Abhoring False Aspects Of One's Former Religion

[Resurrexi]

[url="http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2009/06/what-was-sacred-then-is-sacred-now.html"]From the folks at [i]Rorate Caeli[/i][/url]:


What Was Sacred Then Is Sacred Now
St. Teresa of Avila once indicated she would willingly die a martyr for the least liturgical rubric of Holy Church.

One of the lesser known rubrics which disappeared in the reforms of Annibale Bugnini, a few prescribed lines of the priest for various categories of adult baptism, was suppressed by the Congregation of Rites on Nov. 27, 1959. In the Roman Ritual, Holy Church had placed the following words on the lips of the priest, to be addressed to the one about to be baptized: If the catechumen had been a pagan, he was told “Horresce idola, respue simulacra” (“Abhor idols, reject images”); if “from the Hebrews,” “Horresce Iudaicam perfidiam, respue Hebraicam superstitionem” (“Abhor Jewish infidelity, reject Hebrew superstition”); if “from the Mohammedans,” “Horresce Mahumeticam perfidiam, respue pravam sectam infidelitatis” (“Abhor Mohammedan infidelity, reject that evil sect of infidelity”); and if “from heretics” among whom baptism was invalid (otherwise the convert would not be receiving baptism), “Horresce haereticam pravitatem, respue nefarias sectas impiorum N.” (“Abhor heretical depravity, reject the evil sects of the impious N.”).

From a notice of the suppression which appeared in Ephemerides Liturgicae, 74 (1960), p. 133-134, and which is signed “ab”, apparently by Annibale Bugnini who was editor of the publication, we can take a significant insight into the mentality of the prime architect of the liturgical changes of that decade, and perhaps that of many reforming officials and bishops of the day. Bugnini links this suppression to the earlier removal of the words “perfidis Judaeis” from the Good Friday liturgy. Bugnini acknowledges that these words of the Good Friday liturgy were perfectly exact (“exactissima”) in their original meaning. But now they have become “aurium offensiva” (quotation marks in the original; “offensive to the ears”), an expression which the liturgical reformer is obviously adapting from one of the theological notes which had been employed for centuries, “offensive to pious ears”. Bugnini does not say that the traditional expression is offensive to pious ears, but rather offensive to contemporary ears thanks to a change in the everyday meaning of “perfidis”.

Bugnini goes on to claim that removing similar lines from the Ritual is a logical consequence of the suppression of “perfidis Judaeis”, for, as he says, “adults who lived for so many years in good faith in their own religion and now embrace the Christian combat” do not easily bear having to hear such raw words (“tam cruda verba”) about the religion of their fathers (“paterna religione”). This is a remarkable justification for suppressing this part of the Ritual, for the only logical connection with the Good Friday prayer is that both texts are “offensive to the ears”. They are not “offensive” for the same reason: the Good Friday prayer had become offensive on account of changed semantics, while the Ritual passage is seen as offensive because of the presumed attitude of converts to the religions they are leaving behind.

One wants to ask, who is “offended” by these words, Bugnini or the converts? Eugenio Zolli, the Chief Rabbi of Rome baptized shortly after World War II and who published his story, would certainly have heard them, since he went directly from the Synagogue to the Church. Did he find them offensive?

Were they offensive to the German Jewish psychologist Karl Stern? The illustrious 20th century convert could have heard them, since he seems to have identified himself to some degree with Judaism in the period before his baptism, although this is not totally clear from the source consulted by this blogger. Various sources, both by and about Edith Stein, do not answer the question whether she heard these words at her baptism, since she had been an atheist for years when she was baptized. However it is likely that she knew them, because one witness remarked the firmness and ease of her Latin pronunciation during the ceremonies of her baptism, so it is probable that this scholarly woman had become familiar with the Ritual, even if she was not received “from the Hebrews”. Was the future Carmelite St. Edith Stein offended by liturgical rubrics of Holy Church which St. Teresa of Avila would have shed her blood for?

If the suppressed lines of the Ritual sounded “offensive to the ears” of those who had followed a pagan religion of their fathers, what was Bugnini’s attitude to I Peter 1:18? “[Y]ou were redeemed from the futile manner of life handed down from your fathers . . .”

Was there something of Bugnini’s attitude in many or most of the bishops at Vatican II who in Nostra Aetate professed to consider other religions with sincere “respect” (or “regard”, another meaning of the term “observantia”)? Presuming most non-Christians’good faith, they primarily wanted to befriend the followers of other religions, and this may have been the motive of many when they expressed the attitude of “respect” they brought with them to the examination of religions, ready to acknowledge elements of goodness and truth which can be found in these religions and which are mentioned in the same paragraph.

But “what was sacred then is sacred now”, even when an earlier liturgical practice is changed, for the faith reflected in the earlier practice is true. As seen, even Bugnini said that what was expressed by “perfidis Judaeis” is perfectly exact. Likewise the Vatican II decree on missions discreetly mentions that elements of goodness and truth in the non-Christian world must be liberated from “contagiis malignis” (Ad Gentes 9). As a logical consequence, since the Church’s sacred liturgy has publically expressed her rejection of religious rivals to her Lord, this rejection cannot be rejected, even when those religions are also seen to contain elements of goodness and truth, and when the liturgical rubric in question is not in current use.

(Note: St. Thomas explains the nature of post-Christian Jewish “infidelitas” and “superstition”: it is to consider the ceremonial and Christ-prefiguring laws as still obligatory in the time when the foretold grace of Christ has arrived and been promulgated by the apostles.)

Edited June 5, 2009 by Resurrexi

[jeffpugh]

Interesting points. I dare say I like what is said. Here come the tomatoes, though.

[KnightofChrist]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1883838' date='Jun 4 2009, 11:51 PM']Interesting points. I dare say I like what is said. Here come the tomatoes, though.[/quote]

I agree, so do I.

[jeffpugh]

At least we don't stand alone on this one, then. Usually the tomato'd are singular members.

[MithLuin]

[i]*Obligingly puts some farm-fresh tomatoes on the table*[/i]


I certainly agree with the sentiment (Reject the error of your [former] ways), but I can see why the wording would be considered inappropriate. As the article points out, the part of Judaism that is being rejected is the insistance on following rules in the face of God's grace. But the rubric doesn't say that. It says to give up Jewish superstition. Superstition generally means believing that Friday the 13th is bad luck and that you shouldn't break mirrors. I can't think of anything particularly 'superstitious' about Judaism, so I can see how the label would be considered 'offensive to pious ears.' I would think there should be some way to retain the idea of rejecting the old Law in favor of the new without saying it the way it used to be said.

Of course, the main repudiation at baptism is of Satan, sin and evil. Perhaps it was thought that this covered all evil aspects of one's former life.



As for the style of argument, I don't think it's entirely fair to say that St. Teresa of Avila would have died to keep this line in. Yes, she made a blanket statement about not wanting any changes, so we can assume she wouldn't be happy with the idea of tinkering. But unless she made any comments on this particular issue, we can't really know whether she 'liked' it or not. In Spain (during the Inquisition, no less) it was of course a [i]huge[/i] issue whether or not one converted from Judaism or Islam. Many families were coerced into conversion, and did not give up their 'old' ways (see [url="http://www.amazon.com/Mezuzah-Madonnas-Foot-Jews-Discovers/dp/0060603402#"]The Mezuzah in the Madonna's Foot[/url]). We know that St. John of the Cross was the grandson of Jewish converts; [url="http://www.cs.drexel.edu/~gbrandal/Illum_html/Teresa.html"]some[/url] have speculated (but with scant evidence) that Teresa of Avila was from a similar background. I honestly don't know her writings well enough to know if she commented on converts from other religions, but I am not comfortable assuming what her opinion was on something that was essentially a current event based on an unrelated statement.

Also, the Tridentine mass dates from 1570. St. Teresa of Avila lived from 1515 to 1582. I would want to know the context of her claim as well as the date in which it was made. The Council of Trent was just as contemporary to her as the Spanish Inquisition.

[scardella]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1884042' date='Jun 5 2009, 10:26 AM']I certainly agree with the sentiment (Reject the error of your [former] ways), but I can see why the wording would be considered inappropriate. As the article points out, the part of Judaism that is being rejected is the insistance on following rules in the face of God's grace. But the rubric doesn't say that. It says to give up Jewish superstition. Superstition generally means believing that Friday the 13th is bad luck and that you shouldn't break mirrors. I can't think of anything particularly 'superstitious' about Judaism, so I can see how the label would be considered 'offensive to pious ears.' I would think there should be some way to retain the idea of rejecting the old Law in favor of the new without saying it the way it used to be said.

Of course, the main repudiation at baptism is of Satan, sin and evil. Perhaps it was thought that this covered all evil aspects of one's former life.[/quote]

I'd have to agree with this. People who've converted usually don't HATE where they've come from, but recognize that Catholicism is the truth. They acknowledge the error of their background, but where they're coming from forms part of who they are. I think calling on them to abhor that past is a little much.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='MithLuin' post='1884042' date='Jun 5 2009, 10:26 AM'][i]*Obligingly puts some farm-fresh tomatoes on the table*[/i]


I certainly agree with the sentiment (Reject the error of your [former] ways), but I can see why the wording would be considered inappropriate. As the article points out, the part of Judaism that is being rejected is the insistance on following rules in the face of God's grace. But the rubric doesn't say that. It says to give up Jewish superstition. Superstition generally means believing that Friday the 13th is bad luck and that you shouldn't break mirrors. I can't think of anything particularly 'superstitious' about Judaism, so I can see how the label would be considered 'offensive to pious ears.' I would think there should be some way to retain the idea of rejecting the old Law in favor of the new without saying it the way it used to be said.

Of course, the main repudiation at baptism is of Satan, sin and evil. Perhaps it was thought that this covered all evil aspects of one's former life.



As for the style of argument, I don't think it's entirely fair to say that St. Teresa of Avila would have died to keep this line in. Yes, she made a blanket statement about not wanting any changes, so we can assume she wouldn't be happy with the idea of tinkering. But unless she made any comments on this particular issue, we can't really know whether she 'liked' it or not. In Spain (during the Inquisition, no less) it was of course a [i]huge[/i] issue whether or not one converted from Judaism or Islam. Many families were coerced into conversion, and did not give up their 'old' ways (see [url="http://www.amazon.com/Mezuzah-Madonnas-Foot-Jews-Discovers/dp/0060603402#"]The Mezuzah in the Madonna's Foot[/url]). We know that St. John of the Cross was the grandson of Jewish converts; [url="http://www.cs.drexel.edu/~gbrandal/Illum_html/Teresa.html"]some[/url] have speculated (but with scant evidence) that Teresa of Avila was from a similar background. I honestly don't know her writings well enough to know if she commented on converts from other religions, but I am not comfortable assuming what her opinion was on something that was essentially a current event based on an unrelated statement.

Also, the Tridentine mass dates from 1570. St. Teresa of Avila lived from 1515 to 1582. I would want to know the context of her claim as well as the date in which it was made. The Council of Trent was just as contemporary to her as the Spanish Inquisition.[/quote]

The Tridentine liturgical books do not merely date from 1570. In 1570, the Liturgy that had been used in the city of Rome as well as in most of Western Europe for several centuries was formally codified.

Also, "Reject Hebrew supersition" was never deemed "offensive to [i]pious [/i]ears", but merely "offensive to ears" (i.e. modern ears).

I might also add that the Extraordinary Form of the Liturgy is just as much a part of the Roman Rite as the Ordinary Form (cf. [i]Summorum Pontificum[/i]). Therefore the line in the baptismal rite commanding the convert to repudate his former religion is part of the Liturgy of the Church just as much today as it was in 1950.

Edited June 5, 2009 by Resurrexi

[MissyP89]

I certainly don't abhor my paganism. If not for it, I wouldn't have had any need or desire to seek out the Church again.

I was in error, yes, and I regret and have repented of that. However, it still helped to shape the person I have become. To abhor that would be, in a very real sense, abhorring my very identity.

[KnightofChrist]

Sigh...

[MissyP89]

[quote name='KnightofChrist' post='1884363' date='Jun 5 2009, 05:28 PM']Sigh...[/quote]

What is it? If you're going to verbally blow me off, at least explain why.

[jeffpugh]

I'm wondering if superstition had a less particular meaning?

[jeffpugh]

*takes a few farm-fresh tomatoes and makes a spaghetti sauce*

[Saint Therese]

I think calling anything evil is so politically incorrect these days that our minds automatically reject it.

[puellapaschalis]

[quote name='Saint Therese' post='1884688' date='Jun 6 2009, 06:34 AM']I think calling anything evil is so politically incorrect these days that our minds automatically reject it.[/quote]

I think this is quite accurate.

On the one hand, you have the state of willingly choosing to be outside the Church and her teachings. This is a sin and we must renounce sin, completely and utterly and absolutely. Isn't that what we mean by "Satan, his works, and all his empty promises"? This is whether we're shedding the pagan (i.e., non-Christian) life for Baptism, or returning via Confession to the Church after sinful acts or time away. We must show contrition, which at the very least must imply abhorrence.

Yet on the other hand God can use those periods and acts of sin - how we don't know, but He does - as channels of grace.

But this latter mysterious working of God cannot, I don't think, in any way justify sin or apostasy. That God uses our sin to our ultimate benefit cannot be relied upon (which should make our gratitude should it happen all the greater!). We can't look back upon our sins and say "Oh, well that turned out all right after all, so it can't have been that bad." That's not how this logic works.

My opinion, at least. I could be pretty far off the mark, but I hope I'm not

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Sacred Music Man' post='1884677' date='Jun 6 2009, 12:22 AM']I'm wondering if superstition had a less particular meaning?[/quote]

I would say that modern Jewish practices fall into the category of superstition. They practice rituals that they beleive to have an effect, but which are really empty shadows (e.g. the Passover Meal). This is like how the superstitious believe that wearing a horseshoe will have some good effect on them.