Changes from the Missal

[namax91]

I know that this is a common complaint but I was wondering if people have any idea why priests sometimes say things that are not “part of the script.” A pet peeve of mine is when the priest says the old Per Ipsum. I mean it’s the same words so why do some priests prefer the older order of the words? I personally like having, “Him, Father, and Holy Spirit” together and then the Glory and Honor to follow. It sounds better theologically. When he says it in the wrong order does it mean the bread and wine do not actually become the Body and Blood of Christ? Also, this one priest instead of saying, “Together with Francis Our Pope, and X our Bishop,” He says, "Together with Francis our Pope, and X, the Shepherd of the people of the Church of (name of archdiocese) Has anyone else heard this formula? I hate to be nitpicky, but does this kind of thing invalidate the Mass or Eucharist?

 

[ProVobis]

It’s not what you personally like but what’s in the text and it should be exactly. It won’t invalidate the Mass but it can change the meanings or our perceptions.

It was bad enough the English translations could not have done a better job with the intensive Latin (“Ipsum,” “ipso”) pronouns but what’s approved must be followed.

 

[janeway529]

I know that this is a common complaint but I was wondering if people have any idea why priests sometimes say things that are not “part of the script.” A pet peeve of mine is when the priest says the old Per Ipsum. I mean it’s the same words so why do some priests prefer the older order of the words? I personally like having, “Him, Father, and Holy Spirit” together and then the Glory and Honor to follow. It sounds better theologically. When he says it in the wrong order does it mean the bread and wine do not actually become the Body and Blood of Christ? Also, this one priest instead of saying, “Together with Francis Our Pope, and X our Bishop,” He says, "Together with Francis our Pope, and X, the Shepherd of the people of the Church of (name of archdiocese) Has anyone else heard this formula? I hate to be nitpicky, but does this kind of thing invalidate the Mass or Eucharist?

I think you’re being a bit too nitpicky and should cut the priest some slack. When you’ve said prayers for several decades that you’ve memorized and then it gets changed, there will be cases you say the old version out of habit. I’ve been to Mass where the priest said our old bishop’s name by accident. Thankfully he caught his mistake.

Also, depending on which one of the 14 Eucharist Prayers are used, there will be formulations similar to that one, especially if it’s one of those “For Various Needs and Occasions.” Interestingly, that part of the text is where it tells you what to say, but not how to say it. For example: At the end of a Wedding Mass, the priest almost always says, “You may now kiss the bride.” It is nowhere in the text, but most Catholics assume it is.

 

[OraLabora]

I think you’re being a bit too nitpicky and should cut the priest some slack. When you’ve said prayers for several decades that you’ve memorized and then it gets changed, there will be cases you say the old version out of habit. I’ve been to Mass where the priest said our old bishop’s name by accident. Thankfully he caught his mistake.

Also, depending on which one of the 14 Eucharist Prayers are used, there will be formulations similar to that one, especially if it’s one of those “For Various Needs and Occasions.” Interestingly, that part of the text is where it tells you what to say, but not how to say it. For example: During a Wedding Mass, where the priest says “You may now kiss the bride,” is nowhere in the text, but most Catholics assume it is.

It happens. I attend Mass at a monastery that is very careful with the liturgy but mistakes do happen; when John Paul II passed on, occasionally his name would be read in the EP instead of Benedict’s. Indeed it is hard to erase old habits from memory, especially for the elderly. A case in point: in French, the acclamation at the end of the readings used to be “nous rendons gloire à Dieu” (“we give glory to God”), but in Latin it’s “Deo gratias”. A couple of years ago, the French missal changed so it became “nous rendons grâce à Dieu” to be an accurate translation of the Latin. It took me, and not a few monks, quite some time to stop saying the old response reflexively.

And this past Sunday, the young deacon reading the Gospel still had the page set on Saturday’s Gospel and started to chant it instead. The prior started to move up to the ambo to correct him but before he got there the deacon realized his mistake, turned to the correct page, and started over again.

I think if we spend too much time focusing on minor issues like this that don’t invalidate the Mass, we develop anxiety which takes our focus away from the mystery happening on the altar, which is exactly what Satan wants to have happen.

 

[CRM_Brother]

If you read the GIRM (the General Instruction for the Roman Missal), basically the book that tells priests how to say mass, you will find that there are places where the words written in the missal are only guidelines, and actually proposes that the priest may use his judgement to present these pasages in such a way that they address the immediate needs of the parish or votive mass. This being said, the only part of the mass that, if misspoken, invalidates the mass is the formula for consecration. The mass might not be licit (not following the propper procedure and ritual), but it will at least be valid sacramentally and fulfills the Sunday obligation.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I have wondered a lot about “why priests sometimes say things that are not “part of the script.”” I think I got some new insights from reading two articles at www.artofmanliness.com .

The first is artofmanliness.com/2015/03/03/macgyver-manhood-and-the-art-of-masculine-improvisation/ . The article highlights how valued and admired the ability to improvise is. It begins with the way MacGyver was able to make something out of nothing to escape from a room in the TV show.

I will quote a section:
“Humans prefer communication that seems spontaneous — that’s tailored to the specific circumstances of the time and the audience. Someone who uses the same speech, pick-up lines, jokes, sales pitch, etc. in every situation, often finds that their banter falls flat because it doesn’t best fit the exigencies of the moment. A man who has the core elements of what he wants to say in mind, but then tailors his message to the changing circumstances, is the far more effective communicator.
Creates a memorable, impressive reputation.
The abilities gained by a man who masters improvisation don’t just pay off in the effective actions he is able to perform, but the reputation those actions create for him.”
So I suspect that the Priest does not believe he is going to receive praise like “Well done, Father. You said the black and did the red.” He believes he will be admired for improvising a better way to say and do things than the book has.

A second article is artofmanliness.com/2013/12/16/the-rites-of-manhood-mans-need-for-ritual/ . Near the end of the article it has a section under the heading “Wither Ritual?”. It discusses why there is less ritual in modern society than traditional societies. Two main reasons are given: “the Protestant Reformation’s movement against icons and ceremonialism and the Enlightenment’s emphasis on rationalism.” Another is “Suspicion of ritual again grew after World War II, in the wake of the way in which ritual ceremonies had been used to solidify loyalty to the Nazi cause.”

I am not trying to argue it is a good idea for the Priest to not follow the liturgical books. Before ordination he takes an Oath of Fidelity saying “I shall follow and foster the common discipline of the entire Church and I shall maintain the observance of all ecclesiastical laws, especially those contained in the Code of Canon Law.” Part of the Code of Canon Law is canon 846 “The liturgical books, approved by the competent authority, are to be faithfully followed in the celebration of the sacraments.” (New Revised English translation, 1997).

But I think that society’s admiration of innovation and suspicion of ritual are factors in problems like those discussed in the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum.