While I can understand why Jewish groups would find this offensive, I personally do not see that prayer as problematic. I am not Catholic, but I do not honestly care if every Catholic I know prays for me to convert—because, after all, they believe that Catholicism is the best way to come to God, and why would they not want that for me? I see why this would offend or, given history, even scare Jews, but I do think that much of it has been overreaction.
God bless.

Now let’s see if it is actually removed from the prayer. Since the RCC has, hopefully, seen by now that they truly aren’t the “only game in town” that this is one way to show respect for other denominations..in this case the Jews.
Jesus was a Jew, so what was the point of having it in the prayer anyhow?

I think it is a good idea to leave out the conversion language. It would be one thing to feel so certain of your faith that you prayed for everyone to join it, it is quite another thing if it is only one group that should be “fixed” in this way.
After that’s done, maybe they can choose a milder gospel reading for their Palm Sunday liturgies. It is quite inflammatory against the Jews as well. (Or, at least it was back when I was a Catholic.) I found it offensive and I’m not in any manner Jewish.

The tricky thing about praying for the conversion of the Jews is that it’s a traditional part of Christian theology, not just something that’s randomly thrown in there. New Testament theology requires Christians to take a special interest in the conversion of the Jews.
Yet, at the same time, it is a very good diplomatic move to remove thise part of the mass, considering the unsavory history that exists between Catholics and Jews in the West.

Well, if you think about it, the reason that Jews have usually been “singled out” for prayers is BECAUSE Jesus was Jewish…according to the traditional Christian understanding, God’s original plan was supposed to be that the Jews would all accept Jesus and thus become Christians from the beginning. But yes, it does seem as though a prayer for ALL other religions would be less offensive.
God bless.

“God’s original plan was supposed to be that the Jews would all accept Jesus and thus become Christians from the beginning.”
No disrespect intended, but how do you know what God’s original plan was? Some believe that no mere human can know the mind of God and Jesus didn’t say anything about the subject that I can recall.

It’s a good thing to do, if they go ahead and do it. But we seem to be overlooking the total lack of evidence for Christianity (aside from the NT, clearly a biased and indeed a “cooked” document) there is zero documentation of any of the miracles on which Christianity is based.
Indeed there is no evidence for the god the Christians and Jews seem to think they are all talking about.
So it would be better to build an actual foundation before arguing about details of the wainscoting.

The problem has always been what happened when those prayers for our conversion have not ben answered.
So, if those prayers were to come back, it would remind us too much of some very, VERY bad history.
We do appreciate that they will probably stay gone.

“Indeed there is no evidence for the god the Christians and Jews seem to think they are all talking about.”
Which has what to do with the article, exactly? :-/

“Which has what to do with the article, exactly? :-/”
A lot of time has been spent and, far worse, blood spilled based on religions with no basis. In this case Christianity and Judaism.

“A lot of time has been spent and, far worse, blood spilled based on religions with no basis. In this case Christianity and Judaism.”
I would argue that this is an example of non causa pro causa. In other words, in this case I would argue that the Jewish blood spilled at Christian hands has precious little to do with the factual basis of either religion. Indeed, pure rationalism can go equally wrong.

Clearly you don’t need religion as an excuse to do terrible things to other people, but religion certainly was a major contributing cause to the Holocaust as well as to other attacks on Jews.
Since Judaism was established first and Jews were in the neighborhoods it’s not surprising that the founders of Christianity and later Islam used Jews as foils, and unfortunately their writings survive and are taken very seriously by some. Of course the original founder of Christianity was supposedly a Jew so that makes the relationship between Judaism and Christianity more incestuous. I believe the Hebrew holy books treat the Philistines badly and had they survived as a group we might still be seeing religious-inspired attacks on them.
Humans are prone to attacking other groups of humans, which may have had survival value in much earlier times but sure hurts us now. Religion gives one more way to create “other” groups, and to the extent people take their religions seriously, “other” groups with targets on their backs.
And think how much more peaceful parts of the Middle East would be if there were no labels “Jew” and “Muslim” to differentiate people who probably share far more family history than most of us do.
So I’d argue the Jewish blood spilled at Christian hands has a great deal to do with the existence of Judaism and Christianity, neither of which has a factual basis. And Islam, the religion, is making its contribution to the horrors. But sooner or later I expect most religions do.

“Clearly you don’t need religion as an excuse to do terrible things to other people, but religion certainly was a major contributing cause to the Holocaust as well as to other attacks on Jews.”
I believe I understand where your reasoning has gone wrong. Undoubtedly, much human misery has been perpetuated in the name of religion. However, it does not follow that the unproven assertions of religion are to blame. Indeed, you acknowledge the true root cause when you say,
“Humans are prone to attacking other groups of humans, which may have had survival value in much earlier times but sure hurts us now.”
Put more explicitly, human societies of all stripes have evolved to minimize in-group competition in order to secure the benefits of cooperative behavior and to maximize success in between-group conflicts. Religions have been an integral part of this cultural evolutionary process, but it is the basic biological impulses that are ultimately the causes of these conflicts. That religions rarely live up to their professed ideals is no more an indictment of religion than the fact that natural selection often leads to maladaptive behaviors.
Regardless of how you may feel about the factual underpinnings of religious thought, it can hardly be denied that religion provides a powerful symbolic context by which to motivate human behavior. As such, I would think a religious leader’s attempts to change that symbolic context in order to correct what has become maladaptive behavior in modern times (and which we can likely agree was morally reprehensible, or at the very least unjust, even in earlier times) should deserve some applause, rather than being used as a pretext to launch into yet another atheistic diatribe about the irrationality of religion.

“No disrespect intended, but how do you know what God’s original plan was? Some believe that no mere human can know the mind of God and Jesus didn’t say anything about the subject that I can recall.”
I did not say that was God’s plan; I said that is the traditional Christian—including Catholic—understanding of it. I would say that, from a Christian perspective, it makes sense—after all, Jesus sure did spend a lot of time trying to convert the Jews, did he not?
God bless.

nnmns: “It’s a good thing to do, if they go ahead and do it.”
Týsson: “I would think a religious leader’s attempts to change that symbolic context in order to correct what has become maladaptive behavior in modern times (and which we can likely agree was morally reprehensible, or at the very least unjust, even in earlier times) should deserve some applause, rather than being used as a pretext to launch into yet another atheistic diatribe about the irrationality of religion.”
So actually I did both. But yes, to agree with you on this, it’s a good thing.

Why must people in the Christian world who calls himself a Christian must now change tradition so as not to offend a person or group? I would rather not have people impose themselves on me, but if people pray for me to convert I see that as a blessing, not an offense, as they are genuinely caring for me.

“I would rather not have people impose themselves on me, but if people pray for me to convert I see that as a blessing, not an offense, as they are genuinely caring for me.”
Then you will have no problem with me praying that you return to your ancestral folkways and renounce the jealous desert god for now and all eternity.
Of course, this won’t carry nearly as much import with you since my religion doesn’t have a 2,000 year history of oppressing people of your faith, of marginalizing them in ghettos, of driving them off their land, of subjecting them to the Inquisistion, etc. Perhaps if we did have that kind of cultural history between us, however, you could better appreciate why this is a significant gesture on the part of the Catholic church.

My sisters have found a kind, gentle god, which they don’t push on me, they respect my spirituality, as I respect their beliefs.”
And as a Christian (specifically, a Catholic convert) I too have found a kind, gentle God, and a communion of faithful people who don’t push their beliefs on me.
Someone (Bishop Sheen) once said that there are less than a 100 people in this world who hate the Church for what it really is, but there are millions who hate it because of what they *think* it is. People get the wrong idea about it from talking to people who misunderstand it and never bothered to investigate it.
read up on John Paul II; he’s a great place to start, and a great place to see what the heart of Christianity (specifically Catholic Christianity) is *really* about.

This statement from the Vatican sounds more like a parental “We’ll see” than any realistic expectation of change. And we ALL know what “We’ll see” means 95% of the time.
It is not so much a question as to whether the prayer stays in the Latin Mass or not. My problem is more the attitude of the Vatican, that is like some scolding parent who has simply been caught in a little inconsistency. The arrogance rolls on like a (polluted) river.

How about live and let live.