The words of the mass, coming to their defense

  • Thread starter Thread starter daniel_g
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

daniel_g

Guest
Some time ago, my friend and I had a discussion.

Sadly, my parish priest seems to feel free to ad-lib parts of the mass. He adds his certain twists to the prayers, granted they are seemingly minor, yet wrong. And this does distress me, but when telling my friend this he (my friend) took it another way.

He claims that all I’m doing is being too superstitious, relying on some sort of exact magical spell that makes up the entire mass.

I understand his feelings, and he is right in saying that one ought not to get superstitious with things nor try to think of the mass as a magic act. That’s fine and good.

This is not my thought process either, but how can I defend the idea of staying true to the words of the mass? It can be easy to see it as a reliance on some sort of magic, how can this be dissuaded?

My thoughts…
The celebration of the mass is one of the greatest gifts God has given us. And since it is His gift, it must be by its very nature perfect. Thus we have no right to add or subtract from it, since our own efforts would tarnish its perfection.

Help me defend such a sublime, such an august gift. What can be said? Another argument I can forsee is that many of the words of the mass themselves are man-made, well I guess words in general are an invention of man, what then is that defense?
 
’Therefore no other person whatsoever, not even a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on their own authority’ (Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium, #22.3).

If you priest continues to do so, I highly suggest you write to your bishop and let him know. It is important that your bishop knows because what the priest is doing is seriously wrong.
 
There are two principal types of error involving the celebration of the Eucharist. The first, and more serious, type is an addition or omission that renders the Mass (and, consequently the Eucharist “conscrated” at that Mass) invalid. Examples of this kind or error would be invalid matter (such as leavened bread or apple wine), or changing the words of consecration themselves. To insist on these is not superstition, for it is not the words themselves that effect Transubstantiation. It is the ordained priest, acting* in persona Christi*, doing what the Church prescribes and intending what the Church intends.

The second, and much more common, type of error includes those modifications which do not invalidate the Mass, but do make it illicit. The liturgy is a treasure that belongs to the universal Church. As the competent authority for the Church, the Holy See has prescribed those words and actions which are permitted during the celebration of the Mass. In addition, she has made it clear on numerous occasions that no one, not even a priest, has the right to change the prescribed words or actions. If a priest does so, he is either acting out of ignorance or is simply being disobedient. It would be difficult to say which is worse.

Hope that helps in your discussion.
 
Servulus-

These sorts of renderings would fall under the second set which you have listed. So following that, I see that I can now use the idea of the Catholic Church as being universal. So such prescription is meant mainly to unify the Church, when done illicitly we come to find these errors. Whether ignorance or disobedience, I cannot say, though neither good. But in order for the mass to stay truly Catholic, or universal, the prescribed prayers and actions ought to remain untampered.

That’s a great addition for discussion, thank you.
 
Servulus said:
There are two principal types of error involving the celebration of the Eucharist. The first, and more serious, type is an addition or omission that renders the Mass (and, consequently the Eucharist “conscrated” at that Mass) invalid. Examples of this kind or error would be invalid matter (such as leavened bread or apple wine), or changing the words of consecration themselves. To insist on these is not superstition, for it is not the words themselves that effect Transubstantiation. It is the ordained priest, acting* in persona Christi*, doing what the Church prescribes and intending what the Church intends.
Click to expand...
Leavened bread is not invalid matter, but its use is illicit in the Latin Rite.
 
Servulus said:
Could you give me a reference for that, please.
Click to expand...
Reference is not needed because the Byzantine Catholics use levened bread. This means it is therefore valid. Validity is a matter of revealed faith, and if it’s valid for them, it can be valid for us. According to Latin law, it is illicit, and should not be used.

For the Byzantines, for them to use unleavened bread would be illicit.
 
daniel_g said:
This is not my thought process either, but how can I defend the idea of staying true to the words of the mass? It can be easy to see it as a reliance on some sort of magic, how can this be dissuaded?
Click to expand...
This is more common sense than church stuff, but it might help if your friend is non-catholic/non-religious…

It’s like that game you play when you are a kid where you whisper something in the ear of the person next to you… “Suzy has purple pants.” Then it goes all of the way around the room and comes back to you as “Simon smells like petunias.”

If one priest does it wrong and another priest learns from him, but decides to change it one little bit and so on and so on, eventually we will be so off base of what the Mass is supposed to be that we wouldn’t recognize it.
 
Servulus said:
Could you give me a reference for that, please.
Click to expand...
Sure. De Defectibus of Pius V says:
  1. If the bread has begun to mold, but it is not corrupt, or if it is not unleavened according to the custom of the Latin Church, the Sacrament is valid but the celebrant is guilty of grave sin.
Click to expand...
 
Kanda-

Yea, the “telephone” effect. Another good point and one that he may better accept, I’m not exactly sure what his true feelings are. He, himself, is Catholic but he is sometimes a difficult person when it comes to his ideas.

He may also think the fact that I wear a scapular is in some way superstitious. That’s just speculation, but it might follow given his other views.
 
daniel_g said:
He may also think the fact that I wear a scapular is in some way superstitious. That’s just speculation, but it might follow given his other views.
Click to expand...
Just had to comment…so sad. Doesn’t it make you want to shake these people sometimes? We have a Eucharistic adoration chapel & program at my parish (started with a prior holy pastor, now we have a ‘new’ one) and it’s a constant struggle to even keep it going. This too, is a ‘superstition’ and an ‘insult to the Mass’ ! :eek: :eek:

A bunch of pious, superstitious old folks (many adorers are young people, praise God - but if someone never sets foot in the chapel, one wouldn’t know…😉 ) - superstitious old folks who also like medievel things like the Rosary…

God help us! (I know He will… 😃 ) Just had to commiserate
 
daniel_g said:
Kanda-

Yea, the “telephone” effect. Another good point and one that he may better accept, I’m not exactly sure what his true feelings are. He, himself, is Catholic but he is sometimes a difficult person when it comes to his ideas.

He may also think the fact that I wear a scapular is in some way superstitious. That’s just speculation, but it might follow given his other views.
Click to expand...
If your Priest does Labyrinths and Reiki and stuff like that, ask him if those stuff aren’t supersitious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top