The Jews and the Liturgical Reform: in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review

Venerating the Cross on Good Friday (St Mary Moorfields, London)

This month I have an article in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review. It takes its start from a 1961 Memorandum sent to the Holy See, Anti Jewish Elements in Catholic Liturgy by the American Jewish Committee, which was intended to influence the reform. 

Until the conclusion of the paper I keep the question of the validity of those concerns separate from my main question: did the reformers of the Consilium act on them?

The short answer is 'no'. I was myself surprised to discover this, but the evidence is quite clear. I encourage readers interested in the subject to read my paper which sets out why I come to that conclusion in full.

Briefly, there are three main indications that the Consilium was not guided by this document.

First and most obviously, the texts identified in the Memorandum as most problematic are still there in the reformed Missal, namely St John's Passion Narrative and the Improperia (Reproaches), both used on Good Friday.

Furthermore, second, as the Memorandum points out, texts in the vernacular are more problematic than the same texts in Latin, because people understand them more immediately. This means that the reform was not simply neutral on the question of the Jews. As far as the Memorandum's principles are concerned, it made things worse.

Third, while some texts that could be said to be problematic do disappear in the reform, other texts which are at least as bad have been given greater prominence, or have even been freshly composed for the reformed rites. This suggests that the passages that disappeared did so for other reasons.

This includes the prayer for the conversion of the Jews in the Good Friday Intercessions, which changed radically in the reform. We may say that it was softened out of a concern for Jewish sensitivities, but the same softening process was applied to the prayer for the conversion of heretics and schismatics and the prayer for pagans, in the same series. On the other hand, prayers explicitly for the conversion of the Jews continued to be composed by the Consilium, for inclusion in the Liturgy of the Hours -- where they can still be found today. As a matter of fact, the Memorandum raised no objections to the Good Friday prayer for the conversion of the Jews as it existed in 1961.

Clearly, the Holy See did not accept the Memorandum's argument that the passages were problematic.  Nor did it accept the argument, that the Memorandum did not make, that there is a problem with praying for the conversion of the Jews. On both points, of course, I think they were right. Later, starting in the later 1970s, concerns about the Church's relationship with the Jews took on a different form, and this is when we find people objecting to various liturgical texts. These objectors can find no comfort from the liturgical reform, however.

This might all seem a bit academic, but opponents of the Traditional liturgy regularly use the argument that the reform removed elements offensive to the Jews, and so the unreformed liturgy is a problem in as much as it still contains them. This idea was wheeled out in 2007 to oppose Pope Benedict's liberation of the Traditional Mass (here), and keeps popping up: for example, in The Tablet's report on the petitions in support of the ancient Mass last year (13th July 2024). 

As I have now shown, this argument is demonstrably false.

I have written about the pre-1956 Prayer for the Jews, incidentally, in an appendix to this Position Paper.

My article in the Homiletic and Pastoral Review is here.

Chanting the Passion Narrative on Good Friday.

Support the Latin Mass Society