Using Wrong Words During Consecration

[turtle18]

There seems to be a trend in our diocese where the priest uses these words at the consecration “this is the chalice of my blood…the new and everlasting convenant…it will be shed for you and for all for the forgiveness of sins.” Instead of saying it will be shed for you and for many…the priests switch the word to all. However, since they start out with this is the chalice of my blood, they are clearly using the new Mass translation (and they say the new Mass translation at every other part of Mass.)

I contacted our vicar about one priests who was doing this-nothing happened to him, he is still using the wrong words and now I have noticed several other priest doing it as well.

What else can be done?

 

[otjm]

There seems to be a trend in our diocese where the priest uses these words at the consecration “this is the chalice of my blood…the new and everlasting convenant…it will be shed for you and for all for the forgiveness of sins.” Instead of saying it will be shed for you and for many…the priests switch the word to all. However, since they start out with this is the chalice of my blood, they are clearly using the new Mass translation (and they say the new Mass translation at every other part of Mass.)

I contacted our vicar about one priests who was doing this-nothing happened to him, he is still using the wrong words and now I have noticed several other priest doing it as well.

What else can be done?

Well, you can send a note to your bishop. Odds are, however, he may not ever see it. And if he does see it, odds are you will never hear how it was handled (primarily because it will not be any of your business).

And if you don’t get satisfaction there, you can send a letter to Rome. Assuming it even gets to the right dicastery, with all the complaints Rome has received, there is a very good possibility that nothing will ever come of it (in part because it will be treated as a minor matter; in part because Rome does not micromanage the world) and you most likely will hear nothing more.

Did you consider speaking with the priest instead of doing something that some might consider tattling?

 

[Warandpeace]

I thought all was part of the new translation? I remember reading an explanation of this around the time of the change.

 

[FrDavid96]

I thought all was part of the new translation? I remember reading an explanation of this around the time of the change.

No. Rome very specifically and pointedly determined that “for many” and not “for all” is to be used in vernacular translations.

I’d like to provide a link or 2, but can’t find a good one to settle-on. I’d suggest using your favorite search engine to look for “vatican pro multis” and you’ll get quite a few resources.

 

[po18guy]

Sounds like the Seattle Archdiocese…

 

[Pablopedro]

An examination of the evidence shows that the translation “for all” does not invalidate the Consecration. Nonetheless, those whose communion with the Church is shaky—or nonexistent—have proceeded to cast doubt on the validity of the Consecration or used the translation to generate needless fear and anxiety on the part of the faithful. Some have even been led into schismatic movements through their efforts.

The tragedy of the situation is that the whole controversy was unnecessary. If the phrase had been literally translated from the beginning, then the confusion would not have arisen.

Full article can be read here:

catholic.com/magazine/articles/vatican-corrects-controversial-translation

 

[ProVobis]

There seems to be a trend in our diocese where the priest uses these words at the consecration “this is the chalice of my blood…the new and everlasting convenant…it will be shed for you and for all for the forgiveness of sins.” Instead of saying it will be shed for you and for many…the priests switch the word to all. However, since they start out with this is the chalice of my blood, they are clearly using the new Mass translation (and they say the new Mass translation at every other part of Mass.)

Actually the exact words are:

“for this is the chalice of my Blood, the Blood of the new andeternal covenant, which will be poured out for you and for many for the forgiveness of sins.”

The old one:

“this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlastingcovenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven.”

It is not merely just a substitution of “all” to “many.”

 

[Elizium23]

Did you consider speaking with the priest instead of doing something that some might consider tattling?

It is not considered “tattling” when the faithful stand up for their right to a licitly celebrated Eucharist according to the prescriptions of Redemptionis Sacramentum. On the contrary, this document lays out clear and comprehensive structures for reporting abuses, as well as how to determine their gravity. As things go, this is not a grave abuse. But it cannot be dismissed out of hand, particularly not with a puerile term such as “tattling”. I commend you for standing up for your rights and I encourage you to pursue this through the correct channels as much as you have energy for. I also encourage you to find others who are disturbed by this abuse and join together with you so that your voice is more likely to be heard.

 

[bben15]

I believe the essential words are: This is my blood.

 

[ProVobis]

I believe the essential words are: This is my blood.

But that doesn’t work if it’s qualified in certain ways. For example, the priest says “This is my blood only for Irish Catholics.” I don’t think there would be too many theologians who would be happy with that.

That said, I’m noticing more and more priests are reciting prayers from memory. Not good IMO. Yesterday the priest forgot everything after “My peace I give you.” and he gave up trying to find it in the Missal and the congregation laughed all the way up to communion. I didn’t find it funny.

 

[Brendan_64]

It is not considered “tattling” when the faithful stand up for their right to a licitly celebrated Eucharist

But don’t you think that, in the spirit of charity, a person ought to speak directly to the priest in question himself, before firing off letters to his superiors?

It might just be a case of human error, priests are human, maybe cut the guy a bit of slack? At least have a friendly conversation directly with him about it.

In the big scheme of things it’s not exactly a major liturgical abuse.

For example, the priest says “This is my blood only for Irish Catholics.” I don’t think there would be too many theologians who would be happy with that.

Personally, I wouldn’t have such a big problem with that

 

[Elizium23]

But don’t you think that, in the spirit of charity, a person ought to speak directly to the priest in question himself, before firing off letters to his superiors?

[184.] Any Catholic, whether Priest or Deacon or lay member of Christ’s faithful, has the right to lodge a complaint regarding a liturgical abuse to the diocesan Bishop or the competent Ordinary equivalent to him in law, or to the Apostolic See on account of the primacy of the Roman Pontiff.[290] It is fitting, however, insofar as possible, that the report or complaint be submitted first to the diocesan Bishop. This is naturally to be done in truth and charity.

By a strict reading of Redemptionis Sacramentum, the protocol set forth does not require it at all. However, to put aside a more legalistic mindset and consider human nature and a Christian ethos, it is certainly possible to charitably address a perceived abuse at the lowest level, with the priest or the pastor, and hope earnestly that the abuse will be corrected forthwith. On the other side of the coin, there may be legitimate reasons for going directly to the ordinary, such as fear of retribution. If someone knows that the particular situation in a parish is unfavorable to correction and bringing it up locally will only stir dissent and vindictiveness, then perhaps he should have recourse to the ordinary and hope for his anonymity to be protected.

I think a very common case that is not well documented is the case where a priest has permission or ability to do something that the parishioner thinks is an abuse. In these cases also, directly addressing the priest responsible would put an end to the matter immediately. Or they can go post it to an Internet forum where we can all speculate wildly and take up a collection for his plane flight to Rome.

 

[Brendan_64]

By a strict reading of Redemptionis Sacramentum, the protocol set forth does not require it at all.

First and foremost, despite any written protocol, we are called to deal with one another in the spirit of charity. In general this means speaking to the man face to face before going over his head.

I would also suspect that a complaint to the bishop will probably result in an answer of, “Have you spoken to Father ___ about your concerns?”