Deviation from form - words of consecration

[neophyte]

The words used by the priest were “this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may always be able to be forgiven.”

This parish is chock-full of liturgical abuse: altering the words of the liturgy, laymen taking the ceboria from the altar, responsorial chanting by the congregation during the Eucharistic prayer,… most of the time I leave feeling like I wasn’t really at a Catholic church. I very much avoid going there.

But this deviation set my teeth on edge more than anything I’ve seen before - did it rise to the level of invalidating the sacrament?

 

[LilyM]

The words used by the priest were “this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may always be able to be forgiven.”

This parish is chock-full of liturgical abuse: altering the words of the liturgy, laymen taking the ceboria from the altar, responsorial chanting by the congregation during the Eucharistic prayer,… most of the time I leave feeling like I wasn’t really at a Catholic church. I very much avoid going there.

But this deviation set my teeth on edge more than anything I’ve seen before - did it rise to the level of invalidating the sacrament?

As far as I know the actual words ‘this is my body’ and ‘this is (the cup of?) my blood’ are certainly required.

Other words around them can probably be changed - for example the TLM has the phrase ‘the mystery of faith’ inserted right into the words of consecration whereas the NO doesn’t.

 

[benedictgal]

No priest has the authority to change the wording in the Eucharistic Prayer. This is illicit. Here is what Redemptionis Sacramentum says on the issue:

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

In other words, this is a very grave offense. We are not called to be “creative” with the Mass, as Pope Benedict XVI has said on numerous occasions. We are called to receive.

 

[jj2011]

The words used by the priest were “this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may always be able to be forgiven.”

This parish is chock-full of liturgical abuse: altering the words of the liturgy, laymen taking the ceboria from the altar, responsorial chanting by the congregation during the Eucharistic prayer,… most of the time I leave feeling like I wasn’t really at a Catholic church. I very much avoid going there.

But this deviation set my teeth on edge more than anything I’ve seen before - did it rise to the level of invalidating the sacrament?

I don’t know, but the traditional manuals of moral theology say that a sacrament can be invalid not only because of omission of an essential word, but also by additions of words that change the meaning of the form.

BTW: when are the bishops going to change the words back to “for many,” like the CDW told them to do?

 

[japhy]

BTW: when are the bishops going to change the words back to “for many,” like the CDW told them to do?

The CCDDS didn’t tell the bishops to change it, they said that future translations must use “for many”. And when the next translation of the Roman Missal is published, it will be thus.

For now, priests are still to use the now ill-favored translation “for all” if they pray in English… nothing’s stopping them from using the Latin, though!

 

[neophyte]

No priest has the authority to change the wording in the Eucharistic Prayer. This is illicit…In other words, this is a very grave offense. We are not called to be “creative” with the Mass…

Yeah, I know, that’s why I so dislike attending services at that parish. It’s really awful, there’s so much of this stuff there that I find it extremely difficult to focus on what I should be focusing on.

Let’s see, off the top of my head I recall:-dry fonts during Lent

-Father says “the Lord is with you”

-“and peace to God’s people on earth”

-“for us and for our salvation he came down from heaven”

-responsorial chanting during the Eucharistic prayer

-laymen at the altar handling consectrated hosts like they’re potato chips
And of course, the music is banal and the place sounds like a sports arena before and after Mass. Yesterday the man in front of me allowed his kid to turn on a video game while they were both sitting during the reading of the gospel - I had to ask him to have his boy turn the sound off!!

 

[baltobetsy]

-Father says “the Lord is with you”

I used to reply, “May He also be with you,” to this, until someone here mentioned that they said, “And maybe with you.”

Betsy

 

[puzzleannie]

The words used by the priest were “this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may always be able to be forgiven.”

This parish is chock-full of liturgical abuse: altering the words of the liturgy, laymen taking the ceboria from the altar, responsorial chanting by the congregation during the Eucharistic prayer,… most of the time I leave feeling like I wasn’t really at a Catholic church. I very much avoid going there.

But this deviation set my teeth on edge more than anything I’ve seen before - did it rise to the level of invalidating the sacrament?

this is an example of a real, grave liturgical abuse, the kind for which you must call out your pastor. the lay witness protocol on the Catholics United for the Faith website cuf.org gives you steps to follow to pursue this. please document with dates, times, places, exact wording, which priest is at fault. this is something that can call into question the validity and licitness of Mass and sacrament, not just a matter of lame music.