Priest omitting a part of the Mass

[Maria_Margarita]

I am under the understanding that not one word should be changed, added or omitted to the Ordinary of the Mass. Today we had a visiting priest who omitted the prayer of the Presentation of the Gifts. He went directly to the washing of his hands and “Pray my brothers…” I know that if the choir is singing the priest may say these prayers quietly, but this was not the case as the choir was not singing, and he was not facing the altar, he was turned towards the deacon who was preparing the chaliz. He received the chaliz, put it down on the altar and motioned the altar servers to come forward for the washing of his hands. I do not remember a Mass without these prayers.

This was confusing to say the least. Is this considered an abuse to the Sacred Liturgy?

Thank you and God bless you,
Margarita

 

[Goblin_Taters]

If the intention to say it is there, then it is valid. Maybe the priest just accidentally forgot that part of the Mass, or he was distracted by something. I remember maybe two years ago when I went to a Mass and the priest accidentally didn’t say the words of consecration because he was distracted by paramedics in the back of the church who had come to assist someone who fainted in the middle of Mass.

If the priest knowingly omits it, and especially if it becomes a habitual practice, then it is an abuse.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

I am under the understanding that not one word should be changed, added or omitted to the Ordinary of the Mass. Today we had a visiting priest who omitted the prayer of the Presentation of the Gifts. He went directly to the washing of his hands and “Pray my brothers…” I know that if the choir is singing the priest may say these prayers quietly, but this was not the case as the choir was not singing, and he was not facing the altar, he was turned towards the deacon who was preparing the chaliz. He received the chaliz, put it down on the altar and motioned the altar servers to come forward for the washing of his hands. I do not remember a Mass without these prayers.

This was confusing to say the least. Is this considered an abuse to the Sacred Liturgy?

In your case he may very well have just said it without any outward sign being visable.

Thank you and God bless you,
Margarita

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

If the intention to say it is there, then it is valid. Maybe the priest just accidentally forgot that part of the Mass, or he was distracted by something. I remember maybe two years ago when I went to a Mass and the priest accidentally didn’t say the words of consecration because he was distracted by paramedics in the back of the church who had come to assist someone who fainted in the middle of Mass.

If the priest knowingly omits it, and especially if it becomes a habitual practice, then it is an abuse.

If a priest omits the words of Consecration intentionally or not, no Consecration tales place, and if you notice this and it is not corrected by a deacon letting him know. A member of the faithful should go up and quietly tell him. Otherwise do not get up to receive the plain bread and wine and seek out another mass if possible.

 

[Goblin_Taters]

Originally Posted by Br. Rich SFO:

If a priest omits the words of Consecration intentionally or not, no Consecration tales place, and if you notice this and it is not corrected by a deacon letting him know. A member of the faithful should go up and quietly tell him. Otherwise do not get up to receive the plain bread and wine and seek out another mass if possible.

Br. Rich, to my understanding, the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari, used by Chaldean Catholics, does not explicitly contain the words of institution. Yet, Rome has declared that, even though the rite does not have an explicit pronouncement of the Words of Institution, the rite yet remains valid, and the bread and wine truly become consecrated and become Body and Blood.

True, this decision does not pertain to the Latin Rite in particular, but it’s interesting: a valid Eucharist without explicit mention of the Words of Institution.

If a Latin priest fully intends to say the Words of Institution (and may even say the epiclesis), but does not say the Words of Institution, why is the rite invalid for the Latin Catholic when in similiar circumstances it remains valid for the Chaldean Catholic?

I, of course, believe that the Words of Institution are very important, especially in the Latin tradition, which long has nailed this moment as the most important in the Eucharist Liturgy. I’m not suggesting the Words of Institution be removed from the Latin Mass on the basis of a decision made on the Qurbana!

What are your thoughts on any ramifications Rome’s decision has on the Latin liturgy?

 

[Marian_Carroll]

**Folks:

The question in this thread is:

Today we had a visiting priest who omitted the prayer of the Presentation of the Gifts…Is this considered an abuse to the Sacred Liturgy?

Thos who wish to discuss other topics should feel free to join a thread already in progess or initiate a thread to address their particular issues in the appropriate forum.

Thank you for your cooperation.**

 

[HailMary]

Br. Rich, to my understanding, the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari, used by Chaldean Catholics, does not explicitly contain the words of institution. Yet, Rome has declared that, even though the rite does not have an explicit pronouncement of the Words of Institution, the rite yet remains valid, and the bread and wine truly become consecrated and become Body and Blood.

Quick correction, the Chaldean Church DOES use the words of consecration:

For when the time came when he would suffer and approach death, on that night on which he was betrayed, he took bread into his holy hands and, raising his eyes to you, his almighty Father, gave thanks and blessed. He broke and gave it to his disciples, saying: take, all of you, and eat of it: this is my Body, which is broken for you, for the forgiveness of sins.

People: Amen.

Likewise, after they had eaten, he took the pure cup into his holy hands, gave thanks to you and blessed; he gave it to his disciples, saying: take, all of you, and drink from it: this is my Blood of the new and everlasting covenant, which is shed for you and for many, for the forgiveness of sins.

People: Amen.

Priest: Whenever you do this, do it in remembrance of me.

People: Mhaymnynan w-mawdenan.

[We believe and confess.]

Priest: Now, thus, as we are performing his Memorial as we have been commanded, and are offering his Body and Blood upon the holy and pure altar…

…may your Holy Spirit come, O Lord,

and rest upon this Oblation of your servants,

bless it and sanctify it,

that it may be for us, O Lord, for the pardon of debts and the forgiveness of sins, for the great hope of resurrection from the dead and for new life in the kingdom of heaven with all of those who have pleased you.

Its actually the Assyrian Church (I believe) that is in union with Rome that does not explicitly say those words…Rome put out a document in 2002 saying it was OK for Chaldean’s to participate in this Eucharistic Celebration; not sure about other rites thou. And when you really think about it, Christ said, “DO THIS” not only “Say this” so it kinda makes sense.

 

[JimG]

I presume that you mean the prayers that begin “Blessed are you Lord, God of all creation… .” I’ve been at some Masses where the priest said the prayer quietly with no congregational participation. It’s also possible that he simply forgot. If he forgot, no harm done. Without further evidence, I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that he deliberately and intentionally left them out.

 

[Elzee]

I presume that you mean the prayers that begin “Blessed are you Lord, God of all creation… .” I’ve been at some Masses where the priest said the prayer quietly with no congregational participation. It’s also possible that he simply forgot. If he forgot, no harm done. Without further evidence, I wouldn’t jump to the conclusion that he deliberately and intentionally left them out.

I think our priest leaves this out of his daily Masses. Either he can say them quietly to himself in about 2 seconds flat or he leaves it out. On Sundays, he doesn’t say these words out loud either, but he waits about 5 seconds, so I’m hoping he says it then - very quickly.

 

[Maria_Margarita]

Yes, he may have said it to himself, in one or two seconds, without any visible gestures, such as closing his eyes or lifting them to heaven, or any other sign that showed he was praying, as other priests sometimes do.

I have known this priest for several years, he is known to be a liberal thinking priest. When Mass ended I thought of asking him if he realized he did not said those prayers, but I did not have the opportunity as he was surrounded by people. I must add that his homily was excellent.

I would like to know how important is that part of the Mass and what happens if it is omitted intentionaly, for the sake of time.

Thank you.
Margarita

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Yes, he may have said it to himself, in one or two seconds, without any visible gestures, such as closing his eyes or lifting them to heaven, or any other sign that showed he was praying, as other priests sometimes do.

I have known this priest for several years, he is known to be a liberal thinking priest. When Mass ended I thought of asking him if he realized he did not said those prayers, but I did not have the opportunity as he was surrounded by people. I must add that his homily was excellent.

I would like to know how important is that part of the Mass and what happens if it is omitted intentionaly, for the sake of time.

Thank you.
Margarita

If it’s omitted intentionally the priest sins seriously, the Consecration is invalid, the Mass is incomplete. This is why the Church requires when celebrating the Sacraments that the ministers celebrating them are very specific in what they say and do. And requires them all to specifically follow the liturgical books and foumulas to the letter.

 

[JimG]

Br. Rich, are you certain that forgetting or omitting this offertory prayer would invalidate the consecration? I’m presuming that following this omission, the eucharistic prayer was said in its entirety.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

Br. Rich, are you certain that forgetting or omitting this offertory prayer would invalidate the consecration? I’m presuming that following this omission, the eucharistic prayer was said in its entirety.

I am certain if the words of Consecration are omitted in the Latin Church, the Consecration would be invalid.

 

[LilyM]

I am certain if the words of Consecration are omitted in the Latin Church, the Consecration would be invalid.

The words ‘this is my body … this is my blood’ are the words of consecration. Not the prayers the OP mentioned (which are indeed very quick to say and can be said silently with no visible gesture).

I’d imagine there are Eastern liturgies, perfectly validly and licitly celebrated ones, that don’t have our Prayer of Presentation of the Gifts in 'em.

 

[Br.Rich_SFO]

The words ‘this is my body … this is my blood’ are the words of consecration. Not the prayers the OP mentioned (which are indeed very quick to say and can be said silently with no visible gesture).

I’d imagine there are Eastern liturgies, perfectly validly and licitly celebrated ones, that don’t have our Prayer of Presentation of the Gifts in 'em.

I think you are missing the fact that I was responding to Goblin_Taters (#2) post, not the OP.

 

[m134e5]

Br. Rich, to my understanding, the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari, used by Chaldean Catholics, does not explicitly contain the words of institution. Yet, Rome has declared that, even though the rite does not have an explicit pronouncement of the Words of Institution, the rite yet remains valid, and the bread and wine truly become consecrated and become Body and Blood.

We aren’t the Chaldean Catholics. In our Rite, the words of institution must be said in order for the Mass to be valid. I think a priest needs to think more about why he does what he does if he *forgets *the most important part of the Mass- regardless of what the reason may be. I may sound unreasonable here- but if you have seen my other posts, you know I am tolerant of honest mistakes, and side with practicality when there is a real need to- but that is the most important part of the Mass- so much so, that you could leave out all the other parts, and the Mass be just as valid as if they were there. Also, the liturgy could be as beautiful as possible- but if the words of institution aren’t there, in the Latin Rite, there is no Mass.

 

[Traditional_Ang]

The words ‘this is my body … this is my blood’ are the words of consecration. Not the prayers the OP mentioned (which are indeed very quick to say and can be said silently with no visible gesture).

I’d imagine there are Eastern liturgies, perfectly validly and licitly celebrated ones, that don’t have our Prayer of Presentation of the Gifts in 'em.

Lily:

Actually, they do have prayers for the preparation of the gifts, but they do it out of sight of the congregation:

Proskomedia (or prothesis) is the divine service celebrated by the priest and deacon prior to the Divine Liturgy during which the bread and wine are prepared for the Eucharist. This service is celebrated at the Table of Oblation (also known as the prothesis table). Proskomedia, when translated to English, means “preparation.”

orthodoxwiki.org/Proskomedia

RUSSIAN ORTHODOX CHURCH OF ST. SERAPHIM OF SAROV
Sea Cliff, New York
Proskomedia
Bp. Alexander (Mileant)

Proskomedia is a Greek word meaning offering. The first part of the Liturgy derives its name from the early Christian custom of the people offering bread and wine and all else that was needed for the Liturgy. Therefore, each small loaf of the bread which is used in it is termed a “prosphora,” another word meaning offering…The prosphora must be round and formed in two parts, one above the other, as an image of the two natures of Jesus Christ, divine and human. On the flat surface of the upper part a seal of the Cross is impressed, and in the four sections thus formed are the initial Greek letters of the name of Jesus Christ, “IC XC,” and the Greek word “NIKA,” which mean together “Jesus Christ conquers.”

*The wine used in the Mystery must be red grape wine, as this color reminds us of the color of blood. The wine is mixed with water to remind us of the pierced side of the Savior from which flowed blood and water on the Cross. Five prosphoras are used in the Proskomedia to recall the five loaves with which Christ miraculously fed the five thousand, an event which gave Him the means to teach the people about spiritual nourishment, about the incorrupt, spiritual food which is bestowed in the Mystery of Holy Communion (John 6:22-58). One prosphora, known as the Lamb, is used for Holy Communion, in accordance with the words of the Apostle: “For we, being many, are one bread and one body, for we are all partakers of that one Bread” (I Cor. 10: 17).

The Proskomedia is performed by the priest in a quiet voice at the Table of Preparation when the sanctuary is closed. During its celebration, the Third and Sixth Hours are read.*

stseraphimschurch.org/articles/proskomedia-e.html

I deleted one part which contains a debate between the Eastern and the Western Churches.

FYI, If you ask Fr. Ambrose and the other Orthodox brothers, you’ll see that they are “Maximalist” in their outlook, that Orthodoxy (and Eastern Catholicism) doesn’t have the division between Valid and Licit that we have in the West.

According to the latest Papal Encyclicals on the issue, all that is required (in an emergency) for a Valid Concecration is that the Priest recite the words of Christ from the Gospel of Matthew: *“Take, eat; this is my body.”
Afterwards, he took a cup, and when he had given thanks,
he gave it to them, saying,
“Drink of it, all of you; for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” *
(Matt 26:26-27 RSV)

I beg you to remember that that is all that is needed IN AN EMERGENCY. The latest issue of the GIRM is the controlling authority on all other Masses and Consecrations within the Roman Catholic Church. Although it allows many prayers to be said quietly, it does require that these prayers be said. and, Most of these prayers require far more than 5 sec. to be said reverently.

If you really believe that he’s skipping the prayer, ask the priest, but ask him privately and politely - If you have to, set up and appointment and take him out for a cup of coffee or lunch (depending on your budget).

Your Brother in Christ, Michael

 

[Aramis]

In Re the Original Question, the relevant part of the GIRM-USCCB edition:
GIRM (USCCB):

**The Liturgy of the Eucharist **
139.When the Prayer of the Faithful is completed, all sit, and the Offertory chant begins (cf. no. 74). An acolyte or other lay minister arranges the corporal, the purificator, the chalice, the pall, and the Missal upon the altar.
140. It is appropriate for the faithful’s participation to be expressed by an offering, whether of the bread and wine for the celebration of the Eucharist or of other gifts for the relief of the needs of the Church and of the poor. The offerings of the faithful are received by the priest, assisted by the acolyte or other minister. The bread and wine for the Eucharist are carried to the celebrant, who places them upon the altar, while other gifts are put in another appropriate place (cf. no. 73).
141. At the altar the priest accepts the paten with the bread. With both hands he holds it slightly raised above the altar and says quietly: Benedictus es, Domine (Blessed are you, Lord). Then he places the paten with the bread on the corporal.
142. After this, as the minister presents the cruets, the priest stands at the side of the altar and pours wine and a little water into the chalice, saying quietly: Per huius aquae(By the mystery of this water). He returns to the middle of the altar, takes the chalice with both hands, raises it a little, and says quietly: Benedictus es, Domine(Blessed are you, Lord). Then he places the chalice on the corporal and covers it with a pall, as appropriate. If, however, there is no Offertory chant and the organ is not played, in the presentation of the bread and wine the priest may say the formulas of blessing aloud, to which the people make the acclamation: Benedictus Deus in saecula (Blessed be God for ever).
143.After placing the chalice upon the altar, the priest bows profoundly and says quietly: In spiritu humilitatis (Lord God, we ask you to receive us).
144.If incense is used, the priest then puts some in the thurible, blesses it without saying anything, and incenses the offerings, the cross, and the altar. A minister, while standing at the side of the altar, incenses the priest and then the people.
145. After the prayer In spiritu humilitatis (Lord God, we ask you to receive us) or after the incensation, the priest washes his hands standing at the side of the altar and, as the minister pours the water, says quietly: Lava me, Domine (Lord, wash away my iniquity).
146. Upon returning to the middle of the altar, the priest, facing the people and extending and then joining his hands, invites the people to pray, saying: Orate, fratres (Pray, brethren). The people rise and make their response: Suscipiat Dominus (May the Lord accept). Then the priest, with hands extended, says the Prayer over the Offerings. At the end the people make the acclamation: Amen.

Italics, underline, and emphasis mine.

He should be saying them, he’s just required to say them aloud.

 

[Brendan]

Br. Rich, to my understanding, the Holy Qurbana of Addai and Mari, used by Chaldean Catholics, does not explicitly contain the words of institution. Yet, Rome has declared that, even though the rite does not have an explicit pronouncement of the Words of Institution, the rite yet remains valid, and the bread and wine truly become consecrated and become Body and Blood.

First of all, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari that is used by the Chaldeans DOES contain the words of Institution. It is the version of that Anaphora used by the Assyrian Church of the East ( Orthodox) of does not explicitly contain the words of Institution.

geocities.com/rik_turner/Anaphora_of_SS_Addai_and_Mari.html

Pope John Paul ruled that the version of the Anaphora used by the Assyrians does contain phrasing that carries an IMPLICIT Institution.

However, if the an Assyrian priest forgets to say those particular words, the Catholic Church would not consider the Sacrament to be present. Intent alone is not sufficent to confect the Sacrament, a valid Form must be followed.

The various Eucharistic prayers of the West ALL contain the Words of Institution EXPLICITLY. If those are forgotten, even in error, the Sacrament is NOT confected.

 

[revejj2000]

I am under the understanding that not one word should be changed, added or omitted to the Ordinary of the Mass. Today we had a visiting priest who omitted the prayer of the Presentation of the Gifts. He went directly to the washing of his hands and “Pray my brothers…” I know that if the choir is singing the priest may say these prayers quietly, but this was not the case as the choir was not singing, and he was not facing the altar, he was turned towards the deacon who was preparing the chaliz. He received the chaliz, put it down on the altar and motioned the altar servers to come forward for the washing of his hands. I do not remember a Mass without these prayers.

This was confusing to say the least. Is this considered an abuse to the Sacred Liturgy?

Thank you and God bless you,
Margarita

According to the Sacramentary, it states in the rubrics

The priest, standing at the altar, takes the paten with the bread and, holding it slightly raised above the altar, says inaudibly:

Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer. . . .

Then he places the paten with the bread on the corporal.

If no offetory song is sung, the priest may say the preceding words in an audible voice; then the people may respond:

Blessed by God for ever.

It looks like that the words for the bread and wine: "Blessed are you, . . . " do not have to be spoken at all, when no music is played. It says the priest “may” say, not “must” say. The priest has the option.

Now it seems that the priest, in question, did not raise up the paten or chalice, so this “might” indicate that he did not say these prayers inaudibly. The omission of these prayers are illicit but not invalid to the sacrament.