The protests of some Jews, and also of some Christians, over the new prayer introduced by Benedict XVI into the liturgy of Good Friday according to the ancient rite have met with a new and authoritative response from the Vatican: that of cardinal Walter Kasper.

Kasper is president of the pontifical council for the promotion of Christian unity, and of the commission for religious relations with Judaism.

Before him, the Vatican authorities who spoke out in defense of the prayer included archbishop Gianfranco Ravasi, president of the pontifical council for culture, with a commentary in "L'Osservatore Romano" on February 15, and also the secretariat of state, with a statement on April 4. Among the Jews as well there were some who spoke out in defense of the new prayer: for example, the American rabbi Jacob Neusner, with an article on February 23 in the German newspaper "Die Tagespost."

But the controversy has not died out. Just a few days ago, a new criticism was made by an important representative of Judaism, the chief rabbi of Rome, Riccardo Di Segni.

In all of the statements that it cited, www.chiesa presented the entire text. And it does the same further below, with the text of cardinal Kasper, published in "L'Osservatore Romano" on April 10.

As a helpful reminder, the new formula of the prayer for the Jews introduced last February 6 by Benedict XVI in to the ancient rite of Good Friday opens with this invitation:

"May the Lord Our God enlighten their hearts so that they may acknowledge Jesus Christ, the savior of all men."

And it continues with this prayer :

"Almighty and everlasting God, you who want all men to be saved and to reach the awareness of the truth, graciously grant that, with the fullness of peoples entering into your Church, all Israel may be saved."

What some Jews see as intolerable is that the Catholic Church should pray for the conversion of Israel to faith in Jesus Christ.

Here, then, is how cardinal Kasper replies to the criticisms:


The discussion of the recent modifications of the prayer for the Jews for Good Friday

by Walter Kasper


The prayer for the Jews for Good Friday has a long history. The new formulation of the prayer for the extraordinary form of the Roman rite (Missal of 1962) enacted by Pope Benedict XVI was opportune, because some of the formulations were considered offensive on the Jewish side, and distasteful even on the part of various Catholics. The new formulation has brought important improvements to the text of 1962. But it has also prompted new reactions of irritation, raising questions of principle among both Jews and some Christians (1).

The reactions shown on the Jewish side are to a great extent motivated in an emotional, rather than rational, way. But they must not be dismissed hastily as being caused by hypersensitivity. Among our Jewish friends who for decades have been involved in an intense dialogue with Christians, the collective memory of forced catechesis and conversion is still alive. The memory of the Holocaust is for modern-day Judaism a traumatic characteristic of identity that creates communion. Many Jews consider the mission to the Jews as a threat to their existence, sometimes even speaking of a Holocaust by other means. So great sensitivity is still necessary in the Jewish-Christian relationship.

In the meantime, the explanations given of the reformulated prayer for Good Friday have been able to eliminate the most glaring errors.

The very fact that the prayer for Good Friday in the Missal of 1970 - and therefore in the ordinary form of the Roman rite, used in the vast majority of cases - remains fully in effect, demonstrates that the reformulated prayer for Good Friday, used by only an extremely small part of the community, cannot signify a step backward with respect to the declaration "Nostra Aetate" of Vatican Council II.

This is all the more true by virtue of the fact that the substance of the declaration "Nostra Aetate" is also contained in a document belonging to a higher formal level, the constitution on the Church "Lumen Gentium" (no. 16), and for this reason, in principle, it cannot be brought into question.

Furthermore, since the council there have been a great number of direct pontifical statements, including some by the current pope, referring to "Nostra Aetate" and confirming the importance of this declaration.

Unlike the 1970 text, the new formulation of the 1962 text speaks of Jesus as the Christ and as the salvation of all men, and therefore also of the Jews.

Many have understood this affirmation as new and unfriendly toward the Jews. But this is founded on the New Testament as a whole (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4), and indicates the fundamental difference, known everywhere, that endures for both the Christians and the Jews. Even if it is not explicitly mentioned in "Nostra Aetate," nor in the prayer of 1970 , "Nostra Aetate" cannot be removed from the context of all the other conciliar documents, nor can the Good Friday prayer of the Missal of 1970 be removed from the entirety of the liturgy of Good Friday that has as its object that conviction of the Christian faith.

The new formulation of the prayer for Good Friday in the Missal of 1962, therefore, does not really say anything new, but only expresses what until now was taken as obvious, but which evidently, in many dialogues, was not sufficiently explained (2).

In the past, faith in Christ, which distinguishes Christians from Jews, has often been transformed into a "language of disdain" (Jules Isaac), with all of the serious consequences that derive from this. If today we are striving for reciprocal respect, this can be founded only on the fact that we reciprocally recognize our diversity. For this reason, we do not expect that the Jews should agree on the Christological content of the prayer for Good Friday, but that they should respect the fact that we pray as Christians according to our faith, as naturally we do also in regard to their way of praying. In this perspective, both sides still have something to learn.

The real controversial question is: should Christians pray for the conversion of the Jews? Can there be a mission to the Jews?

The word conversion is not found in the reformulated prayer. But it is indirectly included in the invocation to enlighten the Jews, so that they may recognize Jesus Christ. Moreover, there is the fact that the Missal of 1962 gives titles for each of the individual prayers. The title of the prayer to the Jews has not been modified; it sounds like it did before: "Pro conversione Judæorum," for the conversion of the Jews. Many Jews have read the new formulation in the perspective of this title, and this has raised the reaction already described.

In response to this, it can be noted that the Catholic Church, unlike some "evangelical" groups, does not have an organized, institutionalized mission to the Jews. With this reminder, however, the problem of the mission to the Jews has not, in fact, been clarified theologically yet. This is precisely the merit of the new formulation of the prayer for Good Friday, which, in its second part, presents an initial indication for a substantial theological response.

We pick up again from Chapter 11 of the letter to the Romans, which is fundamental also for "Nostra Aetate" (3).

The salvation of the Jews is, for Paul, a profound mystery of election through divine grace (9:14-29). God gives without regret, and the promises that God makes to his people, in spite of their disobedience, have not been revoked (9:6; 11:1.29). The hardening of Israel's heart produces salvation for the pagans. The wild branches of the pagans have been grafted onto the holy root of Israel (11:16ff.). But God has the power to graft on again the branches that were cut off (11:23). When the fullness of the pagans have found salvation, then all Israel will be saved (11:25ff.). Israel therefore remains the bearer of the promise and of the blessing.

Paul speaks, in apocalyptic language, of a mystery (11:25). By this he means to express something more than the fact that the Jews are often an enigma for the other peoples, and that their existence is still for others a witness to God. With the term "mystery," Paul means the eternal salvific will of God, which is manifested in history through the preaching of the Apostle. He refers concretely to Isaiah 59:20 and Jeremiah 31:33. By this he refers to the eschatological gathering of the peoples in Zion, promised by the prophets and by Jesus, and to the universal peace (shalom) that will then arise (4).

Paul sees his entire missionary work among the pagans in this eschatological perspective. His mission should be that of preparing the gathering of the peoples, which, then, when the full number of the pagans have entered, will bring salvation for Israel and eschatological peace for the world.

It can therefore be said: it is not on account of the mission to the Jews, but following the mission to the pagans that God will realize the salvation of Israel in the end, when the full number of pagans have found salvation. Only He who hardened the hearts of most of Israel can soften them again. He will do this when "the liberator" comes from Zion (11:26). This liberator, according to Pauline language (cf. 1 Thessalonians 1:10), is none other than Christ at his return. Jews and pagans, in fact, have the same Lord (10:12) (5).

The reformulated prayer for Good Friday expresses this hope in a prayer of intercession addressed to God (6). With this prayer, the Church repeats, in essence, the invocation of the Our Father "Your kingdom come" (Matthew 6:10; Luke 11:2) and the proto-Christian liturgical acclamation "Maranà tha": Come, Lord Jesus, come soon (1 Corinthians 16:22; Revelation 22:20; Didachè 10:6).

Such prayers for the coming of the Kingdom of God and for the realization of the mystery of salvation, according to their nature, are not an appeal addressed to the Church asking it to carry out missionary activity toward the Jews. Instead, they respect all of the unfathomable depth of the "Deus absconditus," of His election through grace, of the hardening of the heart as of His infinite mercy.

With its prayer, the Church, therefore, does not assume control of the realization of the inscrutable mystery. It cannot do so in any way. But rather, it leaves all of the "when" and the "how" of this realization in the hands of God. Only God can bring about His Kingdom, in which all Israel will be saved and eschatological peace will come to the world.

To support this interpretation, one can refer to a text by Saint Bernard of Clairvaux, which says that it is not up to us to concern ourselves about the Jews, but belongs to God himself (7). How correct this interpretation is also emerges from the doxology that concludes chapter 11 of the letter to the Romans: "Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How inscrutable are his judgments and how unsearchable his ways!" (11:33). This doxology once again shows that this is a matter of the worshipful glorification of God and of his inscrutable election through grace, and not an appeal to any sort of action, including mission.

The exclusion of a targeted and institutionalized mission to the Jews does not mean that Christians must stand around with their hands in their pockets. Targeted and organized mission on one side, and Christian witness on the other, must be distinguished. Naturally, Christians must, where it is opportune, give to their older brothers and sisters in the faith of Abraham (John Paul II) a witness of their own faith and of the richness and beauty of their faith in Christ. Paul did this as well. During his missionary journeys, Paul always went first to the synagogue, and only when he did not find faith there did he go to the pagans (Acts of the Apostles, 13:5,14ff., 42-52; 14:1-6 and others; Romans 1:16 is fundamental).

Such a witness is also asked of us today. It must of course be done with tact and respect; but it would be dishonest if Christians, in meeting with their Jewish friends, should remain silent about their own faith, or even deny it.

We expect just as much from believing Jews toward us. In the dialogues that I have known, this attitude is entirely normal. A sincere dialogue between Jews and Christians, in fact, is possible only, on the one hand, on the basis of a shared faith in one God, creator of heaven and earth, and in the promises made to Abraham and to the Fathers; and on the other, in the awareness and respect of the fundamental difference that consists in faith in Jesus as Christ and Redeemer of all men.

The widespread incomprehension of the reformulated prayer for Good Friday is a sign of how great the task is that still lies before us in Jewish-Christian dialogue. The reactions of irritation that have arisen should, therefore, be an opportunity for clarifying and further deepening the foundations and objectives of Jewish-Christian dialogue. If a deepening of dialogue could be begun in this way, the agitation that has arisen would lead to a truly positive result in the end. One must certainly always be aware that dialogue between Jews and Christians will remain, by its nature, always difficult and fragile, and that it demands a great degree of sensitivity on both sides.


NOTES

(1) A summary of the first reactions for and against can be found in "Il Regno" no. 1029, 2008, 89-91. In addition to such initial reactions in the mass media, the Vatican commission for religious relations with Judaism received a series of detailed and substantiated position statements, coming above all from the United States of America, from Germany and, and from Italy, including among others that of R. Di Segni, "La preghiera per gli ebrei," in "Shalom" 2008, no. 3, 4-7.

(2) This does not apply to the International Jewish-Christian dialogue in which this question arose after the declaration "Dominus Iesus" (2000). The commission for religious relations with Judaism has kept this in consideration, and for this purpose has organized talks by experts in Ariccia (Italy), Louvain (Belgium), and Frankfurt (Germany); the next talk has long been scheduled for Notre Dame (Indiana, United States of America).

(3) As for the interpretation, I refer above all to the extensive commentary, which also contains a great deal of material for our question, by Thomas Aquinas, "Super ad Romanos," chapter 11, lectio 1-5. More recent commentaries: E. Peterson, "Der Brief an die Römer" (Ausgewählte Schriften, 6), Würzburg, 1997, 312-330, specialmente 323; E. Käsemann, "An die Römer" (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, 8a), Tübingen 1973, 298-308; H. Schlier, "Der Römerbrief" (Herders Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament, 6), Freiburg i. Br., 1997, 320-350, esp. 337-341; O. Kuss, "Der Römerbrief," 3. Lieferung, Regensburg, 1978, 809-825; U. Wilckens, "Der Brief an die Römer" (EKK, VI/2), Zürich-Neukirchen, 1980, 234-274, esp. 252-257. One fundamental document is from the Pontifical Biblical Commissione, "Il popolo ebraico e le sue Sacre Scritture nella Bibbia cristiana" (2001). Furthermore: F. Mussner, "Traktat über die Juden," München, 1979, 52-67; J. Ratzinger, "La Chiesa, Israele e le religioni del mondo," Torino, 2000; J. M. Lustiger, "La promesse," Paris, 2002; W. Kasper, "L'antica e la nuova alleanza nel dialogo ebraico-cristiano," in "Nessuno è perduto. Comunione, dialogo ecumenico, evangelizzazione," Bologna 2005, 95-119. To this is added a great quantity of more recent literature, most of it in English, on the questions of Jewish-Christian dialogue.

(4) Important passages include Isaiah 2:2-5; 49:9-13; 60; Micah 4:1-3, and others. In this regard, see: J. Jeremias, "Jesu Verheißung für die Völker", Göttingen 1959.

(5) This brings up the most fundamental theological question in the current Jewish-Christian dialogue: is there only one covenant, or are there two parallel covenants for Jews and Christians? This question concerns the universality of salvation, which from a Christian point of view is undeniable, in Jesus Christ. See the synthesis of the most ancient literature in J. T. Pawlikowski, "Judentum und Christentum", in "Theologische Realenzyklopädie", 18 (1988), 386-403; Pawlikowski, because of my contributions and those of others, developed his position in essential fashion and referred extensively to the current state of the discussion in "Reflections on Covenant and Mission" in: "Themes in Jewish-Christian Relations," E. Kessler and M. J. Wreight (eds.), Cambridge (England), 2005, 273-299.

(6) The prayer has modified this text to the extent that it speaks of the entry of the pagans "into the Church," which is not found expressed in this way in Paul. From this, some Jewish critics have concluded that the issue is the entry of Israel into the Church, which the prayer does not say. In the sense of the apostle Paul, one should instead say that the salvation of most of the Jews is communicated through Christ, but not through their entry into the Church. At the end of days, when the Kingdom of God is realized definitively, there will no longer be a visible Church. So what is referred to is the fact that at the end of days, the one People of God, made up of Jews and of pagans who have become believers, will once again be united and reconciled.

(7) Bernard of Clairvaux, "De consideratione," III, 1, 3. Also in this regard: "Sermones super Cantica Canticorum," 79, 5.

News by Espresso.Chiesa