Ad Libbing/Adding Words to The Consecration

[OKathleenO]

This may seem small, but here goes.

The pastor of my parish tends to over-emphasize the Mass being a community meal/a family banquet/a family meal (all phrases he regularly uses). The meaning of consuming the Eucharist as part of/the completion of the unbloody sacrifice is rarely, if ever touched upon. In essence, the meal is emphasized over the sacrifice.

During The Institution Narrative, he always adds the words, “at table.”
For example: The second part of The Institution Narrative for EPIII is:
“In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took the chalice, and giving you thanks he said the blessing, and gave the chalice to his disciples, saying…”

Instead, he will change up words for the particular EP, add things/leave out things:
"In a similar way, when supper was ended, Jesus (instead of “he”) took the chalice, once more, he gave you thanks and praise (from a different EP) and giving you thanks (left out “he said the blessing), He gave the chalice to his disciples AT TABLE saying…”

I know most of that is minor, I guess. But what about him adding the phrase, “at table” every single time? Am I wrong to be disturbed by this?

 

[RyanBlack]

Am I wrong to be disturbed by this?

I would say no. Eucharist prayers are not to be improvised (there was a time in the ancient Church when they were), for multiple reasons, including preventing heresies from being added (which can happen even unintentionally).

 

[stpurl]

If he adds at the end, after Take this and eat (drink) because you are loved so much, you must be at my former parish!

 

[OKathleenO]

Seriously? Your former pastor added that? Wow.

 

[Beryllos]

Am I wrong to be disturbed by this?

I wouldn’t say you are wrong, but it would be good if you could find a way to be undisturbed or less disturbed by it.

 

[MtnDwellar]

I would be very concerned. Redemptionis Sacramentus is very clear. The Eucharistic Prayer shall not be modified.

Changing the prayer is illicit.

When I encounter this kind of action, I question the validity of the consecration. Modifying the Eucharistic Prayer constitutes grave matter. The priest went to seminary and almost surely knows. By knowingly and willingly committing an act of grave matter, he mortally sins. Then, while in a state of mortal sin, he commits a second mortal sin by consuming the host.

If a priest cares so little about Church teaching on mortal sin, how can he be trusted to have sufficient intention to consecrate the Eucharist? In other words, if he doesn’t believe what the Church teaches, he may not intend what the Church intends.

 

[CTBcin]

When I encounter this kind of action, I question the validity of the consecration.

As long as he doesn’t change the words of consecration itself, then it’s perfectly valid (even if stuff before/after the consecration is being ad libbed/modified).

 

[MtnDwellar]

Changing the words does not effect validity.

Validity is dependent upon the intention of the minister. I realize that we cannot know his intention. Disregard for Church teaching may give an insight regarding his intention. I question the validity because I question whether he intends what the church intends.

 

[Maximian]

This priest obviously thinks he has greater authority than has been given him. I would go to a different Mass and tell him why.

The Traditional Latin Mass is immune to this knd of problem.

 

[Cecilia2017]

I doubt it would be immune. A short time with a Latin dictionary (if even necessary for a priest) would provide any extra words / phrases and a good proportion of the congregation might not even notice. Those that did would then be asking the same question as the OP…

 

[InThePew]

Iirc the words “at table” used to occur in one of the Eucharistic Prayers according to the former translation of the Roman Missal - not that that makes its insertion okay but it does help to explain where it comes from. Some (older) priests tend to be attached to the former translation as well as the idea of a community meal. In fairness to them, they’re not wrong; the Eucharist is a banquet but, that said, it’s also a sacrifice. Be kind and patient with him; while not licit there are far more important things to be concerned about.

When I encounter this kind of action, I question the validity of the consecration. Modifying the Eucharistic Prayer constitutes grave matter.

Validity is only affected if the meaning is changed. As for grave matter, again be kind, be patient. In his own mind, he no doubt thinks what he’s doing is perfectly okay. He certainly intends to bring about the consecration of the eucharistic species and for Christ to become present in them which is what the Church intends. That said, I’m not for a moment condoning intentionally altering the institution narrative or any other part of the Eucharistic prayer - licitness is very different to validity.

The Traditional Latin Mass is immune to this knd of problem.

that’s a bit like saying I’m immune to Covid-19 because I don’t have it. While I doubt the TLM ever suffered from this particular problem, remmebr that those who presently say it do so my choice, most probably because they have a passion for it. However, many old priest will tell you their own particular “horror stories” of the pre-1969 mass.

 

[stpurl]

You are right, Father, in that there were abuses, and not limited to today’s OF; or indeed to the EF, or to any other Masses such as the Sarum Rite, Masses in the Eastern Catholic Churches, Divine Liturgy in the Orthodox, etc. Where free will exists, there is always the possibility of abuse.

But what Max was suggesting, I believe, is that by and large with regard to the TLM (which is the main Mass that some of us can remember prior to 1969), the type of ad libbing of the Eucharistic prayers which exists to my own certain knowledge was simply not possible on the scale it is today. First, there was only the Roman Canon. Even those without missals would have been exposed to it and have enough ‘memory’ that deviations would have been readily apparent.

Today with so many different Eucharistic prayers to choose from, so many different prefaces, etc. the average person in the pew will not grow accustomed to and familiar with one or even the old ‘four’ prayers to start, then the added two for Reparation and another couple for various and the couple especially for children) And the limited prefaces (usually 8 or so, with a couple line difference for Easter and Christmas ones.

Some phrases in one prayer may appeal enough to priests who are—and I am sure you of all people know this well—encouraged in seminary and in their assignments to make things ‘pastoral and personal’, to keep Mass from being ‘boring’, to make it ‘fresh’ etc—such that they truly feel that doing it their way is not only perfectly fine but in fact superior to the ‘rigid’ way.

Well, we are all different. I personally happen to welcome and enjoy what some call rigidity, which I call fidelity and obedience . I don’t like reinventing the wheel on what should, if done correctly, go along quite well anyway!

But in the end I don’t think it truly matters how I—or indeed anybody else—feels. Feelings are subjective and they are not a good guide to truth. More than “I feel”, I absolutely BELIEVE that if more people were concerned about obedience that we would have a much better world both ‘here’ and ‘hereafter.’

I think in the US with COVID we are seeing a pretty good example of what has happened when we think obedience is a ‘limit to our freedom’ and ‘rules’ are boring and made to be broken.

 

[Gorgias]

Modifying the Eucharistic Prayer constitutes grave matter. The priest went to seminary and almost surely knows.

That “meal at table” thing is from the 70s or 80s, right? He might not know, as such – it might have been part of his seminary training, which he’s carried with him for 40 or 50 years now!

By knowingly and willingly committing an act of grave matter, he mortally sins. Then, while in a state of mortal sin, he commits a second mortal sin by consuming the host.

Ummm… awful lot of presumption in these statements, no?

 

[Maximian]

is very different to validity.

Maximian:

The Traditional Latin Mass is immune to this knd of problem.

that’s a bit like saying I’m immune to Covid-19 because I don’t have it. While I doubt the TLM ever suffered from this particular problem, remmebr that those who presently say it do so my choice, most probably because they have a passion for it. However, many old priest will tell you their own particular “horror stories” of the pre-1969 mass.

Actually no it isn’t like saying that. The Traditional Latin Mass has only one form of words from which the priest never deviates unless it’s a genuine mistake. The kind of thing described by the OP, consisting of the deliberate alteration of the Mass by the priest just doesn’t happen and never did.

I must ask you to back up your assertion with a single example of a “horror story “ told you by an old priest about the pre 1969 Mass, because you are not the first to repeat this line but you will be the first to give a real instance.

 

[Maximian]

I doubt it would be immune. A short time with a Latin dictionary (if even necessary for a priest) would provide any extra words / phrases and a good proportion of the congregation might not even notice.

It’s immune because, unlike with the novus ordo, the priest is not given any options and it never enters his head to improve on “say the black and do the red”

 

[Tis_Bearself]

Thank you for explaining all this, Father.
I unfortunately lived through the whole “Community Meal Emphasis” era (As Gorgias said, it was common in the 1970s) and if it had not been for my old-school mom constantly harping on the Mass being the Unbloody Sacrifice of Jesus, I would likely have gone through my whole adulthood thinking Mass was just a reenactment of everybody eating together at the Last Supper.

I’ve noticed the priests who are most married to this old concept are starting to reach the age where they retire or pass away, so I’m not running into it as much at Mass, but once in a while it does crop up.

A priest the other night decided to ad-lib some stuff during the Eucharistic Prayers and it was off-putting to me. Fortunately, he was just visiting so I won’t have to deal with that regularly. But it’s good to know from your post that the consecration is still valid, because I wondered too.

 

[stpurl]

I am very grateful for all the priests who serve us. I figured that might not be as apparent as it should be since so often it seems like there is nothing but criticism going out from the laity. Even if (praise God) we are happy with our own priests, it seems we are oh-so-concerned for all the horror stories we are happy to pass along and complain about!

I know that some of it is based on what we’ve experienced and also how much we let it affect us in a negative way. I loved the “old Mass’ and even though I was very involved for years (decades) playing the modern music, being a cantor, doing readings, bring up the gifts with the kids, etc., after years and years of being told how superior this ‘is’ and how ‘awful’ the other was, especially after the late 1980s when Pope St. John Paul II and then later Pope Benedict were speaking and made it clear first that some of what we were told over and over was now ‘the norm’ was nothing of the sort, and second, that the people who told us that the TLM was abrogated and gone were ‘mistaken’, and then with the net getting opportunities to see and hear things again instead of relying on memories, it has been especially in the last 20 years like riding a roller coaster. And I HATE roller coasters.

It’s probably a forlorn hope for now, but you know what I would like to see when somebody opens up a topic on the TLM? I’d like to see people telling about their favorite aspects of the same.

No “OF bashing”. And if somebody trolly starts it, the quick removal of the offending post and nobody—I mean NOBODY-commenting. Just like you’d drive past a skunk on the road—wrinkle your noise and drive on; let the thing lie until the road crew disposes of it.

Absolutely no EF bashing. Same thing. Everybody ignores the ignorance, there is a quick ‘removal’, life goes on. No later digs, no rolling eyes. Just ignore it and move on.

Wouldn’t it be wonderful?

 

[Cecilia2017]

I’ll accept ‘extremely unlikely’ but never ‘immune’.

 

[InThePew]

Some phrases in one prayer may appeal enough to priests who are—and I am sure you of all people know this well—encouraged in seminary and in their assignments to make things ‘pastoral and personal’, to keep Mass from being ‘boring’, to make it ‘fresh’ etc—such that they truly feel that doing it their way is not only perfectly fine but in fact superior to the ‘rigid’ way.

Tbh making the mass “pastoral and personal” never came up in my seminary training but, if anything, I find that those priests who might think along those lines tend to stick rigidly to either EPII or III. Personally, I actually try to put some thought into which prayer to use - especially if I can relate it to the readings of the day.

I must ask you to back up your assertion with a single example of a “horror story “ told you by an old priest about the pre 1969 Mass, because you are not the first to repeat this line but you will be the first to give a real instance.

Things like people receiving communion at the start of / before mass, priests muttering the prayers in a barely audible voice and Sunday mass being over in 20 minutes - that sort of thing. Put another way, there’s a reason why the EF provokes such a strong response in older priests and parishioners - not because there was anything fundamentally wrong with it but because what we experience at EF masses today is not what they remember. The reality is that, when the EF was mainstream it was, well ordinary, with all the problems and variations that come with that. Don’t misunderstand me though - I have nothing against the EF and have certainly sat through more than enough OF masses which were so bad, they’re almost a funny form of penance!

I’ve noticed the priests who are most married to this old concept are starting to reach the age where they retire or pass away, so I’m not running into it as much at Mass, but once in a while it does crop up.

You’re right when you say it’s the product of a particular era - although in fairness to that era, the idea wasn’t so much a shift away from the sacrifice as from Jansenist mentalities. Unfortunately, sometimes the pendulum swings too far in the opposite direction! Still, the eucharist is a banquet as much as it is a sacrifice and blessed are those called to the supper of the lamb!

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Your wish is my command.