When the Sunday Mass isn't "traditional"

[Kathrin]

I’m writing from Switzerland, and I think here it is a little bit more “liberal” than in the US?

Anyway, often for example during mass there are only two readings.
Or, sometimes not the priest speaks the homily, but somebody else tells something. For example today, a blind woman will speak about her life, I think.

I am just suddenly wondering: If mass isn’t all traditional, does it still fulfill the Sunday obligation?

Kathrin

p.s. I think I’m being scrupulous?
I am suddenly torn, should I try to go to aa mass that is more traditional, but then I’d LIKE to go to the mass in my town today.

 

[Kathrin]

Actually, the blind woman was probably a wonderful idea, as it fits with the Gospel reading.

Only, it’s not a mass, I came to see. The priest is not there. So I am goign to a different one, kind of far away, but that I like evry much too!

 

[Digitonomy]

Anyway, often for example during mass there are only two readings.

On weekday masses there may be only two readings.

Kathrin:

Or, sometimes not the priest speaks the homily, but somebody else tells something. For example today, a blind woman will speak about her life, I think.

Testimony of non-ordained persons is permitted, although it’s supposed to go closer to the end of the mass, not replace the homily. A homily by the priest, or occasionally the deacon is supposed to be given on Sundays and holy days.

Kathrin:

I am just suddenly wondering: If mass isn’t all traditional, does it still fulfill the Sunday obligation?

Generally, yes. We are not required to go to a traditional mass, or a mass without any abuses (that may be impossible for some). We may fulfill our obligation by attending any Catholic mass.

So the key question is, what are the minimum requirements for a service to actually be considered a mass? We’ve discussed this a few times before, and there is no definitive answer. I would say a valid consecration, a Liturgy of the Word, and perhaps communion of the priest and Prayers of the Faithful.

 

[Ockham]

CONGREGATION FOR DIVINE WORSHIP
AND THE DISCIPLINE OF THE SACRAMENT
INSTRUCTION
Redemptionis Sacramentum

On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided
regarding the Most Holy Eucharist

vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20040423_redemptionis-sacramentum_en.html

How to Address a Liturgical Abuse
Challenging Liturgical Practices While Respecting Authority

by Lou Bruno

adoremus.org/1295Bruno.html

Is Your Mass Valid?
Liturgical Abuse
By Bruce Sabalaskey

ourladyswarriors.org/articles/badliturgy.htm

 

[ibkc]

From one of the links Ockham posted above:

The key phrases which confect the Eucharist are “This is My Body” and “This is … My Blood,” which when said by a priest with the proper intention and matter (explained above), truly show the priest acts in the Person of Christ. Other parts of the Eucharistic prayer are, according to St. Ambrose (also quoted in Summa Theologica), essentially preparatory; “by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, for others, but when the time comes for perfecting the Sacrament, the priest no longer uses his own words but the words of Christ.” St. Thomas Aquinas also explains this requirement in great detail in Summa Theologica (Third Part, Question 78, Articles 1 through 6). Changing the words of the preparatory parts of the Eucharistic prayer is illicit and gravely sinful for the priest, but would not invalidate the Eucharist as long as “This is My Body” and “This is … My Blood” are said.

The pastor at my former parish used to change/add to “This is My Body”. He’d say, William Shatner-like, something such as:

“This. THIS. Is. Beyond the SHADOW of a DOUBT. The. BODY. of. … CHRIST.”

He never did it the same way. He loved to riff and free-form it.

Is this the sort of thing that could invalidate the Eucharist? All I know for sure is that it made my husband and myself very uncomfortable and it counts as one of the last straws contributing to our decision to change our membership to the FSSP parish.

 

[Breviarylover]

It’s definitely not a Mass if the priest wasn’t there.

I found a good article on in the EWTN library:

ewtn.com/library/Liturgy/zlitur42.htm

Gospel Reflection by a Layperson?

ROME, 27 JULY 2004 (ZENIT)
Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: After the Gospel reading, sometimes our priest sits in the congregation and a lay minister gets up to give a reflection. When I questioned this practice with our bishop’s office, I was told (not by the bishop) that as long as the priest gives a homily, whose duration could be one minute, the lay ministers can give the “reflection.” Is this true? — K.H., Minnesota

A: The recent instruction “Redemptionis Sacramentum” has dealt with this point quite clearly and in several places.

No. 64 states: “The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself, ‘should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson.’”

No. 65 continues: “It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §§1. This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.”

No. 66 adds: “The prohibition of the admission of laypersons to preach within the Mass applies also to seminarians, students of theological disciplines, and those who have assumed the function of those known as ‘pastoral assistants’; nor is there to be any exception for any other kind of layperson, or group, or community, or association.”

This theme is taken up once more in No. 74: “If the need arises for the gathered faithful to be given instruction or testimony by a layperson in a Church concerning the Christian life, it is altogether preferable that this be done outside Mass. Nevertheless, for serious reasons it is permissible that this type of instruction or testimony be given after the Priest has proclaimed the Prayer after Communion. This should not become a regular practice, however. Furthermore, these instructions and testimony should not be of such a nature that they could be confused with the homily, nor is it permissible to dispense with the homily on their account.”

And finally in No. 161: “As was already noted above, the homily on account of its importance and its nature is reserved to the Priest or Deacon during Mass. As regards other forms of preaching, if necessity demands it in particular circumstances, or if usefulness suggests it in special cases, lay members of Christ’s faithful may be allowed to preach in a church or in an oratory outside Mass in accordance with the norm of law. This may be done only on account of a scarcity of sacred ministers in certain places, in order to meet the need, and it may not be transformed from an exceptional measure into an ordinary practice, nor may it be understood as an authentic form of the advancement of the laity. All must remember besides that the faculty for giving such permission belongs to the local Ordinary and this as regards individual instances; this permission is not the competence of anyone else, even if they are Priests or Deacons.”
…

View the rest here.

 

[Kathrin]

Very instructive, thanks.

It doesn’t say though what that means for the congregation in terms of Sunday obligation… just as a feeling, I would think the responsibility is not with the congregation here?

And probably there are a lot of gray areas? At one point it says in the document that it is not allowed thus it should not become the NORM, or something like that… so that leaves a little bit of leeway, doesn’t it?

 

[japhy]

The pastor at my former parish used to change/add to “This is My Body”. … “This. THIS. Is. Beyond the SHADOW of a DOUBT. The. BODY. of. … CHRIST.”

Is this the sort of thing that could invalidate the Eucharist?

Yes, absolutely, that is an invalid (non-existent) Eucharist. The priest is not narrating. (“Institution narrative” is a misnomer.) Christ is speaking through the priest, the priest is not speaking on his own. He must say “This is my body” and “This is … the cup/chalice of my blood.”

 

[ibkc]

Yes, absolutely, that is an invalid (non-existent) Eucharist. The priest is not narrating. (“Institution narrative” is a misnomer.) Christ is speaking through the priest, the priest is not speaking on his own. He must say “This is my body” and “This is … the cup/chalice of my blood.”

Thanks, japhy. Wow. As I said, both of us felt very uncomfortable when he did that and now I think I understand why. That priest is a good man but very overenthusiastic. I hope for the sake of our old parish that he settles down.

 

[benedictgal]

Very instructive, thanks.

It doesn’t say though what that means for the congregation in terms of Sunday obligation… just as a feeling, I would think the responsibility is not with the congregation here?

And probably there are a lot of gray areas? At one point it says in the document that it is not allowed thus it should not become the NORM, or something like that… so that leaves a little bit of leeway, doesn’t it?

The answer given by Fr. McNamara predates the promulgation of Redemptionis Sacramentum (which came out in October 2004). Here is what the document says about the homily:

[64.] The homily, which is given in the course of the celebration of Holy Mass and is a part of the Liturgy itself,142 “should ordinarily be given by the Priest celebrant himself. He may entrust it to a concelebrating Priest or occasionally, according to circumstances, to a Deacon, but never to a layperson.143 In particular cases and for a just cause, the homily may even be given by a Bishop or a Priest who is present at the celebration but cannot concelebrate”.144

[65.] It should be borne in mind that any previous norm that may have admitted non-ordained faithful to give the homily during the Eucharistic celebration is to be considered abrogated by the norm of canon 767 §1.145 This practice is reprobated, so that it cannot be permitted to attain the force of custom.

[66.] The prohibition of the admission of laypersons to preach within the Mass applies also to seminarians, students of theological disciplines, and those who have assumed the function of those known as “pastoral assistants”; nor is there to be any exception for any other kind of layperson, or group, or community, or association.146

Thus, for a Sunday Mass, there is no wiggle room.

 

[benedictgal]

From one of the links Ockham posted above:

The pastor at my former parish used to change/add to “This is My Body”. He’d say, William Shatner-like, something such as:

“This. THIS. Is. Beyond the SHADOW of a DOUBT. The. BODY. of. … CHRIST.”

He never did it the same way. He loved to riff and free-form it.

Is this the sort of thing that could invalidate the Eucharist? All I know for sure is that it made my husband and myself very uncomfortable and it counts as one of the last straws contributing to our decision to change our membership to the FSSP parish.

To follow up what japhy wrote:

1. The Eucharistic Prayer
   [51.] Only those Eucharistic Prayers are to be used which are found in the Roman Missal or are legitimately approved by the Apostolic See, and according to the manner and the terms set forth by it. "It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers"129 or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals.130

This comes from Redemptionis Sacramentum. I hope this helps.

 

[chrisb]

Grace and Peace,

I have a parish priest who is “overenthusiastic” too

Perhaps your priest is charismatic.

 

[CB_Catholic]

Grace and Peace,

I have a parish priest who is “overenthusiastic” too

Perhaps your priest is charismatic.

I don’t know of a single charismatic priest around here who changes the words of the Consecration, and I’ve been to plenty of Masses where they were the celebrants. Where did you come up with that idea?

 

[Phemie]

Very instructive, thanks.

It doesn’t say though what that means for the congregation in terms of Sunday obligation… just as a feeling, I would think the responsibility is not with the congregation here?

And probably there are a lot of gray areas? At one point it says in the document that it is not allowed thus it should not become the NORM, or something like that… so that leaves a little bit of leeway, doesn’t it?

It seems that what you experienced was what Canadians call a “Sunday Celebration of the Word with Communion” and Americans call “Sunday Celebration in the absence of a priest”. The laity can certainly offer a ‘reflection’ at those or they can read a ‘homily’ written by the pastor.

As for meeting your obligation, if there is no Mass there is no obligation to attend one. If you could get to Mass elsewhere with no difficulty then you should attend one.

It’s funny. When these celebrations first started, the preface to the Ritual designed for this by a Canadian Conference of Bishops (The Western Conference) said that the community should attend these even if there was a Mass available to them elsewhere since the important thing was gathering as a community.

That idea is certainly what drove my former churchless ‘Catholic Community’, a group defined by language, not geography, to gather at the local French community centre to celebrate a French Celebration of the Word on Sundays when our chaplain couldn’t be there and no other French-speaking priest was available. Sadly, language was more important than Mass, since most of those who attended drove by at least one Catholic Church (I drove by at least 3) to get there. I only attended these if I was to be a reader and I always made sure that my children and I attended Mass elsewhere.

Today that idea is totally refuted by Redemptionis Sacramentum and by the Rite designed by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops (CCCB). In Canada these celebrations are common because there are so many isolated communities who only see a priest once in a while. My present pastor used to be responsible for dozens of parishes spread out over a vast territory. He might be able to be with 2, 3 or 4 on any given day. They got Mass and the sacraments whenever he got there. In our own diocese there are a few parishes who only see a priest at Christmas and Easter.

 

[Digitonomy]

Yes, absolutely, that is an invalid (non-existent) Eucharist. The priest is not narrating. (“Institution narrative” is a misnomer.) Christ is speaking through the priest, the priest is not speaking on his own. He must say “This is my body” and “This is … the cup/chalice of my blood.”

I’m not so certain about this. I believe there are some languages that don’t have possessive pronouns, and so I would say “This is the body of Digitonomy” if I were referring to my own body. It’s not an elegant way to say it in English, but I think the essential meaning is the same. If we can infer the meaning when the words aren’t even spoken, which is the case in one liturgy, the possibility of validity certainly exists when words are spoken which have the same meaning.

 

[benedictgal]

I’m not so certain about this. I believe there are some languages that don’t have possessive pronouns, and so I would say “This is the body of Digitonomy” if I were referring to my own body. It’s not an elegant way to say it in English, but I think the essential meaning is the same. If we can infer the meaning when the words aren’t even spoken, which is the case in one liturgy, the possibility of validity certainly exists when words are spoken which have the same meaning.

No. In Spanish, the priest must say, “tomen y comen…este es mi cuerpo…este es mi sangre”. In Italian, it’s “il mio”. The text is very specific. It is not about our inferring what we think the text means; the text needs to match to what is written in the Roman Missal.

 

[japhy]

I’m not so certain about this. I believe there are some languages that don’t have possessive pronouns, and so I would say “This is the body of Digitonomy” if I were referring to my own body. It’s not an elegant way to say it in English, but I think the essential meaning is the same. If we can infer the meaning when the words aren’t even spoken, which is the case in one liturgy, the possibility of validity certainly exists when words are spoken which have the same meaning.

Those are not valid words of consecration in English. Any language that has pronouns must use them to accurately and precisely translate “This is my body” and “This is … my blood.” If a language has no pronouns, I’m sure the Vatican has dealt with the manner properly, but in English, it is absolutely invalid to say “This is Christ’s body” or “This is the body of Jesus” instead of “This is my body.”

The priest is not narrating.

 

[Digitonomy]

Those are not valid words of consecration in English. Any language that has pronouns must use them to accurately and precisely translate “This is my body” and “This is … my blood.” If a language has no pronouns, I’m sure the Vatican has dealt with the manner properly, but in English, it is absolutely invalid to say “This is Christ’s body” or “This is the body of Jesus” instead of “This is my body.”

So say you. It doesn’t seem logical to me that a missionary priest who speaks a language free of possesive pronouns would invalidate the Eucharist simply by a minor grammatical anomaly when he translates the EP as faithfully as he can into the local language. Are there sources where I can read more about what illicit formulations may be valid or invalid?

 

[Jerry_Parker]

Hi, Forum guys!

There is a new blog (Google-searchable) for traditional Catholics who are upset or feel ill-at-ease with liturgical improprieties (which, believe us, occur in the vernacular Spanish and French Masses as well as in those in English), and which also favours the Latin Mass (1962 Missale Romanum). This is the Internet blog site Spendor Veritatis Missio (www.ecclesiaprimus.blogspot.com), “S.V.M.” for short. It is mostly in Spanish, but there is English-language content, too, such as “The Faithful Catholic’s Book Nook” (book and audio-visual media reviews, e.g. of Catholic sacred music, hopefully eventually of DVDs, VHS tapes, etc. which are somehow topically Catholic-related). The blog S.V.M. is in NEED OF CONTRIBUTORS who can write in English or Spanish.

If you have writing skills and also good background knowledge of traditional Catholic teaching and worship, PLEASE APPLY to the blogmaster, Rob Nicodemo (a Spanish- and English-speaking latino intellectual and medical doctor who emigrated to the U. S. of A. after his early life and education in the Dominican Republic). If you are interested in writing, contact Rob; his e-mail address is: ecclesiaprimus@gmail.com.

Jerry Parker
www.ecclesiaprimus.blogspot.com

 

[japhy]

So say you. It doesn’t seem logical to me that a missionary priest who speaks a language free of possesive pronouns would invalidate the Eucharist simply by a minor grammatical anomaly when he translates the EP as faithfully as he can into the local language. Are there sources where I can read more about what illicit formulations may be valid or invalid?

(Are there languages in use today that don’t have pronouns? What about hypothetical languages which lack words for “body” or “blood”?)

Does a missionary priest get to translate the Mass into the local language on his own? I would expect the Church would call for the coining of new words (neologisms) so that the vernacular could accurately reflect the Latin and transmit the faith of the Church without ambiguity or confusion.