What is meant by: "I am not worthy to receive...."

  • Thread starter Thread starter Luke2220
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Luke2220

Guest
Just before distribution of Holy Communion, the congregation says:

“Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed”.

I understand the scriptural reference to that prayer ( Matt8; Lk7), and the acknowledgement by the Centurion of i) his unworthiness and ii) the authority of Christ (to simply speak it). Fantastic! 👍

I guess I don’t fully appreciate what is meant by the prayer in the context of preparing to receive Holy Communion.
- Are we being “healed” (forgiven) for venial sin prior to receiving communion?
- Can people legitimatly claim that prayer, removes the need to go to confession?; i.e. they have been “healed” of mortal sin? (I would think NOT!! :eek: ).

What is the deeper meaning of that prayer prior to commnunion? :confused:

Blessings,
Luke2220
 
Just before distribution of Holy Communion, the congregation says:

“Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed”.

I understand the scriptural reference to that prayer ( Matt8; Lk7), and the acknowledgement by the Centurion of i) his unworthiness and ii) the authority of Christ (to simply speak it). Fantastic! 👍

I guess I don’t fully appreciate what is meant by the prayer in the context of preparing to receive Holy Communion… What is the deeper meaning of that prayer prior to commnunion? :confused:

Blessings,
Luke2220
Like most things in the Catholic Church, there are multiple meanings. You identified one (we will soon be ‘healed’ of venial sins). There’s also an acknowledgment that all of the supplications we are bringing to the altar, as we receive, can be answered by Christ in the Eucharist.

There’s also the idea that the graces that come from receiving the Eucharist heal our soul.

So, there are many different meanings to this prayer.
 
all the above, and the admission that none of us is worthy to receive Christ into the dwelling place of our heart, he alone makes us worthy.
 
Just before distribution of Holy Communion, the congregation says:

“Lord, I am not worthy to receive you, but only say the word, and I shall be healed”.

I understand the scriptural reference to that prayer ( Matt8; Lk7), and the acknowledgement by the Centurion of i) his unworthiness and ii) the authority of Christ (to simply speak it). Fantastic! 👍

I guess I don’t fully appreciate what is meant by the prayer in the context of preparing to receive Holy Communion.
- Are we being “healed” (forgiven) for venial sin prior to receiving communion?
- Can people legitimately claim that prayer, removes the need to go to confession?; i.e. they have been “healed” of mortal sin? (I would think NOT!! :eek: ).

What is the deeper meaning of that prayer prior to communion? :confused:

Blessings,
Luke2220
That is one of the responses that is being corrected this Advent with the New Missal. It will read. “Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, But only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”

The reason is just as the Centurion we are sinners unworthy for the Lord to come into our house or in the case of The Eucharist our bodies, But by his word our souls are healed just as the centurions servant was healed so shall we be.

It is a acknowledgement of our fallen nature and of the stain of original sin that is upon us. that even with the grace and forgiveness that comes from the sacrament of reconciliation it is only by god grace that we are worthy of any of it at all.
 
That is one of the responses that is being corrected this Advent with the New Missal. It will read. “Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, But only say the word and my soul shall be healed.”
Once again, it seems change will be for the worse. The phrasing, “that you should enter under my roof” is very awkward. Not that it matters in my parish, since each priest basically makes up his own liturgy.
 
Once again, it seems change will be for the worse. The phrasing, “that you should enter under my roof” is very awkward. Not that it matters in my parish, since each priest basically makes up his own liturgy.
It’s no more awkward than any other phrase that one may not say often. Many of the phrases in the old translation (the current translation) were awkward for me when I was converting to Catholicism, because they weren’t things I said or heard every day.

I bet that after a year or two of you saying it, it won’t sound or be awkward anymore.
 
It’s no more awkward than any other phrase that one may not say often. Many of the phrases in the old translation (the current translation) were awkward for me when I was converting to Catholicism, because they weren’t things I said or heard every day.

I bet that after a year or two of you saying it, it won’t sound or be awkward anymore.
Still, it’s going to make the words “Only say the word and I shall be healed” on my tattoo look a little awkward…

(NOTE: I don’t have said tattoo yet, but when I get it in two weeks that’s what it will say… and yes, I already considered changing it to the new translation, but I like it the current way… :o)
 
Still, it’s going to make the words “Only say the word and I shall be healed” on my tattoo look a little awkward…

(NOTE: I don’t have said tattoo yet, but when I get it in two weeks that’s what it will say… and yes, I already considered changing it to the new translation, but I like it the current way… :o)
What about “Only say the word and my soul shall be healed”?
 
What about “Only say the word and my soul shall be healed”?
I don’t like it as much (personally), I tried redesigning it so that the additional letters were included and there’s no way to balance it, and I am my soul (as well as my body), so when I say “only say the word and I shall be healed” that’s what I’m already saying.

Plus, that has always been my favorite line in church since I joined, and it’s the one point where personally I’m not absolutely thrilled by the new translation. I guess the tattoo will be a nostalgia moment that I can say to potential kids/grandkids that “I was alive when…” :rolleyes:
 
The old translation said “worthy to receive you,” but the new translation is more faithful to the Latin and to Scripture. The new translation is not referring to the roof of our mouths. To meaningfully pray this response, we must be familiar with its context:
As [Jesus] entered Capernaum, a centurion came forward to him, begging him and saying, “Lord, my servant is lying paralyzed at home, in terrible distress.” And he said to him, “I will come and heal him.” But the centurion answered him, “Lord, I am not worthy to have you come under my roof; but only say the word, and my servant will be healed. For I am a man under authority, with soldiers under me; and I say to one, ‘Go,’ and he goes, and to another, ‘Come,’ and he comes, and to my slave, ‘Do this,’ and he does it.” When Jesus heard him, he marveled, and said to those who followed him, “Truly, I say to you, not even in Israel have I found such faith.” … And to the centurion Jesus said, “Go; let it be done for you as you have believed.” And the servant was healed at that very moment. (Matt. 8:5-10, 13)
The statement of the centurion was an expression of his great faith in the power that Jesus had; his statement amazed Jesus, Who saw greater faith in a Gentile than in any Israelite. The centurion believed that Jesus did not need to travel and enter his house, but had the ability to heal his servant by simply willing it and saying it. To come under the roof means to enter the house, implying a familiar relationship. But even more important is that according to Jewish ritual law, entering the house of a Gentile would have made Jesus “impure.” (cf. Acts 10:28)

There is a great spiritual message here. God could have remedied our sorry, fallen state just by willing it, just by saying a word. But instead, He sent His Word to us, coming under our roof – taking on a body of flesh and our human condition – and suffering ridicule, persecution, and death on a cross. “For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Cor. 5:21)

So what roof do we mean? We are temples of the Holy Spirit, and our flesh is like the “roof” of this temple. We know we are unworthy to be such temples, where God is present spiritually; we are even less worthy to receive our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. But here Christ does for us what He did not do for the centurion, not because our faith is any less (although oftentimes it is), but because “God had foreseen something better for us.” (Heb. 11:40) Jesus gladly comes to us in the Eucharist.

We also say “my soul shall be healed,” instead of just “I shall be healed.” This does not mean we are distinguishing the soul from the rest of our person, for the Latin word anima means more than just “soul.” It also means “mind” and “vital principle.” Our soul is, in a way, our identity. Being healed in our soul is more radical than simply being healed bodily (which is great, but could be superficial); it is being healed at our core. A healed soul manifests its wholeness throughout the rest of our being.

There are many fruits of receiving Holy Communion devoutly: it increases our union with Christ, it strengthens our spiritual life (in the way material food strengthens our bodily life), it separates us from sin, it wipes away venial sin (but not mortal sin, which is forgiven through the sacrament of Reconciliation), and it strengthens us against committing future mortal sin. (cf. Catechism 1391-1395) This is the healing our souls experience when we receive the Precious Body and Blood of our Lord.
 
Once again, it seems change will be for the worse. The phrasing, “that you should enter under my roof” is very awkward. Not that it matters in my parish, since each priest basically makes up his own liturgy.
How in the world can anything that corrects the errors of the previous translation and brings things more inline with the origianl language that it was written in and closer to the Scripture that it came from to begin with be for the worse?

I am not debating the change of the Mass just the error filled translation of the Mass. It was done in a hurry and mistakes in it where made they have been 20 years in correcting those errors.

An great example is in the Creed:
now we say “maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is seen and unseen” . Well if i am in the mall and my car is in the parking lot it is unseen by me.

the Corrected translation reads, " maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible." Now same thing my car though unseen is not invisisable. we are expressing that not only is God the Make of every thing that is visiable ( can be seen ) but also all those things that are invisiable ( can not be ) the material world and the spirit world.
another is " We look for the
resurrection of the dead" to “and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead” which is much more clear on what we believe.
 
How in the world can anything that corrects the errors of the previous translation and brings things more inline with the origianl language that it was written in and closer to the Scripture that it came from to begin with be for the worse?
(emphasis mine)

I always hate when people call the clarifications of language ERRORS, as though the masses over the last few decades have been wrong.

Human language changes, dead languages more slowly than others for certain, but all languages evolve with the people who use them. The things which are being changed are not corrections of ERRORS that would make all OF masses over the last few decades illicit, but rather are clarifications so that people will better understand what is being said. In other words, the precision of the language used is being increased to assist us, not being corrected from a totally wrong meaning.
 
(emphasis mine)

I always hate when people call the clarifications of language ERRORS, as though the masses over the last few decades have been wrong.

Human language changes, dead languages more slowly than others for certain, but all languages evolve with the people who use them. The things which are being changed are not corrections of ERRORS that would make all OF masses over the last few decades illicit, but rather are clarifications so that people will better understand what is being said. In other words, the precision of the language used is being increased to assist us, not being corrected from a totally wrong meaning.
Ok so lets look at this

Credo translates “I believe” not We believe"

Visibílium ómnium et invisibílium translate to " visiable and invisialble" not seen and unseen. If i not in line of sight with something then for me it is unseen, that does not make it invisiable. use of the incorrect word does chang the meaning.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa translates " my fault, my fault my most greivous fault." not that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do.

ect cum spiritu tu translates " and with your spirit" not and also with you.

Call it what you will, they were not correct translations of the Latin.

I do not beleive that it in any way make the Mass invalid. I beleive that the Mass as said in the Ordinary form since it was given to us is vailid and Holy. correcting Erros would not make the Mass illiciate as we have to use what we are given and as it was approved it was illicate and valid.

That said it can not be denied that mistranslation or error or what ever you wish to call them were made.
 
Ok so lets look at this

Credo translates “I believe” not We believe"

Visibílium ómnium et invisibílium translate to " visiable and invisialble" not seen and unseen. If i not in line of sight with something then for me it is unseen, that does not make it invisiable. use of the incorrect word does chang the meaning.

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa translates " my fault, my fault my most greivous fault." not that I have sinned through my own fault, in my thoughts and in my words, in what I have done, and in what I have failed to do.

ect cum spiritu tu translates " and with your spirit" not and also with you.

Call it what you will, they were not correct translations of the Latin.

I do not beleive that it in any way make the Mass invalid. I beleive that the Mass as said in the Ordinary form since it was given to us is vailid and Holy. correcting Erros would not make the Mass illiciate as we have to use what we are given and as it was approved it was illicate and valid.

That said it can not be denied that mistranslation or error or what ever you wish to call them were made.
I deny it. Therefore, it can be denied. 🙂

Credo=I believe, literally, but it was translated into another language AND into a particular setting, a corporate stting. Therefore, since it was to be said in unison, “We believe” would also be a correct translation (possibly better).

Visible and invisible. ooooo. Latin cognates, translation to an ENGLISH version, with English roots: seen and unseen. Yeah, good translation, from to See not from to Vis.

I may not like the translation, but I find there is a justification for most, if not all.

The one I really hate is Holy Spirit. Come on. This is English we’re using, it’s Holy Ghost!!! or if you want to use words derived from the Latin, use Sacred Spirit. But I bet they are not changing that one!!!
 
Credo=I believe, literally, but it was translated into another language AND into a particular setting, a corporate setting.
But it’s said in Latin in a corporate setting too, yet they say “Credo” altogether, not “Credimus”.
Visible and invisible. ooooo. Latin cognates, translation to an ENGLISH version, with English roots: seen and unseen. Yeah, good translation, from to See not from to Vis.
I don’t understand the second sentence: “From to See not from to Vis.” What does that mean? Visible and invisible are not just Latin cognates, they are standard English words (unlike consubstantial). “Unseen” does not mean “incapable of being seen”, which is what “invisible” means.
The one I really hate is Holy Spirit. Come on. This is English we’re using, it’s Holy Ghost!!! or if you want to use words derived from the Latin, use Sacred Spirit. But I bet they are not changing that one!!!
The translation of “Holy Ghost” owes to English’s Germanic roots. Why should the Germanic necessarily be favored over the Latin? And “sanctus” means “holy” as well as “sacred”.
 
But it’s said in Latin in a corporate setting too, yet they say “Credo” altogether, not “Credimus”.
ah, we English speakers are a testly lot, now ain’t we. Credimus (or is it Credemus) could be we-all (compare to you-all or yall)

I guess the “I believe” is better as it has more in parallel with the “My Father” (or the “Pater Meus”) that we recite later in the mass.
I don’t understand the second sentence: “From to See not from to Vis.” What does that mean? Visible and invisible are not just Latin cognates, they are standard English words (unlike consubstantial). “Unseen” does not mean “incapable of being seen”, which is what “invisible” means.
see comes from the Old English: sēon
vis(root for visual, vision, etc) comes from the Latin: video.

Why favor the Latin over the English when translating to English?
The translation of “Holy Ghost” owes to English’s Germanic roots. Why should the Germanic necessarily be favored over the Latin? And “sanctus” means “holy” as well as “sacred”.
The Germanic influence is more closely related to the old-English than to the Latin. The Latin influence did not make itself felt until those pesky Romans invaded and spoiled a perfectly good Celtic language (I think).

Both Holy and Ghost come from the German.
Both Sanctus and Spiritus from the Latin. Choose one, and stick to it.

I like any translation the makes my pray. So new or old, English or Spanish, pig Latin or Ecclesial Latin. I’m good to go.
 
Well if we are in a state of mortal sin then we are not to receive the Body of Christ. But if we are in a state of Grace we are permitted to receive our Lord in the Blessed Sacrament. Now even us in a state of grace, are not worthy to receive the Eucharist ever when you really think about it. I mean if we could go for a whole year without committing so much as a venial sin (which is most likely impossible) then we still would not be worthy of receiving the Blessed Sacrament. This is one final appeal to God for his forgiveness and blessing because in all actuality we are not worthy to receive him. Remember the Eucharist is the Body, Blood, Soul, and Divinity of Jesus Christ our lord physically present with us.
 
ah, we English speakers are a testly lot, now ain’t we. Credimus (or is it Credemus) could be we-all (compare to you-all or yall)
I don’t know the point you’re making here. (And credimus is “we believe”, whereas credemus is “we will believe.”) My point was simply that the Latin word we’re translating is in the first person singular, and the translation guidelines specifically state that this is to be honored in the translation.
I guess the “I believe” is better as it has more in parallel with the “My Father” (or the “Pater Meus”) that we recite later in the mass.
You could look into why the Creed used liturgically (in both Latin and Greek) is in the first person singular, rather than make a faux link between two prayers.

Consider that the Confiteor begins “I confess”, and that the “Domine non sum dignus” is “Lord, I am not worthy…” These are two other places in the Mass where the congregation uses the first person singular. Should they be re-translated to use the first person plural?

According to Aquinas, the first person singular in the Creed represents the one Church professing the one faith in one voice.
Why favor the Latin over the English when translating to English?
Again, “seen” and “unseen” don’t mean the same thing as “visible” and “invisible”. “Seeable” and “unseeable” (if those are legitimate words) are closer in meaning. But we already have these perfectly good words, “visible” and “invisible”, which happen to be cognates. Yahtzee!
Both Holy and Ghost come from the German.
Good point. (Much better than your “Pater meus” remark.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top