Sheep gate??

[Cari]

Sunday’s Gospel reading was Jesus describing himself as the gate. He likened it to thieves coming in to steal the sheep do not use the gate.

During the homily, Father told a story about shepherds who do not use gates in their sheep pens at night. Rather, they themselves lay down across the opening. The sheep won’t walk on them, they explain, and any threat who comes will find the shepherd there, waiting.

Great. Nice story. However, during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, when Father raises the consecrated Host and says, “Behold the Lamb of God…”, Father added following: “Behold, the Lamb of God, the Sheep Gate, the Son of Man, who takes away the sins of the world…”

Yes or no- is this kosher, or a liturgical abuse?

Thanks for answering something that’s probably been answered about a million times.

 

[puzzleannie]

yes the priest can add an appropriate invocation at this point, one that relates to the readings as in this case.

 

[japhy]

yes the priest can add an appropriate invocation at this point, one that relates to the readings as in this case.

Since when? (I didn’t know John 1:29 and Rev 19:9 needed to be made more relevant for each Mass…)

I see no such statement in the 1985 English Missal nor the 2002 Latin Missal.

 

[John_Lilburne]

…However, during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, when Father raises the consecrated Host and says, “Behold the Lamb of God…”, Father added following: “Behold, the Lamb of God, the Sheep Gate, the Son of Man, who takes away the sins of the world…”

Yes or no- is this kosher, or a liturgical abuse?
…

A liturgical abuse.

From the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:
“[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 the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“31. It is also up to the priest, in the exercise of his office of presiding over the gathered assembly, to offer certain explanations that are foreseen in the rite itself. Where it is indicated in the rubrics, the celebrant is permitted to adapt them somewhat in order that they respond to the understanding of those participating. However, he should always take care to keep to the sense of the text given in the Missal and to express them succinctly. The presiding priest is also to direct the word of God and to impart the final blessing. In addition, he may give the faithful a very brief introduction to the Mass of the day (after the initial Greeting and before the Act of Penitence), to the Liturgy of the Word (before the readings), and to the Eucharistic Prayer (before the Preface), though never during the Eucharistic Prayer itself; he may also make concluding comments to the entire sacred action before the dismissal.”

The text I made bold says rubrics are required where a text can be changed. There is no such rubric for “This is the Lamb of God …”.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

A liturgical abuse.

From the 2004 Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum:
“[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 the 2002 General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM) approved for the USA, which can be accessed from romanrite.com/girm.html :
“31. It is also up to the priest, in the exercise of his office of presiding over the gathered assembly, to offer certain explanations that are foreseen in the rite itself. Where it is indicated in the rubrics, the celebrant is permitted to adapt them somewhat in order that they respond to the understanding of those participating. However, he should always take care to keep to the sense of the text given in the Missal and to express them succinctly. The presiding priest is also to direct the word of God and to impart the final blessing. In addition, he may give the faithful a very brief introduction to the Mass of the day (after the initial Greeting and before the Act of Penitence), to the Liturgy of the Word (before the readings), and to the Eucharistic Prayer (before the Preface), though never during the Eucharistic Prayer itself; he may also make concluding comments to the entire sacred action before the dismissal.”

The text I made bold says rubrics are required where a text can be changed. There is no such rubric for “This is the Lamb of God …”.

NOT A SERIOUS ONE.

More of an irregularity. That word gets thrown around far too easily.

 

[benedictgal]

NOT A SERIOUS ONE.

More of an irregularity. That word gets thrown around far too easily.

Actually, it is an abuse. You may not think it is serious, PGA, but, no one has the right to alter the texts of the Mass, be he priest, bishop or layman. We are not called to be creative with the Roman Missal. We are called to receive what the Church gives us and to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the manner, matter and norms prescribed by the Church.

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

Actually, it is an abuse. You may not think it is serious, PGA, but, no one has the right to alter the texts of the Mass, be he priest, bishop or layman. We are not called to be creative with the Roman Missal. We are called to receive what the Church gives us and to celebrate the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass in the manner, matter and norms prescribed by the Church.

You want to know what I think an abuse is? A priest pointing at the tabernacle and saying “Do you think Jesus lives in there? That is BREAD. Nothing more, nothing less.”

Now THAT is an ABUSE.

You (and anyone) calling every little irregularity (especially when the irregularity is in line with Church teaching, as this was and is doctrinally sound) an “abuse” is akin to a wife calling her husband “abusive” for saying “I don’t feel like talking to you right now”.

 

[Cari]

Thanks all for your replies.

As for the debate over what constitutes an abuse/serious abuse/irregularity, as a former Protestant, I feel very strongly about the universal nature of the Mass. I have come from a long background of pastors “winging it” as they felt the Spirit moved them, and the whole “Sheep Gate” bit sort of smacked of that.

I’m not convinced that there is such a thing as degrees in the matter of litergical abuse. Today it’s a seemingly innocent “Sheep Gate” (or other such phrase that indirectly ties into the Readings at Mass that day), next week it’s dropping all gender-references to the Trinity.

Anyway, those of you who think “no biggie”, you’re in the same boat as my husband, who thinks I’m being hysterical and “more Catholic than the Pope” on this one.

 

[Patchunky]

You want to check out this piece of Scripture from the Old Testament:

"Then Eliashib the high priest rose up with his brethren the priests, and they builded the sheep gate; they sanctified it, and set up the doors of it; even unto the tower of Meah they sanctified it, unto the tower of Hananeel." Neh:3:1

This is the only gate to be so blessed and sanctified. Isn’t Jesus blessed and sanctified? Isn’t it through Him, His death and resurrection and His Most Precious Body and Blood that we are granted entrance into Heaven??

Why wouldn’t He be called the Sheep Gate?? He’s the Good Shepherd! He guards His flock and keeps out the Evil One!

 

[Cari]

There’s lots of titles afforded to Our Lord. The question is, when and where are they appropriate to use during Mass?

 

[japhy]

There’s lots of titles afforded to Our Lord. The question is, when and where are they appropriate to use during Mass?

Exactly. The priest could include such a title at the opening or closing of the General Intercessions… he could probably incorporate the title into the people’s response.

 

[snhs]

You want to know what I think an abuse is? A priest pointing at the tabernacle and saying “Do you think Jesus lives in there? That is BREAD. Nothing more, nothing less.”

Now THAT is an ABUSE.

You (and anyone) calling every little irregularity (especially when the irregularity is in line with Church teaching, as this was and is doctrinally sound) an “abuse” is akin to a wife calling her husband “abusive” for saying “I don’t feel like talking to you right now”.

I think that may actually be heresy, and possibly an act of schism. It would also be a liturgical abuse although whether he could properly celebrate the Mass while saying/thinking something like that may be debatable.

How often does someone have to pull a child’s hair for it to become abuse? Who are you to set a limit on what does and does not constitute an abuse in Mass? Maybe you think an abuse needs to be a loud public declaration, but subtle abuses can be even more divisive in the long run. A Priest saying the kind of thing you suggest could at least be removed immediately, a Priest introducing subtle abuses into the Liturgy could get away with it indefinitely and in the process cause far more damage to the life of his Parish, and possibly the Church at large. Just look at the formula used by some Priests in Australia for Baptisms, now declared invalid, or the legacy of the LifeTeen founder.

 

[VociMike]

Not only is he incorrect to be adding text to the prayers of the Mass, he’s also being extremely un-pastoral. Most people are going to hear this and immediately lose track of the prayer, wondering instead “What was that? Did he say sheep gate?! What the heck is this stuff about a sheep gate?!”

The priest is helping to damage the active participation of the faithful by doing what he does.

 

[MusicMan]

You want to know what I think an abuse is? A priest pointing at the tabernacle and saying “Do you think Jesus lives in there? That is BREAD. Nothing more, nothing less.”

Now THAT is an ABUSE.

Abuse? Yes. Something more serious? Oh yes.

You (and anyone) calling every little irregularity (especially when the irregularity is in line with Church teaching, as this was and is doctrinally sound) an “abuse” is akin to a wife calling her husband “abusive” for saying “I don’t feel like talking to you right now”.

QFT

 

[PaixGioiaAmor]

Could you elaborate on what “QFT” means please?

 

[japhy]

Could you elaborate on what “QFT” means please?

“Quoted For Truth”; i.e. “I am quoting this statement because I agree with it.”

By the way, the internet is a great tool for answering questions like this.

 

[FrCorey]

Sunday’s Gospel reading was Jesus describing himself as the gate. He likened it to thieves coming in to steal the sheep do not use the gate.

During the homily, Father told a story about shepherds who do not use gates in their sheep pens at night. Rather, they themselves lay down across the opening. The sheep won’t walk on them, they explain, and any threat who comes will find the shepherd there, waiting.

Great. Nice story. However, during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, when Father raises the consecrated Host and says, “Behold the Lamb of God…”, Father added following: “Behold, the Lamb of God, the Sheep Gate, the Son of Man, who takes away the sins of the world…”

Yes or no- is this kosher, or a liturgical abuse?

Thanks for answering something that’s probably been answered about a million times.

abuse. no adlibing.

 

[Cari]

Last time I checked (which was about a minute ago) the word “abuse” meant:

1. to use wrongly or improperly; misuse:

Thus, a pastor choosing to modify the words during the Eucharistic prayer to better tie in with his homily is misusing his authority. It is an abuse.

Now don’t get me wrong- the priest at my parish is a good man, tremendously hardworking, and suffering the white martyrdom of many a faithful priest in this time of relativism and secularism.

However, the sources cited in the course of this thread show that what he did was an abuse. The motives and full knowledge of it known only to him, and not open to speculation, but an abuse nonetheless.