Priest Introducing the Gospel Reading?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Ghirardelli
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Ghirardelli

Guest
I know the Sacramentary says to introduce the Gospel reading with:

Deacon (or Priest): The Lord be with you. All: And also with you.
Deacon (or Priest): A reading from the Holy Gospel according to [Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John]…

Yet from one priest I hear:

Deacon (or Priest): May the Lord be with you. All: And also with you.
Deacon (or Priest): A proclamation of the Holy Gospel as recorded in [Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John]…

I know it’s not a “liturgical abuse” and it’s not a big deal in the least but I’m curious about the variance is all?
 
This MIGHT be a licit alternative. I don’t pretend to know.

It could also be anticipating (which would not be proper) the formula given in the new translation of the Roman Missal (which won’t be officially adopted until 2010 at the earliest).
 
Ghirardelli said:
I know the Sacramentary says to introduce the Gospel reading with:

Deacon (or Priest): The Lord be with you. All: And also with you.
Deacon (or Priest): A reading from the Holy Gospel according to [Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John]…

Yet from one priest I hear:

Deacon (or Priest): May the Lord be with you. All: And also with you.
Deacon (or Priest): A proclamation of the Holy Gospel as recorded in [Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John]…

I know it’s not a “liturgical abuse” and it’s not a big deal in the least but I’m curious about the variance is all?
Click to expand...
A proclamation is an official announcement and, an announcement is making something known publicly. That is exactly what the Deacon or Priest does when they read the Gospel out loud.
A reading doesn’t necessarily have to be read out loud. So, my guess is that someone decided to be more grammatically correct. Maybe too much time on their hands?
 
I thought the “May” form of the blessing was characteristic of the laity.
 
Ghirardelli said:
Yet from one priest I hear:

Deacon (or Priest): May the Lord be with you. All: And also with you.
Deacon (or Priest): A proclamation of the Holy Gospel as recorded in [Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John]…

I know it’s not a “liturgical abuse” and it’s not a big deal in the least but I’m curious about the variance is all?
Click to expand...
It is a “liturgical abuse” insofar as the priest is choosing to change the words of the Mass on his own accord (or following the instructions of someone else who has most likely made this change without authority). It’s not up to that priest to change the words of the Mass. He could exercise his creativity much more licitly in his homily and other pastoral work.
 
John_Lilburne said:
“[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.”

From vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html .
Click to expand...
Good luck with that…
 
japhy said:
It is a “liturgical abuse” insofar as the priest is choosing to change the words of the Mass on his own accord (or following the instructions of someone else who has most likely made this change without authority). It’s not up to that priest to change the words of the Mass. He could exercise his creativity much more licitly in his homily and other pastoral work.
Click to expand...
No, it’s not an “abuse” (Not every variance is an “abuse” ) although I’m not sure why any priest or deacon would fail to read what’s in the Sacramentary verbatim hence my question. It’s clearly more accurate in a technical/grammatical sense but that does not actually permit it of course.

This reminds me of several priests who end the reading

“The Good News of Jesus Christ, the Gospel of the Lord” rather than

“The Gospel of the Lord”
 
Ghirardelli said:
No, it’s not an “abuse” (Not every variance is an “abuse” ) … It’s clearly more accurate in a technical/grammatical sense but that does not actually permit it of course.
Click to expand...
The Church calls it a “reprobated practice” which “must cease” because it “render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable” and can potentially “distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.” (Redemptionis Sacramentum 59) The same document considers all that it treats of negatively, or that which contradicts what it treats of positively, as “numbered among the other abuses to be carefully avoided and corrected.” (Ibid 174) So I think it’s proper to call it an “abuse”.

The technical aspects of whether it’s “more accurate” than the words which should be said don’t come into play here. The words to be said “A reading of the Holy Gospel according to Matthew/Mark/Luke/John.”
Ghirardelli said:
… I’m not sure why any priest or deacon would fail to read what’s in the Sacramentary verbatim…
Click to expand...
That’s the $100,000 question! I can’t guess at the priest’s motives. Well, I could, but I have no guarantee of being right. Maybe he wants to get people’s attention by saying different words, or maybe he thinks the current words are bland, or maybe he thinks it’s his prerogative to change the words as he sees fit. I don’t know.
Ghirardelli said:
This reminds me of several priests who end the reading “The Good News of Jesus Christ, the Gospel of the Lord”
Click to expand...
That sort of embellishment is best saved for catechesis. The texts of the liturgy should not be altered by a priest for the purposes of catechesis; rather, he should catechize on the liturgy. Why not say “This is my body, by means of transubstantiation, the changing of the substance of bread into that of my body, which will be given up on the cross for you”, then?
 
Wondering if the Priest in question is from outside the U.S., perhaps where English is not the main language? I am aware of occasions where such Priests did not use the usual wording, and wonder if that was due to issues of translation or the accepted usage in their home country?
 
chaunceygardner said:
Wondering if the Priest in question is from outside the U.S., perhaps where English is not the main language? I am aware of occasions where such Priests did not use the usual wording, and wonder if that was due to issues of translation or the accepted usage in their home country?
Click to expand...
No. In Spanish it’s “El Senor este con ustedes.” In Italian “Il Senor” as the beginning. Thus, that is not an excuse. The word “may” does not appear in their translations.
 
chaunceygardner said:
Wondering if the Priest in question is from outside the U.S., perhaps where English is not the main language? I am aware of occasions where such Priests did not use the usual wording, and wonder if that was due to issues of translation or the accepted usage in their home country?
Click to expand...
That’s a very good question. He speaks in a manner that suggests he’s spent time possibly in a place like Minnesota or maybe Virginia? Maybe it’s some form of Canadian or UK accent? The priest is clearly a very serious man from a serious order and that’s why I am so curious about the deviation. His proclamation and homily can be viewed at
catholictv.com/shows/default.aspx?seriesID=12

He proclaims and preaches well. It’s worth a look.
 
Ghirardelli said:
That’s a very good question. He speaks in a manner that suggests he’s spent time possibly in a place like Minnesota or maybe Virginia? Maybe it’s some form of Canadian or UK accent? The priest is clearly a very serious man from a serious order and that’s why I am so curious about the deviation. His proclamation and homily can be viewed at
catholictv.com/shows/default.aspx?seriesID=12

He proclaims and preaches well. It’s worth a look.
Click to expand...
From what I hear, more likely Virginia or some other middle border state. In any case, definitely an American. Which answers my question. Since this is a Mass at Notre Dame, would it have something to do with the religious order (Jesuit?) the Priest belongs to?

Then, scratching my head I wonder, is it really that important? Does it subtract from the effectiveness of the words, or change the meaning? My guess is that most people were not even aware that some of the words were different.

Finally, while his homily was well done, he came off a little dry and understated in his delivery. I would think that this particular Gospel passage deserved a little more than that.
 
chaunceygardner said:
From what I hear, more likely Virginia or some other middle border state. In any case, definitely an American. Which answers my question. Since this is a Mass at Notre Dame, would it have something to do with the religious order (Jesuit?) the Priest belongs to?

Then, scratching my head I wonder, is it really that important? Does it subtract from the effectiveness of the words, or change the meaning? My guess is that most people were not even aware that some of the words were different.

Finally, while his homily was well done, he came off a little dry and understated in his delivery. I would think that this particular Gospel passage deserved a little more than that.
Click to expand...
He’s a Holy Cross priest like most priests at Notre Dame. They are very orthodox. Other Holy Cross priests use the verbiage verbatim from the Sacramentary. No, it really isn’t a big deal. I was just curious. I don’t believe this priest would do what he does if it was truly an “abuse.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top