Changed wording during the Concecration

[Kathrin]

Have you been to a mass where the priest has changed the words during the Rite of the Eucharist? I am talking especially about the concecration. I have learned that it is not ok to change much of the words during the “This is my body…” etc, but what about the actual concecration, when do you begin to worry that the priest has gone too far? For example, what if the priest says something like, may Christ become alive in our midst (instead of specifically asking to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ), still making the sign of the cross over the bread and wine, but not using the exact same words?

Kathrin

 

[corsair]

Yes, I used to see a lot of things like that; particularily in the 1970’s and 80’s. Even recently at a nearby OF parish. I try to avoid churches like that however.

We have been fortunate in that we found a local OF parish that celebrates a reverent OF Mass. We attend there about twice a month. The other two weekends we travel to an EF parish. No problems there.

 

[benedictgal]

According to Redemptionis Sacramentum:

[51.] Only those Eucharistic Prayers are to be used which are found in the Roman Missal or are legitimately approved by the Apostolic See, and according to the manner and the terms set forth by it. "It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers"129 or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals.130

What you witnessed is not supposed to happen. This is a serious abuse. If he does not state the institution narrative correctly:

Take this, all of you, and eat of it:for this is my Body which will be given up for you.

and:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it: for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new andeternal covenant, which will bepoured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins. Do this in memory of me (this is taken from the coming translation).

Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlastingcovenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me. (current form)

then he is putting the validity of the Mass at risk. The Mass needs to have four items in order for it to be valid:

1. Form
2. Matter
3. Intent
4. Validly ordained minister

Now, granted, there are a plethora of Eucharistic Prayers, but, none have the wording that the OP mentioned.

 

[malphono]

Such deviations (or “innovations” or whatever one wants to call them) are clearly illicit, but whether the Mass was valid or not depends on just what was said and done. From my perspective, the sample wording given in the OP is very simply invalid.

There was a [thread=481605]thread[/thread] a while back in this forum which dealt with basically the same issue. It might be worth a read.

 

[Spirithound]

For example, what if the priest says something like, may Christ become alive in our midst (instead of specifically asking to change the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ), still making the sign of the cross over the bread and wine, but not using the exact same words?

This does not affect the validity of the consecration. The words of consecration are specifically “This is my Body” and “This is…my Blood”.

 

[Barbkw]

This does not affect the validity of the consecration. The words of consecration are specifically “This is my Body” and “This is…my Blood”.

Don’t you mean to write, “This does affect the validity…” The priest didn’t use the words, “This is My Body” and This is My Blood."

 

[benedictgal]

This does not affect the validity of the consecration. The words of consecration are specifically “This is my Body” and “This is…my Blood”.

However, if he does not say “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood”, then, it will affect the validity. If he says something like “This will be my body” or “This will be my blood”, then there is a huge problem.

 

[Kathrin]

To specify, my example was of a priest who DOES say the “this is my body” and “this is my blood” part, but earlier, when he holds his hands over the bread and wine to bless them, he does not specifically say “that this may become the body and blood”. He does say it later though, repeating Jesus’ words.

If you DO witness something that is illicit, do you take communion, or not?

 

[benedictgal]

To specify, my example was of a priest who DOES say the “this is my body” and “this is my blood” part, but earlier, when he holds his hands over the bread and wine to bless them, he does not specifically say “that this may become the body and blood”. He does say it later though, repeating Jesus’ words.

If you DO witness something that is illicit, do you take communion, or not?

The ilicitness of the act does not affect the validity of the Eucharist. So long as the Eucharist was validly confected, you can receive Holy Communion. However, it is important to point out that what I quoted from Redemptionis Sacramentum falls under the catergory of grave matters:

1. Grave Matters
   [173.] Although the gravity of a matter is to be judged in accordance with the common teaching of the Church and the norms established by her, objectively to be considered among grave matters is anything that puts at risk the validity and dignity of the Most Holy Eucharist: namely, anything that contravenes what is set out above in nn. 48-52, 56, 76-77, 79, 91-92, 94, 96, 101-102, 104, 106, 109, 111, 115, 117, 126, 131-133, 138, 153 and 168. Moreover, attention should be given to the other prescriptions of the Code of Canon Law, and especially what is laid down by canons 1364, 1369, 1373, 1376, 1380, 1384, 1385, 1386, and 1398.

You might want to write a charitable letter to the priest in question and share your concern with him. I believe that you do have a very legitimate issue to raise.

 

[ProVobis]

To specify, my example was of a priest who DOES say the “this is my body” and “this is my blood” part, but earlier, when he holds his hands over the bread and wine to bless them, he does not specifically say “that this may become the body and blood”. He does say it later though, repeating Jesus’ words.

If you DO witness something that is illicit, do you take communion, or not?

from De Defectibus,

If the priest were to shorten or change the form of the consecration of the Body and the Blood, so that in the change of wording the words did not mean the same thing, he would not be achieving a valid Sacrament. If, on the other hand, he were to add or take away anything which did not change the meaning, the Sacrament would be valid, but he would be committing a grave sin.

dailycatholic.org/defectib.htm

 

[Joannm]

Hopefully when the revised text is implemented next Advent some of this nonsense will stop. All diocese should be having meetings with their priests and this kind of thing, deviating from the text, will be addressed, as I am sure some priests will be reluctant to want to use the revised texts. It is up to the bishop to be adamant with regard to this. Hopefully those offending priests will listen.

 

[Kathrin]

Well, somebody told me that in Switzerland priests have 7 different Eucharistic prayers to choose from, PLUS still more for special occasions…

 

[Oneofthewomen]

Well, somebody told me that in Switzerland priests have 7 different Eucharistic prayers to choose from, PLUS still more for special occasions…

Same here in the US.
There are the 4 most of us are familar with, a few for Masses with Children and a couple for Masses of Reconcilliation.

 

[Anian]

The old missal (Latin) used to say in bold on the first page that the words of consecration cannot ever be changed and the transubstantiation has not occurred unless the correct words are used. I would assume the same is still true for the post Vat-II liturgy.

Then again… The new liturgy does in fact change the words of consecration, as it says in the Bible and tridentine missal that Jesus shed his blood for “one and for many”, although the new mass states the wine was work of human hands etc… “to be shed for one and for all.” This has become a point of contention for many sede vacante Catholics, and I believe your question raises a deeper concern over the wording of the mass altogether and it’s ability to change or be altered that you should consult a priest on.

 

[japhy]

The new liturgy does in fact change the words of consecration, as it says in the Bible and tridentine missal that Jesus shed his blood for “one and for many”, although the new mass states the wine was work of human hands etc… “to be shed for one and for all.”

The “new liturgy” does not say “for all”. The Latin still says pro multis. Some vernacular translations of those words render them as “for all”, but some render them as “for many” or “for the multitude”, but the Latin text still means “for many.” The new English translation, to be used at the end of this year, uses “for many” instead of “for all.”

And the new offertory prayers do mention that the bread and the wine are the “work of human hands,” but not until acknowledging them as gifts from God and fruits of the earth. But that’s beside the point, really.

 

[MarkThompson]

The old missal (Latin) used to say in bold on the first page that the words of consecration cannot ever be changed and the transubstantiation has not occurred unless the correct words are used. I would assume the same is still true for the post Vat-II liturgy.

It’s not on the first page, it’s not in bold, and it doesn’t say that transubstantiation hasn’t occurred unless the correct words are used, but other than that, you’re pretty close.

You’re thinking of the instruction De Defectibus (on page lxvi of the 1962 editio typica), which says only that “i quis autem aliquid diminueret, vel immutaret de forma consecrationis Corporis et Sanguinis,” which was set out before, “et in ipsa verborum immutatione verba idem non significarent, non conficeret Sacramentum. Si vero aliquid adderet, quod significationem non mutaret, conficeret quidem, sed gravissime peccaret.”

 

[MarkThompson]

[double posted, somehow]

 

[Geremia]

However, if he does not say “This is my Body” and “This is my Blood”, then, it will affect the validity. If he says something like “This will be my body” or “This will be my blood”, then there is a huge problem.

The Mass of Paul VI says for the consecration:
hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur
[lit.: “for this is my Body, that will be given up for you”]
The 1962 rite, e.g., leaves out the “that will be given up for you.” I wonder why it was added back.

 

[ProVobis]

The Mass of Paul VI says for the consecration:
hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur
[lit.: “for this is my Body, that will be given up for you”]
The 1962 rite, e.g., leaves out the “that will be given up for you.” I wonder why it was added back.

Luke 22 seems to be the only one recording it this way:

19 Καὶ λαβὼν ἄρτον εὐχαριστήσας ἔκλασεν καὶ ἔδωκεν αὐτοῖς λέγων: τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου τὸ ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν διδόμενον: τοῦτο ποιεῖτε εἰς τὴν ἐμὴν ἀνάμνησιν.

19 Et accepto pane gratias egit, et fregit, et dedit eis, dicens : Hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis datur : hoc facite in meam commemorationem.

19 And taking bread, he gave thanks and broke and gave to them, saying: This is my body, which is given for you. Do this for a commemoration of me.

You can compare here:

ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom33.ii.xxvii.html

John 6 has it: “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

 

[Geremia]

John 6 has it: “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”

I was wondering about the “will be given up for you” part; every version in Scripture I saw uses the present tense (e.g., traditur, not tradetur, in the Latin):[bibledrb]Luke 22:19-20[/bibledrb]Except St. Paul, who here uses the future tense:[bibledrb]1 Corinthians 11:24-25[/bibledrb]Sts. Matthew and Mark leave out the “given up for you” since in their version the disciples appear to take Him immediately:[bibledrb]Matthew 26:26-27[/bibledrb][bibledrb]Mark 14:22-23[/bibledrb]I guess it doesn’t make sense to me that the priest says “This is my body” and says it will be given up later, in the future, when really the whole Mass is a Sacrifice; during Mass it is being given up and offered now. The added phrase with future tense makes even less sense when Communion isn’t distributed, as for a priest saying mass without a congregation.