Father Zuhlsdorf heeft volgend interessant bericht (hij geeft tevens het orginele document weer):
in een antwoord (gedateerd 9 februari 2008) van de Pauselijke Commissie Ecclesia Dei op een vraag over het onderricht van seminaristen in het missaal volgens de Zalige Johannes XXIII (1962) wordt geantwoord en ik citeer:
1. Kandidaten voor het priesterschap in de Romeinse Ritus van de Katholieke Kerk hebben het recht om onderricht te worden in beide vormen van de Romeinse Ritus. [Candidates for the priesthood in the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church have the
right to be instructed in both forms of the Roman Rite.]
2. Zij die verantwoordelijk zijn voor de vorming van de kandidaten voor het priesterschap in de Romeinse Ritus van de Katholieke Kerk dienen te voorzien in de instructie van hun kandidaten in beide vormen van de Romeinse Ritus [Those responsible for the formation of candidates for the priesthood in the Roman
Rite of the Catholic Church should provide for the instruction of their candidates in both forms of the Roman Rite.]
Bovendien vermeldt de secretaris van PCED, Msgr. Camille Perl, dat "wij verwachten dat deze zaken snel behandeld zullen worden in een instructie over de toepassing van het Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum" [We expect that these matters will soon be treated in an instruction on the application of the Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum.]
Ik herinner bovendien aan § 12. van Summorum Pontificum: Art. 12. Deze Commissie, naast de faculteiten die zij reeds geniet, zal de autoriteit van de Heilige Stoel uitoefenen, wakende over de observantie en de toepassing van deze disposities. [Art. 12. Eadem Commissio, ultra facultates quibus iam gaudet, auctoritatem Sanctae Sedis exercebit, vigilando de observantia et applicatione harum dispositionum.]
Hoe vandaag reeds de seminaristen van het bisdom van aartsbisschop Raymond E. Burke onderricht worden in de Forma extraordinaria kan u hier lezen als ook beelden van de Allerzielen mis in het seminarie in de Forma extraordinaria hier.
zaterdag, februari 16, 2008
De hervorming van de hervorming gaat verder!
The New Liturgical Movement noteert een prachtige evolutie tussen vasten 2006 en vasten 2008 van de opstelling van het altaar in de pauselijke Redemptoris Mater -kapel.
maandag, februari 11, 2008
Paus Benedictus over problemen met massa-Eucharistie
In zijn vraaggesprek met de clerus van Rome, 7 februari jl., bespreekt paus Benedictus de problemen die gepaard gaan met de H. Mis waaraan duizenden mensen deelnemen. Voor wie ooit aanwezig was of enkel beelden zag van zulke 'vieringen' zoals in Keulen of Oostenrijk in het recente verleden, beseft dat hier ernstige vragen dienen bij gesteld te worden, zowel wat betreft de gelovigen als de massaal concelebrerende priesters. Interessant is vooral dat blijkt dat de H. Vader bij deze gelegenheden niet alles in hand lijkt te hebben en dat bovendien hij de vraag stelt of bij massa-concelebratie nog "datgene wat de Heer gewild heeft" aanwezig is.
Hier zijn de woorden van onze Heilige Vader (Engelse vertaling via de website van Sandro Magister)
"Q: How do you reconcile the treasure of the liturgy in all of its solemnity with the sentiment, feeling, and emotionality of the masses of young people who are called to participate in it?
A: The problem of liturgies at which masses of people participate is a serious one I recall that in 1960, during the great international Eucharistic congress in Munich, there was an attempt to give a new physiognomy to the Eucharistic congresses, which until then had been solely acts of adoration. The intention was to put the celebration of the Eucharist at the center as the act of the presence of the mystery celebrated.
But the question immediately arose of how this could be done. Adoration, it was said, can also be done from a distance; but in order to celebrate there must be a delimited community that can interact with the mystery, and therefore a community that must be an assembly around the celebration of the mystery.
Many were against the idea of celebrating the Eucharist outdoors with a hundred thousand people. They said that it was not possible because of the very structure of the Eucharist, which requires community for communion. And there were also prominent personalities, very respectable, who were against this solution.
But then professor Jungmann, a great liturgist and one of the leading architects of the liturgical reform, created the concept of "statio orbis," returning to the "statio Romae" in which during the Lenten season the faithful would gather in a place, the "statio," like soldiers for Christ, and then would go to the Eucharist together. If that, he said, had been the "statio" of the city of Rome, the place where the city of Rome gathered, that this would be the "statio orbis," the place where the world gathers.
It was from that moment that we had Eucharistic celebrations with mass participation. For me, I must say, it remains a problem, because concrete communion in the celebration is fundamental, and therefore I do not believe that the definitive answer has truly been found. Again at the last synod [of bishops] I raised this question again, but the answer was not found.
I posed another question, about mass concelebration: because if, for example, a thousand priests concelebrate, it is not clear whether the structure intended by the Lord is still present. These are questions. And so you encountered, in Loreto, the difficulty of participating in a mass celebration during which it is not possible that all be equally involved. A certain style must therefore be chosen to preserve the dignity that is always necessary for the Eucharist; the community is not uniform, and the experience of participation at the event is different; for some, it is certainly insufficient. But in Loreto, this matter did not depend upon me, but rather upon those occupied with the preparation.
We must therefore reflect well on what to do in these situations [. . .] The fundamental problem remains, but it seems to me that, knowing what the Eucharist is, even if one does not have the possibility of the kind of exterior activity desired to feel oneself as a participant, one may enter with the heart, as the ancient imperative of the Church says, which may have been created precisely for those who were in the back of the basilica: "Let us lift up our hearts! Now let us all come out from ourselves, so that we ma be with the Lord and be together." I do not deny the problem, but if we truly follow these words, "let us lift up our hearts," we will all find, even in difficult and sometimes questionable situations, true active participation."
Hier zijn de woorden van onze Heilige Vader (Engelse vertaling via de website van Sandro Magister)
"Q: How do you reconcile the treasure of the liturgy in all of its solemnity with the sentiment, feeling, and emotionality of the masses of young people who are called to participate in it?
A: The problem of liturgies at which masses of people participate is a serious one I recall that in 1960, during the great international Eucharistic congress in Munich, there was an attempt to give a new physiognomy to the Eucharistic congresses, which until then had been solely acts of adoration. The intention was to put the celebration of the Eucharist at the center as the act of the presence of the mystery celebrated.
But the question immediately arose of how this could be done. Adoration, it was said, can also be done from a distance; but in order to celebrate there must be a delimited community that can interact with the mystery, and therefore a community that must be an assembly around the celebration of the mystery.
Many were against the idea of celebrating the Eucharist outdoors with a hundred thousand people. They said that it was not possible because of the very structure of the Eucharist, which requires community for communion. And there were also prominent personalities, very respectable, who were against this solution.
But then professor Jungmann, a great liturgist and one of the leading architects of the liturgical reform, created the concept of "statio orbis," returning to the "statio Romae" in which during the Lenten season the faithful would gather in a place, the "statio," like soldiers for Christ, and then would go to the Eucharist together. If that, he said, had been the "statio" of the city of Rome, the place where the city of Rome gathered, that this would be the "statio orbis," the place where the world gathers.
It was from that moment that we had Eucharistic celebrations with mass participation. For me, I must say, it remains a problem, because concrete communion in the celebration is fundamental, and therefore I do not believe that the definitive answer has truly been found. Again at the last synod [of bishops] I raised this question again, but the answer was not found.
I posed another question, about mass concelebration: because if, for example, a thousand priests concelebrate, it is not clear whether the structure intended by the Lord is still present. These are questions. And so you encountered, in Loreto, the difficulty of participating in a mass celebration during which it is not possible that all be equally involved. A certain style must therefore be chosen to preserve the dignity that is always necessary for the Eucharist; the community is not uniform, and the experience of participation at the event is different; for some, it is certainly insufficient. But in Loreto, this matter did not depend upon me, but rather upon those occupied with the preparation.
We must therefore reflect well on what to do in these situations [. . .] The fundamental problem remains, but it seems to me that, knowing what the Eucharist is, even if one does not have the possibility of the kind of exterior activity desired to feel oneself as a participant, one may enter with the heart, as the ancient imperative of the Church says, which may have been created precisely for those who were in the back of the basilica: "Let us lift up our hearts! Now let us all come out from ourselves, so that we ma be with the Lord and be together." I do not deny the problem, but if we truly follow these words, "let us lift up our hearts," we will all find, even in difficult and sometimes questionable situations, true active participation."
donderdag, februari 07, 2008
Terugkeer van het Romeinse kazuifel
Father Zuhlsdorf en Shawn Tribe hebben hier en hier zoals gewoonlijk meer informatie over de voortdurende, tot meerdere eer en glorie van God, pracht van de pauselijke liturgie én van het Romeinse kazuifel.
Inaudito: i supertradizionalisti applaudono il cardinale Martini
Sandro Magister heeft dit interessant bericht:
Sull’ultimo numero di “Sì sì no no”, il periodico dei tradizionalisti estremi, compare un sorprendente osanna a una loro bestia nera, il cardinale Carlo Maria Martini.
L’occasione è un libro, “Le tenebre e la luce”, edito da Piemme, nel quale l’arcivescovo emerito di Milano pubblica un corso di esercizi spirituali da lui predicato a Gerusalemme nel giugno del 2007 sui capitoli della Passione nel Vangelo di Giovanni.
A proposito del sinedrio e della sua condanna di Gesù, Martini a un certo punto scrive:
“Ci troviamo davvero di fronte al crollo di una istituzione, una istituzione – notiamo – che avrebbe avuto il compito primario di riconoscere il Messia verificandone le prove. Sarebbe stato questo l’atto giuridico più alto di tutta la sua storia. Invece fallisce proprio lo scopo fondamentale […] in vista del quale era sorta”.
E prosegue:
“Si pone qui un problema gravissimo, quello della possibilità che un’istituzione religiosa decada: si leggono ancora i testi sacri, però non sono più compresi, non hanno più forza, accecano invece di illuminare. […] Le loro menti si sono accecate. Infatti lo spesso velo sino ad oggi rimane non rimosso quando leggono l’Antico Testamento, perché in Cristo soltanto esso si annulla. Anzi, fino ad oggi, quando si legge ad essi Mosé, un velo giace sopra il loro cuore”.
Veramente, prima che se ne fossero accorti quelli di “Sì sì no no”, queste tesi del cardinale Martini avevano fatto sobbalzare un osservatore ebreo, il professor Giorgio Israel. Su “Shalom”, la rivista della comunità israelitica di Roma, nel numero dello scorso novembre, Israel aveva scritto che Martini aveva compiuto “un salto logico sconcertante” decretando “la fine storica dell’ebraismo”, sostenendo che “il dono di Dio a Israele è stato revocato”, riproponendo “la teologia della sostituzione” e insomma “facendo fare un passo indietro persino rispetto alla Nostra Aetate”.
All’opposto, “Sì sì no no” scorge ora nel cardinale Martini un apprezzabile principio di ravvedimento rispetto alle sue precedenti posizioni “filogiudaizzanti”. Ed applaude a questo “inatteso sprazzo di luce”.
Ma di curioso c’è dell’altro. Sulle “menti accecate” e sul “velo sopra il cuore” hanno fatto leva le vibrate proteste di alcuni ebrei contro le formule in uso nella preghiera del Venerdì Santo secondo il rito antico liberalizzato da Benedetto XVI, preghiera in procinto di essere modificata. Ma proprio su tali concetti poggia l’argomentazione del cardinale…
Sull’ultimo numero di “Sì sì no no”, il periodico dei tradizionalisti estremi, compare un sorprendente osanna a una loro bestia nera, il cardinale Carlo Maria Martini.
L’occasione è un libro, “Le tenebre e la luce”, edito da Piemme, nel quale l’arcivescovo emerito di Milano pubblica un corso di esercizi spirituali da lui predicato a Gerusalemme nel giugno del 2007 sui capitoli della Passione nel Vangelo di Giovanni.
A proposito del sinedrio e della sua condanna di Gesù, Martini a un certo punto scrive:
“Ci troviamo davvero di fronte al crollo di una istituzione, una istituzione – notiamo – che avrebbe avuto il compito primario di riconoscere il Messia verificandone le prove. Sarebbe stato questo l’atto giuridico più alto di tutta la sua storia. Invece fallisce proprio lo scopo fondamentale […] in vista del quale era sorta”.
E prosegue:
“Si pone qui un problema gravissimo, quello della possibilità che un’istituzione religiosa decada: si leggono ancora i testi sacri, però non sono più compresi, non hanno più forza, accecano invece di illuminare. […] Le loro menti si sono accecate. Infatti lo spesso velo sino ad oggi rimane non rimosso quando leggono l’Antico Testamento, perché in Cristo soltanto esso si annulla. Anzi, fino ad oggi, quando si legge ad essi Mosé, un velo giace sopra il loro cuore”.
Veramente, prima che se ne fossero accorti quelli di “Sì sì no no”, queste tesi del cardinale Martini avevano fatto sobbalzare un osservatore ebreo, il professor Giorgio Israel. Su “Shalom”, la rivista della comunità israelitica di Roma, nel numero dello scorso novembre, Israel aveva scritto che Martini aveva compiuto “un salto logico sconcertante” decretando “la fine storica dell’ebraismo”, sostenendo che “il dono di Dio a Israele è stato revocato”, riproponendo “la teologia della sostituzione” e insomma “facendo fare un passo indietro persino rispetto alla Nostra Aetate”.
All’opposto, “Sì sì no no” scorge ora nel cardinale Martini un apprezzabile principio di ravvedimento rispetto alle sue precedenti posizioni “filogiudaizzanti”. Ed applaude a questo “inatteso sprazzo di luce”.
Ma di curioso c’è dell’altro. Sulle “menti accecate” e sul “velo sopra il cuore” hanno fatto leva le vibrate proteste di alcuni ebrei contro le formule in uso nella preghiera del Venerdì Santo secondo il rito antico liberalizzato da Benedetto XVI, preghiera in procinto di essere modificata. Ma proprio su tali concetti poggia l’argomentazione del cardinale…
woensdag, februari 06, 2008
"Roma locuta...", "Een meesterzet"
Twee goede reacties:
1/ Alcuin Reid (Auteur van The organic development of the liturgy):
Roma locuta est: causa finita est. This traditional maxim of Catholic life needs to be remembered. It refers to the right of the Holy See – and most specifically of the Sovereign Pontiff – to decide on matters of discipline and governance of the Church. Once the arguments have been duly heard and the Supreme Authority decides, loyal Catholics obey: even if they personally disagree about the prudence or otherwise of a decision.
This is not true, of course, in matters of faith and morals, where there is little room for manoeuvre in prudential judgement. But in matters of policy, where the faith of the Church is not altered, yes, the Pope is our General-in-Chief and we follow his lead.
Pope Benedict XVI has decided to alter the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews in the Missal of the usus antiquior of the Roman rite. In the past six or so months we have all heard the noises made – from differing quarters, arising from varying motives – about this aspect of the Church’s liturgical tradition. So too has the Holy Father. And, as Peter, he has made an authoritative prudential decision: one which, whatever our preferences, we owe obedience and respect.
The new prayer does not detract from or attempt to change Catholic doctrine in respect of our fervent prayer for the conversion of the Jewish people. The principle of lex orandi, lex credendi is fully respected. Whilst the Holy Father has decided that phrases in the previous prayer are to be changed – and we are free to agree or not with his thinking on this – the change is not a substantial change to the Sacred Liturgy as handed on in tradition, nor is it in radical theological discontinuity with what has gone before. Indeed, it reasserts Catholic doctrine (perhaps rather cleverly) when some, if not many, would have had it denied by insisting that it is inappropriate in the modern day to pray for the conversion of the Jews at all. The Pope has rejected such a stance as inimical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, yesterday, today, and forever.
In matters of prudence the Pope is entitled to govern so long as he remains faithful to Catholic doctrine. This, Pope Benedict XVI most certainly is. Obedientia et pax.
2/Christopher Ferrara, columnist van de katholieke krant The Remnant:
The reports were true: The Pope has changed the traditional Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. But, amazingly enough, the change is another positive development in this papacy, although I would never have thought so until I actually read the text of the new prayer.
First of all, there is only one thing we need to know about the revised prayer in order to assess whether it is good or bad for the cause of the Gospel: Abe Foxman hates it. He really hates it. In my article of January 21, 2008 I wrote: “We can only hope the reports are false, or that the Pope, if he does alter the prayer, does so in a way that leaves intact the Church’s unambiguous call for the conversion of the Jewish people, no less than the other peoples of the earth.” The Pope has done the latter quite resoundingly, and Foxman knows it.
Foxman and his collaborators did not get what they were clamoring for: a formal abandonment of the necessity of Jewish conversion to Christ. What they got instead is a reformulation of the Good Friday prayer that takes away their issue while petitioning for Jewish conversion in a way that is, if anything, even more objectionable from their standpoint. Here is the prayer as it reads in an unofficial (but apparently quite accurate) translation:
Let us pray also for the Jews.
May our God and Lord enlighten their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, savior of all men.
Let us pray.
Let us kneel.
Arise.
Almighty and everlasting God, who desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, mercifully grant that, as the fullness of the Gentiles enters into Thy Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen. (all emphasis mine)
Yes, the references to “blindness” and “darkness” in the traditional prayer are gone. But like the traditional prayer (which never uses the word “conversion”) the revised prayer explicitly calls upon God to enlighten the Jewish people “so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, saviour of all men.” By comparison the traditional prayer states: “that they may also acknowledge Our Lord Jesus Christ.” The traditional prayer does not, however, contain the revised prayer’s petition that “all Israel may be saved.” In fact, neither the word salvation nor saved appears anywhere in the traditional prayer.
Foxman understands exactly what has happened. His press release for the ADL barely conceals his rage over the new prayer’s call for the enlightenment of the Jewish people, their acknowledgment of Christ, and the newly added element of the ultimate conversion of the entire nation of Israel in keeping with the prophecy of Saint Paul, the most renowned Jewish convert in salvation history. As the ADL complains: “The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said the Vatican’s changes to the Latin Good Friday prayer for the conversion of Jews amount to ‘cosmetic revisions’ and the prayer remains ‘deeply troubling’ because it calls for Jews to ‘acknowledge Jesus Christ as the savior of all men.’” Foxman is quoted directly as follows:
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 Acetate.
ADL's press release reveals that it feared this would be the outcome of all its squawking: “ADL wrote to Pope Benedict on January 22 expressing concern that a revised Good Friday prayer that Jews abandon their own religious identity, would be devastating to the deepening relationship and dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people.” In other words, Foxman and the ADL regard the revised prayer as a disaster and a total defeat of their campaign to browbeat the Pope into repudiating the conversion of the Jews.
Consider what the Pope has done here: After Foxman and his fellow agitators had shot their wad at the Vatican over this issue, clearly hoping to derail a Latin Mass restoration, His Holiness responded with a revised Good Friday prayer that not only retains the Church’s call for Jewish conversion, but adds to that call the Pauline element of the final conversion of the entire Jewish nation. At the same time, the Pope, by removing the references to blindness and darkness, left no further ground for Jewish objection to the prayer besides the idea of Jewish conversion itself. Foxman and company have thus been left with no choice but reveal the real gravamen of their objection to the Good Friday prayer: not that it contains particular words they deem “anti-Semitic,” which words they now admit they viewed only as “cosmetic,” but rather that it calls for Jewish conversion at all, and thereby “departs” from what they thought was the irrevocable innovation of the Church during and after Vatican II.
Can we not see it? Foxman surely does. The Pope has used a change in the Good Friday prayer to undo the false perception of a change in the Church’s teaching on her relation to the Jewish people. And what can Foxman and company do now? Demand yet another revision of the prayer? Of course they cannot do that, for then they would seem intolerably petulant and unreasonable even in the eyes of world opinion. The issue, then, is dead, and we are left with a revised prayer for Jewish conversion that is no more acceptable to the Formants than the traditional one. Indeed, as the Times Online observes: “It is difficult not to conclude that this represents a re-emergence of supercessionism. A discussion of the Pope's views when he was still Joseph Ratzinger shows that the former Pope clearly regarded the ‘new covenant’ as the fulfilment of the covenant of Sinai.”
I think we have witnessed a papal masterstroke. And I hope traditionalists everywhere will be at least as perceptive as Foxman in assessing what has happened. I hope we will not see critical traditionalist excurses on the theology and Scriptural derivation of every word in the traditional prayer—as if we were unaware of these points—when the substance of the matter is that the Church retains a perfectly clear prayer for Jewish conversion that has sent the message that her teaching on this score has not changed one iota since Vatican II: the Jewish people are called no less than others to join the new covenant people of God. Here, again, let us have the sense to recognize a favorable development when we see one, instead of assuming the role of theological clerks with permanent desk jobs. What matters is that the new Good Friday prayer, which the Pope has every right to alter—and which already has been altered by his predecessor—is theologically completely sound and thus displeasing to those who had hoped for another capitulation to the world in the name of Vatican II.
At the same time let us pray that by the grace of God for which we will petition on Good Friday, Foxman and people like him will come recognize what is behind the Church’s call for the conversion of the Jewish people: not enmity toward the Jews, but the infinite love of the “Saviour of all men,” and the certainty that when our short time on this earth is over, all of the elect will be united forever in that mystical communion wherein there is neither Jew nor Greek, but all are one in Christ Jesus.
1/ Alcuin Reid (Auteur van The organic development of the liturgy):
Roma locuta est: causa finita est. This traditional maxim of Catholic life needs to be remembered. It refers to the right of the Holy See – and most specifically of the Sovereign Pontiff – to decide on matters of discipline and governance of the Church. Once the arguments have been duly heard and the Supreme Authority decides, loyal Catholics obey: even if they personally disagree about the prudence or otherwise of a decision.
This is not true, of course, in matters of faith and morals, where there is little room for manoeuvre in prudential judgement. But in matters of policy, where the faith of the Church is not altered, yes, the Pope is our General-in-Chief and we follow his lead.
Pope Benedict XVI has decided to alter the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews in the Missal of the usus antiquior of the Roman rite. In the past six or so months we have all heard the noises made – from differing quarters, arising from varying motives – about this aspect of the Church’s liturgical tradition. So too has the Holy Father. And, as Peter, he has made an authoritative prudential decision: one which, whatever our preferences, we owe obedience and respect.
The new prayer does not detract from or attempt to change Catholic doctrine in respect of our fervent prayer for the conversion of the Jewish people. The principle of lex orandi, lex credendi is fully respected. Whilst the Holy Father has decided that phrases in the previous prayer are to be changed – and we are free to agree or not with his thinking on this – the change is not a substantial change to the Sacred Liturgy as handed on in tradition, nor is it in radical theological discontinuity with what has gone before. Indeed, it reasserts Catholic doctrine (perhaps rather cleverly) when some, if not many, would have had it denied by insisting that it is inappropriate in the modern day to pray for the conversion of the Jews at all. The Pope has rejected such a stance as inimical to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, yesterday, today, and forever.
In matters of prudence the Pope is entitled to govern so long as he remains faithful to Catholic doctrine. This, Pope Benedict XVI most certainly is. Obedientia et pax.
2/Christopher Ferrara, columnist van de katholieke krant The Remnant:
The reports were true: The Pope has changed the traditional Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews. But, amazingly enough, the change is another positive development in this papacy, although I would never have thought so until I actually read the text of the new prayer.
First of all, there is only one thing we need to know about the revised prayer in order to assess whether it is good or bad for the cause of the Gospel: Abe Foxman hates it. He really hates it. In my article of January 21, 2008 I wrote: “We can only hope the reports are false, or that the Pope, if he does alter the prayer, does so in a way that leaves intact the Church’s unambiguous call for the conversion of the Jewish people, no less than the other peoples of the earth.” The Pope has done the latter quite resoundingly, and Foxman knows it.
Foxman and his collaborators did not get what they were clamoring for: a formal abandonment of the necessity of Jewish conversion to Christ. What they got instead is a reformulation of the Good Friday prayer that takes away their issue while petitioning for Jewish conversion in a way that is, if anything, even more objectionable from their standpoint. Here is the prayer as it reads in an unofficial (but apparently quite accurate) translation:
Let us pray also for the Jews.
May our God and Lord enlighten their hearts, so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, savior of all men.
Let us pray.
Let us kneel.
Arise.
Almighty and everlasting God, who desires that all men be saved and come to the knowledge of truth, mercifully grant that, as the fullness of the Gentiles enters into Thy Church, all Israel may be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen. (all emphasis mine)
Yes, the references to “blindness” and “darkness” in the traditional prayer are gone. But like the traditional prayer (which never uses the word “conversion”) the revised prayer explicitly calls upon God to enlighten the Jewish people “so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, saviour of all men.” By comparison the traditional prayer states: “that they may also acknowledge Our Lord Jesus Christ.” The traditional prayer does not, however, contain the revised prayer’s petition that “all Israel may be saved.” In fact, neither the word salvation nor saved appears anywhere in the traditional prayer.
Foxman understands exactly what has happened. His press release for the ADL barely conceals his rage over the new prayer’s call for the enlightenment of the Jewish people, their acknowledgment of Christ, and the newly added element of the ultimate conversion of the entire nation of Israel in keeping with the prophecy of Saint Paul, the most renowned Jewish convert in salvation history. As the ADL complains: “The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) said the Vatican’s changes to the Latin Good Friday prayer for the conversion of Jews amount to ‘cosmetic revisions’ and the prayer remains ‘deeply troubling’ because it calls for Jews to ‘acknowledge Jesus Christ as the savior of all men.’” Foxman is quoted directly as follows:
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 Acetate.
ADL's press release reveals that it feared this would be the outcome of all its squawking: “ADL wrote to Pope Benedict on January 22 expressing concern that a revised Good Friday prayer that Jews abandon their own religious identity, would be devastating to the deepening relationship and dialogue between the Catholic Church and the Jewish people.” In other words, Foxman and the ADL regard the revised prayer as a disaster and a total defeat of their campaign to browbeat the Pope into repudiating the conversion of the Jews.
Consider what the Pope has done here: After Foxman and his fellow agitators had shot their wad at the Vatican over this issue, clearly hoping to derail a Latin Mass restoration, His Holiness responded with a revised Good Friday prayer that not only retains the Church’s call for Jewish conversion, but adds to that call the Pauline element of the final conversion of the entire Jewish nation. At the same time, the Pope, by removing the references to blindness and darkness, left no further ground for Jewish objection to the prayer besides the idea of Jewish conversion itself. Foxman and company have thus been left with no choice but reveal the real gravamen of their objection to the Good Friday prayer: not that it contains particular words they deem “anti-Semitic,” which words they now admit they viewed only as “cosmetic,” but rather that it calls for Jewish conversion at all, and thereby “departs” from what they thought was the irrevocable innovation of the Church during and after Vatican II.
Can we not see it? Foxman surely does. The Pope has used a change in the Good Friday prayer to undo the false perception of a change in the Church’s teaching on her relation to the Jewish people. And what can Foxman and company do now? Demand yet another revision of the prayer? Of course they cannot do that, for then they would seem intolerably petulant and unreasonable even in the eyes of world opinion. The issue, then, is dead, and we are left with a revised prayer for Jewish conversion that is no more acceptable to the Formants than the traditional one. Indeed, as the Times Online observes: “It is difficult not to conclude that this represents a re-emergence of supercessionism. A discussion of the Pope's views when he was still Joseph Ratzinger shows that the former Pope clearly regarded the ‘new covenant’ as the fulfilment of the covenant of Sinai.”
I think we have witnessed a papal masterstroke. And I hope traditionalists everywhere will be at least as perceptive as Foxman in assessing what has happened. I hope we will not see critical traditionalist excurses on the theology and Scriptural derivation of every word in the traditional prayer—as if we were unaware of these points—when the substance of the matter is that the Church retains a perfectly clear prayer for Jewish conversion that has sent the message that her teaching on this score has not changed one iota since Vatican II: the Jewish people are called no less than others to join the new covenant people of God. Here, again, let us have the sense to recognize a favorable development when we see one, instead of assuming the role of theological clerks with permanent desk jobs. What matters is that the new Good Friday prayer, which the Pope has every right to alter—and which already has been altered by his predecessor—is theologically completely sound and thus displeasing to those who had hoped for another capitulation to the world in the name of Vatican II.
At the same time let us pray that by the grace of God for which we will petition on Good Friday, Foxman and people like him will come recognize what is behind the Church’s call for the conversion of the Jewish people: not enmity toward the Jews, but the infinite love of the “Saviour of all men,” and the certainty that when our short time on this earth is over, all of the elect will be united forever in that mystical communion wherein there is neither Jew nor Greek, but all are one in Christ Jesus.
dinsdag, februari 05, 2008
Het gebed op Goede Vrijdag voor de Joden
Nu het erop lijkt dat onze Heilige Vader de gebeden voor de Joden op Goede Vrijdag uit het Missale Romanum 1962 gewijzigd heeft (zie Rorate Caeli voor de links naar de mededeling van het Staatssecretariaat in de Osservatore Romano - een volgens mij wat rare, Bertoneske wijze om een liturgische verandering door te voeren), is het goed in te gaan op de geschiedenis en betekenis van de oude en nieuwe gebeden:
De geschiedenis van het gebed voor de Joden
1/Missale Romanum 1570 Editio princeps
“Oremus et pro perfidis Iudaeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster auferat velamen de cordibus eorum; ut et ipsi agnoscant Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum” [Laat ons bidden voor de ongelovige Joden: opdat onze God en Heer de blinddoek van hun harten afneme, opdat ook zij onze Heer jesus Christus mogen erkennen.]
“Omnipotens sempiternae Deus, qui etiam iudaicam perfidiam 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...”[Almachtige eeuwige God, die zelfs het ongeloof van de Joden van uw barmhartigheid niet uitsluit, verhoor onze gebeden, die wijze storten voor de verblindheid van dit volk, opdat zij het licht van uw waarheid, dat Christus is, mogen erkennen, en aan hun duisternis onttrokken worden. Door dezelfde Heer…]
Dit gebed heeft een duidelijk bijbels fundament, nl. 2 Korinth. 3, 13-16: “et non sicut Moses ponebat velamen super faciem suam ut non intenderent filii Israhel in faciem eius quod evacuatur sed obtusi sunt sensus eorum usque in hodiernum enim diem id ipsum velamen in lectione veteris testamenti manet non revelatum quoniam in Christo evacuatur sed usque in hodiernum diem cum legitur Moses velamen est positum super cor eorum cum autem conversus fuerit ad Deum aufertur velamen.”
KBS (1975): “geheel anders dan Mozes, die zijn gelaat met een sluier bedekte, want de Israëlieten mochten het verdwijnen van de vergankelijke glans niet bemerken. En hun denken raakte verstard. Ja, tot op de huidige dag is diezelfde sluier gebleven, als zij lezen in de boeken van het Oude Testament. Hij wordt niet weggenomen, want alleen Christus doet hem verdwijnen. Tot heden toe ligt een sluier over hun geest, telkens wanneer Mozes wordt voorgelezen. Maar telkens als iemand zich bekeert tot de Heer, wordt de sluier verwijderd.”
M.a.w. de bewering dat dit gebed “antisemitisch” zou zijn, impliceert de absurde bewering dat de apostel Paulus in de brief aan de Korinthiërs antisemitische taal spreekt.
2/Pius XII
a/Bij de hervorming van de liturgie van de Goede Week in 1955 bepaalt Pius XII dat ook bij dit gebed geknield dient te worden (voorheen mocht bij dit gebed, in tegenstelling tot de andere gebeden, niet geknield worden).
b/Pius XII legt uit dat “perfidis” niets van doen heeft met “perfide” of “ontrouw” maar met “ongeloof”, “geen geloof in Christus” en dus niet pejoratief dient verstaan te worden.
3/Johannes XXIII
1960: “perfidis” en “perfidiam” worden weggelaten. Deze gebeden verschijnen in het Missale Romanum, Editio 1962 dat door het Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (7 juli 2007) als de geldende editie van het “buitengewone vorm” en “usus antiquior” van de éne Romeinse Ritus geldt.
4/Paulus VI: Novus Ordo (1969/1970) – geldt tot op vandaag.
“Oremus et pro Iudaeis, ut, ad quos prius locutus est Dominus Deus Noster, eis tribuat in sui nominis amore et in sui foederis fidelitate proficere.”[Laat ons bidden voor het Joodse volk, dat door onze God en Heer het eerst is aangesproken : dat Hij het groot maakt in liefde voor Zijn naam, in trouw aan Zijn verbond.]
”Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui promissiones tuas Abrahae eiusque semini contulisti, Ecclesiae tuae preces clementer exaudi, ut populus acquisitionis prioris ad redemptionis mereatur plenitudinem pervenire. Per Christum Dominum nostrum.” [Almachtige eeuwige God, Gij hebt uw beloften toevertrouwd aan Abraham en aan zijn volk. Verhoor genadig de gebeden van uw Kerk: dat het volk dat Gij het eerst hebt uitverkoren, tot de volheid van de verlossing komt. Door Christus onze Heer.]
Hierbij dient opgemerkt te worden dat de editie van het Romeinse Missaal 1964, die de lezingen in de volkstaal bevat, het gebed van 1962 zonder wijzingen overneemt.
Het Latijns-Italiaans missaal van 1965 (met lezingen en Romeinse Canon in de volkstaal) bevat echter volgend gebed: “Oremus et pro Iudaeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster auferat velamen de cordibus eorum; ut et ipsi agnoscant Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum. Oremus et pro Iudaeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster faciem suam super eos illuminare dignetur; ut et ipsi agnoscant omnium redemptorem, Iesum Christus Dominum Nostrum.”
5/Benedictus XVI: wijziging in het Missale Romanum 1962 (Rorate Caeli heeft alle links naar het desbetreffende stuk in de Osservatore Romano:
“Oremus et pro Iudaeis. Ut Deus et Dominus noster illuminet corda eorum, ut agnoscant Iesum Christum salvatorem omnium hominum.” [Eigen vertaling: Laat ons bidden voor de Joden. Dat onze God en Heer hun harten verlichte opdat zij Jezus Christus, Heiland van alle mensen, erkenne.]
”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.”[Eigen vertaling: Almachtige eeuwige God, die wilt dat alle mensen gered worden en tot de kennis van de waarheid komen, verleen ons genadig dat bij de intrede van de volheid van alle volkeren in Uw Kerk geheel Israël gered wordt.”]
Ook dit gebed heeft een duidelijk bijbels fundament, nl. Rom 11, 25-26: “nolo enim vos ignorare fratres mysterium hoc ut non sitis vobis ipsis sapientes quia caecitas ex parte contigit in Israhel donec plenitudo gentium intraret et sic omnis Israhel salvus fieret sicut scriptum est veniet ex Sion qui eripiat avertet impietates ab Iacob”
Kortom, afgezien van de vraag naar de opportuniteit, blijft de grondgedachte –in tegenstelling tot de ambigue formuleringen van 1969/1970- identiek aan de gebeden van 1962 en is dus moeilijk in te zien hoe deze nieuwe formulering de kritiek zal wegnemen. Men kan zich dus de vraag stellen wat onze Heilige Vader hiermee bedoeld. Puur speculatief zou men kunnen vermoeden dat de wijzingen in het missaal van 1962 later opgenomen worden als wijzing van het missaal van 1969/1970.
Zie tevens de excellente, eerdere commentaar van Father Zuhlsdorf.
De geschiedenis van het gebed voor de Joden
1/Missale Romanum 1570 Editio princeps
“Oremus et pro perfidis Iudaeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster auferat velamen de cordibus eorum; ut et ipsi agnoscant Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum” [Laat ons bidden voor de ongelovige Joden: opdat onze God en Heer de blinddoek van hun harten afneme, opdat ook zij onze Heer jesus Christus mogen erkennen.]
“Omnipotens sempiternae Deus, qui etiam iudaicam perfidiam 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...”[Almachtige eeuwige God, die zelfs het ongeloof van de Joden van uw barmhartigheid niet uitsluit, verhoor onze gebeden, die wijze storten voor de verblindheid van dit volk, opdat zij het licht van uw waarheid, dat Christus is, mogen erkennen, en aan hun duisternis onttrokken worden. Door dezelfde Heer…]
Dit gebed heeft een duidelijk bijbels fundament, nl. 2 Korinth. 3, 13-16: “et non sicut Moses ponebat velamen super faciem suam ut non intenderent filii Israhel in faciem eius quod evacuatur sed obtusi sunt sensus eorum usque in hodiernum enim diem id ipsum velamen in lectione veteris testamenti manet non revelatum quoniam in Christo evacuatur sed usque in hodiernum diem cum legitur Moses velamen est positum super cor eorum cum autem conversus fuerit ad Deum aufertur velamen.”
KBS (1975): “geheel anders dan Mozes, die zijn gelaat met een sluier bedekte, want de Israëlieten mochten het verdwijnen van de vergankelijke glans niet bemerken. En hun denken raakte verstard. Ja, tot op de huidige dag is diezelfde sluier gebleven, als zij lezen in de boeken van het Oude Testament. Hij wordt niet weggenomen, want alleen Christus doet hem verdwijnen. Tot heden toe ligt een sluier over hun geest, telkens wanneer Mozes wordt voorgelezen. Maar telkens als iemand zich bekeert tot de Heer, wordt de sluier verwijderd.”
M.a.w. de bewering dat dit gebed “antisemitisch” zou zijn, impliceert de absurde bewering dat de apostel Paulus in de brief aan de Korinthiërs antisemitische taal spreekt.
2/Pius XII
a/Bij de hervorming van de liturgie van de Goede Week in 1955 bepaalt Pius XII dat ook bij dit gebed geknield dient te worden (voorheen mocht bij dit gebed, in tegenstelling tot de andere gebeden, niet geknield worden).
b/Pius XII legt uit dat “perfidis” niets van doen heeft met “perfide” of “ontrouw” maar met “ongeloof”, “geen geloof in Christus” en dus niet pejoratief dient verstaan te worden.
3/Johannes XXIII
1960: “perfidis” en “perfidiam” worden weggelaten. Deze gebeden verschijnen in het Missale Romanum, Editio 1962 dat door het Motu Proprio Summorum Pontificum (7 juli 2007) als de geldende editie van het “buitengewone vorm” en “usus antiquior” van de éne Romeinse Ritus geldt.
4/Paulus VI: Novus Ordo (1969/1970) – geldt tot op vandaag.
“Oremus et pro Iudaeis, ut, ad quos prius locutus est Dominus Deus Noster, eis tribuat in sui nominis amore et in sui foederis fidelitate proficere.”[Laat ons bidden voor het Joodse volk, dat door onze God en Heer het eerst is aangesproken : dat Hij het groot maakt in liefde voor Zijn naam, in trouw aan Zijn verbond.]
”Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui promissiones tuas Abrahae eiusque semini contulisti, Ecclesiae tuae preces clementer exaudi, ut populus acquisitionis prioris ad redemptionis mereatur plenitudinem pervenire. Per Christum Dominum nostrum.” [Almachtige eeuwige God, Gij hebt uw beloften toevertrouwd aan Abraham en aan zijn volk. Verhoor genadig de gebeden van uw Kerk: dat het volk dat Gij het eerst hebt uitverkoren, tot de volheid van de verlossing komt. Door Christus onze Heer.]
Hierbij dient opgemerkt te worden dat de editie van het Romeinse Missaal 1964, die de lezingen in de volkstaal bevat, het gebed van 1962 zonder wijzingen overneemt.
Het Latijns-Italiaans missaal van 1965 (met lezingen en Romeinse Canon in de volkstaal) bevat echter volgend gebed: “Oremus et pro Iudaeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster auferat velamen de cordibus eorum; ut et ipsi agnoscant Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum. Oremus et pro Iudaeis: ut Deus et Dominus noster faciem suam super eos illuminare dignetur; ut et ipsi agnoscant omnium redemptorem, Iesum Christus Dominum Nostrum.”
5/Benedictus XVI: wijziging in het Missale Romanum 1962 (Rorate Caeli heeft alle links naar het desbetreffende stuk in de Osservatore Romano:
“Oremus et pro Iudaeis. Ut Deus et Dominus noster illuminet corda eorum, ut agnoscant Iesum Christum salvatorem omnium hominum.” [Eigen vertaling: Laat ons bidden voor de Joden. Dat onze God en Heer hun harten verlichte opdat zij Jezus Christus, Heiland van alle mensen, erkenne.]
”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.”[Eigen vertaling: Almachtige eeuwige God, die wilt dat alle mensen gered worden en tot de kennis van de waarheid komen, verleen ons genadig dat bij de intrede van de volheid van alle volkeren in Uw Kerk geheel Israël gered wordt.”]
Ook dit gebed heeft een duidelijk bijbels fundament, nl. Rom 11, 25-26: “nolo enim vos ignorare fratres mysterium hoc ut non sitis vobis ipsis sapientes quia caecitas ex parte contigit in Israhel donec plenitudo gentium intraret et sic omnis Israhel salvus fieret sicut scriptum est veniet ex Sion qui eripiat avertet impietates ab Iacob”
Kortom, afgezien van de vraag naar de opportuniteit, blijft de grondgedachte –in tegenstelling tot de ambigue formuleringen van 1969/1970- identiek aan de gebeden van 1962 en is dus moeilijk in te zien hoe deze nieuwe formulering de kritiek zal wegnemen. Men kan zich dus de vraag stellen wat onze Heilige Vader hiermee bedoeld. Puur speculatief zou men kunnen vermoeden dat de wijzingen in het missaal van 1962 later opgenomen worden als wijzing van het missaal van 1969/1970.
Zie tevens de excellente, eerdere commentaar van Father Zuhlsdorf.
De bekering van de Lage Landen
Father Zuhlsdorf, zoals altijd bij de tijd en insightful, geeft zijn commentaar op een artikel in The Catholic Herald over Fr. Aidan Nichols OP laatste boek: .The Realm: An Unfashionable Essay on the Conversion of England.
De strategie van Father Nichols is precies wat de Lage Landen ook nodig heeft:
(ik citeer)
Firmer doctrine in our teaching and preaching
Re-enchant the liturgy
Recover the insights of metaphysics
Renew Christian political thought
Revive family life
Resacralise art and architecture
Put a new emphasis on monastic life
Strengthen pro-life rhetoric
Recover a Catholic reading of the Bible
zaterdag, februari 02, 2008
Pontifex Maximus Benedictus XVI
Deze foto's werden gemaakt in de Aula delle Benedizioni op 25 januari 2008 ter gelegenheid van een 'Convegno di studio', georganiseerd door de Pontificium Consilium de Legum Textibus Interpretandis naar aanleiding van de 25ste verjaardag van de promulgatie van de Codex Iuris Canonici.
.bmp)
.bmp)
Abonneren op:
Posts (Atom)