Ecce Agnus Dei ad libbing

[MarcusAndreas]

I see priests ad libbing this part all the time. Is this a part where priests have some freedom to say certain different things or is this an abuse? I’m fairly certain it’s the latter, since the only priest I’ve seen say it as I’m pretty sure it’s supposed to be is one of the young super-orthodox priests of the diocese who speaks Latin and remembers to keep his fingers together after the consecration.

 

[Nowhere_Man]

I am no liturgical expert, but after looking through my missal, the GIRM, and the side-by-side of the new and old translations for the GIRM I haven’t found a single instance where the priest would be allowed to change the prayer. Usually when ad libbing is allowed the GIRM states the prayer, then it says in parentheses “these, or similar words”; this is present in areas like the greeting, but not for the Ecce Agnus Dei. So any changes the priest is making to the Ecce Agnus Dei is, as far as I’ve found, illicit.

 

[TheMc]

I see priests ad libbing this part all the time. Is this a part where priests have some freedom to say certain different things or is this an abuse? I’m fairly certain it’s the latter, since the only priest I’ve seen say it as I’m pretty sure it’s supposed to be is one of the young super-orthodox priests of the diocese who speaks Latin and remembers to keep his fingers together after the consecration.

There is a very small number of places where it says “these or similar words”, but this is certainly not one of them. This is clearly an abuse, and should be stopped.
Redemptionis Sacramentum:

Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the Liturgy on his own authority.

 

[laszlo]

I see priests ad libbing this part all the time. Is this a part where priests have some freedom to say certain different things or is this an abuse? I’m fairly certain it’s the latter, since the only priest I’ve seen say it as I’m pretty sure it’s supposed to be is one of the young super-orthodox priests of the diocese who speaks Latin and remembers to keep his fingers together after the consecration.

Apparently your priest has big ego, he believes he can usurp the rights of the Apostolic See. Unfortunately he is not alone.

To keep fingers together as obligation was abrogated explicitly in 1967.

1. After the Consecration, the celebrant need not join thumb and forefinger; should any particle of the host have remained on his fingers, he rubs his fingers together over the paten.

adoremus.org/TresAbhinc.html

 

[corsair]

There are a lot of things done in the OF that are illicit. Many Bishops are not even concerned about this at all. At least in most EF Masses the risk is at a minimum.

 

[Cathryn]

Are you asking about saying this in latin during a Novus Ordo Mass? The only priests I have heard say this in the Novus Ordo knew the words and said it properly. The liberal priests want nothing to do with using, or ad libbing latin.

 

[laszlo]

There are a lot of things done in the OF that are illicit. Many Bishops are not even concerned about this at all. At least in most EF Masses the risk is at a minimum.

I remember vernacular inserts before 1970 into the Latin Mass. The TLM has no mystical power, the abuse is abuse.

Today the TLM is built around priests and laity who center on the strictness of the liturgy. Some communities around the TLM abuse the mystical presence of our Lord through the hierarchical jurisdictional Church. A big ego is a big ego in either side

 

[armywife]

If the priest says, “Ecce Agnus Dei, this is the Lamb of God…” etc. that is wrong? I’m truly asking. I didn’t think it was ad libbing since it is a correct translation.

Our priest has done this during Advent, I don’t know if he’ll continue. I thought he was connecting the Latin chant of the mass parts that we had done throughout Advent.

And yes, ours in one of those young(2.5 yrs) orthodox priests… that I love. And he’s slowly trying to correct some of the abuses that have been going on in WA for a long time.

 

[jbuck919]

Before we cry abuse (which I am not necessarily denying that it is), let’s remember that this is one of the all-too-numerous passages that were rendered with (undue?) freedom from the Latin. Although the official English translation was approved by Rome, the fact that it is itself a deviation to a certain degree from the real official text seems to have been interpreted by many, indeed most priests as a license for taking further liberties.

The Latin text is as follows:

Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccáta mundi. Beáti qui ad cenam Agni vocáti sunt.

Up to “mundi” this is identical with the prior rite as used in the Missal of Pius V, the so-called Tridentine rite, or Extraordinary Form if you will. The second sentence is one of those things cut out of the whole cloth for the Missal of Paul VI. The whole thing means, “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him, who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are they who are called to the supper of the Lamb.” That is not what the “official” English says. Nor, while I’m at it, is the official English compliant in many other instances, most notoriously in translating “pro multis” as “for all” in the formula of consecration.

The text at issue is a case (and not a unique one) of the authors of what is now called the Ordinary Form already changing the meaning by introducing new Latin, in this case introducing confusion by seeming to endorse the Protestant notion that the Eucharist is the Lord’s Supper, and then allowing the significance of the moment further to be confused by free translation. Forgive me, and it took me years to come to this state of exasperation, but God only knows what they were thinking of. There is more to answer for here than parish priests making up their own invitation to receive the Body of Christ.

 

[laszlo]

The Latin text is as follows:

Ecce Agnus Dei, ecce qui tollit peccáta mundi. Beáti qui ad cenam Agni vocáti sunt.
Up to “mundi” this is identical with the prior rite as used in the Missal of Pius V, the so-called Tridentine rite, or Extraordinary Form if you will. The second sentence is one of those things cut out of the whole cloth for the Missal of Paul VI. The whole thing means, “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him, who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are they who are called to the supper of the Lamb.” That is not what the “official” English says. Nor, while I’m at it, is the official English compliant in many other instances, most notoriously in translating “pro multis” as “for all” in the formula of consecration.

This is the new Translation, hopefully obligatory beginning of the coming Advent in the US

Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.

The last part is from

Apocalypse 19:9 And he said to me: Write: Blessed are they that are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb.

I agree that the recent translation is different

This is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to His supper.

but there is a danger that those who adlibit now, will adlibit the correct translation too. Any adlibiting is wrong, and still grave sin, as it was in the past.

 

[jbuck919]

This is the new Translation, hopefully obligatory beginning of the coming Advent in the US

Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.

The last part is from

Apocalypse 19:9 And he said to me: Write: Blessed are they that are called to the marriage supper of the Lamb.

I agree that the recent translation is different

This is the lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world. Happy are those who are called to His supper.

but there is a danger that those who adlibit now, will adlibit the correct translation too. Any adlibiting is wrong, and still grave sin, as it was in the past.

Wrong, yes. Grave sin, well, that’s a lot of priests to tell that they have repeatedly gravely sinned.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Apparently your priest has big ego, he believes he can usurp the rights of the Apostolic See. Unfortunately he is not alone.

To keep fingers together as obligation was abrogated explicitly in 1967.

1. After the Consecration, the celebrant need not join thumb and forefinger; should any particle of the host have remained on his fingers, he rubs his fingers together over the paten.

adoremus.org/TresAbhinc.html

“Need not” not “may not” … big difference.

 

[Aramis]

“Need not” not “may not” … big difference.

It was obligatory. It is not obligatory now. It is still permitted. That’s all the other poster said, tho he said it in awkward double negative modes.

On topic again:
Translation on the fly of the prayers is a no-no; only approved missal texts are permitted to be used. Mixing of approved translations is uncommon, and not specifically allowed, but repeating the prayer once in Latin and once in the vernacular is not an abuse, provided he says the whole prayer once each.

 

[laszlo]

“Need not” not “may not” … big difference.

This is why I wrote that the obligation was abrogated

To keep fingers together as obligation was abrogated explicitly in 1967. The reason was prince arthritis.

What is your point?

 

[MarkThompson]

For what it’s worth, the Latin of paragraph 12 as shown here (and is that really the only site on the web with the Latin text of Tres Abhinc Annos? Wow) says:
Post consecrationem, celebranti licet pollices et indices non coniungere; si vero aliquod fragmentum hostiae digitis adhaeserit, digitos super patenam abstergeat.
A literal translation of the first clause would say: “After the consecration, it is permitted to the celebrant not to conjoin thumbs and forefingers.” Grammatically, the sentence therefore amounts to a positive grant of permission not to do something, rather than a modal statement about what the priest must or must not do.

 

[japhy]

I don’t think the OP is talking about ad libbing in Latin, nor about the priest using Latin here.

He’s talking about the priest deviating from the approved (current) translation. And the priest should not be deviating from those words.

 

[IntegraCatholic]

Apparently your priest has big ego, he believes he can usurp the rights of the Apostolic See.

If you admit that it is permissible to keep one’s fingers together and still make this judgment of an ordained priest of God, you are the one with the big ego and guilty of rash judgment. Moreover, your claim that in so doing he usurps the rights of the Apostolic See is entirely wrong.