The mass never ends?

  • Thread starter Thread starter cmacagno
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I was in another city, out of my diocese, visiting my daughter this weekend. Attended a “Roman Catholic” church and the priest( dressed in gray) also ended the Mass this way. But that is the least of the abuses I saw. I was so dismayed by the Holy Eucharist being displayed in a glass salad bowl and the Precious Blood poured from a glass kool aid pitcher into a “glass” wine glass (after being consecrated) by one of the 12 EMHC"s, no one kneeling during the consecration, The priest “snapping” the Host inhalf during the words "He took the bread, broke it (snap!!), I almost would have laughed at the closing if I hadn’t been so sad. NO WONDER there are so many confused catholics. Pray for these priests.
 
maryj said:
I was in another city, out of my diocese, visiting my daughter this weekend. Attended a “Roman Catholic” church and the priest( dressed in gray) also ended the Mass this way. But that is the least of the abuses I saw. I was so dismayed by the Holy Eucharist being displayed in a glass salad bowl and the Precious Blood poured from a glass kool aid pitcher into a “glass” wine glass (after being consecrated) by one of the 12 EMHC"s, no one kneeling during the consecration, The priest “snapping” the Host inhalf during the words "He took the bread, broke it (snap!!), I almost would have laughed at the closing if I hadn’t been so sad. NO WONDER there are so many confused catholics. Pray for these priests.
Click to expand...
Eww. In addition to prayer, someone should say something to them or the parish pastor.
 
maryj said:
I was in another city, out of my diocese, visiting my daughter this weekend. Attended a “Roman Catholic” church and the priest( dressed in gray) also ended the Mass this way. But that is the least of the abuses I saw. I was so dismayed by the Holy Eucharist being displayed in a glass salad bowl and the Precious Blood poured from a glass kool aid pitcher into a “glass” wine glass (after being consecrated) by one of the 12 EMHC"s, no one kneeling during the consecration, The priest “snapping” the Host inhalf during the words "He took the bread, broke it (snap!!), I almost would have laughed at the closing if I hadn’t been so sad. NO WONDER there are so many confused catholics. Pray for these priests.
Click to expand...
More Catholic than the Pope? Not in this case…:doh2:
 
I know that this is an old post, but I thought I would throw in my two cents. I am not sure how it started but one parish that I attended also said these words. After the priest said “The mass has now ended, go in peace” the entire parish would shout back “The mass never ends, it must be lived”. In this manner, there are no violations on the priest’s part and the point is still made. Too many people feel that their duty towards whatever authority they recognize is fulfilled by dedicating one hour of their week to it. This message is a strong reminder that your duty is not fulfilled after you walk out of the church.
 
In this manner, it is the assembly who are disobedient to the text of the Mass, and in the absence of correction by their priests, possibly ignorant of the need to adhere to what is printed in the missal. There is a time and a place for such a reminder to live the Mass; it is appropriate for a homily, a message in the bulletin, or even during the “brief announcements” before the final blessing.
 
baltobetsy said:
It comes from LifeTeen. In past years, they used a dismissal that went something like, “The Mass never ends. It must be lived. Go in peace, etc.” In the past couple of years, the Vatican asked them to make some changes to bring the LifeTeen Mass into compliance with liturgical norms, and this dismissal was removed. However, there are some priests and deacons who think this dismissal is “pretty cool,” as our previous poster did, and continue to use it in defiance of the norms.

It really grates on my nerves when one of our deacons does it, so instead of “Thanks be to God,” I reply, "Whatever."
Betsy
Click to expand...
:rotfl:

:clapping:
 
PaixGioiaAmor said:
Well … not really.

It IS very true that one of the approved options must be used. However, “similar words” (Canon Law, GIRM) may be used. It’s not a stretch to say “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and one another”. That is substantially similar. “The mass never ends” is not similar at all.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the post. So often those without any formal training jump in and declare something an abuse when it isn’t at all.
 
Stylites said:
Originally Posted by PaixGioiaAmor
Well … not really.

It IS very true that one of the approved options must be used. However, “similar words” (Canon Law, GIRM) may be used. It’s not a stretch to say “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and one another”. That is substantially similar. “The mass never ends” is not similar at all.
Thanks for the post. So often those without any formal training jump in and declare something an abuse when it isn’t at all.
Click to expand...
What happened iin that post was the opposite. Someone (back in Dec. '07)said that it isn’t an abuse when in fact it is. Neither the GIRM nor canon law say that the priest can use “similar words.” In fact, both say the opposite, that the priest has an obligation to follow the text as the Church has approved it.

What we do have is that too often people make the false claim that the Church allows for similar words when the Church says the opposite of that. Only those words printed in the Sacramentary may be used. The priest has no licence, none whatsoever, to change those words.

We should all be wary when people claim that canon law or the GIRM say something, but that poster is unable to provide any reference. Both are numbered and easily available on the web for anyone to read.

Can. 846 §1. In celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books approved by competent authority are to be observed faithfully; accordingly, no one is to add, omit, or alter anything in them on one’s own authority.
vatican.va/archive/ENG1104/__P2T.HTM

And from the GIRM (Decree of Publication)
Effective immediately, this translation of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal is the sole translation of the Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, editio typica tertia for use in the dioceses of the United States of America.
usccb.org/liturgy/current/publication.shtml
  1. The norm established by the Second Vatican Council—that in the liturgical reform there should be no innovations unless required in order to bring a genuine and certain benefit to the Church, and taking care that any new forms adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already existing —must also be applied to efforts at the inculturation of the same Roman Rite. Inculturation, moreover, requires a necessary length of time, lest the authentic liturgical tradition suffer contamination due to haste and a lack of caution.
    usccb.org/liturgy/current/chapter9.shtml
 
I don’t really don’t care how the priest ends Mass, as long as it ends. I can’t wait to leave, he could “you all suck” for all I care. 🙂 Mass is horrible here, and it is easily the worst hour and a half of my week. Grr.

One time when the priest said “the Mass has ended”. I said “thank God finally!”. I’m a very bad Catholic.
 
apocolypse777 said:
I know that this is an old post, but I thought I would throw in my two cents. I am not sure how it started but one parish that I attended also said these words. After the priest said “The mass has now ended, go in peace” the entire parish would shout back “The mass never ends, it must be lived”. In this manner, there are no violations on the priest’s part and the point is still made. Too many people feel that their duty towards whatever authority they recognize is fulfilled by dedicating one hour of their week to it. This message is a strong reminder that your duty is not fulfilled after you walk out of the church.
Click to expand...
But, this response is also ilicit, apacoplypse. The only option given to the faithful in the Roman Missal is “Thanks be to God”. The faithful do not have the right to amend the Church’s official liturgical texts. This, too, is an abuse.
[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.
Click to expand...
We do not have the right to edit the texts of the Mass just to suit our own idiosyncracies.
 
Our Bishop was the celebrant today at Mass. He ended the Mass, saying, “go in peace to love and serve the Lord and one another.” :confused:

I have a friend who just finished his first year at seminary. He was taught in class “you will find your own style of saying the Mass; try different things and get comfortable.” :eek: My friend is very orthodox and he challenged the teachers, quoting the GIRM, only to be beat down and ridiculed. Pray for him–if he survives this ordeal he will be a holy priest!
 
It’s also worth noting that the most common dismissal I’ve heard,
“The mass is ended, go in peace to love and serve the Lord,”
is equally illicit - although in my opinion more tolerable than some of the others.

However, I think it’s inappropriate to respond to that or any other illicit dismissal with “Whatever,” as suggested in post #4.
 
PaixGioiaAmor said:
Well … not really.

It IS very true that one of the approved options must be used. However, “similar words” (Canon Law, GIRM) may be used. It’s not a stretch to say “Go in peace to love and serve the Lord and one another”. That is substantially similar. “The mass never ends” is not similar at all.
Click to expand...
You are right: the previous edition of the GIRM (1975) was in fact vague on this point, and allowed changes in words of introduction and conclusion, and so many priests learnt/justified changing the greetings, “This is the Lamb of God”, etc. on this basis.

However, the 2002 GIRM is more precise on the matter, and has removed this permission. It limits this to specific situations, of which the conclusion is no longer part.
1975:
Click to expand...
  1. It is also up to the priest in the exercise of his office of presiding over the assembly to pronounce the instructions and words of introduction and conclusion that are provided in the rites themselves. By their very nature these introductions do not need to be expressed verbatim in the form in which they are given in the Missal; at least in certain cases it will be advisable to adapt them somewhat to the concrete situation of the community. …
Click to expand...
2002:
Click to expand...
  1. 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.
Click to expand...
 
AJV said:
You are right: the previous edition of the GIRM (1975) was in fact vague on this point, and allowed changes in words of introduction and conclusion, and so many priests learnt/justified changing the greetings, “This is the Lamb of God”, etc. on this basis.

However, the 2002 GIRM is more precise on the matter, and has removed this permission. It limits this to specific situations, of which the conclusion is no longer part.
Click to expand...
No. It’s still wrong.

Does not apply. The text you quoted refers specifically to “introductions” it does not refer to the words of the dismissal.

The part of the 1973 GIRM #11 refers to the “introductions” and not to the rite of dismissal. The GIRM itself has a footnote immediately after the words “…concrete situation of the community 20” Footnote 20 refers to a circular letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship dated 27 April 1973, specifically paragraph #14.

Here’s the entire text of the circular letter
catholicliturgy.com/index.cfm/FuseAction/documentText/Index/2/SubIndex/11/ContentIndex/292/Start/125

and here is paragraph 14
  1. Among the possibilities for further adaptation which are left to the individual celebrant, it is well to keep in mind the admonitions, homily and general intercessions.
First, there are the admonitions, by which the faithful are brought to a deeper understanding of the meaning of the sacred action or any of its parts. Of special importance are those admonitions which the priest himself is invited by the General Instruction on the Roman Missal to compose and deliver; he may introduce the faithful to the Mass of the day before the celebration begins, to the Liturgy of the Word before the readings, or to the Eucharistic Prayer before the Preface; he may summarize the entire sacred action before the dismissal.

Then again, importance is to be given to those admonitions prescribed in the Order of the Mass for certain rites, which are to be introduced either before the penitential act or before the Lord’s Prayer. Naturally, these admonitions need not be given word for word as set out in the Missal; it may well be advisable, at least in certain instances, to adapt them somewhat to the actual circumstances of the particular gathering. Nevertheless, the special nature of all admonitions should be heeded, so that they do not turn into sermons or homilies; care must be taken to be brief and to avoid tedious verbosity.

Please take note of the fact that while the priest may “summarize the entire sacred action before the dismissal” nowhere, repeat no-where, does it say that he may re-phrase the dismissal to suit himeslf.
 
FrDavid96 said:
No. It’s still wrong.

Does not apply. The text you quoted refers specifically to “introductions” it does not refer to the words of the dismissal.

The part of the 1973 GIRM #11 refers to the “introductions” and not to the rite of dismissal. The GIRM itself has a footnote immediately after the words “…concrete situation of the community 20” Footnote 20 refers to a circular letter from the Congregation for Divine Worship dated 27 April 1973, specifically paragraph #14.
Click to expand...
In Ephemerides Liturgicae, around the time of the new GIRM, there is a list of the changes made to the GIRM with the rationale, and this was what is said there - that it is changed because of the amiguity in the wording. I also refer you to the book “Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani. Textus – Synopsis – Variationes” which goes in depth into all the changes made in the various GIRMs.
 
Yeah, the concept of mass never ending is a curious one.

This is the mass that never ends

It goes on and on my friends…
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top