T
TradyDaddy
Guest
Is it OK for anyone to change the words of the Gospel during any part of the Mass?
- Status
F
FightingFat
Guest
In what context? I mean my first instinct would be no, but I’ve dramatised the Gospel before with youth groups and such and you paraphrase all the time when you do something like that.
T
thistle
Guest
S
Servulus
Guest
Is this done during Mass, or at some other time?
If it’s during Mass, at what point in the liturgy does this happen?
Is it in place of the Gospel reading?
Is it after the reading of the Gospel before the homily?
Is it done in place of the homily?
It seems to me there could be some thin ice here.
F
FightingFat
Guest
In place if the Gospel, yes. I’ve done it at a mass where Cardinal Hume presided and he said he really enjoyed it so no thin ice as far as I’m aware!
D
drforjc
Guest
We are supposed to use a translation that is approved for use at mass for the proclamation of the gospel reading. In the US, only the translation in the current lectionary is approved for use as the gospel reading.
In the homily etc. a paraphrase would be acceptable.
In the homily etc. a paraphrase would be acceptable.
T
TradyDaddy
Guest
What if the translation, approved or not, has inarguably changed the meaning of a particular text especially in instances where Christs own words are involved?
F
FightingFat
Guest
There are obviously specifics involved here TradyDaddy, why don’t you share the story with us?
D
drforjc
Guest
Doesn’t matter, it is still a liturgical abuse to use an unapproved translation. How grave an abuse, I can’t say, but when the most recent US lectionary was promulgated, it expressly stipulated that it was to be used exclusively. Formerly, several translations were approved for use, but again that changed with the promulgation of the current US lectionary.
J
John_Lilburne
Guest
The approved Lectionary should be used. According to the Code of Canon Law, canon 846: " In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority." (From vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM ).
During the homily there can be a discussion of the translation and presentation of another translation.
During the homily there can be a discussion of the translation and presentation of another translation.
T
TradyDaddy
Guest
Ok, then let us assume we are talking about a fully approved translation. If this fully approved translation has inarguably changed the words of Jesus Christ to mean something different…then what say you?
C
Cristiano
Guest
Can you please be more specific. An example will help. These “what if scenarios” may not happen because of the power of the Holy Spirit (e.g. “What if the Churh will loose to the devil”).
However, there is an interesting book about “Misquoting Jesus” by Bart Ehrman (an evangelical protestant professor at Chapel Hill) npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5052156
I like a lot of his historical work even if sometime I disagree with him, mainly on theological points.
T
TradyDaddy
Guest
Ok, lets take a simple bible text…
St. Matthew, Chaper 26, Verse 28 and St. Mark, Chapter 14, Verse 24 … could someone please tell me who had the authority to change the words spoken by Christ here?
St. Matthew, Chaper 26, Verse 28 and St. Mark, Chapter 14, Verse 24 … could someone please tell me who had the authority to change the words spoken by Christ here?
T
Traditional_Ang
Guest
True Daddy:
I know what you’re talking about. You’re talking about the “Words of Institution” in the Ordo Missae 1970. I probably like the change to “for ALL” from “for MANY” as much as you do, but it doesn’t make the Mass itself INVALID.
TD, are you trying to say that the Sacrament of our Lord’s Body and Blood as celebrated in almost all Latin parishes is Invalid? Or, Were you just trying to get someone else to say that for you?
The Lord Himself assured St. Peter when he gave him the Keys of the Kingdom that, “The gates of hell would not prevail against it (the Church).”
If this change in words rendered the Mass INVALID, it would mean that the Lord’s promise wasn’t VALID, and that the Lord didn’t keep His word, and please don’t say He kept his word with Lefebre and all of these various people claiming to be Pope who were consecrated by priests.
This Forum is supposed to be on how we relate to the Liturgy and the Sacraments of the Church, not whether the Sacraments are Valid or Invalid because of some obscure theological point that most Catholics can’t even begin to understand.
I hope this would close this point, and I hereby ask the Mods to cles this Thread - It belongs in the Apologetics Forum if anywhere. But I see no reason to continue a thread whose OP seems to have misrepresented the purpose of the thread on his OP.
You Brother in Christ, Michael
G
Gottle_of_Geer
Guest
I think the passages removed from the lectionary should be restored, and that the two Psalms removed from the Liturgy of the Hours should be restored.
Mutilating the text of the readings before they were even promulgated in the reformed liturgical books of which they are part is surely one of the worst abuses possible.Those passages are there for a purpose, and it is absolutely irrelevant whether people like them or not - what we don’t like, is sometimes the very thing that we need.
No one mutilates Papal letters in this way - and they, are of no value at all in comparison to the inspired words of Holy Writ. If mere papal letters aren’t chopped about, far less should Holy Scripture be. It is immensely damaging to Christians to take from them the very word of life - how can they grow, if what God has provided for them is chopped about and mutilated ? Defective readings from the Bible can only lead to defective knowledge of Christ, defective Christians, defective Christian living, & a defective witness to Christ in daily life - as well as to a defective Church. ##
T
TradyDaddy
Guest
Michael
I’m also talking about ad lib changes by Priests to prayers such as during the final elevation the words “Behold the Lamb of God…” I’ve heard many Priest make up different names for Jesus and on an EWTN radio show, the president of EWTN stated that NO ONE is allowed to change the words of the Gospel. We as Catholics have a right to proper liturgy and to faithful proclaimation of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Whether done ad libbed or as a semi-permanent change, changes to the Gospel effect our faith. We can’t keep sticking our heads in the sand and letting the modernists play with scripture.
As far as the issue of validity, form, as well as matter and intention have to be correct. I think we can agree that the parrishes using raisin bread have produced questionably valid Eucharists. Likewise, form is just as important. If a Priest baptized in the name of the Mother and the Son… and left out , the Holy Spirit… is it still valid? NO! The Bishops had the opportunity to correct this divisive mistranslation but didn’t. From one report I heard their reason was that it would have made the Traditinalist seem to have been right all along. Duh? … So they put their personal pride ahead of truth.
As far as the Lords Promise…the gates of Hell would not prevail against IT … the Church itself IS indefectable. However, when Father Bob decides to do his own thing and ad lib… He can defect from the Church. Like wise, a mis-translation does NOT mean that the Chruch has defected, only that there is a posiblity that those who produced the mistranslation defected from the Church. That’s all.
- Status