Ep Iv

[Dicerning]

Our priest used (and uses often) EP IV today. I was under the assumption that IV cannot be used on SUnday?

Also he changed the words to Inclusive.

Is this acceptable? does it make mass illicit?

 

[MusicMan]

Yes, EP IV can be used on Sundays:

1. The choice among the Eucharistic Prayers found in the Order of Mass is suitably guided by the following norms:

d. Eucharistic Prayer IV has an invariable Preface and gives a fuller summary of salvation history. It may be used when a Mass has no Preface of its own and on Sundays in Ordinary Time. Because of its structure, no special formula for the dead may be inserted into this prayer.

As to making it inclusive, I fail to see how one would do so – it’s pretty inclusive to begin with --, without changing “Father” to something gender neutral, which any attempt to do so would sound exceptionally silly.

God in heaven, it is right that we should give you thanks and glory: you are the one God, living and true.

Um, maybe Father could work as the chaplain for the Department of Redundancy Department.

or

God, we acknowledge your greatness: all you actions show your wisdom and love.

Just silly. Are you sure you weren’t being thrown by the current translation of the words of institution using “for all” instead of “for many?” The translation in my Missal says “for all.”

 

[FrDavid96]

Our priest used (and uses often) EP IV today. I was under the assumption that IV cannot be used on SUnday?

Also he changed the words to Inclusive.

Is this acceptable? does it make mass illicit?

Using EP IV is permitted today (33rd Sun. of Ord. Time)

Changing the words is certainly illicit, and possibly invalid.

 

[Dicerning]

Yes, EP IV can be used on Sundays:

As to making it inclusive, I fail to see how one would do so – it’s pretty inclusive to begin with --, without changing “Father” to something gender neutral, which any attempt to do so would sound exceptionally silly.

."

Every time the word “Man” is in EPIV our priest used the word “US”

 

[MusicMan]

I stand corrected. And disgusted.

 

[malphono]

Every time the word “Man” is in EPIV our priest used the word “US”

Oh, how politically correct. I am assuming you’re in the US, and so would suggest that your priest attend a course in English. If you are elsewhere (meaning in a country where English is not either the primary or administrative language), I withdraw the comment.

 

[MusicMan]

Well, I’d make a bad liberal priest. There’s no way I could remember to change all of those occasions of “men” and “man” to “us,” week after week.

 

[Ruthie]

You’re right, MusicUs.

 

[MusicMan]

Please feel free to hit the Notify Mod button because my username isn’t politically correct!

 

[tcraig]

Well, I’d make a bad liberal priest. There’s no way I could remember to change all of those occasions of “men” and “man” to “us,” week after week.

I’ve had three so far who are spot on.

I used to think that some of the new lectionaries were being printed up that way, but when different priests would visit and read from the exact same lectionary they managed to read it correctly.

It’s so frustrating, and also makes the “inclusive language” priests seem really immature … like rebellious teenage boys who gets a thrill doing something naughty.

 

[FrDavid96]

I’ve had three so far who are spot on.

I used to think that some of the new lectionaries were being printed up that way, but when different priests would visit and read from the exact same lectionary they managed to read it correctly.

It’s so frustrating, and also makes the “inclusive language” priests seem really immature … like rebellious teenage boys who gets a thrill doing something naughty.

Do you mean “lectionary” or “sacramentary”?

That’s not meant to be silly, but it does make a difference.

 

[tcraig]

Do you mean “lectionary” or “sacramentary”?

That’s not meant to be silly, but it does make a difference.

Hmm, the book where the Epistle, Gospel, Prayer Over the Gifts, Prayer After Communion, etc. is read from. Maybe there’s more than one?

I plead ignorance on the official name(s).

 

[FrDavid96]

Hmm, the book where the Epistle, Gospel, Prayer Over the Gifts, Prayer After Communion, etc. is read from. Maybe there’s more than one?

I plead ignorance on the official name(s).

Yes, there’s more than one.

The Sacramentary is the “big red” book that sits on the altar. This is the one that contains the actual prayers of the Mass. The prayers are the same in every Sacramentary printed since 1974 (there are some very minor differences, but they aren’t relevant.)

The Lectionary however contains only the readings. There are different versions of the Lectionary which have been approved. I’ve never looked into it, but I’ve heard that there are 2 slightly (and I mean slightly) different translations available for purchase. All of the ones that I’ve seen are the same, but I’m willing to accept that there are 2 approved versions.

Also, the Lectionary has undergone some significant changes over the past 30+ years. It is still licit to use older printings of the Lectionary, but this has to be done with some restraint. For example, I administer a mission parish where daily Mass is celebrated very very rarely (once every few months). It’s not economically sound to invest in a new set of weekday lectionaries under the circumstances, so on the rare occasions that we need one, we use the older Lectionary which is already there.

The bottom line is that the prayers from the Sacramentary will always be the same, but the readings from the Lectionary might vary. If the priest (or reader) is reading the exact words found in any Lectionary approved by the conference of bishops for that country, it’s licit. If he is changing the words on his own authority, it is not licit. If he is adlibbing the readings, or changing words because he feels that he can provide something better, what he is doing is without question wrong.

 

[tcraig]

Thanks for that information!

Yes, the priests who used inclusive language were doing it deliberately. I know this because at the parishes where these priests were, there were also associate pastors who managed to read things correctly.

One priest also deliberately left out the word “men” in the Nicene Creed.

These may be small things in the scheme of things, but the fact is that the parishioners in the pew do notice. And, to me at least, it just comes across as so immature, like giving the middle finger to your boss behind his back.

 

[KathleenElsie]

Thanks for that information!

Yes, the priests who used inclusive language were doing it deliberately. I know this because at the parishes where these priests were, there were also associate pastors who managed to read things correctly. Most people would not even notice when the priest uses inclusive words to replace other words. But, our priest can’t seem to do it without stumbling over the words or forgetting where he was at in the Gospel.

One priest also deliberately left out the word “men” in the Nicene Creed. Our one and only priest does this. Those of us in the pews seem to be shouting the word “men” just to make up for the priest leaving it out.

These may be small things in the scheme of things, but the fact is that the parishioners in the pew do notice. And, to me at least, it just comes across as so immature, like giving the middle finger to your boss behind his back. Yep I know what you mean.

Pray for our priests.

 

[benedictgal]

Actually, this is what Redemptionis Sacramentum says regarding the Eucharistic Prayer:

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

Now, in Liturgiam Authenticam, it notes that:

1. In many languages there exist nouns and pronouns denoting both genders, masculine and feminine, together in a single term. The insistence that such a usage should be changed is not necessarily to be regarded as the effect or the manifestation of an authentic development of the language as such. Even if it may be necessary by means of catechesis to ensure that such words continue to be understood in the “inclusive” sense just described, it may not be possible to employ different words in the translations themselves without detriment to the precise intended meaning of the text, the correlation of its various words or expressions, or its aesthetic qualities. When the original text, for example, employs a single term in expressing the interplay between the individual and the universality and unity of the human family or community (such as the Hebrew word 'adam, the Greek anthropos, or the Latin homo), this property of the language of the original text should be maintained in the translation. Just as has occurred at other times in history, the Church herself must freely decide upon the system of language that will serve her doctrinal mission most effectively, and should not be subject to externally imposed linguistic norms that are detrimental to that mission.

So, we shouldn’t be doing wholesale translations just to suit our particular sensibilities.

Now, when it comes to references to God the Father, LA notes that:

a) In referring to almighty God or the individual persons of the Most Holy Trinity, the truth of tradition as well as the established gender usage of each respective language are to be maintained.

Even though this document was meant for the translators, it would serve the rest of us well to read it and heed it.

 

[heaven_help_me]

I was just looking for an answer to whether a priest can change the line ‘a man like us in all things like us but sin’ to 'a person like us in all things etc. I have never been insulted by the language in the Mass or the Bible. I have never felt excluded. Who are these people who are sooooo insulted or excluded. My pastor has caused me anguish over numerous things and he has only been there since August, hence the name ‘heaven help me’. If there is something that is documented that he may not change words, please point me in the right direction. Thanks and much appreciated.

 

[benedictgal]

On Tuesday, during Daily Mass, we had a visiting priest at the hospital chapel. He decided to use the EP for reconciliation, but with the second Preface for Advent. Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn’t the same rule for EP IV apply for the Reconciliation EP? Aren’t these EPs supposed to have their own prefaces?

Yesterday, we had the same visiting priest. This time he celebrated Mass in Spanish and used the same preface, but he opted for the Swiss canons instead.

 

[FrDavid96]

I was just looking for an answer to whether a priest can change the line ‘a man like us in all things like us but sin’ to 'a person like us in all things etc. I have never been insulted by the language in the Mass or the Bible. I have never felt excluded. Who are these people who are sooooo insulted or excluded. My pastor has caused me anguish over numerous things and he has only been there since August, hence the name ‘heaven help me’. If there is something that is documented that he may not change words, please point me in the right direction. Thanks and much appreciated.

Here’s the quote you’re looking for:
[31.] In keeping with the solemn promises that they have made in the rite of Sacred Ordination and renewed each year in the Mass of the Chrism, let Priests celebrate “devoutly and faithfully the mysteries of Christ for the praise of God and the sanctification of the Christian people, according to the tradition of the Church, especially in the Eucharistic Sacrifice and in the Sacrament of Reconciliation”. **They ought not to detract from the profound meaning of their own ministry by corrupting the liturgical celebration either through alteration **or omission, or through arbitrary additions.
[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

That’s from Redemptionis Sacramentum, often quoted on these posts. The bold type is my own to make the point.

 

[heaven_help_me]

Thank you Fr. David, much appreciated.