A reader writes:
Hello again Jimmy,
What do you do, or rather, what is the appropriate response and/or teaching about the following situation:
I have been at Mass several times where the priest changes the words of consecration. For the words of consecration for the bread, he says "Take this, all of you, and eat it. This is My Body, which will be given up for all of you." For the consecration of the wine he says, "Take this, all of you, and drink from it: this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for everyone
so that sins may be forgiven. And as often as you do this, you do it in memory of me."Are these extra words and the changing a big deal?
Yep. The words of consecration are the most important words in the whole Mass, and it is objectively gravely sinful to knowingly and deliberately tamper with them in any way, even a way that does not invalidate the consecration.
So far, whenever it has happened (and it happens at other places too, not just with this priest, but I am specifically asking about this priest because I’ll be at an event this week where he will celebrate the Mass), I pray for him,
Good reaction.
for the Church,
Also good.
for an increase in love for the Blessed Sacrament,
Very good.
and I refrain from communing because I’ve never been sure if this is a valid consecration or not.
Not good.
If the changes are of the nature you say then the consecration is going to be valid. As long as he conveys the ideas "This is my Body" and "This is . . . my blood" then the consecration will take place because the words he uses signify the reality of transubstantiation.
Is it a valid consecration?
Yes, as indicated.
If it is not, am I doing right to stay in the pew?
If it were not valid then you should, of course, refrain from receiving, but since the consecration is valid the Church would encourage you to receive as long as you are otherwise qualified and properly disposed (e.g., you’ve fasted for an hour before Communion, you aren’t in a state of mortal sin, etc.).
When I am at the Mass with him it is usually a small group and all the rest of the group is Catholic and in the past, everyone else has gone for communion except me.
God is pleased by your willingness to honor him by allowing yourself to be left out in this manner, even though it has not been objectively necessary.
A couple of times Father has actually motioned to me or asked if I would like to come to communion, too.
Father is behaving irresponsibly. (But then you already knew that.) Neither priests nor anybody else should ever put pressure on individuals to receive Communion. They particularly should not do so publicly. This is unconsionable. They may preach about the good of frequent, properly disposed Communion (as long as they are not giving the impression of targeting any particular person or group of persons with this preaching), but if someone is refraining from coming then it is an abuse of the rights of the faithful to pressure them into coming. Church law and teaching is clear that nobody is to be forced to the sacraments, and that includes putting public pressure on them to receive the sacraments.
Is there a way to approach Father and ask him about this or have an apologetic moment? I’m not 100% sure that I am going to teach him anything new that he didn’t learn in seminary.
It sound as if there is a good deal he didn’t learn in seminary that you could teach him. That being said, you know the saying: "You can lead a horse to water, but you can’t make him drink." It is a judgment call whether you think that he’s teachable and what the benefits and costs would be of trying to educate him on the matter.
One thing, if you conclude that the thing to do is to talk to him about it, that can maximize your chances is quoting official Church documents. He’s not likely to care about what I’ve said on a blog. Arguing on that basis will distract and bog down the discussion. But if you show him official Church documents, you have a better chance of helping him to see the difficulty with what he is doing.
To that end, I suggest that you look up
CANON 846 ยง1 OF THE CODE OF CANON LAW.
Since this canon says that in celebrating the sacraments the liturgical books are to be faithfully observed, with no one adding, deleting, or changing anything in them, and since the words of consecration are printed in the liturgical books (specifically, the Sacramentary) it is impermissible to tamper with the words of consecration.
20
One of the priests at a parish I go to often says “Take this all of you, and drink it, this is my blood…it will be shed for you and for all, men and women…” adding the men and women part I guess.
I don’t understand why he adds this since the words already say “all”, don’t they?
I heard someone recommend once that if you are not sure if the consecration is valid or not, to go ahead and receive (with a “conditional” type of mindset). They reasoned that if it was not valid, no harm would be done (since you had the “conditional” mindset upon receiving). And if it was valid, the types of people who would mess with the consecration may also not properly dispose of the remaining pieces, so all the better to have more of them consumed. (Besides that then you got to receive Our Lord.)
Is this good advice?
These seem to be extremely minor discrepancies and of a nature that do not seem to change the meaning of the text in ANY way. I know that small changes can have profound differences in meaning, for example substituting “people” or “men and women” for “men”. But these do not even seem to do that. It’s almost as if they were simple translation differences or that he mispoke because of the familiar language that they contain.
Jimmy, my poiny is not to contradict your 20’d post, but to clarify that the changes are so benign that he may not have made them “knowingly and deliberately”. In that sense he deserves a little leeway.
“And as often as you do this, you do it in memory of me.”
I have heard this on numerous occasions, and it bugs me when this attempt at a Scriptural translation is substituted for the liturgical text.
It changes it from an command to a description.
Like “The Lord IS with you” (indicative mood) instead of “The Lord be with you” (subjunctive mood).
It’s a significant shift of meaning, and hardly inadvertent.
I have a hard time dealing with Church authority figures who routinely step out of bounds. Here in Hawaii, it is all too common for kneeling of any sort to be summarily left out of the mass. Some people, like myself, try to continue to kneel, but when the mass in said in high speed fast forward, as a convert I get confused on exactly when to kneel and when to stand — and so do others.
In a casual conversation, I once heard a priest ridiculing people who wanted to kneel.
In a class on the Catechism, a deacon suggested the Hell would be emptied by God’s boundless love because “everyone hates sin.”
The same deacon disparaged “repetitious prayer” as being “insincere.” Although I have been warned as much by a priest in the confessional.
Once, when talking typology about the Kingdom of Heaven, I asked a priest about the Old Testament Kingdom of David. “We’re moving away from that.” he said, “even in the Old Testament, God disparaged the Kingdom of David.” He went on to say that the Church, which didn’t invent papal infallibility until the late 1800’s was progressing to more democratic government.
I usually get talk like that from confrontational non-Catholics. But here, not only are such words on the mouths of authority figures, but they also try to belittle you for speaking up.
I do not have the courage. What I end up doing, is disparaging baby-boomers as the generation that logic forgot. Which I know is bad … but how can I show respect for their age, office, and authority and still challenge them?
Stubble – I once heard a priest, in the homily, disparage people who recieved communion on the tounge as “like dogs.” He then stuck his tounge out and made a ‘stupid dog’ like face.
Needless to say, I very reverently recieved on the tounge from him. Showing him that I, a young Catholic, can be reverent.
That is why I can only recommend that all go to a traditional church with the Traditional Latin Mass. The Novus Ordo Mass has been changed and 75% of the prayers and words of consecration altered. A Mass is not a Mass without the Holy sacrifice of the Mass-and if that is in doubt-then one must go and save their souls. The church was trying to appease the Protestants and still are as it became the “Lords Supper”.
God bless
Why, then, would Latin suffice? Wouldn’t we need to go back to the Greek of the early church?
Well,
you’ve all heard what men have to say about the consecration now hear what God himself says….
“The earth is beginning to reel and soon it will go completely out of control. It is by your own doings that My great punishment will descend upon you. All of Heaven cries tears of blood because of man’s willful neglect of My word. Many priests have slowly and carefully removed Me to place themselves in high positions both at Mass and in the governing of My Church. You are many of the ones who will condemn My true and faithful remnant-children. It is to you that I will say ‘out of My sight’ as you lower yourselves into Hell forever. I tell you again to wake up and change. I tell My remnant children to pray and be strong for these days of Revelation are indeed upon you. Use this last hour for deep and intense prayer. Do not follow the crowd- -follow only Me for I alone speak truth for I ALONE AM TRUTH!”
jesusmaryvisions.com
Jesus to m. tague (little ignorant one)