Starting the Eucharistic prayer with "Father God and Mother God"

[Ignatius]

Yesterday the parish priest started the Eucharistic prayer with the words “Father God and mother God”. Then he ad libbed much of the consecration, for example he said “your people” in place of “your church” throughout the world.

My question, was this a valid consecration? Should we abstain from Eucharist under such circumstances?

 

[johnnykins]

Yesterday the parish priest started the Eucharistic prayer with the words “Father God and mother God”. Then he ad libbed much of the consecration, for example he said “your people” in place of “your church” throughout the world.

My question, was this a valid consecration? Should we abstain from Eucharist under such circumstances?

Not sure if the consecration was valid or not - not really enough information - BUT, there is enough information to question the validity since I think it at least a fair inference from the information above that the priest may not intend to do what the Church intends at Mass. Indeed, I even wonder if he has the same concept of God as the Church has.

That being said, I would not receive and I would fire off a missive to the Bishop with a copy to the Nuncio - This stuff has to stop.

 

[LilyM]

Yesterday the parish priest started the Eucharistic prayer with the words “Father God and mother God”. Then he ad libbed much of the consecration, for example he said “your people” in place of “your church” throughout the world.

My question, was this a valid consecration? Should we abstain from Eucharist under such circumstances?

First things first. Validity requires valid form, valid matter and valid intent.

Neither of the points of the Mass you’ve discussed are actually the consecration. The consecration is the actual words ‘this is my body’ and ‘this is my blood’. As long as those are present and said correctly the other changes of the words don’t appear to make the mass invalid as far as form goes.

Matter (correctly made bread and wine) would also appear to be valid. As for intent - intent is required to confect the Eucharist and do as the Church does in that regard. The fact that the priest used the words ‘Mother God and Father God’ or what have you doesn’t appear in the slightest to indicate a lack of intent to confect the Eucharist - to effect the change of the bread and wine into the Sacred Body and Precious Blood of Christ.

I don’t believe the priest’s concept of ‘God’ or ‘CHurch’ are really at issue here - otherwise such groups as the SSPX wouldn’t be able to conduct valid Masses as they do. What is at question is the priest’s concept of the Eucharist. If he doesn’t belive in transubstantiation, for example, or the Real Presence, then you might be able to query his intent.

 

[johnnykins]

First things first. Validity requires valid form, valid matter and valid intent.

Neither of the points of the Mass you’ve discussed are actually the consecration. The consecration is the actual words ‘this is my body’ and ‘this is my blood’. As long as those are present and said correctly the other changes of the words don’t appear to make the mass invalid as far as form goes.

Matter (correctly made bread and wine) would also appear to be valid. As for intent - intent is required to confect the Eucharist and do as the Church does in that regard. The fact that the priest used the words ‘Mother God and Father God’ or what have you doesn’t appear in the slightest to indicate a lack of intent to confect the Eucharist - to effect the change of the bread and wine into the Sacred Body and Precious Blood of Christ.

I don’t believe the priest’s concept of ‘God’ or ‘CHurch’ are really at issue here - otherwise such groups as the SSPX wouldn’t be able to conduct valid Masses as they do. What is at question is the priest’s concept of the Eucharist. If he doesn’t belive in transubstantiation, for example, or the Real Presence, then you might be able to query his intent.

Actually I think the use of the words “Mother God and Father God” may indicate polytheism. Sorry, but a fundamental misconception of GOD(s) is at issue, assuming the IP is accurate. If that is correct, it is very realistic to question the validity - intent is certainly at issue. NOTE, I 'm not saying it “IS INVALID” but I certainly am saying it is enough to question validity.

What is certainly inapt is any reference to SSPX.

 

[LilyM]

Actually I think the use of the words “Mother God and Father God” may indicate polytheism. Sorry, but a fundamental misconception of GOD(s) is at issue, assuming the IP is accurate. If that is correct, it is very realistic to question the validity - intent is certainly at issue. NOTE, I 'm not saying it “IS INVALID” but I certainly am saying it is enough to question validity.

What is certainly inapt is any reference to SSPX.

In terms of confecting the Sacrament of the Eucharist, I don’t think that this sort of possible difference in concept of God matters. The priest’s concept of what the Eucharist is (as I said, in terms of Real Presence and Transubstantiation) is much more critical.

Certainly there are plenty more directly heretical things preached in valid Masses every week - about the nature of confession or the other sacraments, for example, and direct rebellion against Church teaching on other very important issues. THis is where SSPX comes in. Some of them are harshly critical of the past 40 years of church history - to a point as nearly heretical as most Protestants.

The priest in this case, it appears, referred to God as incorporating both genders or attributes of both Mother and Father - I *highly *doubt that the priest was thinking God was two separate beings, since the other prayers of the Mass refer to one God or to the Trinity, which concepts are incompatible with polytheism.

 

[johnnykins]

In terms of confecting the Sacrament of the Eucharist, I don’t think that this sort of possible difference in concept of God matters. The priest’s concept of what the Eucharist is (as I said, in terms of Real Presence and Transubstantiation) is much more critical.

I cannot see how a polytheistic concept of God could not improperly affect the concept of the Eucharist - and thereby the intent of the priest. Are you really saying that if the priest thinks of God as, say, Zeus, that such would not adversely affect the priest’s concept of the Eucharist?

Certainly there are plenty more directly heretical things preached in valid Masses every week - about the nature of confession or the other sacraments, for example, and direct rebellion against Church teaching on other very important issues. THis is where SSPX comes in. Some of them are harshly critical of the past 40 years of church history - to a point as nearly heretical as most Protestants.

I agree heresy does not necessarily adversely affect the confection of the sacrament. I never said otherwise. You are clearly confused. The issue is intent - not heresy. SSPX is totally inapt as is you post above. The issue is: would a concept of of a polytheist God invalidate the consecration in that the priest could not have the necessary intent. I answer that as possibly “yes” Mere heresy is not at issue here at all. I don’t understand why you raise it since you appear otherwise well informed.

The priest in this case, it appears, referred to God as incorporating both genders or attributes of both Mother and Father - I *highly *doubt that the priest was thinking God was two separate beings, since the other prayers of the Mass refer to one God or to the Trinity, which concepts are incompatible with polytheism.

1. We don’t know from the post what other prayers were emended.
2. I believe the mere use of that terminolgy is sufficient to betray a concept of God so as to possibly invalidate the sacrament. It is one of the real problems when a priest manhandles the texts of the Mass and interposes his own nomenclature. My experience is such that when a priest fudges on things like this, he often doesn’t believe in God at all. Sad, but true. I no longer give the benefit of the doubt on such matters. It may be valid - but it is enough to question validity.
3. It was at least horribly illicit - and needs immediate resistance. .

Tecnical note: gender is a word from liguistics that has zip to do with attributes of anyone. It is a linguistic artifact. The correct word is “sex”.

 

[catsrus]

originally posted by johnnykins
3. It was at least horribly illicit - and needs immediate resistance.

Amen to that.
I would be SO out of there!!
Was this a Newman Center? They do that sort of thing I’ve noticed.

 

[Kevin42]

Yesterday the parish priest started the Eucharistic prayer with the words “Father God and mother God”.

I can deal with ‘your people’ in place of ‘your Church’. But the quoted above…? First, I think I would burst out laughing. Secondly, does this mean we have two Gods now? A Father God, and also a Mother God? Of course, we could go with this repugnant idea if we wanted to make some Protestants happy and tell people that Mary is the “mother God”…

Oh I feel baaaaaaaaaaaaad for you. Let us know if this happens again next week?

 

[Ignatius]

Amen to that.
I would be SO out of there!!
Was this a Newman Center? They do that sort of thing I’ve noticed.

Nope, just the local parish priest. Others have told me that they’ve written to the Bishop over the last couple of years about such things. I had never actually witnessed it myself until last Sunday. I guess I had somewhat dismissed these stories since I had not seen it myself. Apparently the bishop has no problem with this as nothing has ever been done about it. I assume all of the parishes in this diocese are staffed by appointments by the bishop, so finding a local parish with practices faithful to the GIRM seems like a fairly remote possibility. I am very dishartened about this.

 

[mgy100]

I bet if his Bishop caught him doing this he’d be taken to the backroom at the chancery for one of those scary meetings where you are made to feel three inches tall, in other words all churches have a proper Missal or Liturgicon in Greek. You are expected as a priest (and as laymen) to be obiendient to your bishop. Who is Mother God? As Christians we are expected to follow the deposit of Faith and the priest is the shepard of the parish to make sure that is being properly taught.

 

[otjm]

Actually I think the use of the words “Mother God and Father God” may indicate polytheism. Sorry, but a fundamental misconception of GOD(s) is at issue, assuming the IP is accurate. If that is correct, it is very realistic to question the validity - intent is certainly at issue. NOTE, I 'm not saying it “IS INVALID” but I certainly am saying it is enough to question validity.

What is certainly inapt is any reference to SSPX.

No, it is not an indication of polytheism. It is just really poor theology, and became popular quite some time ago. God is neither male nor female; yet the Bible tells us “In His image he created them” referring to Adam and Eve. Thus, the thinking goes, if a female is made in God’s image, then something of God’s image must be female. Add to that the references in the Old Testament to God’s feeding, nurturing, nursing, etc., all female images, and you get this theological stew that God is both male and female while neither; it also plays to a certain element of feminism.

But polytheism? No.

Invalid? No. Goofy? No question. Really lousy theology? No question. But it is no question, in itself, at all of invalidity.

 

[Chris-WA]

Probably not invalid, but he should be confronted as to the way he addresses God during Mass. It is never proper to refer to Heavenly Father as “Mother God.” This is totally inconsistent with how God has chosen to reveal himself throughout salvation history. I’m sure there is a church document somewhere prohibiting this sort of term for God that you can show him.

 

[johnnykins]

No, it is not an indication of polytheism. It is just really poor theology, and became popular quite some time ago. God is neither male nor female; yet the Bible tells us “In His image he created them” referring to Adam and Eve. Thus, the thinking goes, if a female is made in God’s image, then something of God’s image must be female. Add to that the references in the Old Testament to God’s feeding, nurturing, nursing, etc., all female images, and you get this theological stew that God is both male and female while neither; it also plays to a certain element of feminism.

But polytheism? No.

Invalid? No. Goofy? No question. Really lousy theology? No question. But it is no question, in itself, at all of invalidity.

Maybe, maybe not. I believe there is certainly enough to bring validity into question. I really don’t know what he means by this construction. It MAY not affect validity - BUT IT MAY.

That’s all I’ve said all along. That it MAY be invalid is enough for me to refrain from communion.

Oddly, if he means what you say, the theology may be complicated, but possibly OK. The poor expression of his position could be clarified in a discussion. The problem is neither you nor I nor anyone in the pews can tell during Mass what he means. Unfortunately I’ve had enough experience with priests with off-the-wall theology that I no longer give them the benefit of the doubt. I would not be at all surpirsed to find out he did believe in polytheism - and validity would be a very real possibility.

Might I suggest we all stop giving these rogue priests the benfit of the doubt. Maybe then the Bishops would get off their collective tushes and do their jobs. (Not holding my breath for that one either.)

 

[WanderAimlessly]

I think “invalid” may not be the right term here. I would be more concerned abount the “licitness”.

As for me, I would not partake Iin fact, I would be tempted to walk out) and try to attend a Mass in another parish to make sure my obligations have been fulfilled.

 

[krazykatlady]

Call it goofy, abusive, illicit or whatever. But it is definitely disobedient.

 

[Titus]

What is certainly inapt is any reference to SSPX.

It was a fair point for the poster to make. He wasn’t saying the SSPX believe what this priest does, merely that they are also misguided vis a vis the authority of the Pope.

It is an especially good comparison since both such masses are valid despite problems with the situation.

Father and Mother God= Worse than just Mother God. Sigh.

 

[hermitcrab]

Could he have been saying, “Father God and Mother of God?”

Just a thought as it seems so very odd… Is he a Benedictine?

 

[Spirithound]

The priest’s concept of what the Eucharist is (as I said, in terms of Real Presence and Transubstantiation) is much more critical.

I don’t think the priest even has to have a proper view of what the Eucharist is in order to confect it. I read (i think in This Rock, at some point) that basically the priest would have to believe that he is NOT engaging in any sort or Last Supper memorial/sacrifice/anything at all in order for the consecration to be invalid.

I think “invalid” may not be the right term here. I would be more concerned abount the “licitness”.

As for me, I would not partake Iin fact, I would be tempted to walk out) and try to attend a Mass in another parish to make sure my obligations have been fulfilled.

Most likely we are talking about a matter of licitness instead of validity, but you are not required to attend an additional Mass to fulfill your Sunday privilege (i’m phasing out the term Sunday obligation ). There is basically nothing that can happen to obligate you to attend another Mass.

 

[Beno]

Some years ago I attended a Mass where the priest said in one of the prayers, “God, our father-mother”. I knew what he was trying to imply, but still my internal reaction was “gaaaah!”. I would probably be accepting of it if Jesus used that term. But he didn’t. Jesus said “father” quite consistently. One can argue masculinity/femininity and culture all one wants, but it won’t change the words Jesus used to describe the relationship between himself and his Father.

 

[tcraig]

Might I suggest we all stop giving these rogue priests the benfit of the doubt. Maybe then the Bishops would get off their collective tushes and do their jobs. (Not holding my breath for that one either.)

Exactly. Write a letter to your priest stating what you heard/observed. Note the appropriate section from Redemptionis Sacramentum where it says that this is not allowed (i.e. changing fixed prayers), and state that you are confident that this will not happen again. Be polite but firm. Forward a copy to your bishop. Save your letter.

If this happens again, write to the Vatican. Include a copy of your previous correspondence. It will only be through persistence that abusive priests and bishops are reigned in. We as the laity have a right to a properly celebrated mass.