Liturgical Director changes Gospel for Mass

[johnbres2]

Hello! I am troubled that our Church’s Liturgical Director edits the Bible readings each week, to make them sound, to him, more pleasing. For instance, last week, when Jesus healed the leper, our Director re-wrote the Gospel, so that instead of telling the leper: “I will it” He said, “I do choose”. You will not Every week there are things like this. The Director actually tapes his edited versions right on top of the actual readings in the Lectionary. I have not said anything yet. I am wondering if I should tell the archdiocese directly about this, as I don’t think I would get anywhere with our Pastor. It is very disconcerting to know that we are not hearing an official Church-approved Gospel each week, but instead are getting the Gospel According to our LIturgical Director. Thanks for any advice.

 

[Della]

He most certainly should not be changing the text of the Gospel reading or any other part of the Liturgy of the Mass. If you’ve talked to him about it and he won’t stop doing it, by all means contact the bishop with proof that he is doing this so that the bishop can correct him.

 

[John_Lilburne]

Della:

He most certainly should not be changing the text of the Gospel reading or any other part of the Liturgy of the Mass. If you’ve talked to him about it and he won’t stop doing it, by all means contact the bishop with proof that he is doing this so that the bishop can correct him.

It must be completely obvious to the Liturgical Director and Parish Priest that this is incorrect. Yet they are doing it and allowing it to happen.

So you may decide it is not worth wasting time or risking retaliation from them with a discussion. Another approach is from the Vatican’s 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:

“184. Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff. It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.”

 

[ChemicalBean]

Hmmm…are you sure that the director isn’t just doing it for greater clarity?

I know of a few times when words were added and substitued for generic pronouns so that people hearing the Gospel (not reading it) can follow what is going on.

I think it was a case where Jesus said to a male disciple something about another man (maybe a parable). Otherwise, you end up hearing something like “he said he said he did to him.” If the assembly is even still listening at that point, instead of getting the meat of the passage, they are stuck wondering, “Who’s the he that did what to whom?”

 

[johnbres2]

“Hmmm…are you sure that the director isn’t just doing it for greater clarity?”

I appreciate your point, and I would not be distraught if that were the case. I gave an example in my first post of an important change from Sunday’s (2/12) Gospel.

 

[Petergee]

johnbres2:

Hello! I am troubled that our Church’s Liturgical Director edits the Bible readings each week, to make them sound, to him, more pleasing.

Are you SURE that is the reason why he does it? It’s quite possible that the differing translation being taped on has been approved by your Archbishop as an alternative, or even as a replacement, of the translation in your Lectionary, and the priest doesn’t want to go to the expense of buying a whole new Lectionary for the sake of a few minor changes. You should make certain this is not the case before making any complaint, or you would look foolish and uncharitable.

 

[Petergee]

“Hmmm…are you sure that the director isn’t just doing it for greater clarity?”

I appreciate your point, and I would not be distraught if that were the case. I gave an example in my first post of an important change from Sunday’s (2/12) Gospel.

Sorry, I don’t see any real difference in meaning between “I will it” and “I do choose” except that the latter is perhaps more easily understood when spoken aloud to modern ears.

 

[johnbres2]

“Sorry, I don’t see any real difference in meaning between “I will it” and “I do choose” except that the latter is perhaps more easily understood when spoken aloud to modern ears.”

Then we may as well re-write the whole Bible on a weekly basis so it is more easily understood to modern ears. Is that the criterion? Do they all have ears and not hear?

The point is, it is an abuse of the liturgy, in accordance with Chuch law, for individual parishes to be altering the liturgy to suit an individual’s preference.

 

[MrS]

“Sorry, I don’t see any real difference in meaning between “I will it” and “I do choose” except that the latter is perhaps more easily understood when spoken aloud to modern ears.”

Then we may as well re-write the whole Bible on a weekly basis so it is more easily understood to modern ears. Is that the criterion? Do they all have ears and not hear?

The point is, it is an abuse of the liturgy, in accordance with Chuch law, for individual parishes to be altering the liturgy to suit an individual’s preference.

I would have to agree with you… after all the “work” the bishops did in arriving at the translation they wanted and approved, why would a lay person be the one to type and tape over?

Is he also the reader?

Any other examples of changes… like, can you get hold of the over-lays??

 

[SMHW]

“Sorry, I don’t see any real difference in meaning between “I will it” and “I do choose” except that the latter is perhaps more easily understood when spoken aloud to modern ears.”

Then we may as well re-write the whole Bible on a weekly basis so it is more easily understood to modern ears. Is that the criterion? Do they all have ears and not hear?

The point is, it is an abuse of the liturgy, in accordance with Chuch law, for individual parishes to be altering the liturgy to suit an individual’s preference.

Your profile doesn’t say what country you live in… But in the United States, the translation should be “I do will it.”

If your lectionary said something different it might be a translation update issue.

 

[Petergee]

“Sorry, I don’t see any real difference in meaning between “I will it” and “I do choose” except that the latter is perhaps more easily understood when spoken aloud to modern ears.”

Then we may as well re-write the whole Bible on a weekly basis so it is more easily understood to modern ears. Is that the criterion? Do they all have ears and not hear?

The point is, it is an abuse of the liturgy, in accordance with Chuch law, for individual parishes to be altering the liturgy to suit an individual’s preference.

You’re still begging the question that it IS “to suit an individual’s preference”. The onus is on you who made that allegation to prove it.

And what happened in 1 hour and 40 minutes? At 3:31 you said that you “would not be distraught” about changes for clarity’s sake, but by 5:11 you think that changes for clarity are “an abuse”?

 

[Desert_82]

johnbres2:

Hello! I am troubled that our Church’s Liturgical Director edits the Bible readings each week, to make them sound, to him, more pleasing.

I am troubled that some many parishes have “Liturgical Directors” in the first place. Frankly, I don’t see any use for them. The readings are already set, as well as the prayers and the GIRM for the formalities of the Mass. That is, unless we want to be creative with “the liturgy”

 

[puzzleannie]

in the first place the only liturgist or liturgical director in the parish is the priest. In the second place, are you quite sure he is not using a reading from an approved lectionary such as that for Masses with children? I went through faith sharing and instruction several times last week with that gospel, in each CCD session (children’s lectionary), for adult confirmation (NAB), RCIA (lectionary) and my own prayer group (RSV-CE), and remember both of those phrasings. We have an old lectionary that uses RSV-CE and a newer one that is NAB, so maybe he chose a reading from the newer one and pasted it over the old one to make reading it easier? No way to tell. Why not just ask the pastor what is going on and why?

 

[puzzleannie]

there is a new updated corrected version of the lectionary coming, and our pastor does not want to replace this old one which is falling apart until it is available, is it possible this is the reason, and the liturgist is using a newer approved translation?

 

[Petergee]

Desert_82:

I am troubled that some many parishes have “Liturgical Directors” in the first place. Frankly, I don’t see any use for them. The readings are already set, as well as the prayers and the GIRM for the formalities of the Mass. That is, unless we want to be creative with “the liturgy”

The GIRM and other papal and episcopal directives leave plenty of scope for, and indeed encourage, creativity with the liturgy. And I’m sure ours is not the only parish where the liturgical director has occasionally pointed out the priest that HE was not acting in conformity with the norms issued by the Pope and bishops.

 

[johnbres2]

“The GIRM and other papal and episcopal directives leave plenty of scope for, and indeed encourage, creativity with the liturgy”

Provisions I’ve seen say the opposite. To answer your question about my saying minor changes for clarity would not bother me; I was responding to another post which referred to potentially confusing language like “would that he had.” If someone changed that to “would that he” to clarify for speaking purposes, it would not bother me as much. The instance I pointed out: “I do choose” instead of “I will it,” is to me much more significant. I am not aware of this being in any other version of scripture, but I will ask the Priest politely what is going on, as some of you suggested.

 

[John_Lilburne]

I object to “minor changes for clarity”. The Church has a system of getting approved translations. This should be followed, even if an individual thinks they know a better translation.

I also object to putting in a page from another translation, such as the Lectionary for Masses with Children. It is misleading people, pretending this is from the official lectionary. Saving money by using a photocopy may be a breach of copyright.

 

[MrS]

The GIRM and other papal and episcopal directives leave plenty of scope for, and indeed encourage, creativity with the liturgy. And I’m sure ours is not the only parish where the liturgical director has occasionally pointed out the priest that HE was not acting in conformity with the norms issued by the Pope and bishops.

You have to be kidding. Creativity began with the “liturgy in the round” which Moses saw on his first trip down the mountain. No wonder he smashed the stone tablets. The the “creativity” has been wrong ever since.

 

[friarpark]

I’m sorry, but I see a lot of difference between ‘choosing’ something and ‘willing’ it. Willing it is a much stronger and more direct statement. I’m not an English major, but I can see the difference.

 

[gelsbern]

Just for everyone’s edification:

The verse in question is Mark 1:41. I went through and pulled out the verse from 5 of the catholic approved bibles I have on hand. I have lent out my original Jerusalem bible as well so I don’t have that at the moment.

Latin Vulgate
Iesus autem misertus eius extendit manum suam et tangens eum ait illi volo mundare

New Jerusalem Bible
Feeling sorry for him, Jesus stretched out his hand, touched him and said to him, ‘I am willing. Be cleansed.’

NAB
Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand, touched him, and said to him, “I do will it. Be made clean.”

Douay-Rheims
And Jesus having compassion on him, stretched forth his hand; and touching him, saith to him: I will. Be thou made clean.

Revised Standard Version (Catholic Edition)
Moved with pity, he stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, “I will; be clean.”

I don’t see the word “choose” in any of them.

However after I did some searching I did find the wording metioned above is it from the New Revised Standard Version of the Bible

New Revised Standard Version of the Bible
Moved with pity, Jesus stretched out his hand and touched him, and said to him, “I do choose. Be made clean!”

The New Revised Standard Version of the Bible is what is used in The Revised Common Lectionary They have an FAQ
which states that the Roman Catholic Church in both Canada and the US were involved in the production of it. However I cannot find definitive information whether the Revised Common Lectionary was approved for use in Roman Catholic Churches or not. Also the fact that it was done in 1992 means that it should not be used currently according to that which I have read here at the USCCB site.

It states:

Is the New American Bible the only translation of Scriptures we can read from at Mass?​

After May 19, 2002, the revised Lectionary, based on the New American Bible will be the only Lectionary that may be read at Mass, except for the current Lectionary for Masses with Children which will remain in use.

And after looking the Lectionary for Masses with Children which uses the Contemporary English Version the wording is:

Contemporary English Version
Jesus felt sorry for the man. So he put his hand on him and said, “I want to! Now you are well.”