Changing the words of the Eucharistic Prayer

[pentecostbaby]

Oh, vacation! The times when we visit other parishes …

The priest at Mass today changed two parts of the Eucharistic Prayer (I think it was the Second Eucharistic Prayer):

1. “With Benedict our pope” became “With Benedict, the Bishop of Rome, our bishop X…”
2. “All glory and honor is yours, Almighty Father” became “All glory and honor is yours, loving God”

I thought changing the Eucharistic Prayer in any way was illicit? And if this is illicit, how illicit is it?

 

[Spirithound]

I thought changing the Eucharistic Prayer in any way was illicit? And if this is illicit, how illicit is it?

It is very illicit. But it does not invalidate the Sacrament, nor does it make the Mass not fulfill your Sunday obligation.

 

[pentecostbaby]

It is very illicit. But it does not invalidate the Sacrament, nor does it make the Mass not fulfill your Sunday obligation.

I figured. It’s just so common now. We had a priest change words in the Eucharistic Prayer (more than one or two words) in a cathedral (which tells me the bishop knew what was up, though the same priest didn’t say Mass the next time we attended).

Most parishes I’ve visited also engage in other more minor abuses (laypeople dealing with the tabernacle, EMHC on the altar during the Agnus Dei, EMHCs blessing people, etc.). It’s really quite sad.

 

[centurionguard]

I figured. It’s just so common now. We had a priest change words in the Eucharistic Prayer (more than one or two words) in a cathedral (which tells me the bishop knew what was up, though the same priest didn’t say Mass the next time we attended).

Most parishes I’ve visited also engage in other more minor abuses (laypeople dealing with the tabernacle, EMHC on the altar during the Agnus Dei, EMHCs blessing people, etc.). It’s really quite sad.

All I can say friend is that your not alone when it comes to seeing the rubrics of the Eucharistic Prayer being altered into self-made Liturgies.

My parish priest adds his own flair using his own Eucharistic Prayer which has nothing to do with EP1, EP2, EP3, or EP4. Its sad because most passive Catholics rarely notice any change and just go with the flow. You know the kind…Don’t Rock the Boat

Oh well.

 

[Spirithound]

It is very illicit. But it does not invalidate the Sacrament, nor does it make the Mass not fulfill your Sunday obligation.

Allow me to clarify. The specific examples you gave do not invalidate the Sacrament. Changing the Words of Institution could very well do that though.

 

[ProVobis]

From De Defectibus:

V - Defects of the form

1. Defects on the part of the form may arise if anything is missing from the complete wording required for the act of consecrating. Now the words of the Consecration, which are the form of this Sacrament, are:

HOC EST ENIM CORPUS MEUM, and HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM PECCATORUM

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.

1. If the celebrant does not remember having said the usual words in the Consecration, he should not for that reason be worried. If, however, he is sure that he omitted something necessary to the Sacrament, that is, the form of the Consecration or a part of it, he is to repeat the formula and continue from there. If he thinks it is very likely that he omitted something essential, he is to repeat the formula conditionally, though the condition need not be expressed. But if what he omitted is not necessary to the Sacrament, he is not to repeat anything; he should simply continue the Mass.

The OF has slightly different wording of the Consecration but the principle I believe remains the same.

 

[m134e5]

Oh, vacation! The times when we visit other parishes …

The priest at Mass today changed two parts of the Eucharistic Prayer (I think it was the Second Eucharistic Prayer):

1. “With Benedict our pope” became “With Benedict, the Bishop of Rome, our bishop X…”
2. “All glory and honor is yours, Almighty Father” became “All glory and honor is yours, loving God”

I thought changing the Eucharistic Prayer in any way was illicit? And if this is illicit, how illicit is it?

Changing the prescribed words of the Mass is very illicit- particularly on those parts of the Mass. Also, the way he changed them reflects a heretical attitude- possibly even a desire for schism. By changing “Benedict, our Pope” to “Benedict, the Bishop of Rome”, he seems to be implying that the Holy Father does not have any authority outside Rome. That is heresy and support for schism. Also “loving God” is a perfectly acceptable way to address God outside of the liturgy or whenever the liturgy calls for it, but it is not appropriate to substitute words. It is clear that this was done because “almighty Father” sounds sexist and domineering to him. Unfortunately, this reflects a misunderstanding of God’s glory and His Fatherhood.

 

[PacoG]

Changing the prescribed words of the Mass is very illicit- particularly on those parts of the Mass. Also, the way he changed them reflects a heretical attitude- possibly even a desire for schism. By changing “Benedict, our Pope” to “Benedict, the Bishop of Rome”, he seems to be implying that the Holy Father does not have any authority outside Rome.

Where do you get that? The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church is defined as the bishops who are in communion and who recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

 

[ProVobis]

It is clear that this was done because “almighty Father” sounds sexist and domineering to him. Unfortunately, this reflects a misunderstanding of God’s glory and His Fatherhood.

If political correctness is a problem, the Mass (or certain parts of it) may be said in Latin. It’s not right to change the bishop-approved wording of the liturgy.

 

[benedictgal]

Where do you get that? The Pope is the Bishop of Rome. The Catholic Church is defined as the bishops who are in communion and who recognize the primacy of the Bishop of Rome.

Here is what Redemptionis Sacramentum says:

1. The Eucharistic Prayer
   [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

[52.] The proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer, which by its very nature is the climax of the whole celebration, is proper to the Priest by virtue of his Ordination. It is therefore an abuse to proffer it in such a way that some parts of the Eucharistic Prayer are recited by a Deacon, a lay minister, or by an individual member of the faithful, or by all members of the faithful together. The Eucharistic Prayer, then, is to be recited by the Priest alone in full.131

[53.] While the Priest proclaims the Eucharistic Prayer “there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent”,132 except for the people’s acclamations that have been duly approved, as described below.

[54.] The people, however, are always involved actively and never merely passively: for they “silently join themselves with the Priest in faith, as well as in their interventions during the course of the Eucharistic Prayer as prescribed, namely in the responses in the Preface dialogue, the Sanctus, the acclamation after the consecration and the “Amen” after the final doxology, and in other acclamations approved by the Conference of Bishops with the recognitio of the Holy See”.133

[55.] In some places there has existed an abuse by which the Priest breaks the host at the time of the consecration in the Holy Mass. This abuse is contrary to the tradition of the Church. It is reprobated and is to be corrected with haste.

[56.] The mention of the name of the Supreme Pontiff and the diocesan Bishop in the Eucharistic Prayer is not to be omitted, since this is a most ancient tradition to be maintained, and a manifestation of ecclesial communion. For “the coming together of the eucharistic community is at the same time a joining in union with its own Bishop and with the Roman Pontiff”.134

I understand what you are saying, but, it is not right for the celebrant to refer to the Holy Father as the Bishop of Rome.

 

[Digitonomy]

Here is what Redemptionis Sacramentum says:

1. The Eucharistic Prayer
   [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” or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals

Nitpick: Although you highlighted both paragraphs above, the priest in question did not violate paragraph 56, since he did mention Benedict.

This also makes me curious how it was done historically. I’m not sure how old the title of “pope” is; Merriam-Webster says before the 12th Century. Before that, perhaps they did it as this overly creative priest did. If I recall correctly, in Eastern Catholic liturgies he is mentioned as Pope of Rome, to distinguish him from other popes.

I’m also curious how this is done in the Diocese of Rome - do they just say “with Benedict, our bishop”? Or just “with Benedict, our pope”? Or do they list the cardinal vicar or other underlings who really preside over the diocese while Benedict is busy with the Vatican?

 

[ProVobis]

I’m also curious how this is done in the Diocese of Rome - do they just say “with Benedict, our bishop”? Or just “with Benedict, our pope”? Or do they list the cardinal vicar or other underlings who really preside over the diocese while Benedict is busy with the Vatican?

I don’t know about that but the Pope does deviate at that part when he recites the Canon:

youtube.com/watch?v=Hkuxn2KAuKQ&NR=1

(at about 0:30)

 

[TheMc]

I don’t know about that but the Pope does deviate at that part when he recites the Canon:

youtube.com/watch?v=Hkuxn2KAuKQ&NR=1

(at about 0:30)

I can’t watch the video, but bishops have a different forumula to say at that time. That is normal.

I believe it’s:

“…and me [strikes breast], your unworthy servant…”

 

[Spirithound]

I can’t watch the video, but bishops have a different forumula to say at that time. That is normal.

I believe it’s:

“…and me [strikes breast], your unworthy servant…”

Right, but in the video, the Pope is celebrating Mass in Westminster Cathedral, so he names Vincent, Archbishop of Westminster, but does not refer to himself (I think…)

 

[ProVobis]

I can’t watch the video, but bishops have a different forumula to say at that time. That is normal.

I believe it’s:

“…and me [strikes breast], your unworthy servant…”

That would be “meo indigno famulo tuo” on the video, except he doesn’t strike his breast (t)here. Too bad you can’t watch the video.

 

[ConstantineTG]

I can’t watch the video, but bishops have a different forumula to say at that time. That is normal.

I believe it’s:

“…and me [strikes breast], your unworthy servant…”

Shouldn’t he commemorate other bishops?

 

[ConstantineTG]

1. “With Benedict our pope” became “With Benedict, the Bishop of Rome, our bishop X…”

Albeit not the words in the Missal, there is nothing wrong with this statement. The Pope is the Bishop of Rome, and the Bishop of Rome is the Pope. I remember during the period of sedevacante when Blessed Pope John Paul II passed away, the commemoration would be a generic “The Bishop of Rome”, because there is no sitting Pope on the chair of Peter at that time.

 

[Farmer88]

Speaking of that, is switching the words from “All glory and honor is yours…” to “All honor and glory is yours…” alright? I’d assume it is because it changes virtually nothing except placement of two words that changing them would place no difference on the significance of the words as well.

 

[Digitonomy]

Speaking of that, is switching the words from “All glory and honor is yours…” to “All honor and glory is yours…” alright? I’d assume it is because it changes virtually nothing except placement of two words that changing them would place no difference on the significance of the words as well.

Yes, they mean the same; no, it’s not alright to change the words like that.

 

[ProVobis]

Speaking of that, is switching the words from “All glory and honor is yours…” to “All honor and glory is yours…” alright? I’d assume it is because it changes virtually nothing except placement of two words that changing them would place no difference on the significance of the words as well.

Hmmm, that depends. Does the phrase actually mean “all honor and all glory?”

As to your question, if it’s done unintentionally, it’s probably okay. I’ll leave it to a theologian to decide what if it’s done intentionally.

If it means anything, in math B=A is A=B, but in programming A=B means different than B=A. In the latter, the order is important.