Rate these liturgical abuses

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

manygift1spirit

New member
I have two liturgical abuses I would like some feedback on. These actually happened, although no one who does them is in my parish now so they are past tense. In particular, how severe are they, and if they were still ongoing, how much initiative should be taken to address them.
  1. After the Lord’s Prayer, when the priest says, “protect us from all anxiety”, instead he says “protect us from all useless worry”.
  2. During both parts of the Consecration, instead of saying ‘Do this in memory of me’, the priest says ‘When you do this, remember me.’
I am of the opinion that the first is not a huge deal, but the second is quite severe. The entire imperative establishing the Sacrament is gone.

Thoughts?
 
They both seem fine to me. A Jesuit priest in my parish always uses the phrase ‘When you do this, remember me.’ The words signify the same thing.

My rating for LA: Zero.
 
I would be inclined to agree with you concerning the severity of the latter over the former. Though all words of the Holy Mass are sacred, but the words of the Consecration especially. Making it incredibly abusive.

Pius :knight1:
 
Changing the words of the Eucharistic Prayer is definitely higher on the list than changing the words to the embolism after the Our Father.
 
japhy said:
Changing the words of the Eucharistic Prayer is definitely higher on the list than changing the words to the embolism after the Our Father.
Click to expand...
We have no idea what Jesus actually said in Aramaic, we have only His words in Greek.

I am certainly no expert on the Greek language, present-day or in NT times, but I would suppose that both are reasonable translations.

Aren’t there more important abuses to worry about?
 
beeliner said:
Aren’t there more important abuses to worry about?
Click to expand...
Yes, but we were posed with a question on our opinions. Asking that question was not denything that there are more dangerous abuses, but the question only concerned two.

Pius :knight1:
 
I just want to say I think this is an excellent idea for a thread.

It would be good if people could post their questions about liturgical abuse in this thread and have it rated, rather than create constant small threads on liturgical abuse.
 
TrueLight said:
I just want to say I think this is an excellent idea for a thread.

It would be good if people could post their questions about liturgical abuse in this thread and have it rated, rather than create constant small threads on liturgical abuse.
Click to expand...
I didnt even think of that! Very good idea, indeed!

Pius :knight1:
 
manygift1spirit said:
.
  1. During both parts of the Consecration, instead of saying ‘Do this in memory of me’, the priest says ‘When you do this, remember me.’
I am of the opinion that the first is not a huge deal, but the second is quite severe. The entire imperative establishing the Sacrament is gone.

Thoughts?
Click to expand...
I agree with you on the second one. I think you should find out about it for sure. Why on earth would the priest change the words here? That seems quite severe.
 
Now I don’t want to say it’s no big deal, but changing the words after the Our Father isn’t anything too big.

Changing the words right near the consecration like that? You need to be pulling out your best writing paper, and start looking up the bishop’s address. That’s serious.
 
This topic is something that really confuses/bothers me. On the one hand there is the difference between illicit and invalid. That in and of itself doesn’t register with me: if something is illicit, but doesn’t invalidate it, then why is it illicit in the first place? I’m not advocating for Priests being able to say whatever they want, in my opinion, however, there’s no incentive for them to not ad-lib if they want to because it doesn’t change anything. So therefore, what is the significance of “illicit”? I don’t know if that makes any sense to anyone, these are things I just think about sometimes.

In addition, I’ve heard several Priests say the Mass with different words, and I’ve posted about it before, (i.e. inserting “Dear friends,” before the Gospel reading, and before the consecration, “Dear friends, on the night He was betrayed…”, also changing the words to “This is my blood, the cup of everlasting salvation,” or “He broke the bread, gave it to his friends and disciples and said…” Apparently “friends” is a very popular insert). In addition to this I have heard Priests respond with the laity during their parts, (i.e. the Sanctus, and “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at OUR hands,” while people say “your”).

In any event, I know these men and respect them, and know them to be very well-intentioned Priests attempting their best to do the Lords work. Yet I’m conflicted as to how to feel, as being “illicit” seems like such a big deal, (as stated above) yet does feel like it at the same time.

In closing, I just took the advice of a previous poster who suggested everyone writing their own questions on this thread, as my previous thread only got one or two responses. Maybe I will have better luck here. Thank you in advance for any thoughts, help, or insight you may be able to provide.

God bless,
Paul
 
PJD1987 said:
This topic is something that really confuses/bothers me. On the one hand there is the difference between illicit and invalid. That in and of itself doesn’t register with me: if something is illicit, but doesn’t invalidate it, then why is it illicit in the first place?
Click to expand...
Because God, through the church, has given us norms for worship. The Mass is for the worship of God. It is about Him, and having it done the way he wants. Have you seen in the old testament? God even laid down personally the architecture of the temple, and the finest details of the worship that is to happen in the temple. It is still the same God, but now, he does this through the church, The Roman Catholic Church, to be specific.
 
PJD1987 said:
In addition, I’ve heard several Priests say the Mass with different words, and I’ve posted about it before, (i.e. inserting “Dear friends,” before the Gospel reading, and before the consecration, “Dear friends, on the night He was betrayed…”, also changing the words to “This is my blood, the cup of everlasting salvation,” or “He broke the bread, gave it to his friends and disciples and said…” Apparently “friends” is a very popular insert). In addition to this I have heard Priests respond with the laity during their parts, (i.e. the Sanctus, and “May the Lord accept the sacrifice at OUR hands,” while people say “your”).
Click to expand...
And none of these things should be done. Your point is…
 
TheMc said:
And none of these things should be done. Your point is…
Click to expand...
My point, to clarify, is two-fold: one, I’m simply confused as to why something is illicit if its not invalid, the distinction confuses me, and two, am I to report these Priests, whom I have grown close to and respect, to the Bishop when they are truly trying to do the Lords work the best they can? It seems a bit harsh to judge them based on this…that is all.

I’m not advocating either side, I’m simply trying to understand more clearly.

Thanks again in advance for anymore thoughts.
 
Even though these are incorrect according to the Missal, the priest is old and we must assume he intended to complete the consecration. As Protestant as it would have sounded two generations ago, we must let the intention and the sense of the faithful supply what may have been lacking by senility. You can rest secure knowing that the mercy of God descends to Earth for our sake then, as now: hidden as humble man 2000 years ago and as humble bread 2000 seconds ago, He remains despite our legalism and formula. He knows the heart and intent of a holy priest and a faithful people… I seriously doubt His entry is dependent on an innocent mix-up of words?

Hm!
 
beeliner said:
We have no idea what Jesus actually said in Aramaic, we have only His words in Greek.

I am certainly no expert on the Greek language, present-day or in NT times, but I would suppose that both are reasonable translations.

Aren’t there more important abuses to worry about?
Click to expand...
Are they reasonable translations? Yes. Are they the translations that the Church, by the authority vested in her by Jesus Christ, has given us? No.

There are certainly some priests who commit and allow graver abuses, but that is no excuse to ignore those more minor issues.
 
I bet Cardinal Ranjith would take care of all of them in short order. 😉
 
The problem is not the changed words themselves, but the fact that the priest is so proud that he thinks he knows better than the pope and his bishop and has taken it upon himself to “improve” the words which they have dictated must be said. The priest apparently thinks “the Mass is all about making teh people focus on ME and it’s my job to make it “relevant” for them and change the words and actions here and there to grab their attention.” Forgetting that the priest’s focus as well as the people’s focus should be on what God is doing.
 
PJD1987 said:
I’ve heard several Priests say the Mass with different words, and I’ve posted about it before, (i.e. inserting “Dear friends” …] before the consecration, “Dear friends, on the night He was betrayed…”, also changing the words to “This is my blood, the cup of everlasting salvation,”
Click to expand...
It is completely irresponsible of him to change words around the consecration. Why would he deliberately remove the mention of the covenant from the words of consecration of the chalice? “The blood of new and everlasting covenant.”

And adding “Dear friends” to the Eucharistic Prayer betrays a misunderstanding of who the Eucharistic Prayer is addressed to! The priest is NOT speaking to us, he’s speaking to God the Father!

This is one of the problems of Mass facing the people – the priest can get the impression that he’s addressing prayers to the people!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top