Prayer after the priest washes his hands at Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter meg
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

meg

Guest
Is it correct, or is it allowed, that the priest substitute “…for the praise and glory of God’s name”, rather than “for the praise and glory of His name” in the prayer that is said just after the washing of hands?Also — is there a name for this prayer?Thanks.
 
meg said:
Is it correct, or is it allowed, that the priest substitute “…for the praise and glory of God’s name”, rather than “for the praise and glory of His name” in the prayer that is said just after the washing of hands?Also — is there a name for this prayer?Thanks.
Click to expand...
I’ve always known it as the “Invitation to Prayer”. The part that you refer to is actually the laity’s response to the invitation. So it is not a part of what the priest prays although he can respond with the congregation. It is pretty much known that the Mass is a public prayer and not the private prayer of the priest. He may not change any words of the Mass. I know that we are seeing this more and more during many liturgies. While those little changes may sound innocent enough and pertinent the priest does not have the liberty to make those changes. It is exactly because the Mass is a public prayer to be adhered to be all of the clergy that we have the unification that we have. Anyway, there are many larger abuses than the one you stated here… God bless…teachccd 🙂
 
meg said:
Is it correct, or is it allowed, that the priest substitute “for the praise and glory of God’s name”, rather than “for the praise and glory of His name” in the prayer that is said just after the washing of hands? Also is there a name for this prayer?
Click to expand...
This prayer, like most Catholic prayers, is known by its incipit, that is, the opening word or words of the prayer in Latin; e.g. Catholics say the “Our Father” (Pater noster) rather than the “Lord’s Prayer”, and we pray the “Hail Mary” (Ave Maria) and the “Glory be [to the Father]” (Gloria Patri), etc. The prayer spoken by the priest at this part of the Mass is called the Orate fratres (“Pray, brethren…”); the response by the congregation is the Suscipiat (“May [the Lord] accept…”).

The proper words of the prayer (in the present English translation) are “Pray, brethren (or ‘brothers and sisters’, etc.), that our sacrifice may acceptable to God, the Almighty Father” to which the whole congregation (not the priest!) responds “May the Lord accept this sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of His name, for our good, and for the good of all His Church.”

No one has the right to change these words. We do not say “for the praise and glory of God’s name” nor “for the good of all this Church”. It is illicit to make such a change. (And the priest doesn’t say this response anyway.)

In a couple of years, the English translation of this prayer will change slightly, to better reflect the Latin original. The priest will say “Pray, brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may acceptable to God, the Almighty Father,” to which we will respond “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of His name, for our good, and for the good of all His holy Church.”

Note the two changes. The Latin prayer does not say “our sacrifice” but rather “my sacrifice and yours”, to distinguish between the bread and wine (soon to be the Eucharist) offered by the priest, and the personal sacrifices and offerings which we present to God with the bread and wine (and with the Eucharist). The other change is that the word “holy” is restored to the translation; it is missing from the current translation. Why? I have no idea. The translators seem to have simply dropped it from the prayer altogether!
 
Thank you for your responses. I very much appreciate it.

Teachccd, I must disagree with your statement that there are “much larger abuses” to worry about. It’s the seemingly small things like this that wear at authentic liturgy ---- and when the small things are ignored, the larger abuses are more apt to creep in, also.
 
meg said:
Is it correct, or is it allowed, that the priest substitute “…for the praise and glory of God’s name”, rather than “for the praise and glory of His name” in the prayer that is said just after the washing of hands?Also — is there a name for this prayer?Thanks.
Click to expand...
As Japhy said, no one is allowed to change the words.

It’s interesting though that it’s one of the changes that ICEL wanted to make when they started the new translation. In fact, it’s one of the changes they originally submitted and which was roundly rejected. Here is a quote from the CDW’s March 2002 “Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal”
C. After the Orate, fratres, the people’s response Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis . . . has been distorted, apparently for purposes of “inclusive language”: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good, and the good of all the Church.” The insertion of the possessive God’s gives the impression that the Lord who accepts the sacrifice is different from God whose name is glorified by it. The Church is no longer his Church, and is no longer called holy * a flaw in the previous translation that one might have hoped would be corrected.
Click to expand...
 
meg said:
Thank you for your responses. I very much appreciate it.

Teachccd, I must disagree with your statement that there are “much larger abuses” to worry about. It’s the seemingly small things like this that wear at authentic liturgy ---- and when the small things are ignored, the larger abuses are more apt to creep in, also.
Click to expand...
You are 100% correct here. I’m sorry if I implied that this should be ignored. I’ve been to some liturgies where some REAL crazy abuses have taken place and I was just commenting on that. In my post I indicated that nothing in the Mass should be changed. Thank you for noting this…teachccd
 
japhy said:
The other change is that the word “holy” is restored to the translation; it is missing from the current translation. Why? I have no idea. The translators seem to have simply dropped it from the prayer altogether!
Click to expand...
I recently attended a workshop devoted to the new revised wordings which will be a more accurate translation of the Latin. If I recall correctly, when the vernacular was changed to local language our instructor told us that the translators were looking more at the “spirit of the text” than the words themselves. Rome, and rightfully so, has called for all translations to be as literal as possible. The necessary changes to all affected parts of the Mass/prayers will be implemented in 2011/2012.
 
Phemie said:
As Japhy said, no one is allowed to change the words.

It’s interesting though that it’s one of the changes that ICEL wanted to make when they started the new translation. In fact, it’s one of the changes they originally submitted and which was roundly rejected. Here is a quote from the CDW’s March 2002 “Observations on the English-language Translation of the Roman Missal”
Click to expand...
Phemie,
Thanks for providing that quote. I had a hard time reading it because of font-size. It’s important for Catholics to understand just why this illicit change to the Mass cannot be done. For the benefit of the readers, here’s the text again:

C. After the Orate, fratres, the people’s response Suscipiat Dominus sacrificium de manibus tuis . . . has been distorted, apparently for purposes of “inclusive language”: “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands for the praise and glory of God’s name, for our good, and the good of all the Church.” The insertion of the possessive God’s gives the impression that the Lord who accepts the sacrifice is different from God whose name is glorified by it. The Church is no longer his Church, and is no longer called holy, a flaw in the previous translation that one might have hoped would be corrected.
 
The Latin prayer does not say “our sacrifice” but rather “my sacrifice and yours”, to distinguish between the bread and wine (soon to be the Eucharist) offered by the priest, and the personal sacrifices and offerings which we present to God with the bread and wine (and with the Eucharist).
**Since the word for “sacrifice” is singular and said only once, your interpretation is not accurate.

The Mass is NOT something the Priest does all by himself, even if customary lay piety held this notion.**
 
bpbasilphx said:
The Latin prayer does not say “our sacrifice” but rather “my sacrifice and yours”, to distinguish between the bread and wine (soon to be the Eucharist) offered by the priest, and the personal sacrifices and offerings which we present to God with the bread and wine (and with the Eucharist).
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it was. I’ll let Pope Pius XII, in his encyclical Mediator Dei, take it from here:
85. … [T]he faithful do offer the divine Victim, though in a different sense [from the priest].
  1. This has already been stated in the clearest terms by some of Our predecessors and some Doctors of the Church. “Not only,” says Innocent III of immortal memory, “do the priests offer the sacrifice, but also all the faithful: for what the priest does personally by virtue of his ministry, the faithful do collectively by virtue of their intention.” We are happy to recall one of St. Robert Bellarmine’s many statements on this subject. “The sacrifice,” he says “is principally offered in the person of Christ. Thus the oblation that follows the consecration is a sort of attestation that the whole Church consents in the oblation made by Christ, and offers it along with Him.”
  2. Moreover, the rites and prayers of the eucharistic sacrifice signify and show no less clearly that the oblation of the Victim is made by the priests in company with the people. For not only does the sacred minister, after the oblation of the bread and wine when he turns to the people, say the significant prayer: “Pray brethren, that my sacrifice and yours may be acceptable to God the Father Almighty;” but also the prayers by which the divine Victim is offered to God are generally expressed in the plural number: and in these it is indicated more than once that the people also participate in this august sacrifice inasmuch as they offer the same. …
  3. … It is fitting, then, that the Christian people should also desire to know in what sense they are said in the canon of the Mass to offer up the sacrifice. To satisfy such a pious desire, then, We shall here explain the matter briefly and concisely.
  4. First of all the more extrinsic explanations are these: it frequently happens that the faithful assisting at Mass join their prayers alternately with those of the priest, and sometimes - a more frequent occurrence in ancient times - they offer to the ministers at the altar bread and wine to be changed into the body and blood of Christ, and, finally, by their alms they get the priest to offer the divine victim for their intentions.
  5. But there is also a more profound reason why all Christians, especially those who are present at Mass, are said to offer the sacrifice.
  6. In this most important subject it is necessary, in order to avoid giving rise to a dangerous error, that we define the exact meaning of the word “offer.” The unbloody immolation at the words of consecration, when Christ is made present upon the altar in the state of a victim, is performed by the priest and by him alone, as the representative of Christ and not as the representative of the faithful. But it is because the priest places the divine victim upon the altar that he offers it to God the Father as an oblation for the glory of the Blessed Trinity and for the good of the whole Church. Now the faithful participate in the oblation, understood in this limited sense, after their own fashion and in a twofold manner, namely, because they not only offer the sacrifice by the hands of the priest, but also, to a certain extent, in union with him. It is by reason of this participation that the offering made by the people is also included in liturgical worship.
Click to expand...
 
Gizmo79 said:
I recently attended a workshop devoted to the new revised wordings which will be a more accurate translation of the Latin. If I recall correctly, when the vernacular was changed to local language our instructor told us that the translators were looking more at the “spirit of the text” than the words themselves. Rome, and rightfully so, has called for all translations to be as literal as possible. The necessary changes to all affected parts of the Mass/prayers will be implemented in 2011/2012.
Click to expand...
You might be interested in my book, due to be published shortly. See my signature. 🙂
 
There is not only one sacrifice offered in the Mass: to the Eucharist is joined all the sacrifices and offerings of the whole Church
I disagree. There is only ONE perfect Sacrfice offered in the Eucharist–the Immaculate Lamb Himself.

Period.

To say otherwise is Pelagianism, because we HAVE nothing to offer, save Christ Himself.

And Pelagianism is by no means traditional.
 
bpbasilphx said:
There is not only one sacrifice offered in the Mass: to the Eucharist is joined all the sacrifices and offerings of the whole Church
Click to expand...
The offering of ourselves is by no means perfect; nor is the offering of ourselves acceptable apart from the offering of Christ himself. But we do offer ourselves along with Christ in the Eucharist to the Father, who accepts him and us with him.
bpbasilphx said:
To say otherwise is Pelagianism, because we HAVE nothing to offer, save Christ Himself.
Click to expand...
We are all called to offer ourselves as spiritual sacrifices to the Father. That’s not Pelagian.

Some Vatican II quotes, for good measure:

By offering the Immaculate Victim, not only through the hands of the priest, but also with him, they should learn also to offer themselves. (Sacrosanctum Concilium 48)

Taking part in the Eucharistic sacrifice, which is the fount and apex of the whole Christian life, they offer the Divine Victim to God, and offer themselves along with It. (Lumen Gentium 11)

For all their works, prayers and apostolic endeavors, their ordinary married and family life, their daily occupations, their physical and mental relaxation, if carried out in the Spirit, and even the hardships of life, if patiently borne – all these become “spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ.” Together with the offering of the Lord’s body, they are most fittingly offered in the celebration of the Eucharist. (Lumen Gentium 34)

[P]riests must instruct their people to offer to God the Father the Divine Victim in the Sacrifice of the Mass, and to join to it the offering of their own lives. (Presbyterorum Ordinis 5)
Click to expand...
 
meg said:
Is it correct, or is it allowed, that the priest substitute “…for the praise and glory of God’s name”, rather than “for the praise and glory of His name” in the prayer that is said just after the washing of hands?Also — is there a name for this prayer?Thanks.
Click to expand...
When ICEL submitted their English translation of the Roman Missal in the early 2000s, they submitted “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of God’s name…”

This was roundly rejected by the Congregation for Divine Worship which responded by saying that the submitted form gave the impression that “the Lord” and “God” were not the same being. So no, nobody had the right to change what’s already there and even more so when it changes the meaning.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top