What is Liturgically Correct?

  • Thread starter Thread starter CyberSaint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
C

CyberSaint

Guest
Our new priest conducts Mass in a way that seems wrong. He doesn’t use the words as they are printed in the rubrics. He makes up a lot of stuff, and even with the various prayers he modifies things. For instance, he introduces the Mass, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Creed with prose that is thematically aligned with the homily. He changes the words of institution to state “He broke break, and gave it to the Apostles,” and he changes the blessings like at the end of Mass to non-standard ones. He modifies the preface in the Liturgy of the Eucharist too. When he preaches, he leaves the Sanctuary, though he stays in front of the pews. When the part comes where the congregation states" May the Lord accept the Sacrifice at your hands," he says it aloud too. The list could go on, but I made my point.

At other churches I have visited, the Mass is conducted very closely, if not exactly with the rubrics.

Which way is it supposed to be? Does anyone have any citations to which I may refer?

Am I being too picky, or should he only say what is in black and do what is in red? I am looking for honest feedback on my uneasiness with this.
 
These are liturgical abuses, as I expect many here will say. Vatican II said that no priest can alter the liturgy. What to do about this? This has been endlessly debated on other threads on this forum. Some have said to stay and try to correct it. Or to alert the bishop to this after speaking to the priest to no avail. Others say to join another parish. These are some of the options you have the right to take.
 
CyberSaint said:
Our new priest conducts Mass in a way that seems wrong. He doesn’t use the words as they are printed in the rubrics. He makes up a lot of stuff, and even with the various prayers he modifies things. For instance, he introduces the Mass, the Lord’s Prayer, and the Creed with prose that is thematically aligned with the homily. He changes the words of institution to state “He broke break, and gave it to the Apostles,” and he changes the blessings like at the end of Mass to non-standard ones. He modifies the preface in the Liturgy of the Eucharist too. When he preaches, he leaves the Sanctuary, though he stays in front of the pews. When the part comes where the congregation states" May the Lord accept the Sacrifice at your hands," he says it aloud too. The list could go on, but I made my point.

At other churches I have visited, the Mass is conducted very closely, if not exactly with the rubrics.

Which way is it supposed to be? Does anyone have any citations to which I may refer?

Am I being too picky, or should he only say what is in black and do what is in red? I am looking for honest feedback on my uneasiness with this.
Click to expand...
I don’t believe there is anything wrong with him leaving the Sanctuary when he preaches. There is no rule that I know of that they are not allowed to do this. The rest sounds like he is going off book, would you be comfortable approaching him and asking about it?
 
I would, but I would first like to know if my expectations are in order or not.
 
Have you checked the GIRM?

I’ll see if I can find the instruction about leaving the sanctuary during the homily–anything else should be here.

Lux

PS These don’t sound like serious abuses–you can also check Redemptionis Sacramentum
 
I checked, and found that the instruction #97 is from the 1972 GIRM
  1. The homily is given at the chair or at the lectern.
Click to expand...
Anybody have a reference from a more recent document?

Lux
 
Lux_et_Tenebrae said:
I checked, and found that the instruction #97 is from the 1972 GIRM

Anybody have a reference from a more recent document?

Lux
Click to expand...
No, I don’t. However, I do know for a fact now that the celebrant may give his homily in front of the altar, facing the people, but it is recommended that he does not leave the Sanctuary. For example, if the Sanctuary has three main steps leading up to the altar, he is not to descend any of those steps. I know this because I asked the bishop of my diocese a couple years ago.
 
I do agree that this should not be done, but I was told the words of instution are “this is My Body” & “This is My Blood”.

I doubt if “apostles” would be a major concern to a Bishop.

Lux
 
mdgspencer said:
These are liturgical abuses, as I expect many here will say. .
Click to expand...
not necessarily. Without knowing exactly what the priest is saying at the Preface, Eucharistic Prayer, Consecration etc. it is impossible to know whether or not he is using one of the several approved versions. The other things mentioned are not necessarily liturgical abuse. that term should be used ONLY for actions and words that make the Mass illicit and the Sacrament invalid.

If OP is not an expert in this area she would be well advised to assume the priest, with his years of training and experience, is within his rights and duties, and that she may perhaps be mistaken. This is no small issue as the spiritual discomfort that comes from playing liturgy police is very damaging to the individual, and a triumph for Satan.
 
puzzleannie said:
not necessarily. Without knowing exactly what the priest is saying at the Preface, Eucharistic Prayer, Consecration etc. it is impossible to know whether or not he is using one of the several approved versions.
Click to expand...
I agree, I’ve heard a few priests use the words:

"Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, He broke the bread, gave it to His disciples (I guess the substitution Apostles instead of disciples is the issue here) , saying, “Take this and it it. This is my body which will be given up for you.”

I believe this is Eucharistic prayer 2, nothing out of the ordinary except apostles…and even that is still a synonym, so maybe the priest just fell into the wrong word here as habit. It can happen.
 
I brought my Magnificat with today and followed along in the rubrics. He stayed mostly on-course today, and deviated only on the preface to the Eucharistic prayers. He started with the Preface to Sundays in Ordinary Time V, but then changed the words to match the theme of his sermon.

Is this deviation okay? Does the Sacramentary have words that say he can modify the text to this?
 
CyberSaint said:
I brought my Magnificat with today and followed along in the rubrics. He stayed mostly on-course today, and deviated only on the preface to the Eucharistic prayers. He started with the Preface to Sundays in Ordinary Time V, but then changed the words to match the theme of his sermon.

Is this deviation okay? Does the Sacramentary have words that say he can modify the text to this?
Click to expand...
The basic principle is this: Read the black, do the red.

No, what Father is doing is not permitted, especially for the Eucharistic Prayer.
 
Ignatius2000 said:
I agree, I’ve heard a few priests use the words:

"Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, He broke the bread, gave it to His disciples (I guess the substitution Apostles instead of disciples is the issue here) , saying, “Take this and it it. This is my body which will be given up for you.”

I believe this is Eucharistic prayer 2, nothing out of the ordinary except apostles…and even that is still a synonym, so maybe the priest just fell into the wrong word here as habit. It can happen.
Click to expand...
Eucharistic Prayer II says:

“Before he was given up to death,
a death he freely accepted,
he took bread and gave you thanks.
He broke the bread,
gave it to his disciples, and said: . . . .”

The word Apostles is not used.

In fact, all four Eucharistic Prayers use disciples and not apostles.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top