Liturgical Issues

  • Thread starter Thread starter LouisvilleRC
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

LouisvilleRC

Guest
So a couple of days ago I went to a Eucharist at a motherhouse of a more liberal LCWR order. I had a couple of questions. In the Eucharist the word Lord, whenever used, was replaced with the word God. During the consecration the priest said “for all” instead of “for many” but stuck to the regular words other than this. Is this allowed? Also the priest had a small separate altar on the side of the main altar (There are pews on 3 sides of the altar, it was renovated in 1980). He couldn’t manage to get up to the main altar so he used the side altar as his main altar. Is this allowed? Also he did not distribute communion but just stayed seated. Is that allowed? I was surprised to see non-habited LCWR sisters praying the rosary and receiving communion on the tongue. I signed up for this so that I could ask these questions because I really wondered if all of this was ok.
 
So a couple of days ago I went to a Eucharist at a motherhouse of a more liberal LCWR order. I had a couple of questions. In the Eucharist the word Lord, whenever used, was replaced with the word God. During the consecration the priest said “for all” instead of “for many” but stuck to the regular words other than this. Is this allowed? Also the priest had a small separate altar on the side of the main altar (There are pews on 3 sides of the altar, it was renovated in 1980). He couldn’t manage to get up to the main altar so he used the side altar as his main altar. Is this allowed? Also he did not distribute communion but just stayed seated. Is that allowed? I was surprised to see non-habited LCWR sisters praying the rosary and receiving communion on the tongue. I signed up for this so that I could ask these questions because I really wondered if all of this was ok.
  1. No.
  2. I don’t see why not, if necessary.
  3. Depends on why he did it. If it is because he is exceedingly old or has mobility issues, it is fine. If it is because he wants to make some politico-theological “statement” about something, then it is not fine.
 
I should have said this better. The side altar was a card table that was set up to the side of the main altar so I wondered if that was ok. Sorry for the confusion.
 
I should have said this better. The side altar was a card table that was set up to the side of the main altar so I wondered if that was ok. Sorry for the confusion.
I am not sure. Certainly it is not okay in an absolute sense to celebrate Mass on a poker table. If he is habitually celebrating Mass in that place it seems incumbent upon him to make arrangements to perhaps have a portable altar installed that can be rolled out, but if it is a one-time thing because of need, I don’t think it is particularly wrong.
 
So a couple of days ago I went to a Eucharist at a motherhouse of a more liberal LCWR order. I had a couple of questions. In the Eucharist the word Lord, whenever used, was replaced with the word God. During the consecration the priest said “for all” instead of “for many” but stuck to the regular words other than this. Is this allowed? Also the priest had a small separate altar on the side of the main altar (There are pews on 3 sides of the altar, it was renovated in 1980). He couldn’t manage to get up to the main altar so he used the side altar as his main altar. Is this allowed? Also he did not distribute communion but just stayed seated. Is that allowed? I was surprised to see non-habited LCWR sisters praying the rosary and receiving communion on the tongue. I signed up for this so that I could ask these questions because I really wondered if all of this was ok.
Altering the liturgical texts: Illicit, but doesn’t invalidate the liturgy.
Might not have been an alteration, tho’. There are several different English translations, and a priest may say the mass from any approved translation. Monastic and Friary orders often have permission from Rome for certain alterations as well. Without knowing more, it can’t be said for certain to be an alteration.

For All: priest is probably using an older edition of the Missal. If he’s got poor vision, he’s allowed to use the wording he’s got memorized. It’s stated as such in the GIRM.

Side Altar: Unusual but licit. Especially if the priest has mobility issues which prevent climbing the dais upon which the main altar is.

(Ancient tradition was that each altar was used only once each day. Many parishes have 3-5 altars. After Trent, that was relaxed in the Roman Rite, so that every priest could say the mass every day; after Vatican II, concelebration was restored to the Roman Church so that only one altar was in use at a time. Pre Vatican II, one might encounter 2-5 masses happening at once in a given parish…)

Not distributing communion himself: if he’s mobility challenged, or unable to remain standing any longer, yes, it’s allowed; it’s not allowed for healthy priests. He’s required to commune himself; he should commune a deacon, if one was present, and the deacon should distribute. The celebrant, a concelebrant, or a deacon must hand the sacred vessels to the EMHCs if there are any; no layman is permitted to take the sacred vessels from the altar themselves according to the GIRM.
 
For starters, presumably the priest’s manner of celebrating Mass is on him, and not the LCWR, so I am confused at the attempt to conflate the two. By definition, the good father is not a member of the LCWR. Also, so now we are characterizing entire religious orders by whether their superiors belong to the LCWR?
 
The priest is employed by LCWR though. Also he had the new Roman Missal right in front of him he just chose to use the old words for some parts. I commented on LCWR because often sisters that are members of their orders are stereotyped by some Catholics and I just wanted to show that sometimes things are different.
 
The priest is employed by LCWR though. Also he had the new Roman Missal right in front of him he just chose to use the old words for some parts. I commented on LCWR because often sisters that are members of their orders are stereotyped by some Catholics and I just wanted to show that sometimes things are different.
If he’s got the old ordinary memorized, he may have had the missal there simply for the propers…
 
After saying “for all” for many years, I honestly think it sometimes leaks out without any real intent behind it. I noticed a few weeks ago that this happened to a priest ordained for 30 years. When someone mentioned it to him, he was honestly surprised and didn’t realize he had done it!
 
After saying “for all” for many years, I honestly think it sometimes leaks out without any real intent behind it. I noticed a few weeks ago that this happened to a priest ordained for 30 years. When someone mentioned it to him, he was honestly surprised and didn’t realize he had done it!
About two months ago we had a priest start the Gloria with:
Glory to God in the Highest, and peace to his people on earth.
Lord God, heavenly King; almighty God and Father.
Whoa, why don’t I start that again? 😛
Glory to God in the Highest
and on earth peace to people of good will.
It happens. And with an older priest, I bet it happens more.
 
For starters, presumably the priest’s manner of celebrating Mass is on him, and not the LCWR, so I am confused at the attempt to conflate the two. By definition, the good father is not a member of the LCWR. Also, so now we are characterizing entire religious orders by whether their superiors belong to the LCWR?
This is a good point. The LCWR is not an order.

To understand the Mass we would have to know what order the priest was a member of. He may not have been a member of an order at all, but rather a member of a Society of Apostolic Life, or a secular priest.

The point about the “liberal LCWR order” and the priest being conflated is well stated.

-Tim-

.
 
For All: priest is probably using an older edition of the Missal. If he’s got poor vision, he’s allowed to use the wording he’s got memorized. It’s stated as such in the GIRM.

Wait. Was “for all” ever a legit, official translation? I thought that was alway bogus, a made up “improvement?”
 
Wait. Was “for all” ever a legit, official translation? I thought that was alway bogus, a made up “improvement?”
Whether one would actually consider it to have been “legit” or not, (it was clearly not a “translation”), seems to me to be a separate discussion. It was, however, printed in previous editions of the anglophone Roman Missal, so it would seem to have been “official” on that basis.
 
Wait. Was “for all” ever a legit, official translation? I thought that was alway bogus, a made up “improvement?”
If I remember correctly, “for all men” was the 1967 rendition, with the “men” dropped later for PC reasons.
 
The changing of the word “Lord” to “God” is unfortunately common in many liberal orders of women religious. It stems from a neo-pagan influence which (depending on the convent) believes that since God is neither male nor female, He should not be called “Father” (thus permitting the ordination of women). In other convents where Wicca or other occult practices have entered in, there is a belief that God is feminine, or that there are in fact a male and female deity. I’m not kidding - I know of several convents where certain sisters follow occult practices. Pray for them!
 
Wait. Was “for all” ever a legit, official translation? I thought that was alway bogus, a made up “improvement?”
It’s in the 1972 translation for the US. It was legit. It’s not anymore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top