Liturgical Prayer Endings

[JMJ_coder]

At the end of prayers, such as the Collect, the Priest (or us if its something like the Liturgy of the Hours) often says words to the effect “Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ…” or “Through the same Christ our Lord”.

My question is does it really matter if alternate endings are switched around, whether intentional or accidentally? Especially if it is a change from “Grant this through…” to “We ask this through…” – could such a minor change be considered a liturgical abuse?

 

[Joannm]

At the end of prayers, such as the Collect, the Priest (or us if its something like the Liturgy of the Hours) often says words to the effect “Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ…” or “Through the same Christ our Lord”.

My question is does it really matter if alternate endings are switched around, whether intentional or accidentally? Especially if it is a change from “Grant this through…” to “We ask this through…” – could such a minor change be considered a liturgical abuse?

While they are supposed to follow what is in the book, I would not consider it an abuse at all. It is an ending to a prayer, the prayer really isn’t changed.

 

[AJV]

At the end of prayers, such as the Collect, the Priest (or us if its something like the Liturgy of the Hours) often says words to the effect “Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ…” or “Through the same Christ our Lord”.

My question is does it really matter if alternate endings are switched around, whether intentional or accidentally? Especially if it is a change from “Grant this through…” to “We ask this through…” – could such a minor change be considered a liturgical abuse?

I would ask why someone wants to switch endings intentionally. Accidentally, I don’t really think it’s a problem because it can get quite confusing. The current English translation has the annoying habit of expressing the “Per Dominum…” and other endings in several different ways.

 

[JMJ_coder]

I would ask why someone wants to switch endings intentionally.

For example, between “Grant this through…” and “We ask this through…”, it seems to be divided ~50/50. Someone might want to forgo the alternating and just pick one or the other and stick with that.

 

[Breviarylover]

At the end of prayers, such as the Collect, the Priest (or us if its something like the Liturgy of the Hours) often says words to the effect “Grant this through our Lord Jesus Christ…” or “Through the same Christ our Lord”.

My question is does it really matter if alternate endings are switched around, whether intentional or accidentally? Especially if it is a change from “Grant this through…” to “We ask this through…” – could such a minor change be considered a liturgical abuse?

I would do what the book says.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I would do what the book says.

When I worked for the government we had great numbers of MIL-STD [military standards]. If one really wanted to rile the shop workers one noted MIL-TDP-41 on the drawing. [Make It Like The Darned Print For Once ]

I think our liturgical books should bear the note DIL-TBL-41 [Do It Like The Blessed Liturgy For Once ]

 

[FrDavid96]

At the present time, until the corrected Mass texts are approved for liturgical use, there is a conflict between the GIRM (specifically, number 54 usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter2.shtml#sect2 ) and the text of the current Sacramentary.

The GIRM says that the prayers should have certain endings. The Sacramentary sometimes has different endings which conflict with what the GIRM prescribes.

A priest in the English-speaking world today is in a difficult position of often having to choose between following the GIRM, or following the text of the Sacramentary. Both are approved documents, and both are binding.

If a priest alters the end of the presidential prayer so that this prayer will conform to the requirements of the GIRM, that would not be an abuse. If however, he were to compose his own endings, not found in either the GIRM or the Sacramentary, it would be an abuse.

I suspect that the translators of the GIRM realized this disconnect, and chose not to translate the relevant text in #54, but instead to leave the wording of the prayer-endings in the original Latin, thereby avoiding the problem of having to admit that the current adaptations of the prayers are not in harmony with the Church’s directives on translation.

This will become a moot point once the new and improved translations are approved for liturgical use. In the meantime, priests must necessarily make a choice between the GIRM and the Sacramentary, since they can’t follow both.

 

[suren]

As for the first part of the question, the shorter “Per Christum Dominum nostrum” is used in the non-principle prayers of the reformed liturgies of the NO. (Somebody please correct me on this, if I am wrong.) In Matins, Lauds, Vespers, and the Holy Sacrifice, the collect for the day always ends with the longer “Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum…” and its variations. I suppose you can say that it adds to the solemnity of these principle liturgies. The shorter “Per Christum Dominum nostrum” is a newer formula and concludes the not-so-solemn prayers. This shorter conclusion is at the end of the Concluding Prayer of the Day Hours of the Office as well as at the end of the Offertory and Post-Communion Prayers of the Mass. I would imagine that they shortened the conclusion of some prayers in an effort to reduce repetitions in the liturgies.

There is one exception, at least in the English translations. With our current Missal, there are two options for the Collect for Sundays. One of these options is from the Missale Romanum and so has the longer “Per Dominum nostrum Jesum Christum…” The other of these options is newly composed and generally has the shorter “Per Christum Dominum nostrum” for a conclusion. I do not have the Missale Romanum and so cannot prove this.​

short prom dresses
women’s clothing