Institution narrative changed - illicit, invalid, netiher?

[catechizeme]

At Mass today our priest added the word “people” to the institution narrative (in italics below). He has a habit of ad-libbing most of the Mass but this is the first time he has modified the words of consecration.
His change was very minor, so I’d like to know if it made the Mass invalid, illicit - or neither. Thank you!

here is what he said:

Take this, all fo you and drink from it…it will be shed for you and for all people, so that sins may be forgiven.

 

[porthos11]

At Mass today our priest added the word “people” to the institution narrative (in italics below). He has a habit of ad-libbing most of the Mass but this is the first time he has modified the words of consecration.
His change was very minor, so I’d like to know if it made the Mass invalid, illicit - or neither. Thank you!

here is what he said:

Take this, all fo you and drink from it…it will be shed for you and for all people, so that sins may be forgiven.

Illicit, but valid, assuming, of course, that he actually said “This is [the cup of] my blood.”

 

[benedictgal]

Here is what Redemptionis Sacramentum notes regarding 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

In addition, the document notes that:

30.] The office “that belongs to Priests in particular in the celebration of the Eucharist” is a great one, “for it is their responsibility to preside at the Eucharist in persona Christi and to provide a witness to and a service of communion not only for the community directly taking part in the celebration, but also for the universal Church, which is always brought into play within the context of the Eucharist. It must be lamented that, especially in the years following the post-Conciliar liturgical reform, as a result of a misguided sense of creativity and adaptation, there have been a number of abuses which have been a source of suffering for many”.70

[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”.71 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.72 For as Saint Ambrose said, “It is not in herself … but in us that the Church is injured. Let us take care so that our own failure may not cause injury to the Church”.73 Let the Church of God not be injured, then, by Priests who have so solemnly dedicated themselves to the ministry. Indeed, under the Bishop’s authority let them faithfully seek to prevent others as well from committing this type of distortion.

Finally, the document states that:

[11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.27 On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,28 and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,29 but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.30 The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.31

What he did was ilicit. However, if he changed other words in the Institution narrative, that is also serious.

 

[Ruthie]

Ah. dat ol’ debbil, inclusive language.

I had an interesting experience a little while ago. We were out of town, and found a church near our hotel through masstimes.org. I was apprehensive when we got there, since it was one of those modern ones, not completely in the round, more like half. I was reassured by the long line for confession, then slightly disturbed by the option of the itty-bitty screen and kneeler vs face-to-face option. Confession was slightly different from what I’m used to, but valid, and licit AFAIK.

In the sanctuary, I was disturbed by seeing the tabernacle off to the side, but it *was *in a separate chapel. I was more disturbed by having a big “risifix”, not a crucifix, which was also off to one side. And the …can’t think of the right word… the celebrants’ chairs were directly behind the altar. But I was reassured by a few life-sized statues, with kneelers in front of them, and a lovely stained-glass Holy Spirit.

So I was pleasantly surprised to have an orthodox and reverent ordinary Mass. The only “off” things were the hand-holding during the Our Father, which I had expected, and that most of the parisioners sang “and peace to God’s people on earth” during the Gloria. (Inclusive language again.)

This was in Phoenix… didn’t they get a new Bishop recently? Or perhaps this parish got a new pastor, who is slowly undoing bad practices. Whichever it is, God bless them in their work!

God save us all,

Ruthie

 

[FrDavid96]

At Mass today our priest added the word “people” to the institution narrative (in italics below). He has a habit of ad-libbing most of the Mass but this is the first time he has modified the words of consecration.
His change was very minor, so I’d like to know if it made the Mass invalid, illicit - or neither. Thank you!

here is what he said:

Take this, all fo you and drink from it…it will be shed for you and for all people, so that sins may be forgiven.

See Redemptionis Sacramentum

#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.

and further in #173 states that abuses in #51 are to be considered objectively grave matter (that is, they are always wrong, no matter the cirumstances, and that is not a matter of judgment it is a matter of established fact, not open to interpretation)

It is definately illicit.

It is probably not invalid (validity is for the Holy See to determine, so I’ll leave it at that).

 

[japhy]

At Mass today our priest added the word “people” to the institution narrative (in italics below). He has a habit of ad-libbing most of the Mass but this is the first time he has modified the words of consecration.

It’s just not allowed.

Take this, all fo you and drink from it…it will be shed for you and for all people, so that sins may be forgiven.

Perhaps your priest has forgotten this, but in the Eucharistic Prayer, the priest is speaking to GOD, not the PEOPLE. There is no reason for him to modify the words of Christ. Just because the priest says the prayer out loud does not mean he’s speaking to us. What confusion is wrought thereby!

 

[bpbasilphx]

His change was very minor, so I’d like to know if it made the Mass invalid, illicit - or neither.

**Since the intent and meaning of the Words were not changed–“This is My Blood”–it was not invalid.

It was, however, definitely illicit and should not be allowed, though only his Bishop (or superior, if a religious) should correct him.**

 

[Manfred]

It was, however, definitely illicit and should not be allowed, though only his Bishop (or superior, if a religious) should correct him.

Oh, sure, that might happen: and just how do you get a bishop to correct one of his priests? More to the point, how do you even get the bishop’s attention on this matter? How do you provide him sufficient and convincing proof of what allegedly took place?

Do you see where I’m going with this?

I’m almost of the mindset that it is practically impossible to get a priest to admit to, let alone change, an errant liturgical practice.

The best you can do is pray he gets reassigned and has to leave. Oh, wait, that doesn’t always work, either. his replacement could be even more “innovative”.

Sorry for the negative tone, but all this “anything-goes-so-long-as-we-love-one-another” attitude toward the liturgy is enough to make me want to adapt a pharisaical stance towards many priests.

 

[elts1956]

Oh, sure, that might happen: and just how do you get a bishop to correct one of his priests? More to the point, how do you even get the bishop’s attention on this matter? How do you provide him sufficient and convincing proof of what allegedly took place?

Do you see where I’m going with this?

I’m almost of the mindset that it is practically impossible to get a priest to admit to, let alone change, an errant liturgical practice.

The best you can do is pray he gets reassigned and has to leave. Oh, wait, that doesn’t always work, either. his replacement could be even more “innovative”.

Sorry for the negative tone, but all this “anything-goes-so-long-as-we-love-one-another” attitude toward the liturgy is enough to make me want to adapt a pharisaical stance towards many priests.

Yep, didn’t think I would ever agree to that statement, but, yep.

 

[promethius]

Oh come on people, be serious. Illicit because of ONE word added, which didn’t change the meaning at all and was probably only a slip of the tongue done on accident?

It doesn’t even count as a violation of #51, which deals with independently composed eucharistic prayers by either the priest or a third party (which this obviously was NOT). The point where we apply the strictures of these sorts to such restrictive heights is where the Mass becomes less about focus on God and more about a witch hunt for supposed unorthodoxy. With ACTUAL fish out there to fry, the word “people” is hardly cause for judging the priest guilty of “grave violation of #51” and self declaring the whole mass illicit (something which almost NO ONE on this forum has the authority to do).

in answer: Niether illicit nor invalid, but your priest should learn to read rather than rely on memory.

 

[benedictgal]

Oh come on people, be serious. Illicit because of ONE word added, which didn’t change the meaning at all and was probably only a slip of the tongue done on accident?

It doesn’t even count as a violation of #51, which deals with independently composed eucharistic prayers by either the priest or a third party (which this obviously was NOT). The point where we apply the strictures of these sorts to such restrictive heights is where the Mass becomes less about focus on God and more about a witch hunt for supposed unorthodoxy. With ACTUAL fish out there to fry, the word “people” is hardly cause for judging the priest guilty of “grave violation of #51” and self declaring the whole mass illicit (something which almost NO ONE on this forum has the authority to do).

in answer: Niether illicit nor invalid, but your priest should learn to read rather than rely on memory.

But, if you read this section of RS, you will find that what the priest did was wrong and ilicit:

[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”.71 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.72 For as Saint Ambrose said, “It is not in herself … but in us that the Church is injured. Let us take care so that our own failure may not cause injury to the Church”.73 Let the Church of God not be injured, then, by Priests who have so solemnly dedicated themselves to the ministry. Indeed, under the Bishop’s authority let them faithfully seek to prevent others as well from committing this type of distortion.

The Mass is not the personal property of anyone to do with as he pleases.

 

[FrDavid96]

Oh come on people, be serious. Illicit because of ONE word added, which didn’t change the meaning at all and was probably only a slip of the tongue done on accident?

It doesn’t even count as a violation of #51, which deals with independently composed eucharistic prayers by either the priest or a third party (which this obviously was NOT). The point where we apply the strictures of these sorts to such restrictive heights is where the Mass becomes less about focus on God and more about a witch hunt for supposed unorthodoxy. With ACTUAL fish out there to fry, the word “people” is hardly cause for judging the priest guilty of “grave violation of #51” and self declaring the whole mass illicit (something which almost NO ONE on this forum has the authority to do).

in answer: Niether illicit nor invalid, but your priest should learn to read rather than rely on memory.

I must disagree with you on that.

Perhaps that priest does need a reading lesson. And a reading of Redemptionis Sacramentum would be a good primer.

I don’t know how you can read the words of John Paul II and not understand the plain meaning of his words. “change the same texts approved by the Church” Means exactly that. Exactly that. Not one single word may be changed by the priest on his own authority. And let’s face it, the argument that it was a “slip of the tongue” defies honesty. A slip of the tongue is a cough or accidentally repeating the same line again because one’s eyes move the wrong way, or some noise distracts the priest. Let us be honest, shall we?

There is no question that it is illicit, and there is no question that it is objectively grave matter.

As I said in my earlier post, the question of whether or not it was valid is for the Holy See to determine. It is not for any of us here to say it was invalid (in that you are correct), nor at the same time is it for anyone of us to say that it was valid. Only the Holy See determines validity, and the only way for Catholics to know that it was valid if if the priest used exactly words approved by the Holy See.

 

[Claire_from_DE]

It irks me when priests change the required words to ‘inclusive’ language. It is such a put down to women to assume that we don’t know that ‘men’ used in this generic way means both genders. Do they think we appreciate this? I don’t!!

 

[benedictgal]

It irks me when priests change the required words to ‘inclusive’ language. It is such a put down to women to assume that we don’t know that ‘men’ used in this generic way means both genders. Do they think we appreciate this? I don’t!!

This happened to me several years ago in my old parish in Central Texas, only it happened with the Gospel. It was the reading of the call of Sts. Peter, Andrew, James and John. The transitional deacon wanted to say “fisherpeople”. I was to proclaim the readings that night and I heard him practicing. I told him that it was not allowed to change the words (this was about 16 years ago). But, he told me that the women would feel disfranchised. I told him, "I am a woman. I understand what the word “men” means. Besides, “fisherpeople” sounds strange.

After my friend’s ordination to the priesthood, I got to assit at the first Mass he celebrated in our parish. I was shocked to hear him change the words of the Memorial for EP II. He substituted “be in your presence” for “stand in your presence to serve you.”

Of course, he also took out “men” from the creed and seemed to have been allergic to the word “'Father” when he prayed the preface. I got after him on that. Being that he was my friend, I felt I could do that.