A Proclamation from the Gospel of Matthew

[RonRule]

I’ve been going to a new parish with a priest much more accustomed to ad libbing various parts of the mass. Not a fan at all of course, but I wonder which things rise to the level of actual liturgical abuse.

Tonight at the 4:30 Saturday Mass, instead of doing the normal gospel reading, he motioned the altar servers holding candles to come from the ambo to him in the center of the sanctuary, in front of the altar.

He then said “A *proclamation *from the Gospel of Matthew” and started telling the story, from memory, of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness. As far as I can tell, he didn’t really deviate from the story much, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t verbatim, and he wasn’t reading from a book. It was really strange. At the end of the proclamation, instead of saying “the gospel of the Lord” he said something like “The good news for souls”.

Now, I’ve only been catholic for a year and a half, but I’ve never seen that before. Very strange.

 

[John_Lilburne]

Committed a liturgical abuse by failing to read the Gospel from the ambo. From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“309. … From the ambo only the readings, the responsorial Psalm, and the Easter Proclamation (Exsultet) are to be proclaimed; …”.

He changed the words at the end of the reading, and it sound like during the reading as well. This abuse is specifically mentioned in the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:
“[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.”

The liturgical documents deliberately use the term “reading”. We are listening to ancient texts that have been passed onto us. So it is not storytelling. So the approach is contrary to this sort of thing in the GIRM:
“*Reading and Explaining the Word of God *
29. When the Sacred Scriptures are read in the Church, God himself speaks to his people, and Christ, present in his own word, proclaims the Gospel.
Therefore, all must listen with reverence to the readings from God’s word, for they make up an element of greatest importance in the Liturgy. …”.

 

[benedictgal]

Committed a liturgical abuse by failing to read the Gospel from the ambo. From the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“309. … From the ambo only the readings, the responsorial Psalm, and the Easter Proclamation (Exsultet) are to be proclaimed; …”.

He changed the words at the end of the reading, and it sound like during the reading as well. This abuse is specifically mentioned in the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:
“[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.”

The liturgical documents deliberately use the term “reading”. We are listening to ancient texts that have been passed onto us. So it is not storytelling. So the approach is contrary to this sort of thing in the GIRM:
“*Reading and Explaining the Word of God *
29. When the Sacred Scriptures are read in the Church, God himself speaks to his people, and Christ, present in his own word, proclaims the Gospel.
Therefore, all must listen with reverence to the readings from God’s word, for they make up an element of greatest importance in the Liturgy. …”.

John is right on several points. Furthermore, you can’t just paraphrase the Gospel (even though you can memorize it word for word). In addition, even when the Gospel is chanted (as is the case during Papal Masses), the deacon doesn’t sing, “A chant from the Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew”; he chants, “A Reading from the Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew.”

It’s sad to say this, but it seems as though Advent and Lent, two of the most solemn times of the Church liturgical year, also seem to bring out the creative bug in everybody.

This is very wrong.

 

[japhy]

I’ve been going to a new parish with a priest much more accustomed to ad libbing various parts of the mass. Not a fan at all of course, but I wonder which things rise to the level of actual liturgical abuse.

Tonight at the 4:30 Saturday Mass, instead of doing the normal gospel reading, he motioned the altar servers holding candles to come from the ambo to him in the center of the sanctuary, in front of the altar.

He then said “A *proclamation *from the Gospel of Matthew” and started telling the story, from memory, of Jesus’ temptation in the wilderness. As far as I can tell, he didn’t really deviate from the story much, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t verbatim, and he wasn’t reading from a book. It was really strange. At the end of the proclamation, instead of saying “the gospel of the Lord” he said something like “The good news for souls”.

Now, I’ve only been catholic for a year and a half, but I’ve never seen that before. Very strange.

Well, before you have the barrage of people coming in here to say “there’s nothing wrong, he’s just trying to liven the Mass up” or other stuff like that, let’s get a couple things straight:

1. The priest has no right to make such changes to the Mass.
2. In deviating from the liturgy, he was drawing attention to himself – speaking the gospel from memory, standing in the center of the sanctuary instead of at the ambo, and using different words – making himself out to be a performer or actor.
3. In his disobedience to the laws of the Church, he is implicitly promoting disobedience on the laity’s part.

This priest is WAY out of line.

 

[benedictgal]

While Redemptionis Sacramentum doesn’t specifically speak to what the OP addressed, I believe that this citation is most appropriate to the matter at hand:

It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-Conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation, there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many".70

[31.] In keeping with the solemn promises that they have made in the rite of Sacred Ordination and renewed each year in the Mass of the Chrism, let Priests celebrate “devoutly and faithfully the mysteries of Christ for the praise of God and the sanctification of the Christian people, according to the tradition of the Church, especially in the Eucharistic Sacrifice and in the Sacrament of Reconciliation”.71 They ought not to detract from the profound meaning of their own ministry by corrupting the liturgical celebration either through alteration or omission, or through arbitrary additions.72 For as Saint Ambrose said, “It is not in herself … but in us that the Church is injured. Let us take care so that our own failure may not cause injury to the Church”.73 Let the Church of God not be injured, then, by Priests who have so solemnly dedicated themselves to the ministry. Indeed, under the Bishop’s authority let them faithfully seek to prevent others as well from committing this type of distortion.

This citation is also crucial to addressing what the priest in the OP did:

[7.] ***Not infrequently, abuses are rooted in a false understanding of liberty. Yet God has not granted us in Christ an illusory liberty by which we may do what we wish, but a liberty by which we may do that which is fitting and right.18 ***This is true not only of precepts coming directly from God, but also of laws promulgated by the Church, with appropriate regard for the nature of each norm. For this reason, all should conform to the ordinances set forth by legitimate ecclesiastical authority.

[8.] It is therefore to be noted with great sadness that “ecumenical initiatives which are well-intentioned, nevertheless indulge at times in Eucharistic practices contrary to the discipline by which the Church expresses her faith”. Yet the Eucharist “is too great a gift to tolerate ambiguity or depreciation”. It is therefore necessary that some things be corrected or more clearly delineated so that in this respect as well “the Eucharist will continue to shine forth in all its radiant mystery”.19

[9.] Finally, abuses are often based on ignorance, in that they involve a rejection of those elements whose deeper meaning is not understood and whose antiquity is not recognized. For “the liturgical prayers, orations and songs are pervaded by the inspiration and impulse” of the Sacred Scriptures themselves, “and it is from these that the actions and signs receive their meaning”.20 As for the visible signs “which the Sacred Liturgy uses in order to signify the invisible divine realities, they have been chosen by Christ or by the Church”.21 Finally, the structures and forms of the sacred celebrations according to each of the Rites of both East and West are in harmony with the practice of the universal Church also as regards practices received universally from apostolic and unbroken tradition,22 which it is the Church’s task to transmit faithfully and carefully to future generations. All these things are wisely safeguarded and protected by the liturgical norms.

I hope this helps the OP.

 

[Brother_John]

I’m with the “Traddies” on this one…don’t unilaterally tamper with the Mass.