Words at the offeratory

  • Thread starter Thread starter William1964
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

William1964

Guest
I asked this question in the Apologist forum and I’ll ask it hear too to see how you all feel.

I attended mass at a parish I don’t usually go to and the words the priest used at the offeratory kinda perked my ears.

He said: “…through your goodness we have this bread to offer which *mother earth *has given…”

At the wine offering he used mother earth also.

It just kinda sounds new age to me.

Is this ok?
 
It does rather. The priest perhaps doesn’t realize that he is speaking of the earth as if it is a female personage? As such it would appear he is giving honor to a being who is not God.
The bread is a product of seed, soil, rain, perhaps fertilizer…not a person.
 
He is not supposed to be changing the approved mass texts unless the rubrics specifically mention that he may use similar words. At the offertory there is no rubrical verbage indicating that “these or similar words” may be used; thus he must use the prescribed text.
 
I asked this question in the Apologist forum and I’ll ask it hear too to see how you all feel.

I attended mass at a parish I don’t usually go to and the words the priest used at the offeratory kinda perked my ears.

He said: “…through your goodness we have this bread to offer which *mother earth *has given…”

At the wine offering he used mother earth also.

It just kinda sounds new age to me.

Is this ok?
This is a huge no-no. According to Redemptionis Sacramentum:
11.] The Mystery of the Eucharist “is too great for anyone to permit himself to treat it according to his own whim, so that its sacredness and its universal ordering would be obscured”.27 On the contrary, anyone who acts thus by giving free rein to his own inclinations, even if he is a Priest, injures the substantial unity of the Roman Rite, which ought to be vigorously preserved,28 and becomes responsible for actions that are in no way consistent with the hunger and thirst for the living God that is experienced by the people today. Nor do such actions serve authentic pastoral care or proper liturgical renewal; instead, they deprive Christ’s faithful of their patrimony and their heritage. For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal,29 but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline. In the end, they introduce elements of distortion and disharmony into the very celebration of the Eucharist, which is oriented in its own lofty way and by its very nature to signifying and wondrously bringing about the communion of divine life and the unity of the People of God.30 The result is uncertainty in matters of doctrine, perplexity and scandal on the part of the People of God, and, almost as a necessary consequence, vigorous opposition, all of which greatly confuse and sadden many of Christ’s faithful in this age of ours when Christian life is often particularly difficult on account of the inroads of “secularization” as well.31
Furthermore, the document specifically states that:
[59.] The reprobated practice by which Priests, Deacons or the faithful here and there alter or vary at will the texts of the Sacred Liturgy that they are charged to pronounce, must cease. For in doing thus, they render the celebration of the Sacred Liturgy unstable, and not infrequently distort the authentic meaning of the Liturgy.
What the celebrant did should not have been done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top