The very idea that you want to equate murder with a few mistaken words speaks volumes of what i said earlier about lack of forgiveness. Far as we know this was nothing more than an honest mistake. But if you feels its worth the anger you espouse thats your deal.
I am NOT equating murder to changing the words. What I am saying is that we don’t need to be tolerant of things that were wrong.
Yes, considering the paten, I, too, doubt the substituted word was a “mistake” … but it’s all very 1970s, so it could be a reversion to bad practices from the past. I wonder how old this priest is? Anyway, I’m kind of surprised there wasn’t a glass “chalice” too.
You’re skirting the issue. Obviously, the person doing it thinks there is a point or they wouldn’t be doing it. Generally, there is a point the priest is trying to get across when they do this. I’m not saying that makes it right. I’m just saying, a conscious change to the Mass texts is going to be motivated by some sort of agenda and this error seemed to have no motivation behind it. Also, the word that was substituted out is hardly one that liberal priests tend to find offensive. The word that was substituted in doesn’t seem to make sense in the context. That’s why I find it likely that it was unintentional.
Amen. The priest actually talked about this in his homily today! We should be thinking about our Lord, not thinking about who should or should not be receiving communion, who isn’t dressed properly, who doesn’t kneel, etc., etc.
We still don’t know if it was deliberate, or a mistake. And we won’t, unless and until the OP asks the priest.
No I’m not, I already addressed it earlier. I said that it may be unintentional, but my hunch is that it’s not, since the priest is already ok with violating the rubrics.
A one-word, one-time variation is not a real abuse (as long as it wasn’t a change in the consecration). But the bolded above most certainly is.
Masses are not licit or illicit in the specifics of how they are said. An illicit Mass is one that is said without permissions or in an unapproved location. The change of words is illicit since it is not wording in the approved missal but it doesn’t change the characterization of the Mass.
A priest who puts his own preferences above the direction of the Church is not demonstrating love for Jesus Christ, his Church or the Mass.
thank you for this. have done most of these, i feel so ashamed, cant imagine i thought about this today during mass, and now i find it here today. God works in his ways, am sure next time i fall short of this i will remember your message. so thank you.
No one is accusing! I simply said that 1) his action was wrong, and 2) his intentions may have been wrong. If you disagree that his action was objectively wrong (weather he intended it or not), please come out and say it so we can just move on with this discussion!
Were you at the same Mass as the OP? How do you know it was a “wonderful” celebration and not a liturgical mess?
This is a place to ask legitimate questions. Many of these questions can be answered with Church documents.Again, as often repeated in this forum, individuals need to go to the source and get as much clarification as possible* before* any accusations are made.
Hate to say it, but it’s not surprising to me. Not because I hate Jesuits (one of the best bishops in the country, the bishop in the diocese north of me, Bishop Robert Morlino was a jesuit before becoming a bishop), but because they often play it loosey-goosey with the rubrics at Mass.