Can a priest alter the Communion Rite?

[benedictgal]

It may have been a Syro-Malabar Holy Qurbana.

Thanks for the clarification. I am curious. As I am not familiar with this Rite, does one need to get permission from the bishop (if the celebrant is a visting priest) to celebrate this particular form of the Mass in the Ordinary’s diocese?

 

[FrCorey]

I would not be so condescending. What the celebrant did was wrong. He cannot edit the wording of the official texts of the Mass at his own will. This is an abuse, especially if it is done during a Mass for the school children. Such activity only breeds confusion.

I agree. we are suppost to do it as it is printed. they did not give us all these pretty books because they look neat on our shelfs. in school they did not say, if you forget part of a rite, just wing it, no one will care. the Holy Father would have a fit if he heard this was going on.

 

[Aramis]

Thanks for the clarification. I am curious. As I am not familiar with this Rite, does one need to get permission from the bishop (if the celebrant is a visting priest) to celebrate this particular form of the Mass in the Ordinary’s diocese?

A priest needs faculties to say ANY public liturgies (CCEO 668); he needs a suitable letter of introduction* or to be known to the pastor to be even be permitted to use the altar. (703) The requisite faculties for public divine worship services should be spelled out by the issuing bishop.

Without faculties, only the principal celebrant’s own rite is to be used. (674, 701) All ECC clerics are to be formed in the rituals of their particular church of Canonical Enrollment per the CCEO (330, 343)…

A cleric is to use the pious exercises of his own rite (CCEO 369) and to take the hours per their own church’s rules (377)

Baptism (678) is to be done per the rite of the recipient’s expected enrollment.
-=-=-=-
Canon 674

1. In celebrating the sacraments that which is contained in the liturgical books is to be observed accurately.
2. The minister should celebrate the sacraments according to the liturgical prescriptions of his own Church sui iuris, unless the law establishes otherwise or he himself has obtained a special faculty from the Apostolic See

Canon 683
Baptism must be be celebrated according the liturgical prescriptions of the Church sui iuris in which according to the norm of law the person to be baptized is to be enrolled.
-=-=-=-

• a current clergy card is the current “normative” form in the US.

 

[GillisDeTroyer]

Hey,

I haven’t posted alot on these forum (actually this is only my second post), but I do feel I should make a contribution here.
The most important reason why a priest cannot alter the words of the Eucharistic Consacration (of the Latin Rite) is plain and simple that it would render the Consacration invalid. These are the exact Words handed over to us by Jesus Christ and trough the Magestrium of the Church we know them to be true. To alter them in any way, shape or form is to invite heresy, and to invoke damnation on all those parishioners who are deprived of his Blessed Blood and Body.
I know from personal experience that once some leniency is given to individual priests in the liturgy, they will soon alter everything they do not entirely endorse or (in most cases) what their parish members don’t like to hear. As such, in most Belgian parishes, we only have two Readings, no Psalms, no Gloria, no Eucharistic Prayer etc. Worst of all, sometimes the Holy Gospel is altered: “who wants to listen to an ancient book in grandfather-Dutch anyway? Better make it appealing to the younger generations” is their chief argument. Which doesn’t make any sense, really, because the only person whose age is below 50 is me and my brother (both aged 22) - and we’re both of us extremely frustrated. Worse still, there is no more room for the sacrament of Penance (God loves everyone, God is love, we should help poor people by giving them money, the Host is just a symbol - no need for Penance before partaking in Holy Communion, blabla) or of Eucharistic Adoration. In short, they are borderline heretical. And the bishops don’t intervene.
The result is a faith that doens’t appeal to people because it no longer puts God central (75% of Belgian priests do not believe in the transsubstantiaton) but themselfs and the material needs of the population. I live in a country that used to be the most Catholic part of continental Western Europe, and now has a church attendancy rate of about 6%. Out of which most are neo-lutheran liberal Catholics.
All of this started with the liturgical experiments in the sixties. And they too started with the alterations of a few simple words. Therefore, beware of even “slips of the tongue”.

My gloomy two cents.

GDT

 

[NPC]

Hey,

I haven’t posted alot on these forum (actually this is only my second post), but I do feel I should make a contribution here.
The most important reason why a priest cannot alter the words of the Eucharistic Consacration (of the Latin Rite) is plain and simple that it would render the Consacration invalid. These are the exact Words handed over to us by Jesus Christ and trough the Magestrium of the Church we know them to be true. To alter them in any way, shape or form is to invite heresy, and to invoke damnation on all those parishioners who are deprived of his Blessed Blood and Body.
I know from personal experience that once some leniency is given to individual priests in the liturgy, they will soon alter everything they do not entirely endorse or (in most cases) what their parish members don’t like to hear. As such, in most Belgian parishes, we only have two Readings, no Psalms, no Gloria, no Eucharistic Prayer etc. Worst of all, sometimes the Holy Gospel is altered: “who wants to listen to an ancient book in grandfather-Dutch anyway? Better make it appealing to the younger generations” is their chief argument. Which doesn’t make any sense, really, because the only person whose age is below 50 is me and my brother (both aged 22) - and we’re both of us extremely frustrated. Worse still, there is no more room for the sacrament of Penance (God loves everyone, God is love, we should help poor people by giving them money, the Host is just a symbol - no need for Penance before partaking in Holy Communion, blabla) or of Eucharistic Adoration. In short, they are borderline heretical. And the bishops don’t intervene.
The result is a faith that doens’t appeal to people because it no longer puts God central (75% of Belgian priests do not believe in the transsubstantiaton) but themselfs and the material needs of the population. I live in a country that used to be the most Catholic part of continental Western Europe, and now has a church attendancy rate of about 6%. Out of which most are neo-lutheran liberal Catholics.
All of this started with the liturgical experiments in the sixties. And they too started with the alterations of a few simple words. Therefore, beware of even “slips of the tongue”.

My gloomy two cents.

GDT

Maybe the new archbishop in Belgium will whip things into shape - he’s already causing a stir in political circles. Hopefully he’ll be a strong voice in the area of liturgy…

This “getting with it” is an anonymous “thing” that’s dragging souls to hell, to paraphrase Bishop Fulton Sheen. I am only a few years older than you and I think that the youth today are crying out for orthodoxy - in Church teaching and liturgy. What sort of authority can the Church have if it changes it standards to suit the ebb and flow of the tide of secularism? Is it any wonder that attendance at Holy Mass is around 6% if people are getting a pseudo-liturgy, or what sounds like a Protestant service essentially?

Just to be clear though, the specific examples that the O.P. gave would not render the Eucharist invalid… it would be termed “illicit”. There are 4 requirements for a valid Consecration: minister, intent, matter and form. In this case, it’s the latter one that’s important - the proper words of Consecration. THIS article may be of help if anyone is wondering about the four conditions of validity of the Sacrament.

 

[patrick9999]

Just to provide an update for those who may be interested.

I met this afternoon with the priest in question. It’s difficult in this forum to convey the tone of a meeting but it was clear he didn’t want me there. When he met me in the lobby of the Parish Center he didn’t even invite me to sit down anywhere. I had to ask to go to a place where we could actually talk. Then toward the end he reminded me that “we’re past our five minutes”. His position, however, was made abundantly clear and it is this: his practice is illicit, he knows it’s illicit, he’s going to keep doing it, and I can take my complaint to the Archbishop.

I drove to The Chancery to schedule a meeting with the Archbishop. Unfortunately his secretary left the office at 11:00 this morning and I was told she was the only one who handled his schedule. I’m going to go back in the morning to schedule the meeting. I’ll keep you updated.

 

[FloridaJoan]

Just to provide an update for those who may be interested.

I met this afternoon with the priest in question. It’s difficult in this forum to convey the tone of a meeting but it was clear he didn’t want me there. When he met me in the lobby of the Parish Center he didn’t even invite me to sit down anywhere. I had to ask to go to a place where we could actually talk. Then toward the end he reminded me that “we’re past our five minutes”. His position, however, was made abundantly clear and it is this: his practice is illicit, he knows it’s illicit, he’s going to keep doing it, and I can take my complaint to the Archbishop.

I drove to The Chancery to schedule a meeting with the Archbishop. Unfortunately his secretary left the office at 11:00 this morning and I was told she was the only one who handled his schedule. I’m going to go back in the morning to schedule the meeting. I’ll keep you updated.

I have been following this thread, and after reading your post here, this priest is surely in my prayers. That our Lord my show him His mercy , love and help him learn to be a good shepherd to the Lord’s sheep.

Hail Mary, full of grace
the Lord is with Thee
Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus
Holy Mary Mother of God
pray for us sinners
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen

 

[NPC]

I have been following this thread, and after reading your post here, this priest is surely in my prayers. That our Lord my show him His mercy , love and help him learn to be a good shepherd to the Lord’s sheep.

Hail Mary, full of grace
the Lord is with Thee
Blessed art thou among women
and blessed is the fruit of thy womb, Jesus
Holy Mary Mother of God
pray for us sinners
now and at the hour of our death.
Amen

I second that response, Joan. It is such a pity that Patrick had such a negative encounter with the priest.

Patrick, I think you have gone about the issue the correct way. What’s more troubling than the priest altering the Mass in any way - after all, as we’ve noted, such a thing could be a mere mistake - is that your priest has not only told you that he knows what he does is wrong, but that he intends to continue in his disobedience. I hope you will firmly register your dismay at his attitude with the Archbishop. As with everything else in life, we have rights and responsibilities as Catholics - one of the rights which we have is to have the sacraments celebrated according to the forms laid down by the Church. The priest’s actions are a sign of disunity and disobedience, which the Church has enough of at the present time, as we are all too aware.

 

[Cristiano]

Just to provide an update for those who may be interested.

I met this afternoon with the priest in question. It’s difficult in this forum to convey the tone of a meeting but it was clear he didn’t want me there. When he met me in the lobby of the Parish Center he didn’t even invite me to sit down anywhere. I had to ask to go to a place where we could actually talk. Then toward the end he reminded me that “we’re past our five minutes”. His position, however, was made abundantly clear and it is this: his practice is illicit, he knows it’s illicit, he’s going to keep doing it, and I can take my complaint to the Archbishop.

I drove to The Chancery to schedule a meeting with the Archbishop. Unfortunately his secretary left the office at 11:00 this morning and I was told she was the only one who handled his schedule. I’m going to go back in the morning to schedule the meeting. I’ll keep you updated.

You did the right thing. You see my point is that now you can go to the Bishop and you do not have to elaborate about Church documents to prove your point. Now that both you and the priest are clear about the practice being illicit (he confirmed it) and that he does not want to change thus automatically admitting to wrong doing, you can just go to the Bishop and tell him that the priest chooses illicit behaviors during Mass. Before you could have shown that the action was illicit, now you can show that there is an intention behind it.

My final suggestion is to forget about the whole thing and get down to your knees in front of the Blessed Sacrament and pray for this priest. It looks like he needs more prayers than a reprimandum from the Bishop.

 

[benedictgal]

Just to provide an update for those who may be interested.

I met this afternoon with the priest in question. It’s difficult in this forum to convey the tone of a meeting but it was clear he didn’t want me there. When he met me in the lobby of the Parish Center he didn’t even invite me to sit down anywhere. I had to ask to go to a place where we could actually talk. Then toward the end he reminded me that “we’re past our five minutes”. His position, however, was made abundantly clear and it is this: his practice is illicit, he knows it’s illicit, he’s going to keep doing it, and I can take my complaint to the Archbishop.

I drove to The Chancery to schedule a meeting with the Archbishop. Unfortunately his secretary left the office at 11:00 this morning and I was told she was the only one who handled his schedule. I’m going to go back in the morning to schedule the meeting. I’ll keep you updated.

Stay the course. The only way that abuses can be corrected is to get the proper authorities involved. Document what you have and show it to the Archbishop. These are serious matters. Inasmuch as prayers can help, action in this case is also necessary. Don’t worry. You have the documents on your side. If the archbishop chooses not to intervene (hopefully, that will not be the case), then you have every right to contact the CDWDS. They have been most helpful in my dad’s case.

 

[patrick9999]

Thanks again to everyone for the responses. I do believe this matter is very serious. I am going to continue with my current course of action AND add this priest to my prayer list - with the firm hope that, with God’s grace, he may see the light.

Today I returned to the Chancery, as I was told to do yesterday, in order to set up a meeting with the Archbishop. Today I was told that the only way to meet with him was to make a formal request in writing. That frustrated me a bit but I’ll do it and keep pressing forward. I’ll keep you updated.

God Bless,

Patrick