http://www.zenit.org/article-20069?l=english

This is where the truth about the Tridentine Mass is. There is nothing about it that goes against Vatican II. There will be no prayers for the conversion of perfidious Jews. Those lines have been permanently removed. 

"Let us also pray that our God and Lord will look kindly on the Jews, so that they too may acknowledge the Redeemer of all, Jesus Christ our Lord. . . . Almighty and eternal God, you made the promises to Abraham and his descendants. In your goodness hear the prayers of your Church so that the people whom from of old you made your own may come to the fullness of redemption."

There's nothing offensive about Catholics praying for our conversion. So long as they leave at a prayers and don't try to use force to impose their faith on us, they can say whatever they want at Mass.
What's offensive is that so many Jews are whining about this topic despite being ill informed about Catholicism and having no idea how those Catholics who are attached to the Latin Mass feel (and even less inclination to find out).
The Catholic church isn't out to get us any more. Yes, they would love it if we converted, just like every other religious group there us - but we need to get over our self-righteous sillyness whenver the Church does something that makes us a tiny bit uncomfortable. This change is about the restoration of an ancient tradition beloved by many Catholics, not about a return to the Inquisition.

I agree with Simon's comment, although I don't know enough about Catholicism or the Latin Mass to say much. Based on what little I know, I surmise that some Catholics want to bring back the latin mass for the same reason some reform temples are bringing back hebrew.

Frankly, I really don't care what they say when they pray. After all, I sure wouldn't want non Jews censoring our prayers (I know, historically christians did force changes to our prayers).

Has this author even read the Bible? Why is he trying to include women priests and include gays and lesbians into full fellowship with the body of believers. The Bible clearly states the opposites. Stop trying to appease the world by your inclusions of such things contrary to God and stand up for EVERYTHING He says and not pick and choose what you want to believe. Either believe everything or believe nothing.

Todd,

This probably isn't the forum to debate the christian scripttures, but can you give a cite to your assertion that "gays and lesbians [are excluded from] full fellowship with the body of believers" In the Jewish tradition, certain aspects of gay sex are prohibited, but we do not exclude such people from the Jewish community.

I think Jewcy's universalist stance contradicts this article's offense at Christians who want to convert them.

The people behind this website are always arguing that Judaism needs to transcend 19th century ethnocentrism and present a universal vision that appeals to a post-ethnocentric generation. And I agree completely with that argument.

But if you're going to transcend ethnocentrism in favor of universalism, that means that whatever you want for yourself in religion, you should also want for the whole world.

The central theme of Christianity is that anyone can be saved, but only by embracing Jesus Christ. Now, personally I disagree with the whole notion that you need Jesus to be saved, which is why I'm not a Christian. But if you are a Christian but don't want others to embrace Jesus, that essentially means you don't care whether non-christians are saved or not, which is pretty heartless and ethnocentric (or sectarian, if you prefer to account for the fact that Christians can come from any ethnicity).

Of course, none of this means we need to tolerate forceful, mean-spirited or ill-mannered attempts to convert us. But if Christians want to respectfully seek our conversion by prayer, by living as an good example, or by intelligent argument, I don't see why we should take offense.

In fact, the only reason I can see why we should be offended is if we are insecure about our own tradition and think they might be right.

The current Pope has now thrown down his mark into history by re-promulgating his own earlier writings, reflecting his base Catholic supremicist, anti-ecumenical and extreme conservative views. He has the right to re-utilize the melodic Latin Mass but he has tread on the Vatican 2 rulings and later rulings of the late Pope to forego mentions of Jewish conversion and Catholic supercession over the Jews and other churches. Part of his recent ruling directly states that ALL other non-Catholic Christian churches and sects on Earth are "FLAWED", and not worthy of being called "churches". Their congregations may not be worthy of "Christian salvation" according to this doctrine. WOW!
Many religious leaders are speaking out against these shocking doctrines, which are sad reflections of 1500 years of earlier Catholic supremacy and hatred. Maybe they are also reflections of the time the current Pope didn't spend in the Nazi Army.

Zbird says,

"If Christians want to respectfully seek our conversion by prayer, by living as an good example, or by intelligent argument, I don't see why we should take offense."

I'm with you. But Jewcy's not an echo chamber. We have hosted POVs from across the spectrum, and will continue to do so (even if, recently, we've put out more statements of Jewcy editorial position than usual). As far as the range of perspectives we explore/publish, we can indeed have it both ways, and then others, and then hormone treatment and start over. Next comes the article saying "keep shabbos you stupid am-ha'ares!"

Hey, we Jews always need something to whine about. I think we should make a holiday in case the whole worldwill protest against this prayer. Better yet, we should make a holiday even if no one will say a word!
By the way, you won't believe the TV I got today. The shop owner wanted 2000 bucks for it but I managed to come off with 1700!

Greets from Israel, the land of the malicious butcher (pun was intended).

The first anonymous post above quoting the 1965 prayer does show what remains in the approved Tridentine Mass. "Perfidious" (or, more accurately perhaps, "unfaithful") is gone. What remains is the requirement that everyone needs Christ for the fullness of redemption.

And zbird's defense of universalism against ethnocentrism ("And I agree completely with that argument") points to what, as a "Jewcy" Christian, I find offensive about prayers for the conversion of the Jews. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. (I'm a fairly odd bird Catholic, though, since literal redemption doesn't concern me. My hope that people of other faiths will continue as they are doesn't mean that I'm somehow "heartless[ly] and ethnocentric[ally]" trying to keep Heaven to myself. I don't believe in any Heaven except for our own little paradises on earth, the great joys we share both within and without our individual Faiths.)

In this little essay, though, Judaism was not nearly the concern that Catholicism was. As I say, very few Catholics will be saying this prayer, and since it's in Latin even fewer will understand it. I can see how it hardly matters at all to Jews. (Alhough the possibility that my position might contradict Jewcy's universalist stance -- which it really doesn't, if you look at it from my perspecttive -- might be seen as refreshing; Jewcy is, like my Church, the people who make it up. Warts, contradictions, zbirds, Korbs, and all.)

The decree does matter to Catholics, though, especially liberal ones like me who hope (perhaps hope against hope) that the pope can see that reconciling with traditionalists could mean reconciling with women priests, married priests, and yes, gay and lesbian Catholics.

Religious genius tends to exert itself in either practically or prophetically. Paul was a pragmatist and, for the most part, liturgically innovative. Jesus was prophetic and morally innovative. My point about reconciling with women priests and married priests drawns upon a Pauline tradition found in the New Testament and history of the early Church. My point about reconciling with gay and lesbian Catholics draws upon the moral innovation of Jesus, who in the Gospels welcomes anyone who choses to follow him.

What I find perhaps most compelling about Judaism is its history of interpretation, which is the heart of my life of faith. It's what makes me a "Jewcy" Catholic. I'm no literalist, and neither was Jesus (although that doesn't really matter). "Believe everything or believe nothing" doesn't mean anything to me. Faith without interpretation would be the end of faith itself.

I think it important that the Latin mass the Pope has in some measure "restored" is not the more litugically interesting and historical mass of the Middle Ages, central to Scholastic theology and much early music, but the post-Tridentine mass that has for a generation been the bulwark of Catholic conservatism.  The literalism of Catholic doctrine since Trent is what this mass symbolizes, not the relatively more tolerant and broadly-conceived (if muddled) church of the Middle Ages. So the historical argument about "Catholic heritage" really should not hold, unless someone wants to cling tenaciously to the Counter-Reformation church of Baroque facades and Jesuit theology as their heritage - and, sadly, I am sure there are some that do...regardless, unless one thinks that the prayers of the mass are answered, I doubt the conversion request will have any effect on those of us that, in the Pope's theological universe, are pretty much damned.

I think I spoke too broadly in saying that the central theme in Christianity is that Jesus is necessary to find salvation. 

Of course, that is the central theme of Christianity as it is generally understood, but if people continue to call themselves Christian while denying that Christ is necessary for salvation or that there is even an afterlife where you could be saved,  that is their prerogative.  And I will say that some of the most enlightened people I've ever met are Christians who share your liberal interpretation.

That being said, I think my central point still stands, namely, that IF you believe Christ is the only path to salvation, then the only decent way to act on that belief is by converting others.  If you have a problem with evangelism, your beef should really be with their ridiculous theology (that Christ is the only salvation for everyone), rather than with the evangelizing, which is just the natural and logical expression of that theology.  

 On a more personal note, I don't know you well enough  to say you're a contradiction, but you're certainly not a wart!

I won't bother addressing Korb's labored insults or catty misrepresentations. I suggest Volume 1 of "Radio Replies" for anyone who wants to know what the Church actually teaches, or wants to know true history. Also sspx.org.

To be "perfidious" in Latin is to preach a false faith(fide). What could be more honest and direct. Just like the Roman Church was before Vatican II and the so-called "new mass."

Now the Left is terrified that a restoration is underway. I doubt it, but this is certainly one positive step. If that were anything for Jews to fear they would have been extinct a long time ago.

Here is Abe's eloquent response to those who criticize his stance on the Vatican's revival of the Latin Mass.

Why I worry about the Vatican’s decision

after reading through other media sites it seems there's a second part of this Latin Mass that had not been posted here.  It would be helpful if someone could link to a credible source for the full text of the prayer at issue here.  

This is part of the prayer, at least according to Foxman's blog: (of questionable credibility given what we know of him): 

" Almighty and everlasting God, You do not refuse Your mercy even to the Jews" (emphasis added)

 If that line is included, with the word "even," it changes the whole meaning of the prayer.  The use of the word "even" implies that Jews are somehow less worthy of God's mercy; therefore God is especially merciful for giving His mercy to the Jews.  That's not just trying to convert--that's blatantly antisemitic.

what's the fuss? every religious tradition has less-than-flattering terms/views about out-groups. semitic
monotheisms are well-know for polarizing people into either-or groups.

some of the passover prayers (asking G-d to smite and destroy all who do not believe in Him) aren't particularly
considerate of the horrid "idolaters" or non-submissive goyim.

It's hard to believe the author is actually a Catholic -- even a bad Catholic -- so great is the state of his ignorance.

There is not one single reputable scholar who believes that women ever served as priests. There is some question about the diaconate, but that is a separate issue.

99.99% of all Christians who live now or ever have lived who belong to a church that recognizes a "sacramental priesthood" (as opposed to a "ministry") have always taught and held that only men can be ordained. And if you want to see a REALLY screwed up church -- check out the .01% who disagree, namely the Episcopalians. At this point they have ordained Druid priestesses, partnered lesbians, and recently a woman who claims to be both a Christian and a Muslim. (Lot of cross-cultural fertilization there.)

As far as married priests -- St. Paul says "those who are married seek to please their wives. Those who are unmarried seek to please God." There is no question that the kind of dedication, commitment, and sacrifice required of a priest (as opposed to say, a Presybterian minister) would be almost impossible to ask of a married man. Can you see telling someone with a wife and three kids who attend suburban schools that he is suddenly going to be transferred to minister to homeless people in an urban slum? Not to mention the simple fact that parishes simply couldn't afford to pay someone enough to support a family.

Paul married? Where? Show me.

One day a year a prayer for the conversion of the Jews. Are you that desperate for something to get upset about? Wow, somebody needs to get out more! The way this story has been reported you'd think that was the sole purpose of reinstating the Tridentine mass! Nothing could be further from the truth. Vatican II changed the role of the priest from that of leader of a community addressing god to to that of a bad entertainer.

I would insist that any Jews who want to dwell on this petty issue first repudiate their barbaric and bloodthirsty god of genocide and the Torah which is chock full of calls to exterminate gentiles in order to get their land. And they should be demanding that Israel refuse all the money it gets from Evangelical organizations who's extensive support is based entirely on an apocalyptic scenario involving the conversion of the Jews. I won't be holding my breath on either of those. Sheer hypocrisy.

By the way, although raised Roman Catholic, I have fully recovered from that experience. This is not meant as a defense of that criminal organization, just as a repudiation of stupidity.

I´m a catholic but to be honest i dont like this guy.

It's true that proof of Paul's marriage is not as clear as that concerning Peter's. Clement of Alexandria, however, writing on a passage in 1 Corinthians, notes: "Even Paul did not hesitate in one letter to address his consort. The only reason why he did not take her about with him was that it would have been an inconvenience for his ministry."

This is hardly solid evidence, I admit, and I was too quick here to align him so closely with Peter -- the married first pope.

how does a priesuse te scriptures in their prayer

I'M A TRADITIONAL ROMAN CATHOLICS AND I RESPECT AND LOVE MY FELLOW JEWISH "OLDER BROTHERS". I BELEIVE THAT THE AUTHOR HAS NO EDUACATION AND IS VERY IGNORANT ON OUR CHURCH'S HISTORIES AND MATTERS. FIRST, MARRIED PRIEST WAS CONDEMM BY THE EARLY CHURCH AS EARLY AS IN THE FIRST COUNSEL OF JERUSALEM AND THE TRUE FOUNDER OF THE CHURCH IS JESUS CHRIST THROUGH THE WORKS OF ST. PETER AND ST. PAUL WAS A GREAT HELPER IN EXTENDING ST PETER'S WORKS., THERE WHERE NO WOMEN PREIST ORDAINED IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH, MANY OF THESE PAGANS WERE ORDAIN BY EXCOMMUNICATED BISHOPS AND PRIEST WHO DISOBEYED GODS LAW AND ARE CONSIDERED CONDEMM AND HERETICS.I AM MORE THAN GLAD THAT OUR TRUE AND ORIGNAL FORM OF WORSHIP IS COMMING BACK. THE NEW MASS CAUSE THE CHURCH TO EXPERIENCE A HUGE DECLINE IN THE PRIESTLY AND RELIGIOUS VOCATIONS AND A INCREASE IN CATHOLICS LEADING IMMORAL LIVES AND THE DISBIBLIVING OF THE TRANSFUGERATION OF THE BODY AND BLOOD OF CHRIST AND WHAT IS SHE TALKING ABOUT GAYS AND LESBIANS? GOD HAS SAID IN THE OLD AND NEW TESTAMENT THAT NOTHING IMPURE AND JESUS HIMSELF SAID HOMOSEXUALS ARE NOT PERMITTED INTO HEAVEN. THEY MUST LEAVE THAT SATANIC LIFE OF SIN AND CONVERT AND LIVE A LIFE OF SACRIFICE TO PLEASE THE ALMIGHTY. AND THE AUTHOR OFFENDS ME WHEN SHE SAYS THE PRIEST MUMBLE THE PRAYERS, THE PRIEST IN SOME PRAYERS PRAY SILENT, LOUD OR WHISPER AS A SYMBOL OF WHEN JESUS WHISPERED IN THE EARS OF THE SICK AND NEEDY. GLORIA IN EXCELSIS DEO, DOMINUS IN ET ABRAHAM! GOD BLESS BROTHERS!

The feast of St George celebrated again on a scale equal to Christmas and Easter!