Mass Readings

  • Thread starter Thread starter di_stasio
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

di_stasio

Guest
Hi, I’m a new member to this forum.

I went to mass of Friday for The Assumption of The Blessed Virgin Mary, so was expecting the readings to be that of mass during the day.

However, as the lector began to read, it became clear that he was reading the readings of the Vigil Mass, even though the readings of Mass During the Day were printed out and left for people to take and follow. The Priest, who is a guest at our parish, then read the Gospel, which was for Mass during the Day.

I would like someone with the knowledge to tell me if this has in any way invalidated the Mass.

I have to say that this is by no means the only time that the incorrect readings have been used.

Many thanks to those who can help with this matter.

Yours in Christ

di stasio
 
di_stasio said:
I went to mass of Friday for The Assumption of The Blessed Virgin Mary, so was expecting the readings to be that of mass during the day.

However, as the lector began to read, it became clear that he was reading the readings of the Vigil Mass, even though the readings of Mass During the Day were printed out and left for people to take and follow. The Priest, who is a guest at our parish, then read the Gospel, which was for Mass during the Day.

I would like someone with the knowledge to tell me if this has in any way invalidated the Mass.

I have to say that this is by no means the only time that the incorrect readings have been used.
Click to expand...
It was most likely an accident.

If it were done intentionally then it may make the Mass illicit - illegal under Church law. But, even then it would still be a valid Mass.

Given that this has happened more than once then it is quite possible that it is being done intentionally. If the priest is knowingly allowing someone to use Readings that are not an option for that day (or if the priest himself is choosing the Readings) then he is committing a grave sin in abusing the Liturgy. But, the Mass is still valid.

Also, remember that there are often times options as to which Readings are permitted.

It would not hurt to just ask the priest why different Readings were uses.

James
 
Although it’s an unfortunate mistake, it does not invalidate the Mass. You might want to ask the pastor why that was done, especially since you had a printed version with the correct readings.
 
My guess is the lector simply marked the wrong page, and the fact that the Priest rad the correct Gospel suggests that they did not purposely change the readings.

Did the Priest have notes for his homily, and if so, did it make mention of any of the other readings besides the Gospel? This might be another clue, if he made no reference to the first two readings, that they were different than what he prepared for
 
I would like someone with the knowledge to tell me if this has in any way invalidated the Mass

**There are only four things that make a Mass invalid.
  1. Improper matter. (Doritos and Coke instead of bread and wine, for example.)
  2. Improper form. (Messing up the Words of Consecration in a way that makes their meaning unrecognizable, or omitting them.)
  3. Improper minister. (Not having a validly ordained priest.)
  4. Lack of intention. (That is DELIBERATELY intending to not consecrate, or confect, the Eucharist. With valid matter, form, and minister, the intention is presumed.)
Honest mistakes are simply that–mistakes.

Deliberate unauthorized changes are illicit, but do not invalidate the Mass.

Only the four things I mentioned do.**
 
bpbasilphx said:
I would like someone with the knowledge to tell me if this has in any way invalidated the Mass

**There are only four things that make a Mass invalid.
  1. Improper matter. (Doritos and Coke instead of bread and wine, for example.)**
Click to expand...
this one made me laugh in a PLEASE don’t ever let this happen kind of way. Or probably more correctly, ever happen again, because sadly, it probably has
 
I hope it doesn’t make it invalid. Some years back our lector read the readings for the fifth Saturday of Lent instead of the Annunciation. The priest tried to cover by reading the Gospel for the Saturday and adapting his homily. However, everyone noticed that I only did one reading not two, and the Psalm didn’t match. :o
 
Joe_Kelley said:
I hope it doesn’t make it invalid. Some years back our lector read the readings for the fifth Saturday of Lent instead of the Annunciation. The priest tried to cover by reading the Gospel for the Saturday and adapting his homily. However, everyone noticed that I only did one reading not two, and the Psalm didn’t match. :o
Click to expand...
Mistakes happen - it is as easy as turning the page wrong! What is fun is watching the expression on the face of the reader when they end up on the wrong reading - “Hey, this is not the reading I prepared myself for!”

That is what it is all about, just an error, keep that in mind and you will be at peace when it happens again (and it will). (It has even happened to the Priest when reading the Gospel only he caught it and started over and read the proper one).

Brenda V.
 
I would expect the lector (or more correct reader) to have known what is the correct reading for that day before the mass. This is easy to get from the USCCB web page. The lector should have compared it with the lectionary. If htere is any question check with the Priest. If the Priest told the lector to read that well then its the Priests fault.
 
hilde_the_dog said:
I would expect the lector (or more correct reader) to have known what is the correct reading for that day before the mass. This is easy to get from the USCCB web page. The lector should have compared it with the lectionary. If htere is any question check with the Priest. If the Priest told the lector to read that well then its the Priests fault.
Click to expand...
It may be, as it so often happens in my parish on Holy Days of Obligation during the summer, regular lectors are not there. So, the priest asked a parishioner, just prior to Mass to do the readings. The person probably figured that priest had already set up the pages.

Jim
 
Brenda_V said:
Mistakes happen - it is as easy as turning the page wrong! What is fun is watching the expression on the face of the reader when they end up on the wrong reading - “Hey, this is not the reading I prepared myself for!”

That is what it is all about, just an error, keep that in mind and you will be at peace when it happens again (and it will). (It has even happened to the Priest when reading the Gospel only he caught it and started over and read the proper one).

Brenda V.
Click to expand...
It’s even funnier to watch the Priest’s face as they realize “these aren’t the readings I prepared a homily for”. I was at a Mass once said by the Bishop of a neighboring diocese, and for some reason, the group that put the Mass together did not use the normal Sunday readings, but rather another set, and after the first reading, the Bishop turned to his deacon and whispered in his ear, and while the Psalm was being sung, the Deacon snuck over, grabbed the Lectionary, and gave it to the Bishop to look at. When the Bishop stood up for his Homily, he said "Well, I had an excellent homily prepared…for different readings:D ". He proceeded to do a great homily none the less
 
bpbasilphx said:
There are only four things that make a Mass invalid.
  1. Improper matter. (Doritos and Coke instead of bread and wine, for example.)
  2. Improper form. (Messing up the Words of Consecration in a way that makes their meaning unrecognizable, or omitting them.)
  3. Improper minister. (Not having a validly ordained priest.)
  4. Lack of intention. (That is DELIBERATELY intending to not consecrate, or confect, the Eucharist. With valid matter, form, and minister, the intention is presumed.)
Click to expand...
Can you cite a source for this list? I’d like to noodle around in that and similar articles.
 
**
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpbasilphx View Post
There are only four things that make a Mass invalid.
  1. Improper matter. (Doritos and Coke instead of bread and wine, for example.)
  2. Improper form. (Messing up the Words of Consecration in a way that makes their meaning unrecognizable, or omitting them.)
  3. Improper minister. (Not having a validly ordained priest.)
  4. Lack of intention. (That is DELIBERATELY intending to not consecrate, or confect, the Eucharist. With valid matter, form, and minister, the intention is presumed.)
    Can you cite a source for this list? I’d like to noodle around in that and similar articles.**
**All Sacraments require the proper Matter, Form, Minister, and Intention. This is usual Western (and to an extent, Eastern), sacramental theology. It’s probably covered in classical catechisms.

(I just asked my associate, and he said he was taught this in the 3rd grade, and again in high school.)

I would NOT suggest checking Google as I did, as it led to several
schismatic and sedevacantist sites.**
 
bpbasilphx said:
**
Quote:
Originally Posted by bpbasilphx View Post
There are only four things that make a Mass invalid…

All Sacraments require the proper Matter, Form, Minister, and Intention.
Click to expand...
Thanks. My question is actually directed at the distinction between the Eucharist and the mass. A priest may confect the Eucharist validly but illicitly anytime, anywhere. But would that always constitute a valid mass, if all parts of the mass other than the consecration were omitted?
 
SenorSalsa said:
this one made me laugh in a PLEASE don’t ever let this happen kind of way. Or probably more correctly, ever happen again, because sadly, it probably has
Click to expand...
Not Doritos, but potato chips and Coke. It was maybe 1966, and boy did that priest get in trouble.
 
A priest may confect the Eucharist validly but illicitly anytime, anywhere. But would that always constitute a valid mass, if all parts of the mass other than the consecration were omitted?

**I would wonder about why there would ever be a cause to consecrate the Eucharist WITHOUT the complete Liturgy.

The 1928 American Book of Common Prayer, as well as the 1661, has a shortened emergency service for the dying, but I’m not aware of any pre-reformation precedents.**
 
bpbasilphx said:
I would wonder about why there would ever be a cause to consecrate the Eucharist WITHOUT the complete Liturgy.
Click to expand...
I’m not aware of any legitimate cause. I’m merely curious about the technicality. It seems to me you can have a valid Eucharist, in the absence of a valid mass. If true, it begs the question, what things outside the Eucharist can invalidate the mass. Is it even really proper to describe the mass as valid or invalid, or is that terminology best limited to the Sacrament of the Eucharist?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top