Priest changing Words

[Two_of_Clubs]

Hello, I had some questions about a valid consecration.

Liturgical abuses unfortunately abound in today’s church. I suppose it’s an effort to become more seeker sensitive. Anyway, I had the pleasure of attending a pretty irreverent Mass, and it’s validity was questionable. The aspect of the Mass that made me worry was the consecration. The priest performed the consecration himself in its entirety. He elevated the Host, but there were a couple of suspect things that took place during the celebration.

For starters, he altered the words of the consecration, saying things like “He took the chalice and gave it to his friends” and “happy are they who come to the table of transformation”. He did, in fact, say, “This is my body…This is my blood.” However, the other alterations lead me to believe the consecration wasn’t valid.

Finally, instead of raising the goblet, he elevated the jar that contained the wine. The goblet was present on the altar, and he elevated that at the end during the great “Amen”. During the actual consecration, though, he raised the jar. I think he might of done this because of the volume of people in the church, but I don’t know. It seemed like a bad move.

What do you all make of this? The Mass was certainly illicit, no doubt about it. But I don’t think I should go there again if I want to fulfill any future Sunday obligation if the Mass is invalid.

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

By “goblet” I assume you mean "chalice, and by “jar” I assume you mean “flagon.” While what you describe are incorrect liturgically, neither invalidates the Mass.

 

[Gorgias]

Hello, I had some questions about a valid consecration.

Wow. Given your most recent threads, this must’ve been a Mass that really made you unhappy. Is it the same one with the seminarian preacher?

Liturgical abuses unfortunately abound in today’s church.

They really don’t.

Anyway, I had the pleasure of attending a pretty irreverent Mass

Lack of what one person thinks is ‘appropriate reverence’ doesn’t make a Mass ‘invalid’.

For starters, he altered the words of the consecration, saying things like “He took the chalice and gave it to his friends”

Two thoughts: first, as memory serves, there is a Eucharistic Prayer that uses this language. I think it’s a Mass for Children; but, nevertheless, this language does not make a Mass ‘invalid’.

Second: “He took the chalice…” is not part of the ‘words of consecration’. Rather, it’s the sentence that precedes some of the words of consecration.

and “happy are they who come to the table of transformation”.

This, too, is not part of the words of consecration. I think that you’re referring to the priest’s prayer that follows the Agnus Dei, in which he says, “Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who takes away the sins of the world. Blessed are those called to the supper of the Lamb.” Even if a priest messes up this line – intentionally or unintentionally – he hasn’t altered the words of consecration.

He did, in fact, say, “This is my body…This is my blood.” However, the other alterations lead me to believe the consecration wasn’t valid.

From what you’ve written, I would say that you’re mistaken.

Finally, instead of raising the goblet, he elevated the jar that contained the wine. The goblet was present on the altar, and he elevated that at the end during the great “Amen”. During the actual consecration, though, he raised the jar.

Did he pour wine from the pitcher into the chalice? Or did he simply pour the consecrated species from the pitcher into chalices following the consecration? If so, then what he did is illicit, but not invalid.

What do you all make of this? The Mass was certainly illicit, no doubt about it. But I don’t think I should go there again if I want to fulfill any future Sunday obligation if the Mass is invalid.

I think that nothing you’ve said proves that the Mass is ‘invalid’. I also think that, if going to Mass there causes you to act as ‘liturgical police’ rather than ‘prayerful Catholic’, then there are probably better parishes that you might consider attending. Not because this one has an ‘invalid Mass’ – but just because you should find a place where you can actually feel comfortable praying at Mass.

 

[Two_of_Clubs]

Wow. Given your most recent threads, this must’ve been a Mass that really made you unhappy. Is it the same one with the seminarian preacher?
.

I’ll admit, the statement I made about liturgical abuses abounding was unsubstantiated. I suppose I’ve just been unlucky with picking churches. To answer your question, no it was not the same Mass.

I appreciate your systematic, frank, and sober response to my post. I mean it (I don’t type these things for my health). I was unaware that there was a form of the mass that included those words. I looked through the liturgical books they provide in church, and I couldn’t find a prayer with those words. I trust your judgement, however.

Your point about “the table of transformation” was great, too. Thank you for it. It was a careless lapse in judgement on my part to sandwich those words in as part of the consecration.

I don’t usually act as liturgical police, but this church was “off the wall”, as the saying goes. I didn’t even bother to mention the band that was playing.

 

[Two_of_Clubs]

By “goblet” I assume you mean "chalice, and by “jar” I assume you mean “flagon.” While what you describe are incorrect liturgically, neither invalidates the Mass.

I suppose I suppose that fourth Harry Potter book had more of an influence on me than I thought. As for “flagon”, that is a new one to me.

 

[ProVobis]

What do you all make of this? The Mass was certainly illicit, no doubt about it. But I don’t think I should go there again if I want to fulfill any future Sunday obligation if the Mass is invalid.

I’ve subscribed to the notion that as long as you attended Mass in good faith, you’ve fulfilled your obligation. I wouldn’t spend the rest of my life attentively looking for errors and deviation from the norm on the part of the priest.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

I was unaware –

I think these are the key words. Unless you’re familiar with all the valid options that are available, why not relax and work from the assumption that the priest knows what he’s doing. Prayer is much deeper when you’re not constantly pulling out of it to say “I’m not familiar with that, it must be wrong” or “What did he just do? It must be wrong.” Trust that the priest – who is authorized to celebrate the Mass – is doing OK.

 

[Neofight]

Hello, I had some questions about a valid consecration.

Liturgical abuses unfortunately abound in today’s church. I suppose it’s an effort to become more seeker sensitive. Anyway, I had the pleasure of attending a pretty irreverent Mass, and it’s validity was questionable. The aspect of the Mass that made me worry was the consecration. The priest performed the consecration himself in its entirety. He elevated the Host, but there were a couple of suspect things that took place during the celebration.

For starters, he altered the words of the consecration, saying things like “He took the chalice and gave it to his friends” and “happy are they who come to the table of transformation”. He did, in fact, say, “This is my body…This is my blood.” However, the other alterations lead me to believe the consecration wasn’t valid.

Finally, instead of raising the goblet, he elevated the jar that contained the wine. The goblet was present on the altar, and he elevated that at the end during the great “Amen”. During the actual consecration, though, he raised the jar. I think he might of done this because of the volume of people in the church, but I don’t know. It seemed like a bad move.

What do you all make of this? The Mass was certainly illicit, no doubt about it. But I don’t think I should go there again if I want to fulfill any future Sunday obligation if the Mass is invalid.

I’ve never heard of scrupulosity by proxy, but given your preoccupation with liturgical abuse, I’m beginning to wonder. Do you have a spiritual advisor or director? You should find one.

 

[johnnyc176]

Hello, I had some questions about a valid consecration.

Liturgical abuses unfortunately abound in today’s church. I suppose it’s an effort to become more seeker sensitive. Anyway, I had the pleasure of attending a pretty irreverent Mass, and it’s validity was questionable. The aspect of the Mass that made me worry was the consecration. The priest performed the consecration himself in its entirety. He elevated the Host, but there were a couple of suspect things that took place during the celebration.

For starters, he altered the words of the consecration, saying things like “He took the chalice and gave it to his friends” and “happy are they who come to the table of transformation”. He did, in fact, say, “This is my body…This is my blood.” However, the other alterations lead me to believe the consecration wasn’t valid.

Finally, instead of raising the goblet, he elevated the jar that contained the wine. The goblet was present on the altar, and he elevated that at the end during the great “Amen”. During the actual consecration, though, he raised the jar. I think he might of done this because of the volume of people in the church, but I don’t know. It seemed like a bad move.

What do you all make of this? The Mass was certainly illicit, no doubt about it. But I don’t think I should go there again if I want to fulfill any future Sunday obligation if the Mass is invalid.

Nothing wrong with questioning the priest afterwards for an explanation especially when the Liturgy is so important for catechesis and evangelization.

cardinalnewmansociety.org/CatholicEducationDaily/DetailsPage/tabid/102/ArticleID/4225/Cardinal-Burke-Reverent-Liturgy-Essential-to-Catholic-College-Education.aspx

The Christian liturgy remains the essential source of our understanding of the faith and of its practice in a good and holy life,

zenit.org/en/articles/bringing-the-liturgy-back-to-the-real-vatican-ii

Liturgical law disciplines us so that we have the freedom to worship God, otherwise we’re captured – we’re the victims or slaves either of our own individual ideas, relative ideas of this or that, or of the community or whatever else. But the liturgical law safeguards the objectivity of sacred worship and opens up that space within us, that freedom to offer worship to God as He desires, so we can be sure we’re not worshipping ourselves or, at the same time, as Aquinas says, some kind of falsification of divine worship.

If it is causing confusion then the priest should be made aware.

 

[SMH_2015]

I’ve subscribed to the notion that as long as you attended Mass in good faith, you’ve fulfilled your obligation. I wouldn’t spend the rest of my life attentively looking for errors and deviation from the norm on the part of the priest.

 

[pianistclare]

I think its more charitable to give the office of the priesthood due respect. In fact, it’s highly discouraged on CAF to be so critical. Most of us didn’t go to seminary and don’t work under the pressures and intense scrutiny that the priests do. Give the mercy you expect. Be good yourself at Mass. See if your heart is softened towards the sons of Our Lady standing in persona Christi for us.

 

[R_H_Benson]

The trend on this forum seems to be that we as the lay faithful should shut our mouths and accept the abysmal liturgical status quo, and as soon as we open them - even with sincere questions - we are accused of ulterior motives or being “uncharitable”. It is not difficult for the priest to simply “say the black and do the red”. We deserve this. But far more importantly Our Lord deserves this. The Mass is offered for the glory of God. It is precisely because the priest stands at the altar in *persona Christi *that we as the faithful should expect from him a Mass that is faithful to the rubrics that the Church has authorized. Anything else is objectively an abuse.

Why is this issue always approached from the perspective that we should just accept that the liturgy is going to be abused in some manner? Why shouldn’t we expect a Mass that is reverent and faithful to the rubrics? And lastly, why is it always the faithful who desire a reverent, licit Mass who must cede to a priest who is acting irreverently or illicitly? Where do our loyalties lie? With the emotions of the priest - with the idea that if we say anything or “complain” about the manner in which he offers the Mass that we might “hurt his feelings”? Or do our loyalties lie with Our Lord Jesus Christ - insofar as we make our priests aware of our dissatisfaction with their liturgical abuses not out of a sense of self-righteousness but from a sincere desire to see the Mass offered in a manner that is reverent and in accord with the rubrics the Church has so painstakingly and meticulously laid out so that the manner in which the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated truly reflects our interior beliefs and gives honor and glory to God to the fullest extent.

 

[PhiloMed]

The trend on this forum seems to be that we as the lay faithful should shut our mouths and accept the abysmal liturgical status quo, and as soon as we open them - even with sincere questions - we are accused of ulterior motives or being “uncharitable”. It is not difficult for the priest to simply “say the black and do the red”. We deserve this. But far more importantly Our Lord deserves this. The Mass is offered for the glory of God. It is precisely because the priest stands at the altar in *persona Christi *that we as the faithful should expect from him a Mass that is faithful to the rubrics that the Church has authorized. Anything else is objectively an abuse. Why is this issue always approached from the perspective that we should just accept that the liturgy is going to be abused in some manner? Why shouldn’t we expect a Mass that is reverent and faithful to the rubrics? And lastly, why is it always the faithful who desire a reverent, licit Mass who must cede to a priest who is acting irreverently or illicitly? Where do our loyalties lie? With the emotions of the priest - with the idea that if we say anything or “complain” about the manner in which he offers the Mass that we might “hurt his feelings”? Or do our loyalties lie with Our Lord Jesus Christ - insofar as we make our priest’s aware of our dissatisfaction with their liturgical abuses not out of a sense of self-righteousness but from a sincere desire to see the Mass offered in a manner that is reverent and in accord with the rubrics the Church has so painstakingly and meticulously laid out so that the manner in which the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated truly reflects our interior beliefs and gives honor and glory to God to the fullest extent.

No. Actually, the trend is to not pick every singnle thing that happens before, during and after the mass to the point that it is clear many are not paying any attention to Our Lord but are instead more concerned about a list of grievances for which to complain.

 

[R_H_Benson]

No. Actually, the trend is to not pick every singnle thing that happens before, during and after the mass to the point that it is clear many are not paying any attention to Our Lord but are instead more concerned about a list of grievances for which to complain.

It is because many are paying attention to Our Lord that they become increasingly aware of the abuses. Your vocabulary makes my point: you call having issue with the liturgical abuses committed by the priest “complaints”, as if to make the lay faithful - who are justified in their grievances - look like petty complainers. You criticize the laity who only desire a reverent Mass while giving the illicit actions of the priest a free pass.

 

[pianistclare]

The trend on this forum seems to be that we as the lay faithful should shut our mouths and accept the abysmal liturgical status quo, and as soon as we open them - even with sincere questions - we are accused of ulterior motives or being “uncharitable”. It is not difficult for the priest to simply “say the black and do the red”. We deserve this. But far more importantly Our Lord deserves this. The Mass is offered for the glory of God. It is precisely because the priest stands at the altar in *persona Christi *that we as the faithful should expect from him a Mass that is faithful to the rubrics that the Church has authorized. Anything else is objectively an abuse.

Why is this issue always approached from the perspective that we should just accept that the liturgy is going to be abused in some manner? Why shouldn’t we expect a Mass that is reverent and faithful to the rubrics? And lastly, why is it always the faithful who desire a reverent, licit Mass who must cede to a priest who is acting irreverently or illicitly? Where do our loyalties lie? With the emotions of the priest - with the idea that if we say anything or “complain” about the manner in which he offers the Mass that we might “hurt his feelings”? Or do our loyalties lie with Our Lord Jesus Christ - insofar as we make our priest’s aware of our dissatisfaction with their liturgical abuses not out of a sense of self-righteousness but from a sincere desire to see the Mass offered in a manner that is reverent and in accord with the rubrics the Church has so painstakingly and meticulously laid out so that the manner in which the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass is celebrated truly reflects our interior beliefs and gives honor and glory to God to the fullest extent.

WHY? Because on the last day I don’t want to say that I chimed in with all the gripers.
Jesus will ask me why I didn’t give in charity the charity I expect.
If you feel quite comfortable not turning the other check…fine.
not me.

 

[R_H_Benson]

WHY? Because on the last day I don’t want to say that I chimed in with all the gripers.
Jesus will ask me why I didn’t give in charity the charity I expect.
If you feel quite comfortable not turning the other check…fine.
not me.

There is nothing uncharitable about calling out liturgical abuse. The idea that it is somehow “griping” to expect the Mass to be offered in accordance with the rubrics is ridiculous - yet it seems to be the prevailing mindset. Griping implies a trivial matter. The Mass is as far from trivial as possible. Have we become so backwards that we now actually accuse fellow Catholics of being uncharitable for desiring that their priests offer a licit Mass?