Catholic Info
Traditional Catholic Faith => SSPX Resistance News => Topic started by: Incredulous on March 28, 2019, 11:22:10 AM
-
Within and restricted to the Good Friday liturgy are the "Solemn Prayers or supplications for all conditions of men".
It is a collection of prayers for the Pope, the clergy, the faithful, catechumens, heretics, jews, pagans, idolators...etc.
For each group, the celebrant, using the ferial tone of a Collect, prays a Bidding prayer, preceded by a genuflection "Flectamus genua & Levate". However, when it came to the prayers for the perfidious jews, the genuflection was purposefully omitted.
Why? Because the jews had specifically employed genuflections to mock Our Lord during His Passion.
Therefore, our Church Fathers eliminated such a reverence for them. Obviously, part of the price of their Deicide.
(http://blob:https://mail.protonmail.com/b8e7b2c5-066e-4a8c-8630-34dcfe8558fa)(http://blob:https://mail.protonmail.com/b8e7b2c5-066e-4a8c-8630-34dcfe8558fa)(https://proxy.duckduckgo.com/iu/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.billfrymire.com%2Fgallery%2Fweblarge%2FJesus-crown-thorns-suffering.jpg&f=1)
But... genuflections for the jews were added to the 1962 liturgy? Did the jews get better somehow? Of course not!
Since no genuflection was a traditional practice in the Good Friday Liturgy (and we do hope to hold fast to Catholic traditions), which priests are still genuflecting for the jews... and why?
-
I don't see the genuflection as necessarily being an act of reverence for Jews, any more than it is reverence for pagans during that section.
Genuflection is directed towards God and not any of the subjects of the prayers.
-
I don't see the genuflection as necessarily being an act of reverence for Jews, any more than it is reverence for pagans during that section.
Genuflection is directed towards God and not any of the subjects of the prayers.
But if you check your pre-1953 Missal, traditionally no genuflection to God, for the sake of the jews.
-
I remember our owner Matthew describing the Good Friday service of Bishop Zendejas at his resistance chapel. I believe Matthew said he celebrated the 1962 ceremony, but did not genuflect for the Jews. I forget the details exactly. And I am not positive which prayer for the Jews he said as there are so many. I believe the FSSP and ICKSP and many indult priests are allowed to celebrate the pre-1955 Holy Week, except that they must pray the Benedict XVI prayer for the Jews without the perfidious and they must genuflect for the Jews. We all know why this is the only part of the ancient rite that is not allowed even when crumbs are thrown to traditionalists. This always reminds me of the SSPX calendars. Every year a new calendar comes out we all look to the page for January and focus on January 1st. On SSPX calendars the 1st is no longer called The Feast of the Circuмcision because that is offensive to Jews. It is simply called the Octave of Christmas which is also true. It is the one sign of SSPX liberalism that is openly discussed at my SSPX chapel more than any other sign. There are often arguments with the priest over the calendar and comparisons to other traditional Calendars such as the CMRI one which still label the 1st the Feast of the Circuмcision.
-
But... genuflections for the jews were added to the 1962 liturgy? Did the jews get better somehow? Of course not!
Since no genuflection was a traditional practice in the Good Friday Liturgy (and we do hope to hold fast to Catholic traditions), which priests are still genuflecting for the jews... and why?
During the Good Friday liturgy at the SAJM mission chapel in Emmett, KS the priests have NOT knelt for the Jews, they stand. This year we will have Bishop Williamson, so I doubt he will kneel for the Jews.
-
But if you check your pre-1953 Missal, traditionally no genuflection to God, for the sake of the jews.
Yes, I know that. I just don't think it's that big of a deal to have it in there.
-
During the Good Friday liturgy at the SAJM mission chapel in Emmett, KS the priests have NOT knelt for the Jews, they stand. This year we will have Bishop Williamson, so I doubt he will kneel for the Jews.
Heck, Bishop Williamson might actually go in the opposite direction and levitate into the air. In all seriousness, however, +Williamson doesn't care so much about liturgical matters.
-
Heck, Bishop Williamson might actually go in the opposite direction and levitate into the air. In all seriousness, however, +Williamson doesn't care so much about liturgical matters.
What Ladislaus probably means is that +Williamson isn't a stickler for the Liturgy. He isn't meticulous or picky about it. That doesn't mean he goes to the opposite extreme, or commits some sin of defect.
You know how some priests were obviously in the MC (Liturgical ceremonies, rubrics) department during their Seminary years, others are meticulous about the condition of all the sacristy items (cassocks, surplices, linens, etc.) and still others are music buffs and super picky about the quality of Chant and what is played/sung during Mass. Fr. Thomas Scott, for example. He used to send an altar server up to the choir loft to cut off the schola if we were doing poorly one week. Other priests don't care at all, as long as you're not playing Novus Ordo or protestant hymns.
-
What Ladislaus probably means is that +Williamson isn't a stickler for the Liturgy. He isn't meticulous or picky about it. That doesn't mean he goes to the opposite extreme, or commits some sin of defect.
Correct. Sorry, you're right that it was badly phrased and could be interpreted incorrectly. +Tissier by contrast is a Liturgical dogmatist. One time when he was at our chapel doing confirmations he accused the altar servers of being "liturgical heretics" ... and he was NOT joking.
-
I remember our owner Matthew describing the Good Friday service of Bishop Zendejas at his resistance chapel. I believe Matthew said he celebrated the 1962 ceremony, but did not genuflect for the Jews. I forget the details exactly. And I am not positive which prayer for the Jews he said as there are so many. I believe the FSSP and ICKSP and many indult priests are allowed to celebrate the pre-1955 Holy Week, except that they must pray the Benedict XVI prayer for the Jews without the perfidious and they must genuflect for the Jews. We all know why this is the only part of the ancient rite that is not allowed even when crumbs are thrown to traditionalists. This always reminds me of the SSPX calendars. Every year a new calendar comes out we all look to the page for January and focus on January 1st. On SSPX calendars the 1st is no longer called The Feast of the Circuмcision because that is offensive to Jews. It is simply called the Octave of Christmas which is also true. It is the one sign of SSPX liberalism that is openly discussed at my SSPX chapel more than any other sign. There are often arguments with the priest over the calendar and comparisons to other traditional Calendars such as the CMRI one which still label the 1st the Feast of the Circuмcision.
I love you Matto!
-
I love you Matto!
Aw thanks. You are a good soul.
-
Heck, Bishop Williamson might actually go in the opposite direction and levitate into the air. In all seriousness, however, +Williamson doesn't care so much about liturgical matters.
If you and +W don't think it matters, we're in more trouble than we know:
1. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the Good Friday liturgy was codified into Canon Law along with the TLM by St. Pope Pius V.
2. In view of the SSPX's sell-out to the jews al la, Max Krah's Jaidhoff donation and Fr. Bouchacourt, absolving them from decide, this detail does matter.
3. Imagine Judas Maccabeas telling his small contingent of troops, "Hey guys we're going to take on a superior force, fifteen times our number. Fight with all your might, but it doesn't matter, about the details of our forefathers' Faith"
-
No, it really doesn't matter.
Perfidious should not be removed, because the prayer is not for all Jews but for those Jews who have rejected Christ and His Church. That's what perfidious means. So it would be theologically incorrect to remove perfidious.
But genuflecting to God when praying for the conversion of the Jews does not matter, not intrinsically, not theologically. No activity performed by the Jews should determine whether or not I genuflect to God.
-
Not only was the genuflection omitted but according to the Office of Holy Week 1875,Page 364, the Amen was also omitted......Non respondetur Amen, sed statim dicitur:
The word perfidious was used twice, once in the invocation and once in the prayer.
-
Posted by: Ladislaus
« on: Yesterday at 08:05:39 PM
No, it really doesn't matter.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ah, but the genuflection does matter... it's all part of the modernist mischief within the bastardized prayer changes.
No matter how you rationalize it, if you genuflect... you're modern my friend. :fryingpan:
History of the Good Friday prayer for the Jews
The Good Friday Prayer for the Jews (GFPJ) exists in five versions:
- Old Latin version
- 1955 version (Revised Holy Week under Pope Pius XII)
- 1960 version (Pope John XXIII)
- 1970 version (Pope Paul VI – Novus Ordo)
- 2008 supplement to 1960 version (Benedict XVI’s replacement version for those using the 1962 Missale)
The 2008 version is a replacement GFPJ for the 1960 GFPJ since there was a worry that the 1960 GFPJ was still too offensive.
Before we get into all that, here are the texts of the ancient GFPJs:
Old Latin GFPJ
Let us pray also for the faithless Jews {perfidis Judaeis}: that Almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord.
Almighty and eternal God, who dost not exclude from thy mercy even Jєωιѕн faithlessness {Judaicam perfidiam}: hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen. (No genuflection)
1955 GFPJ (same text but with kneeling introduced)
Here, the same introduction and prayer are said, but kneeling was added so that the prayer conformed to the other surrounding prayers.
1960 GFPJ (same prayer, but deletes “perfidis” and “perfidiam”)
Let us pray also for the {perfidis} Jews: that almighty God may remove the veil from their hearts; so that they too may acknowledge Jesus Christ our Lord. Let us pray. (Genuflection, Let us kneel. Arise).
Almighty and eternal God, who dost also not exclude from thy mercy the Jews {Judaicam perfidiam}, hear our prayers, which we offer for the blindness of that people; that acknowledging the light of thy Truth, which is Christ, they may be delivered from their darkness. Through the same our Lord Jesus Christ, who liveth and reigneth with thee in the unity of the Holy Spirit, God, for ever and ever. Amen.
1970 GFPJ (revised to exclude “perfidy, veiled hearts, and blindness”)
Let us pray for the Jєωιѕн 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. (Prayer in silence. Then the priest says
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. We ask this through Christ our Lord. Amen.
2008 Supplement GFJP for those using the 1962 Latin Rites
(like 1970 Novus Ordo, revised to exclude “perfidy, veiled hearts, and blindness”)
Let us also pray for the Jews: That our God and Lord may illuminate their hearts, that they acknowledge Jesus Christ is the Savior of all men. (Genuflection Let us pray. Kneel. Rise.)
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 Thy Church, all Israel be saved. Through Christ Our Lord. Amen.
Source (https://taylormarshall.com/2012/04/good-friday-prayer-for-jews.html)
-
I have no problem with the 1955 prayer, and for the very reasons stated.
I have an issue with dropping perfidious because it specifies the Jews being prayed for, the ones who have rejected Christ. Jews who have converted to the true faith are not being prayed for in this particular prayer. They are prayed for earlier when Catholics are being prayed for.
I find it incongruous in a prayer that should be motivated by charity to inject an element of contempt for them. At this point, moved by charity, we are desiring their salvation rather than expressing our scorn.
-
We also skate on some thin theological ice when we reject the changes (1955) made by a legitimate Pope with unquestioned authority to do so.
SSPV, I know, invokes the principal of epikeia ... that, were there a Pope alive today, he would not like the change. I find that a bit too convenient.
If SSPX priests do not genuflect, I also find that to be problematic. They claim to accept all the changes through 1962 but then pick and choose a few things. If I recall, the second Confiteor was dropped in the 1962 Missal. But the SSPX put it back in. So do you follow the 1962 Missal or do you not? Otherwise, the liturgical practices have as their author the personal preferences of those offering the Mass. That is foreign to Catholic principles. Either you accept it or you do not -- you do not mix liturgies and in effect end up creating your own. On whose authority?
-
I agree. Unless you reject John XXIII as pope, AND Pius XII, then you have to accept the genuflection and the removal of perfidious. This is part of the 62 missal, which is a revision of Quo Primum. However, the changes made in 2008 by +Benedict to the 62 missal I think are non-binding, because he made these changes, legally, as part of his motu, and not as a revision of the 62 missal/Quo Primum. I don't think such changes are legally in force.
If I recall, the second Confiteor was dropped in the 1962 Missal. But the SSPX put it back in. So do you follow the 1962 Missal or do you not?
We had a thread on this a few months ago, and Drew was involved with explaining the history of the 62 missal; it's quite complex. Basically, John XXIII issued the 62 missal, ordinary form, which mainly updated the calendar and confirmed the 1955 Holy Week changes. This first edition did NOT delete the 2nd confiteor, nor did it have the addition of St Joseph to the canon. So, in my opinion, these changes are not part of the 62 missal. Between the years 62-65, there were "supplemental" changes to the 62 missal, none of which mentioned Quo Primum in their laws, so this shows they are not really part of the 62 law.
.
In fact, if you go out to order a 62 missal on-line, there are some which have the canon intact (with no St Joseph) and they provide you with a sticker to place over the prayer, in order to add his name, because this was a "later" change, after the original 62 edition was already printed.
.
I think this is why +ABL kept the 2nd Confiteor and other minor things. Because he accepted the original 62 missal but not the supplemental add-ons. This makes sense to me.
-
We had a thread on this a few months ago, and Drew was involved with explaining the history of the 62 missal; it's quite complex. Basically, John XXIII issued the 62 missal, ordinary form, which mainly updated the calendar and confirmed the 1955 Holy Week changes. This first edition did NOT delete the 2nd confiteor, nor did it have the addition of St Joseph to the canon. So, in my opinion, these changes are not part of the 62 missal. Between the years 62-65, there were "supplemental" changes to the 62 missal, none of which mentioned Quo Primum in their laws, so this shows they are not really part of the 62 law.
.
In fact, if you go out to order a 62 missal on-line, there are some which have the canon intact (with no St Joseph) and they provide you with a sticker to place over the prayer, in order to add his name, because this was a "later" change, after the original 62 edition was already printed.
.
I think this is why +ABL kept the 2nd Confiteor and other minor things. Because he accepted the original 62 missal but not the supplemental add-ons. This makes sense to me.
OK, I'll accept that. Makes sense. Although I believe that SSPX do include St. Joseph in the Canon. So it still seems there's a bit of mixing going on. So they accept one later change (St. Joseph) but reject another (removal of the 2nd Confiteor). But I believe there's enough fog about that question to give them a pass.
Now ... SSPV priests who do believe that Pius XII was a legitimate pope, while rejecting the 1955 Holy Week rights, that is still problematic to me.
-
I believe the FSSP and ICKSP and many indult priests are allowed to celebrate the pre-1955 Holy Week, except that they must pray the Benedict XVI prayer for the Jews without the perfidious and they must genuflect for the Jews.
I happened to go to ICKSP for the pre-1955 Solemn Good Friday Liturgy last year. No genuflection. I'm sure it varied by location.
-
Imagine if you will for a moment... the new Pope, Divinely elected after the Great Chastisement.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_umf6KwzGW94/TP4Kya2u4zI/AAAAAAAABL8/PGs0aG_u3-M/s1600/sao-pio-x1.jpg)
This is a future event that Bishop Williamson has referred to in his lectures and sermons and that we trads hope for and expect.
At the first Good Friday service of his papacy, it is for sure, that he WILL NOT genuflect to God for the conversion of the perfidious jews.
Keep that in mind as you debate the valid and invalid nuances of the changes to Good Friday's liturgy.
-
I happened to go to ICKSP for the pre-1955 Solemn Good Friday Liturgy last year. No genuflection. I'm sure it varied by location.
Interesting. Thank you. When I read articles about the allowance given for the pre-55 holy week it was pointed out that they were to pray the updated Benedict XVI prayer for the Jews with the genuflection so I figured that is what would be done. I guess in practice things vary.
-
Interesting. Thank you. When I read articles about the allowance given for the pre-55 holy week it was pointed out that they were to pray the updated Benedict XVI prayer for the Jews with the genuflection so I figured that is what would be done. I guess in practice things vary.
I found it somewhat notable for a few reasons: first, the pre-printed booklets that were supplied included the genuflection; second, if I recall correctly, the priest used the BXVI prayer even though he didn't genuflect; and third, while the priest was of the Institute, the other ministers were supplied from the local diocese, including priests and seminarians. I also noticed that the priest sped along from one prayer to the next so that no one who was following the printed instruction in the booklet had a chance to genuflect. So he clearly did this quite purposefully and with forethought. I respected that. If I go there again this year, I intend to pay close attention to see which version of the prayer he uses.
-
At the first Good Friday service of his papacy, it is for sure, that he WILL NOT genuflect to God for the conversion of the perfidious jews.
That is not sure by any means.
-
I found it somewhat notable for a few reasons: first, the pre-printed booklets that were supplied included the genuflection; second, if I recall correctly, the priest used the BXVI prayer even though he didn't genuflect; and third, while the priest was of the Institute, the other ministers were supplied from the local diocese, including priests and seminarians. I also noticed that the priest sped along from one prayer to the next so that no one who was following the printed instruction in the booklet had a chance to genuflect. So he clearly did this quite purposefully and with forethought. I respected that. If I go there again this year, I intend to pay close attention to see which version of the prayer he uses.
Ok, so he had to do this to be more correct dogmatically/theolgically, but he threw liturgical decorum to the wind in order to do so. He basically had to rush and sneak in the correct words/action.
Do you see the tradeoff here?
A Resistance (or old-school SSPX priest) could say the prayers with proper decorum, dignity, and gravity -- making an impression on many parishioners, and gaining many graces for them. But they are "in an irregular state" and considered/appear disobedient to the Pope.
This ICK priest is officially in good standing with Rome, so his life preaches obedience and the importance of Papal authority (which is a small upside, I'll admit) but at what costs?
-
Ok, so he had to do this to be more correct dogmatically/theolgically, but he threw liturgical decorum to the wind in order to do so. He basically had to rush and sneak in the correct words/action.
Do you see the tradeoff here?
A Resistance (or old-school SSPX priest) could say the prayers with proper decorum, dignity, and gravity -- making an impression on many parishioners, and gaining many graces for them. But they are "in an irregular state" and considered/appear disobedient to the Pope.
This ICK priest is officially in good standing with Rome, so his life preaches obedience and the importance of Papal authority (which is a small upside, I'll admit) but at what costs?
I agree. Ideally, this is the sort of thing that would be used to educate the people, especially given that the use of the pre-1955 rites is itself a teaching moment to illustrate the symbolism present in these rites.
-
I happened to go to ICKSP for the pre-1955 Solemn Good Friday Liturgy last year. No genuflection. I'm sure it varied by location.
Was it at Old St. Patrick's Oratory by any chance?
-
Was it at Old St. Patrick's Oratory by any chance?
Yes, it was!
-
Yes, it was!
Great! I would expect nothing less from Canon Altiere. Good for him. :)