Priest uses pre-2011 missal

[StevoMan]

Is it licit for a priest to recite the eucharistic prayers from the pre-2011 missal? He doesn’t just say "cup’ instead of “chalice” or “for all” instead of “for many.” He uses the older missal for the entire eucharistic prayers.

 

[SuscipeMeDomine]

Is he perhaps an older man? If so, I’d give him leeway in using the prayers he’s used for many years. If not, maybe you should ask him why he uses the older missal.

 

[hcruz402]

Incorrect form of the Eucharistic Prayer could invalidate the Mass, but I’d say that this leans more on the illicit side. Nonetheless, I would bring this matter up to your bishop and/or the liturgy/worship office, if your diocese/archdiocese has one. Ever since the Third Edition of the Roman Missal went into effect, back in 2011, the previous translation has been illicit. The previous version of the Roman Missal should have been properly disposed of.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

Incorrect form of the Eucharistic Prayer could invalidate the Mass,

There weren’t any changes in the text from November 26th to 27th of 2011 (the weekend of cut-over) that would now result in an invalid Mass if the older translation were to be used. (My assertion.)

 

[hcruz402]

Then it would be valid but illicit? There is no reason to be using the previous version (1970-2011) of the Roman Missal, though. Its translation was poor.

 

[Cor_ad_Cor]

Right. Unless there’s some special permission that’s been granted for one reason or another.

 

[TomH1]

Incorrect form of the Eucharistic Prayer could invalidate the Mass

would now result in an invalid Mass

Strictly, validity refers to whether a sacrament has been effectively administered. In that sense Mass itself can be neither valid not invalid.

During Mass the priest confects the Eucharist and that can be valid or invalid. To be valid he must be a validly ordained priest. I think it would be safe to assume the priest mentioned by the OP is. I would hope he is using the correct matter: bread (baked with flour milled from wheat) and wine (fermented from grape juice). I suspect changing ‘chalice’ for ‘cup’ and ‘for many’ for ‘for all’ will not invalidate the Mass; therefore, if he is using the ‘old’ Missal he will still be saying the correct form. If we all assume he has the correct intention when he consecrates the sacred elements we can infer he has validly confected the Eucharist. If he consumes both sacred elements he also completes the sacrifice.

It may, of course, be illicit for him to be using the pre-2011 Missal of the Ordinary Form. However, we do not know if this priest has been given permission to do so. I suggest the OP politely enquires of the priest why he is using the former Missal.

 

[InThePew]

He’s definitely not the only one; there are more than a few priests who aren’t fans of the new translation and so stubbornly refuse to use it. Most likely, the bishop knows but probably feels that it’s better to leave it alone. That’s not saying it’s okay - it’s not it’s illicit - but just that bishops often have to deal with difficult priests and bigger problems than the use of old translations.

 

[twf]

It’s been close to a decade.

 

[twf]

There’s one local parish where the priests use the correct texts, but the choir at one of the Masses uses the old pre-2011 texts for the Gloria and a weird Agnus Dei with words that simply aren’t in the Latin. It’s not my parish so I’ve never said anything, but I don’t understand why the priests don’t step in.

 

[InThePew]

Probably for the same reason bishops don’t step in when priests use the pre-2011 texts: it’s just not worth the aggravation.

 

[victrolatim]

Probably for the same reason bishops don’t step in when priests use the pre-2011 texts: it’s just not worth the aggravation.

No offense intended to the poster, but this on a larger scale is why we have such confusion, poor catechesis and abuses gaining hold in the Church. Nobody wants to “offend” anyone by correcting their errors.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Probably for the same reason bishops don’t step in when priests use the pre-2011 texts: it’s just not worth the aggravation.

Yet again, “the tail wags the dog”.

If the priests won’t use the missals they’ve been given to use, revoke their right to say public Masses, until they obey the bishop and the Vatican. This one’s simple.

Concerned laity should use their smartphones to record abuses such as this, and make the video available to the bishop.

 

[Mi_Rose]

As long as you don’t send it anonymously. Our Bishop throws out anonymous complaints.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

As long as you don’t send it anonymously. Our Bishop throws out anonymous complaints.

Liturgical abuses and misuses are not the kind of things that involve personal injury, moral turpitude, or that someone is going to get sued or arrested for. In short, it’s not embezzlement or sexual abuse. Not even in the same ballpark. The only “blowback” is perceived harm to the personal prestige or ego of the priest who, for whatever reason, wants to cling to the pre-2011 translation. There shouldn’t be any need to report this kind of thing anonymously.

Some say that the pre-2011 translation was more comfortable to use, that it felt more inclusive, or whatever. Simply put, those of more modern theological leanings are going to prefer it, over the newer translation that adheres more closely to the Latin. I can foresee that “for many” in the consecration is not going to feel as “warm and fuzzy” as “for all” Things such as that are probably where the entire problem lies. It’s not any more complicated than that.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

HomeschoolDad:

Laity should use their smartphones to record abuses such as this, and make the video available to the bishop

What a horrid suggestion.

I suppose it’s a matter of opinion, but I don’t think it’s horrid at all. The rubrics are what they are, and this way, the bishop can see for himself what is being done — it doesn’t become a case of claiming or accusing someone of doing something, he has it right there in front of him, and can assess the situation for himself. The Mass is a public act of worship, and the priest should fully know that anything he does in the Mass is capable of being captured on video and relayed to the bishop. Seen another way, this actually protects the priest in question — if what he is doing is allowed by the rubrics, and if the person making the video is mistaken about what the rubrics are, then the person can be corrected and should be happy to be corrected.

The worst liturgical abuses seem to have died out. In the 1970s and 1980s they were endemic. Would that the laity had had smartphones back then to record the abuses!

 

[Paul_Edwards]

If he really wants to use an older missal, maybe he should try the 1962 one which is allowed, perhaps suggest that and see what he replies

 

[DeniseNY]

What a horrid suggestion.

I agree.

8675309

 

[CilladeRoma]

I don’t understand something.
Like many documents in the Church, the 3rd edition Missal that came out Advent 2011 abrogated the use of any older missal. If that were not true, and using an older Missal were permitted, this would not be a question.

But, when someone says that the Missal of Paul VI abrogated the Missal of John XXIII so that should not be used, people lost their minds. So much so, that nearly 50 years after the fact, we decide it wasn’t abrogated.

Maybe this priest is just getting a jump on it.

 

[InThePew]

Yet again , “the tail wags the dog” .

If the priests won’t use the missals they’ve been given to use, revoke their right to say public Masses, until they obey the bishop and the Vatican. This one’s simple.

Concerned laity should use their smartphones to record abuses such as this, and make the video available to the bishop.

[sigh]

It’s not that I don’t agree with you - I do; after all, I like to think that when I made my promise of obedience I actually meant it! That said, sadly it’s not quite so easy to rein in wayward priests. Besides the required canonical processes which have to be followed (and which some bishops tend to be wary of), there’s the more fundamental problem of a lack of priests generally and taking one out of service will obviously only worsen the problem. Even if such a priest were suspended from public ministry, he would still remain on the payroll despite being on “gardening leave” - so the next question for the bishop is “what do I do with this guy?”

Even if we were blessed with an abundance of priests, the second problem would still remain, so such problems are better addressed by other means which, especially in the case of older clergy nearing retirement, include just leaving the problem to (in time) resolve itself.