My priest changed Jesus words today

[AlNg]

The Precious Blood didn’t get consecrated.

I don’t see how you could know that. Jesus said: “For where two or three gather in my name, there am I with them.” Since Jesus was there He could have easily consecrated the Wine even if the priest had made a mistake and omitted some words. But even if Jesus did not divine sanction to the consecration of the wine, He was there with those Christians who gathered in his Name and as always, they were blessed by His presence and divine grace. Further, the Assyrian Church of the East in one of its Eucharistic prayers does not have the words of consecration and yet still the Roman Church teaches that the Assyrian Church of the East has true Sacraments. If the words of consecration were absolutely required for the True Sacrament, how come Rome recognizes that the Assyrian Church of the East has true Sacraments?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

The Precious Blood didn’t get consecrated.

I don’t see how you could know that.

Because the Church prescribes very specific words of consecration for the Precious Blood in the Latin Rite (as well as many other rites). If a rite has organically developed without such words, as in the Assyrian Church of the East (I think you must be referring to the Liturgy of Addai and Mari), so be it, that too was the work of the Holy Spirit through the ages, but the Church the right, the prerogative, and even the obligation to specify what has to take place to consecrate the elements, and what cannot be done without. The Church in her wisdom, guided by the Holy Spirit, determined that the Assyrian liturgy was indeed a true Mass with a true consecration, even though that consecration cannot be “pinned down” to a specific moment, as it is the Latin Rite. For lack of a better way to put it, Eastern Christian spirituality is not so concerned with such questions as “precisely when does such-and-such happen?”, rather, it is more concerned with “how things end up”. But the Latin Rite is more precisely circumscribed than that, and cares equally for both.

No doubt everyone at the Mass, sincerely disposed and “gathered in His name”, received divine grace, but fact is, they did not receive the Precious Blood. Assuming no one “caught it” at the time (and I find it difficult to believe that nobody would have noticed), needless to say, there would be no subjective moral fault.

What’s done is done. The priest needs to be made aware of his inadvertent error, and if his priestly formation is soundly orthodox, he will know that he needs to “resume this Mass” privately, so that a true sacrifice will have been confected and completed. (Not sure what he would do about receiving a host, I assume he could just retrieve a previously consecrated one from the ciborium.)

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

There is a very frightening passage at the end of the book of revelation that hits on this very topic. Maybe you should tell him to read it.

 

[Rozellelily]

I think it depends on the motive.

I.e., if the priest was just using his discretion to make it understand that Jesus was referring to men and women, ok, but if instead it was because he had been influenced by some feminist ideology then I think it’s wrong and could be a slippery slope.
It depends of how the original language of Jesus was used. For example, I speak Croatian and we say “čovjek” which literally means man. But the way this word is used, for example: “kad čovjek želi na more” (when a man want’s to go to the sea), can be referencing both men and women.
So it means man, but in speech it is not solely referring to males, if that makes sense.

 

[Hodos]

I don’t know why I feel that some may think that’s fine but just wondering if anyone here thinks it’s wrong what he did?

Not really, the underlying Greek text is unclear. The masculine plural form of men is used for a group of men, and for mixed company of men and women. Given Christ’s ministry to all and the underlying Greek grammar of the passage, I don’t think that your priest is out of line in reading the text the way he did. Probably it would make more sense to the ear to say fishers of people, which many translations use. Bottom line, it wasn’t unfaithful to the text.

 

[stpurl]

Except that the entire USCCB has authorized a particular NAB reading. And the priest decided on his own that HE didn’t think the reading was clear enough about being ‘inclusive’.

At age 64 I have seen the ‘inclusive language’ fight from my preteen years. It isn’t pretty. And it really is not about being ‘inclusive’, it’s about power politics and division.

The proper place for the priest to address this is to READ WHAT THE TEXT SAYS and in his HOMILY to mention that of course Jesus was addressing a mixed group of people.

That would be an exercise in obedience AND in humility that would be a fine example for the people, instead of hearing the priest ‘riff off’ (plenty of us read the text because we have hearing problems or read it earlier in order to prepare to listen, and it’s jarring to hear something that ‘wasn’t there’).

 

[JimG]

I’m curious as to whether Jesus may actually have been speaking in Aramaic to his apostles, and how that language would have exressed “fishermen” and “fishers of men.”

 

[Hodos]

Except that the entire USCCB has authorized a particular NAB reading. And the priest decided on his own that HE didn’t think the reading was clear enough about being ‘inclusive’.

I don’t have a problem with enforcing liturgical discipline. I was addressing the question from a textual standpoint since the OP seemed as if she was concerned that the priest had somehow changed Jesus’ words, which he really didn’t. But if you don’t trust your priests to proclaim the text rightly, I can understand the concern.

 

[Pyjamarama]

I haven’t been to Mass since March.

 

[Usagi]

Greek actually does have the distinction between “humans” and “males,” and the word used there is the general one … so while I wouldn’t go so far as to translate it as “men and women,” “men” in the sense of male humans is also not what Jesus said (or at least not what Matthew wrote, since Jesus presumably said the original words in Aramaic).

 

[Gorgias]

The proper place for the priest to address this is to READ WHAT THE TEXT SAYS and in his HOMILY to mention that of course Jesus was addressing a mixed group of people.

That’s what I was thinking, too.

I’m curious as to whether Jesus may actually have been speaking in Aramaic to his apostles, and how that language would have exressed “fishermen” and “fishers of men.”

Yet, this is the Bible we’re talking about. So, since we believe it’s divinely inspired, we’d say that the words that are in the Bible are what God wanted to share with us. So, if it’s “anthropon” (that is, “humans”) in the Gospel, then that’s what God wanted to be expressed.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

There is a very frightening passage at the end of the book of revelation that hits on this very topic. Maybe you should tell him to read it.

I take it you are referring to Revelation (Apocalypse) 22:18-19 (Douay):

For I testify to every one that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book: If any man shall add to these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from these things that are written in this book.

John seems only to be referring to the book of Revelation itself, not the whole Bible. I do know that some evangelicals take this to refer to the Bible as a whole. The books of the Bible were not canonized, nor put in their usual order, until some time later.

(And an amusing side note: The Reader’s Digest Bible omits this passage. The whole idea behind the Reader’s Digest franchise is to edit and condense books and articles to make them more accessible. It was not until I got to college that I learned of the Morphodite Snowman in To Kill A Mockingbird — I had only read the RD Condensed Books version, which omitted this part of the novel. “Morphodite” is a Southern corruption of the word “hermaphrodite”. It hadn’t snowed in Maycomb for many years and the children were trying to make snowmen any way they could with a meager dusting of snow. Evidently something went wrong with the gender assignment of one of their snowmen.)

 

[ColoradoCatholic]

Seems to me it could apply to the whole bible anyways. Even if John may not have had that in mind, it is inspired scripture…

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Seems to me it could apply to the whole bible anyways. Even if John may not have had that in mind, it is inspired scripture…

I would look to the Fathers of the Church, and other perennial sources, for clarification on this matter. Curiously, Haydock doesn’t address it, and neither does Challoner in his notes to the Douay-Rheims Bible. As I said, surely Our Lord knew how the Bible would “end up”, and in which order the books would be commonly organized. If the Church does not have an official position on what Revelation 22:18-19 means, then I will concede a legitimate diversity of opinion can exist, but I maintain that it only refers to the Book of Revelation.

I do not advocate that any of Scripture be added to, or taken away from.

 

[Reverent_Howler]

We encounter priests and faithful who say “God” whenever a male pronoun refers to The Almighty in the Liturgy. This despite the fact that Jesus called God “Father”. Also rather poor linguistics which undermines the quality of a Catholic elementary school education. And all for the sake of pleasing a few people who seldom darken the church door.

Fishers are members of the weasel family, which include mink and otters btw. There was the story, some years, back of dozens of fishers being rescued from an ice floe by helicopter in Russia. Awfully trusting of those wild creatures to approach such a noisy machine, let alone board one. But they were no doubt desperate.

 

[edward_george1]

The laborers should be obedient to the master of the harvest. Jesus says some pretty stern things await those who stray and lead others astray.

Before ordination, every priest takes an oath to obey church teaching and law. A priest who knowingly alters the words of the Liturgy violates both.

-Fr ACEGC

 

[Tis_Bearself]

If anyone can do a better job, then they should leave the Harvest and become a worker (Clergy).

Women don’t have that option. If they did, I might very well have done just what you said.

Bottom line is the priest is supposed to read the text that’s in the approved Lectionary, not reword it in a way that he thinks is better.

If we show up at Mass and the priest is not reading the approved texts and prayers but instead is making it up, then we have a right to be concerned or perturbed about it. However, since we are limited in our efforts to do anything about it, the best strategy is probably to do what another priest in this thread suggested and just grit our teeth and put up with it until the generation of priests who generally do this all retire.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

The laborers should be obedient to the master of the harvest. Jesus says some pretty stern things await those who stray and lead others astray.

Before ordination, every priest takes an oath to obey church teaching and law. A priest who knowingly alters the words of the Liturgy violates both.

-Fr ACEGC

englands123:

If anyone can do a better job, then they should leave the Harvest and become a worker (Clergy).

Women don’t have that option. If they did, I might very well have done just what you said.

Bottom line is the priest is supposed to read the text that’s in the approved Lectionary, not reword it in a way that he thinks is better.

If we show up at Mass and the priest is not reading the approved texts and prayers but instead is making it up, then we have a right to be concerned or perturbed about it. However, since we are limited in our efforts to do anything about it, the best strategy is probably to do what another priest in this thread suggested and just grit our teeth and put up with it until the generation of priests who generally do this all retire.

I discerned the priesthood for two years while I was in undergraduate school — this despite my severely orthodox pastor telling me in no uncertain terms that I did not have a vocation, I could have gone searching for other priests until one told me what I wanted to hear, but I didn’t — and to this day, I still “feel the pull”, even though so many factors in my life militate against it (most of all my marital status and family responsibilities, not to mention age and general crankiness!).

Whatever “cooties” got into priestly formation and the priesthood in general from the period roughly from 1958 to 1998 — does “forty years” resonate with anyone else besides me? — I guess they will just have to run their course. As I said elsewhere, it’s going to take a hundred years to clean up all this mess. It is as though some priests just can’t leave the text of the Mass (and other sacraments) alone and not make changes to them — I’m reminded of Peter Sellers’ titular character in Dr Strangelove who couldn’t resist making a certain salute that has been forever ruined by an unfortunate accident of history, and had to hold his arm down to keep from making it!

 

[dochawk]

Bottom line is the priest is supposed to read the text that’s in the approved Lectionary, not reword it in a way that he thinks is better.

I think this is the best and most succinct wa that it’ been put here.

That, linguistically, a word that clearly includes everyone can be accurately translated two ways doesn’t mean that it’s appropriate for an individual, whether layman or priest, to override his bishop’s choice for liturgical use. It just isn’t his call.

(and, yes, I’m using “his” as the pronoun for unknown gender, not as a masculine pronoun.)

 

[gam197]

My pastor changed the Nicene Creed awhile ago . He was into inclusive language so he dropped the word Men out of “US MEN”

It took a while but many in the pews just said the “US Men” louder and finally, after a while he realized why bother and went back to the tradition.

Before this, I attended another church and the priest instructed everyone to stand prior to communion and stay standing. He assured everyone it was proper. I felt a little uncomfortable and continued to kneel at the appropriate time as I was so, so confused and this at the time was my regular parish. I was so uncomfortable and luckily we did move.

I still do not know if it is fine to stand during communion.