Ad Libbing/Adding Words to The Consecration

[HomeschoolDad]

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.

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…

Never heard of such a thing happening. The TLM/EF priests of today are scrupulously (in the good sense) concerned with keeping things intact and unchanged.

I’ve always gotten the “vibe” that priests who tinker with the prayers of the Mass are trying to “make a point”, either to assert their own “slant” on liturgy or theology, to “educate” or “inspire” the faithful assembled, or both. I knew of one priest who, in reciting the eucharistic prayer, followed it word-for-word, until he got to the consecration of the Precious Blood. Then, time and time again, he very precisely and deliberately said “…which will be shed for you and for all people, so that sins might be forgiven”. He did this both prior to, and after, the 2011 re-translation of the Roman Missal. I hate to say this, in that he was otherwise one of my favorite priests — I talked to him a few days before he died — but somebody really needed to make a sub rosa recording of this, and share it with the bishop. As deliberate about it as he was, I really don’t think this priest would have, upon being asked about it by a layman, slapped his hand upside his head and said “you know, you’re absolutely right, I shouldn’t do that, I’m going to cut that out right now, thanks so much for correcting me”. Not hardly.

 

[OKathleenO]

I really appreciate this response. In addition to what you said about “at table” being in the former translation (he is an older priest from the era when Vatican II was rolled out and poorly implemented), I think he is slipping the words in to emphasize (again) his love for the community/family meal concept. He’s a “feelings” type personality and extraverted. It makes sense that the community meal aspect appeals to him so much. I have no doubt that he intends to bring about the consecration because he also loves to teach about heaven coming down to earth in that moment. The concern many in my parish have is the imbalance with the emphasis being on the meal. We don’t have the meal without the sacrifice. It’s the sacrifice gives us the Eucharist and makes it more than a meal. Consuming the sacrifice is rooted in the OT - it’s the consummation of the sacrifice. It’s not just a meal. It’s an act of the New Covenant. The message that under-catechized people get (and let’s face it, that ball has been dropped for 50 years), is that it’s just a meal. Is it any wonder why so many Catholics don’t believe in the Real Presence?

I asked this question on behalf of others - not just myself. There is a growing division in my parish (unfortunately reflecting the culture) because of other things. This probably concerns us because it is in addition to those other things: politically Left sermons (not homilies because the Gospel or readings don’t get mentioned) which focus on only one part of, for instance, a social teaching. As an example, only the first paragraph of the teaching on immigration (CCC) will be taught. We don’t get “both/and,” which means we don’t get the full teaching, and subsequently, the full truth (which would be THE truth).
The same occurs regarding same sex attraction. In this case, the second paragraph and not the first - and holy moly, I don’t think we have ever heard a sermon or homily regarding chastity.

Sorry. I digress.

Again, thank you for your kind and generous response. It gave me great context and it helps to know the phrase “at table” was part of the old translation.

 

[BartholomewB]

Then, time and time again, he very precisely and deliberately said “…which will be shed for you and for all people , so that sins might be forgiven”.

It has long been disputed whether Jesus’ words of institution, spoken at the Last Supper, should correctly be translated as “many” or “all”. It’s not just one priest who thought it would sound more welcoming to say “all”. It’s something Bible translators write articles about in the learned journals.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Then, time and time again, he very precisely and deliberately said “…which will be shed for you and for all people , so that sins might be forgiven”.

It has long been disputed whether Jesus’ words of institution, spoken at the Last Supper, should correctly be translated as “many” or “all”. It’s not just one priest who thought it would sound more welcoming to say “all”. It’s something Bible translators write articles about in the learned journals.

I am well aware of that. To tell the truth, I have always had difficulty getting my head around “many”, because on the face of it, in English, it sounds kind of Calvinistic — “some will be saved, some will not be, and I am only offering My Blood for those who will be saved”. Yet “all” can be interpreted two ways, either “all will be saved”, or “My Blood is shed for all, It is there for everyone either to accept or not to accept, but I place no restrictions on It”. The second rendering sounds the most like the Jesus I know.

The way I have heard it, the word Jesus used in Aramaic was something like “the all who are many”. For what it’s worth, I am fairly sure the priest had some knowledge of Aramaic, so he may have had a sense of “the English translation, or even the Latin for that matter, doesn’t sound quite right, if you were to translate His words of institution straight from Aramaic to English, the way I say it, is the closest thing”. He was pretty theological. But in that case, his task was to go to the Congregation for Divine Worship, say “hey, look, I speak Aramaic, and you’re translating it wrong”. For all I know, he might well have done that, been told “thanks, but we’ve got it under control”, then said “I hear you, but I’m going to keep doing it my way”. He’s deceased now, no way ever to know.

 

[Anesti33]

InThePew:

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.

The Extraordinary Form of the Roman Rite has voluminous rubrics which cover every small eventuality and edge case and detail of the Rite.

De defectibus is a self-contained fine example of codified rubrics such as these.

The reason we have all these rubrics is because they cover abuses. That means there were abuses and they were reprobated. (Look at Redemptionis sacramentum for a contemporary example.) The TLM is far from immune to abuses, but the general case today is that priests take a great deal of pride in learning its intricacies and presenting it meticulously, it is a common trait among Traditionalists. This was not the case for >500 years. Look up the “Mass of the Humble Donkey” for a good medieval example.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The reason we have all these rubrics is because they cover abuses. That means there were abuses and they were reprobated. (Look at Redemptionis sacramentum for a contemporary example.) The TLM is far from immune to abuses, but the general case today is that priests take a great deal of pride in learning its intricacies and presenting it meticulously, it is a common trait among Traditionalists. This was not the case for >500 years. Look up the “Mass of the Humble Donkey” for a good medieval example.

I did look this up, and it was referred to as the Mass for the shorter word for “donkey”. All I can say is, those people must not have had Netflix. I guess people had to make a lot of their own entertainment in the Middle Ages

I have to wonder, if there were abuses in those days, whether it was a case of the priests actually knowing Latin well enough to make changes in the liturgy that would have been transparent to the faithful who didn’t know Latin.

I’m not sure present-day traditionalist priests would have that level of knowledge of Latin, but even if they did, efforts to restore the Traditional Latin Mass are all about recovering something that was lost, not tinkering with it.

 

[MtnDwellar]

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 minimal requirement for form is a low bar. The form was almost surely valid.

I am honestly confused. Do you mean that if a person knows the Church teaches a certain action constitutes grave matter (full knowledge), but in his own mind thinks it’s perfectly okay, then culpability is diminished? If yes, then I imagine mortal sin is very rare.

I don’t believe that either you or I can be certain of the priest’s intention. I probably have more doubt than you because of my previous experiences. My guess is that you don’t attend many Masses where you are not the celebrant.

 

[BartholomewB]

But in that case, his task was to go to the Congregation for Divine Worship, say “hey, look, I speak Aramaic, and you’re translating it wrong”.

I just saw on anorher thread that you sometimes attend a Spanish-language Mass. You might care to check it out next time, I could be wrong, but I believe that the words of the Consecration, duly approved by the CDW, still retain “all” rather than “many” in Spanish:

“Sangre de la alianza nueva y eterna, que será derramada por vosotros y por todos los hombres …”

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

But in that case, his task was to go to the Congregation for Divine Worship, say “hey, look, I speak Aramaic, and you’re translating it wrong”.

I just saw on anorher thread that you sometimes attend a Spanish-language Mass. You might care to check it out next time, I could be wrong, but I believe that the words of the Consecration, duly approved by the CDW, still retain “all” rather than “many” in Spanish:

“Sangre de la alianza nueva y eterna, que será derramada por vosotros y por todos los hombres …”

In all honesty, it has been a few years since I went to a Spanish Mass, I used to do it every now and then, both for the sake of convenience and to sharpen up my language comprehension. According to misas.org, this is the current text of the consecration of the Precious Blood:

TOMAD Y BEBED TODOS DE ÉL,
PORQUE ÉSTE ES EL CÁLIZ DE MI SANGRE,

SANGRE DE LA ALIANZA NUEVA Y ETERNA,
QUE SERÁ DERRAMADA
POR VOSOTROS Y POR MUCHOS
PARA EL PERDÓN DE LOS PECADOS.
HACED ESTO EN CONMEMORACIÓN MÍA.

 

[InThePew]

I am honestly confused. Do you mean that if a person knows the Church teaches a certain action constitutes grave matter (full knowledge), but in his own mind thinks it’s perfectly okay, then culpability is diminished? If yes, then I imagine mortal sin is very rare.

Basically yes. Objectively, the act is morally wrong but subjectively, his culpability is reduced. Of course, it could be argued that he’s wilfully ignorant and at that very least, ought to know better but ultimately, it’s a matter between him and God on that level at least. That’s not to say that mortal sin must necessarily be rare, but rather that the line between what’s mortal and venial is not nearly as distinct as some might think. Just to be clear though, I’m not for a moment condoning or excusing what he did but at the same time I know that older priests particularly can become quite set in their ways and aren’t helped by some of the very questionable theology they were exposed to during their seminary time in days (thankfully) long past!

I don’t believe that either you or I can be certain of the priest’s intention. I probably have more doubt than you because of my previous experiences. My guess is that you don’t attend many Masses where you are not the celebrant.

I’m presuming he intends to bring about the consecration if for no other reason than there’s no evidence to suggest otherwise; he’s a priest, saying mass according (mostly) to the proper form. Validity of sacraments is a purposely low bar; while we shouldn’t of course adopt a minimalist approach to the sacraments at the same time, the opposite is also true. Of course, when a priest ad libbing changes the meaning of the words of institution then it’s a problem. One priest I know says “which is given up for you” words which seem to me at least to run counter to the idea of a continuous sacrifice. I’ll leave it to sacramental theologians to argue over whether this makes the consecration invalid but suffice to say, if we’re even asking that question then there’s a serious problem.

Finally, for what it’s worth, I concelebrated last weekend.

 

[InThePew]

I am well aware of that. To tell the truth, I have always had difficulty getting my head around “many”, because on the face of it, in English, it sounds kind of Calvinistic — “some will be saved, some will not be, and I am only offering My Blood for those who will be saved”.

I’ll let Benedict explain it since he’s probably forgotten far more theology than I’ll ever know.

 

[MtnDwellar]

Thanks for the reply.

I found support in the catechism for your statements regarding reduced culpability:

Regarding mortal sin - 1860. The promptings of feelings and passions can also diminish the voluntary and free character of the offense…

 

[Maximian]

that sort of thing.vague assertions that

Bad delivery of the Mass is not the same as deliberately rephrasing the liturgy, which is the subject of this topic.

And I would also appreciate an actual instance being cited, rather than the usual list of vague assertions “things like this” happened. Can you or the old people you talk to remember an actual instance?

 

[Maximian]

should correctly be translated as “many” or “all”.

There is only one translation of the Greek word pollon and the Latin word multis. Both mean “for many” not “for all”. This is is what the Bible says. Furthermore, ancient rites in other languages such as Syriac use “for many” as the Latin missal does.

There is no grammatical justification for translating it “for all.” The argument for doing so is theological and boils down to “we don’t believe he meant that, so we don’t believe he said that.” Luther employed the same approach when he cut Maccabees out of the Bible.

 

[BartholomewB]

It’s more about Hebraisms in the Evangelists’ Greek. The prevailing view among NT specialists, back in the sixties, was that “all” conveyed more accurately than “many” the meaning of Jesus’ words of institution, spoken in either Hebrew or Aramaic.

 

[TomH1]

Changing words can affect validity. The validity of a sacrament does not depend solely on the minister’s intent.

 

[MtnDwellar]

Thanks for clarifying. I mentioned in another post that the words must meet the minimum requirements of form. The minimum is, however, a low bar.

The priest’s intention is only one of the requirements for valid consecration. The other main requirements are: a validity ordained minister, proper form, and proper matter.

 

[InThePew]

And I would also appreciate an actual instance being cited, rather than the usual list of vague assertions “things like this” happened. Can you or the old people you talk to remember an actual instance?

Well yes I can ask them if they remember a specific event from 50+ years ago but I’m not hopeful. What I was referring to though are people’s recollections which they’ve shared with me, even if not specifically linked to a time and place. My purpose isn’t to disparage the EF nor to equate ad libbing with just plain old poorly presented liturgy but rather to simply observe that the days gone by pre-VII aren’t quite as peachy as some seem to think and that the EF masses celebrated today aren’t necessarily the same as what your average suburbanite punter in the pew might have expected experience to experience in pre-conciliar days gone by. Granted, ad libbing owes more to dodgy theology and formation in the immediate wake of the council than anything else and, given the incaracies and meticilclous level of attention to detail whcih characterised the pre-conciliar liturgy I’d agree that deviations from the texts would have been rare to say the least - if anything, given it was a mortal sin to say mass without a biretta, a priest back then might well have thought that he’d be struck down by a bolt from heaven for even the slightest variation. Not necessarily a bad thing but not necessarily a good thing either.

The desire for “freestyling” on the part of some (mostly older) priests is probably their reaction to the (perceived) rigidity of the pre-conciliar mass. The irony is though, as I noted earlier, despite the OF providing a wealth of options when it comes to prayers, those who seem to be the biggest critics of the EF are the most limited when it comes to their utilisation of these options!

 

[Julius_Caesar]

Becuase abuses of this nature never happened in Latin. :man_facepalming:t6:

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The desire for “freestyling” on the part of some (mostly older) priests is probably their reaction to the (perceived) rigidity of the pre-conciliar mass.

I’ve always gotten that vibe. You don’t see this out of younger priests.