Religious reporting: an interesting comparison

The Independent leaves its readers in no doubt where it would like to stand on the Motu Proprio question if it actually knew anything about it. Church split feared as Pope backs return of 'anti-Semitic' Latin Mass (30 June). A couple of quotations:
The 16th-century Tridentine Mass - which includes references to "perfidious" Jews - was abandoned in 1969 [...]

Cardinals, bishops and Jewish leaders are concerned by the text of the "old" Mass, which has passages, recited every Good Friday, which say Jews live in "blindness" and "darkness", and pray "the Lord our God may take the veil from their hearts and that they also may acknowledge our Lord Jesus Christ".
Now compare this coverage with another newspaper:
The text is based on the Tridentine Mass promulgated by the Council of Trent in the 16th century. Originally this mass contained a Good Friday prayer for the conversion of "the perfidious Jews."

But in the 1960s, after his historic meeting with the historian and Holocaust survivor Jules Isaac, Pope John XXIII ordered this terminology removed, and the version that will be used dates back to 1962, when this phrase had already been eliminated.
Where do you have to go for such informed comment on Catholic issues? The Jerusalem Post. Pope explains revived Mass (1 July)

The article goes on to express concern at the difference between the 1962 and 1965 versions of the Good Friday prayer because the former prays for the conversion of the Jews. That we could discuss at length. But I would want to contrast the generally well-informed and fair-minded coverage of the Jerusalem Post with the bigoted headline of the Indie and its attempt to play up and exacerbate division within the Church.

Popular posts from this blog

1962 Missal pdf online

SPUC Clergy information day

When people walk away with Holy Communion

Saint Gabriel