Since the early 1950s there have been five versions of the (Catholic) Good Friday prayers for the Jews. Yet the issues still generate differences of opinion and heated arguments. Why is that?
1. The Original Prayer
The original prayer for the Jews has an ancient history. The Good Friday Liturgy represents some of the oldest elements of the Church’s prayers. It reaches back beyond Pope Gregory the Great (d. 604), possibly into the third century.
By the 1950s, the main Catholic liturgical rite was the Tridentine Roman Rite, which had been codified after the Council of Trent (1563).
The Tridentine “prayer for the Jews,” was as follows:
| Let us also pray for the faithless Jews: that the Lord our God may remove the veil from their hearts; that they might also know Jesus Christ our Lord. (…)*
Almighty, Everlasting God, who does not exclude even Jewish faithlessness from your mercy; hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of your Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. (…)* |
Oremus et pro perfidis Iudæis: ut Deus et Dominus noster auferat velamen de cordibus eorum; ut et ipsi agnoscant Iesum Christum, Dominum nostrum. (…)*
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui etiam iudaicam perfidiam a tua misericordia non repellis: exaudi preces nostras, quas pro illius populi obcæcatione deferimus; ut, agnita veritatis tuæ luce, quæ Christus est, a suis tenebris eruantur. (…)* |
*The omitted text is a rubric and a common formula for closing prayers.
Since the early years of the twentieth century there was debate about the appropriateness of the word perfidus. In its medieval usage it meant “faithless,” and so it was regularly applied to anyone who did not hold the Christian faith. This included Jews and non-Jews. As a result, some liturgists believe that the word should have been retained in the Good Friday prayers (see “The Truthfulness of the Pre-1955 Good Friday Prayer for the Jews”).
However, words can and do change their meaning over time. The English word “gay” is an example of how quickly, and enormously, a word can change. Whatever the original medieval meaning of the word perfidus, over time it had come to also mean “deceitful.” So, in 1949 Pope Pius XII publicly explained that the word’s use in the Good Friday prayers did not imply deceitfulness. However, the very need to explain the word showed that it was indeed ambiguous, and that raised yet more questions about whether the word should be removed.
2. The Second Version
The second version of the prayer involved a change of rubrics in the Reformed Holy Week liturgy of 1955. But the words themselves did not change to the version below until 1959. As this prayer also appears in the final edition of the Tridentine Missal (1962), it can be referenced to those differing dates.
This version of the prayer is almost identical to version 1. There is just a removal of the word perfidus, and a tiny stylistic alteration to accommodate the removal (marked in bold in the Latin).
| Let us also pray for the Jews: that the Lord our God may remove the veil from their hearts; that they might also know Jesus Christ our Lord. (…)
Almighty, Everlasting God, who does not exclude even the Jews from your mercy; hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of your Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. (…) |
Oremus et pro Iudæis: ut Deus et Dominus noster auferat velamen de cordibus eorum; ut et ipsi agnoscant Iesum Christum Dominum nostrum. (…)
Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, qui Iudæos etiam a tua misericordia non repellis: exaudi preces nostras, quas pro illius populi obcæcatione deferimus; ut, agnita veritatis tuæ luce, quæ Christus est, a suis tenebris eruantur. (…) |
This prayer (and its predecessor) presupposes some very specific doctrinal implications. The dogma “no salvation outside the Church” was understood to mean that Jews could only be saved by becoming Christians, unless they were invincibly ignorant of the need to be a Christian.
Doctrinally, this implied that: Jews can be saved IN Judaism, but they cannot be saved BY Judaism. It meant that Jews, who achieved salvation, did so DESPITE their Judaism, and only BECAUSE of their ignorance of the need to be a Christian (see: “Did Vatican II Change the Doctrine of No Salvation Outside the Church?”).
This doctrinal background underlies the wording of the prayer. It asks that the veil of ignorance should be removed, so that Jews can now see the need to acknowledge Christ and thus become Christians, in order to achieve salvation.
3. The Third Version
This is a little-known version produced in 1965, as an “interim” response to Vatican II.
| Let us Pray for the Jews, that Our Lord God may deign to shine his face upon them; that they also might acknowledge the Redeemer of all, Jesus Christ Our Lord (…)
Almighty and Eternal God who gave your promises to Abraham and his seed; mercifully hear the prayers of your Church, that the people you acquired long ago, may merit to come to the fullness of redemption (…) |
Oremus et Pro Iudaeis, ut Deus et Dominus noster, faciem suam super eos illuminare dignetur; ut et ipsi agnoscant omnium redemptorem Iesum Christum Dominum Nostrum (…)
Omnipotents Sempiterne Deus, qui promissiones tuas Abrahae et semini eius contulisti: Ecclesiae tuae preces clementer exaudi ut populus acquisitionis antiquae ad redemptionis mereatur plenitudinem pervenire (…) |
Whilst version 2 dropped the word perfidius, it still attributed “blindness” to the Jews. This third version of the prayer removed all other words and ideas which (as of 1965) were thought to be capable of causing offence to Jews.
4. The Fourth Version
This version of the prayer was promulgated in the new missal of 1969, i.e., the Novus Ordo Missal. It is sometimes cited as 1970, due to different print runs.
In its 2011 English translation, the prayer reads as follows:
| Let us pray also for the Jewish people, to whom the Lord our God spoke first, that he may grant them to advance in love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant (…)
Almighty ever-living God, who bestowed your promises on Abraham and his descendants, hear graciously the prayers of your Church, that the people you first made your own may attain the fullness of redemption (…)
|
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 (…)
Omnipotens Sempiterne Deus qui promissiones tuas Abrahae eiusque semini contulisti; Ecclesiae tuae preces clementer exaudi ut populus acquisitionis prioris ad redemptionis mereatur plenitudinem pervenire (…) |
There has never been much controversy about this version of the Prayer. But part of the reason for that may be due to the fact that it can be understood in at least two completely opposite ways.
The “Conservative” interpretation reads the prayer in broadly the same sense as the earlier prayers. Christianity is viewed as the fulfillment of the Jewish Covenant. So when the Church prays that Jews will grow in faithfulness to the covenant, it is praying that they will enter into its fulfillment, which is Christianity.
The “Radical” interpretation of the prayer assumes that the Church has changed its teaching about “no salvation outside the Church.” The Church now believes in a “Dual Covenant,” so that Jews can be saved BY the Jewish covenant, and BECAUSE of their Jewish faith. Thus the prayer is asking that Jews become better Jews, and thus achieve salvation.
5. The Fifth Version
When Pope Benedict XVI encouraged the celebration of the Tridentine Rite (Summorum Pontificum, 2007), he specified that it should be according to the 1962 missal. Rather than revert back to the Second Version of the Good Friday Prayer, he issued this new version (Nota, 2008).
| Let us also pray for the Jews. That our Lord and God may enlighten their hearts, that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ as the Savior of all mankind. (…)
Almighty, Everlasting God, who wants all people to be saved and to arrive at the knowledge of the Truth. Graciously grant that when the fullness of nations enters your Church, all Israel will be saved (…) |
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 (…) |
This version seems to be calling for the conversion of Jews, just as the first three versions of the prayer did.
The German and English Bishops’ Conferences thought that the prayer should be changed (see Resolution on the Good Friday Prayers). A number of Jewish groups objected, and the International Council of Christians and Jews (ICCJ) expressed “profound dismay” at it.
However, the prayer was also defended. Archbishop Ravasi noted that it is just a patchwork of Scriptural quotes (Oremus et Pro Iudaeis, 2008). Cardinal Walter Kasper defended it as not being about the conversion of Jews “now,” as it was instead referring to an eschatological end-of-history (see “God Decides the When and the How” [2008]). Rabbi Jacob Neusner, also noted that Jews pray for others to be enlightened, so “Catholics have a Right to Pray for Us” (2008).
Many of the critics of this fifth Version have said, or implied, that the prayer is problematic because it is not faithful enough to Vatican II’s teaching about Judaism.
6. Vatican II on Judaism
Vatican II said:
God holds the Jews most dear for the sake of their Fathers; He does not repent of the gifts He makes, or of the calls He issues. (Nostra Aetate, 4)
This idea that “God does not repent” of the covenant is sometimes expressed by saying that the Sinai Covenant is “irrevocable.”
There are two completely opposite ways of interpreting what Vatican II said.
The Conservative interpretation is that God cannot repent or revoke the original covenant because God is immutable (see Lateran IV, 1215, #1). But even if the original covenant has not been revoked, it does not mean that it is still applicable. For example, God has not revoked the animal sacrifice aspects of the original covenant, but they became non-applicable when the Temple was destroyed. In a similar way, God has not repented or revoked the rest of the covenant, but it became non-applicable when Jesus was born.
The idea of non-applicability has sometimes been expressed as a concept of “supersession,” with the claim that Christianity has “superseded” Judaism as the path to salvation (see “Did Vatican II Change the Doctrine of Supersessionism?”). Howsoever the point is expressed, the ultimate implication remains the same: Jews need to convert to Christianity in order to be saved, unless they are invincibly ignorant of the need to do so.
The Radical interpretation is that Vatican II has rejected or changed the meaning of the dogma of “no salvation outside the Church.” So, Vatican II’s positive comments about Judaism are an admission that the Old Testament covenant is still salvific for Jews. This means that there is no need for Jews to convert to Christianity.
These totally different interpretations of Vatican II mirror the two completely different interpretations of the fourth version of the prayer (see Section 4). The fact that Vatican II can be interpreted in completely opposite ways, means that those citing the Council to justify their opinions about the Good Friday Prayers, tend to be giving an opinion about the prayers based on an opinion about Vatican II.
7. Conclusion
The Good Friday prayers are controversial in the context of Catholic and Jewish relationships. But they are also controversial within Catholicism itself, as their expression is linked to differing interpretations of Vatican II. To put it another way, the Good Friday Prayers have become an accidental “fault line” between Conservative and Radical interpretations of Vatican II.
Should Catholics think that all five versions of the Good Friday prayers express the same (Conservative) theology, and have merely removed examples of language which could be offensive to Jews? Or, should Catholics believe that prayer four expressed a (Radical) new theology about Judaism, and so prayer five is now possibly defective to the extent that it could be thought to hark back to the old theology of prayers one to three?
Despite fifty years of arguing about the issues, the only thing that seems to be clear is that there isn’t yet a clear and authoritative answer to this important question.
13 thoughts on “Good Friday Prayers for the Jews: Why the Controversy?”
Hi Aaron and Rory,
Greetings from Melbourne ,Australia.
The late Rabbi Jonathan Sacks, may his memory be a blessing , wrote a book entitled ”
The Dignity of Difference .” In this he sought to find ,especially within the
three Abrahamic monotheisms ,a road to tolerance , a road to coexistence ,or better
a respect for difference. So this means we can still hold fast to our own traditions and
faiths ,without the need to convert others . By the way , he got into trouble with the Ultra
Orthodox Rabbis in London for taking such a benign view of Christianity and Islam !
I agree with Rabbi Sacks.
Thank you Jock. An interesting suggestion. A delicacy arises because there may be a doctrinal asymmetry between Judaism and Christianity. Judaism may not have a duty to preach conversion to other faiths, but some interpretations of Christianity see precisely such a duty in Jesus’ injunction (‘Go and make disciples of all nations….’ Matthew 28, 16-20). Thus, a dignity between faiths based upon the issue of not seeking conversions, can be perceived by some Christians as a disrespectful demand upon them, to ignore a command of Jesus. So perhaps an alternative basis for dignity and fellowship between Judaism and Christianity, would be a stress upon the wrongness of the use of force, compulsion, threats, etc. in any discussions about conversion?
I, for one, have had graced encounters with Jews who allowed me to hear their “anguish” in the face of conversion efforts associated with the name of Jesus. Rabbi Eugene B. Borowitz speaks forthrightly for hundreds of thousands of Jews when he says, quite categorically, that the name of Jesus of Nazareth has to be struck from the list of potential candidates for moshiach. His reasons are clear and uncompromising:
• This Jesus is the one who validated the hatred and oppression of his own people.
• He is the Jesus who stands for crusades, inquisitions, ritual murder charges, and forced conversions.
• He is the Jesus who did not protest the Holocaust. That Jesus may not hate his kinfolk in his heart, but he has stood idly by while his kinfolk bleed.[i]
One can still hear the reverberations of anger between the lines. Jews like Rabbi Borowitz, consequently, can barely stomach the hypocrisy of pious Christians who naively applaud Jesus as the Messiah. Jews like Rabbi Borowitz shake their heads and tremble in rage whenever they encounter zealous Christians contorting the Hebrew Scriptures into saying that the moshiach had to undergo a barbaric death in order to coax God into forgiving sins.
Such a scheme of things perverts the Jewish image of a just and merciful Father that is plainly written in their sacred texts. Christians want to say that no one had their sins forgiven prior to the sacrificial death of Jesus. For Jews, however, their Scriptures demonstrated that God embraces and forgives anyone who turns-back [teshuva] toward him. Remember how the prophet Samuel uses a parable to accuse King David of adultery and murder. Think also on how David admits his guilt (repents) and, as a result, the prophet assures him that G-d has forgiven his sins.
Christians acknowledge that they came to admit their guilt due to the prophet Jesus. King David acknowledges that he came to admit his guilt due to the prophet Samuel.
NO ONE was thinking at the time of Jesus of Nazareth that everyone had to wait for the death of the Messiah before any forgiveness was possible. Therefore, Jews have good reason to look at the Christian “faith in Jesus” with suspicion. The fact that Jesus preaches the parable of the prodigal son without any reference to his death on the cross gives Jews hope that someday Christians might be able to put their house in order. Some Jews I know even pray that G-d would enlighten Christians on this issue.
What makes “Christians praying for the conversion of Jews” quite another matter? When Jesus went throughout the synagogues of Galilee preaching the Good News of G-d’s coming Kingdom, those who accepted his message remained Jews and continued to attend their local synagogue. When Christians preach their Jesus message to Jews; however, they expect their converts to withdraw from the synagogue and to cease being Jews. Thus, for Jews, the threat of Christianity looms over their very existence.
When my Jewish friends pray for Christians, they do not want to take them out of their churches. They just want to show them how the parable of the prodigal son does not fit with their idea that G-d was somehow locked in unforgiveness until Jesus died on the cross.
When Christians begin praying for the conversion of Jews; however, the danger is that they might begin to act on their prayers and start to convert Jews by removing them from the synagogue.
The only prayer that makes Jews feel safe is this one:
Let us pray also for the Jewish people, to whom the Lord our God spoke first, that he may grant them to advance in love of his name and in faithfulness to his covenant (…)
Why is this prayer so special? Response: It is the only prayer that allows Jews to remain in their synagogues as they advance in love of his name [HeShem] and in faithfulness to his covenant [with Israel].
Shalom,
Aaron
Yes Aaron, some Christians do produce convoluted theories of forgiveness, but perhaps there is also a risk of oversimplifying. For example, David was indeed forgiven his sin when he repented. But that does not seem to have entirely resolved matters, as his sin seems to have had a wider impact, the resolution of which seems to have involved his baby also dying (See 2 Sam 12, 13-14).
Whilst it may once have been the case that some Christians accompanied prayers for the conversion of Jews with additional actions to change Jews into Christians, Vatican II’s declaration on Religious Freedom makes it very clear that that would now be wrongful behaviour. It is one thing to pray for someone to see an issue differently, but it is an entirely different matter to try to force or compel religious change. Hopefully everyone (Christians, Jews and others) will always keep that difference in mind, and thus ensure that their prayers for each other never give any impressions of the desirability of additional force or compulsion.
Radical. Conservative.
I can see why the FBI and Pope Francis has it in for those who attend TLM.
That aside, we used to hold that the Catholic Church was the one true Church and we wanted salvation for everyone. There was nothing mean about this but charity.
By large it seems those in Rome don’t go out to ends of world and spread the gospel. It seems we even have to apologize for people converting when we brought Christ to new lands. And apologize for things that did not occur.
I can see why they caved and changed it till it has no meaning.
But if some in the Jewish community can respond to the killing of Christians at a school by mocking our prayers not answered, I think it’s time to consider making our prayers our own wo worrying about what the Rabbi May or may not be offended. It’s God whom we have to worry about offending after all.
Pray the prayers.
I am rather puzzled by your comments. What incident are you referring to where Jews mocked Catholic prayers ?
Thank you Mrs Opey, I think that the issue you are adverting to is one of ‘extremism’ (?). People can agree and disagree, but there are ways of doing so, which are more or less extreme. In the past some Christians thought that they were right, and that they should force others to accept their opinions – for the eternal good of their souls. That extremism represented a type of charity and love of neighbour. But it also led to injustices. So a better understanding has now come to see that an extremist kind of approach does not represent the most appropriate way of exercising love of neighbour. A change of practical approach does not necessarily represent a change of intellectual ideas. It may just represent a different way of applying those older ideas.
Pingback: SATVRDAY EDITION – Big Pulpit
This is from an episode if the show “MAS* H”, from the lips of a soldier who cracks and thinks he’s Jesus.
Does God answer prayers?
“Yes. Sometimes the answer is ‘no’.”
Dear Rory,
I congratulate for a superb explanation of a delicate issue.
As a Jew I agree with Jacob Neusner’s comment .He ,incidentally was one of the late Pope Benedict’s favorite theologians.
A fascinating approach to the question of supercession was made by the German Jewish theologian ,Franz Rosensweig .In his work ” The Star of Redemption ” , Jews have a direct relationship with God ,which works for them , and Christians reach God through Jesus ,and this works for them. He was a close colleague of Martin Buber.
I wish you and your family a bessed and holy Easter.
Thank you Jock. I think that modern Catholic and Jewish dialogue raises two very different sets of questions. There are questions about what is correct, and there are questions about what is a correct understanding of Catholic or Jewish views on the issue. Your thoughts relate to the first question, which is naturally the one that is particularly interesting to most people. Essays like this one are nibbling away at the second question, just trying to get an accurate understanding of a position. Despite fifty years of inter-religious dialogue it is surprising how hard it is proving to get clarity on that second question.
I can see why the ‘none’s’ are winning. Imagine Muslim’s praying for the conversion of
Christians – the effect would be the same : nil. I don’t think it’s even possible to conceive,
in either case, what the fulfillment of this prayer would look like.
Whether the ‘nones’ are winning, or the ‘somes’ losing is a very interesting question…
And what it means for a prayer to be answered is an excellent question. Most religions recognise that praying for an x can count as ‘answered,’ even if you get not-x, or a y instead, as those outcomes might be ‘better,’ when considered from an omnipotent and omniscient perspective.