the "Mainstream Catholics" of 1963 and any before who clearly had the wrong end of the stick] say a completely different prayer for the Jews on Good Friday that makes no mention of conversion. [Right, so Crittenden wants you to believe that Catholics no longer prayer for conversion in the Novus Ordo, the New Order of Mass. The prayer is:

"Let us pray for the Jewish people, the first to hear the word of God, that they may continue to grow in the love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant. Almighty and eternal God, long ago you gave your promise to Abraham and his posterity. Listen to your church as we pray that the people you first made your own may arrive at the fullness of redemption."

So, it's clear to anyone who stops for a second that the prayer in the Novus Ordo is phrased in language that is seen as the diplomatic and open-ended. But, deliciously vague and open to interpretations that fudge the issue. You could argue with some validity: "No, Catholics don't pray for conversion" and much as you could that "Yes, Catholics still pray for conversion of the Jews." Except of course, the Pope reckons we still do. Catholics believe the "fullness of redemption" is Christ. Therefore Catholics pray that God will bring Jews to recognise Christ; how and when, Catholics don't presume to know. What Catholics do NOT do is force Christ upon anyone. That's not what Catholics understand Faith to be. Not that Crittenden would INFORM you of that.]

Well now Pope Benedict has dumped ["dumped", Listener] the prayer from the old Latin rite and written a third prayer, minus the offensive [yep, offensive. Bear in mind what Rabbi Rosen said about that in last week's blog entry: that it's not offensive, properly understood] language, but the language of conversion is back. [Oh, dear. Where did it go in the first place?] Now this may seem like a tiny technical matter, [yeah, right. Is this bloke the full quid?] only of interest to a few diehards [So, the vast majority of Catholics in communion with the Pope and faithful to the 2000 tradition of the Church founded by Jesus Christ, are "a few diehards" in Crittenden's view, with all the negative connotations that accompany that word. Whereas the "liberal" Catholics are okay, because, well, they're aren't TOO Catholic. And being TOO Catholic, is a problem for everyone else] who want to hang on to the Latin. [Crittenden wears his ignorance and idiocy on his sleeve] But it also opens an extremely interesting theological can of worms.

Father John Pawlikowsky is one of the most senior figures in the church, involved [We imagine the transcript inserts this comma where it don't belong] in dialogue with the Jews. In fact he's the international President of the Council of Christians and Jews. He says the way the Pope has addressed the Jewish prayer is quite inadequate. /font>

John Pawlikowsky: With some serious reflection, it could have been handled far better because any number of Jewish and Christian groups and inter-religious groups wrote to the Vatican well in advance, and there were also cardinals and bishops who wrote saying there was a problem here that needs addressing, if you're going to restore the prayers of the '62 missal. [So, even the Catholics are mis-representing the liberalisation of the 1962 missal, so what credibility should we attribute to the Rev Fr Pawlikowsky have on issues of the Ancient Rite of Mass? Evidently he knows something about relations with the Jewish Faith, but does he know diddly squat about the Extraordinary Form of the Mass? Let's see] And unfortunately he was very late in the game when they even began to take serious notice of the concerns.

Stephen Crittenden: Is the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews in the old Latin rite from 1962, just one small sign of what was wrong with the old rite, [And, dear Crittenden, what were the others? That it isn't Protestant enough? That it is too Catholic because it very clearly reflects a belief in the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist?] and why it needed to be reformed? Does the Jewish prayer reflect in fact, a mentality that's characteristic of the whole rite? [After much deliberation, we think Crittenden is trying to say that the Extraordinary Form is inherently offensive to the Jews, and - because he only wants to hint at it, without saying the A-word - is, in some fashion Antisemitic; is that it? Is that what he's saying?? If so, say so, in order that we know precisely where you stand]

John Pawlikowsky: Well it certainly reflects a theological position [The Rev Fr isn't going to be so ballsy is he?] with respect to the Jews and also I would say to other Christians and to people of other faith traditions, including Muslims and so on.

[If Rev Fr means that Catholics would only prayer for others conversion, then he is being misleading. Catholics pray for their own conversion first and foremost.

Thoughts on the New Prayers for the Jews

We thought putting this in context would be a good idea. And we find it difficult to go much past the redoubtable Fr Z's explanations.

Here, for your edification:

WDTPRS: The new Good Friday prayer for Jews in the 1962MR
CATEGORY: SESSIUNCULUM — Fr. John Zuhlsdorf @ 8:27 am

I have been thinking a little about the new prayer Pope Benedict XVI has swapped into the 1962 Missale Romanum for Good Friday when we, as a whole Church have always, do now, and will always pray also for the Jews.

I wrote about this issue at some length here.

A have some initial observations.


Most people really wont care one way or another about this prayer.
It is used once a year.
Missals were changed by Popes all along the way.
Our Church is not a fly in amber.
People should actually read the prayer and think about it before freaking out.
Let’s have a look at the prayer as it appears in the 1962 Missale Romanum and now in its revised form in the 1962 Missale. My translations:

MR62 Latin
Oremus et pro Iudaeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster auferat velamen de cordibus eorum; ut et ipsi agnoscant Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum. ...

Omnipotens sempiternae Deus, qui Iudaeos etiam a tua misericordia non repellis: exaudi preces nostras, quas pro illius populi obcaecatione deferimus; ut agnita veritatis tuae luce, quae Christus est, a suis tenebris eruantur. Per eundem Dominum.

MR62 English
Let us also pray for the Jews: that our Lord and God take away the veil from their hearts; that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ to be our Lord.

Almighty eternal God, who also does not repell the Jews from Your mercy: graciously hear the prayers which we are conveying on behalf of the blindness of that people; so that once the light of Your Truth has been recognized, which is Christ, they may be rescued from their darkness.


Revised ‘62 Latin
Oremus et pro Iudaeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster illuminet corda eorum, ut agnoscant Iesum Christum salvatorem omnium hominum.

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui vis ut omnes homines salvi fiant et ad agnitionem veritatis veniant, concede propitius, ut plenitudine gentium in Ecclesiam Tuam intrante omnis Israel salvus fiat. Per Christum Dominum nostrum. Amen.

Revised ‘62 English

Let us also pray for the Jews: that our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge that Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men.

Almighty and eternal God, who want that all men be saved and come to the recognition of the truth, propitiously grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Your Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.


In first prayer of the couplet, the older version prayed that the darkness, in the image of a veil, be taken from the hearts of the Jews, presumably to let in the light of Christ, light being a metaphor for the Truth, who also is Christ. In first prayer of the newer version, we pray that God may illuminate, that is shed light, which is a metaphor for the Truth (who is Christ) in the hearts of the Jews.

Okay… it is a little less poetic in the new version. I like the poetry of the previous version and mourn its loss. I found nothing, zero, offensive to Jews in that older version. After, we Christians pray in terms our our own darkness. Still… the first prayers of both the older version and the newer version say the same thing.

The second prayer of the couplet, in the older version begins with a statement that God does not reject the Jews from His mercy. An obvious point. However, the Latin could be read to say in English: "O God, who does not reject even the Jews from Your mercy". In English this could be made to sound rather like the Jews must be pretty bad indeed and that it would be reasonable for a less merciful God to not be merciful. However, Latin, not English, is the language of Mass and this phrase need not have that negative connotation. It is better to render it "also the Jews" and not just "even the Jews". In the next part of the prayer we take it on ourselves to pray on behalf of their "darkness", that is, that they lack the Truth, the light of Christ. That’s fine: we Christians pray for ourselves in those very same terms. We refer to our own dark sins all the time, etc. Then we pray that they will be rescued from darkness, which is a metaphor for error and the possibility of the loss of salvation. No problems there. I think we are pretty much praying for ourselves in those terms to. However, the force of the statement comes as much through the beautiful turn of phrase, the poetry that has an impact on the ear.

The second part of the newer version of the prayer, starts from the larger picture, rather than the smaller group. The older prayer focuses entirely on the Jews. The newer version starts from the fact that all men, whomever they may be, were made to be saved and happy with God in heaven. They are saved through "recognition of the Truth". Christ is that Truth.

The interesting point here is what is being said in "grant that even as the fullness of the peoples enters Your Church, all Israel may be saved".

This is a reference to Romans 11:25-26:

For I would not have you ignorant, brethren, of this mystery (lest you should be wise in your own conceits) that blindness (caecitas) in part has happened in Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles (plentitudo gentium) should come in (intraret). And so all Israel should be saved (omnis Israhel salvus fieret), as it is written: There shall come out of Sion, he that shall deliver and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob.

Earlier in Romans St. Paul says that the Church is the fulfillment of the Israel. However, here Paul is saying that God is not therefore finished with the Jews. In chapter 11, Paul is exploring how the Gentiles must be very humble in regard to their salvation. However, Paul says that Israel has, in fact, a blindness problem (caecitatas)... and that this blindness of Israel, that is the part of the Israel that did not covert and come into the Church… until the fullness of the Gentiles should come in. So, Paul focuses on the responsibility of the Gentiles, but he is also saying that God is not finished with the unconverted Jews.

So, in the second part of the second prayer in the new, revised couplet: there is a direct scriptural reference to the "blindness… caecitas" of the Jews. This is very common with our Catholic prayers: often they only mention a fragment of a phrase of Scripture, and we must pick up the context.

If the Jews who hear this newer prayer think they have scored a victory over the Church because the Pope was persuaded to change the text, they are very much deluded. The reference to the blindness of the Jews is still there: you just have to take the veil off your Christian Bible and look up the reference. Frankly, I think that if the Jews who were really grousing at the Holy See look at this prayer, they are not going to like what the find. They won’t be happy until the Pope stands at the center balcony of St. Peter’s and says that Jews are right and that Christ irrelevant to salvation.

If any Catholic traditionalists are angry that the Pope changed the prayer, they too should pick up their Bibles and take a look around, thinking first, about what the prayer really says.

The new prayer has retained the substance of the old prayers. As a matter of fact, Pope Benedict has provided a deeper point of reflection. Let us not forget that the earlier versions, going back to the 1570 editio princeps, are not doctrinally wrong. We are free to change our manner of expression. What Pope Benedict has done is shift the style, yes, but also add a layer for our prayer life, rather than take one away.