Eucharist Language Question

[TradMom]

+Praised be Jesus Christ!

[i]This was posted in another "room" here and it is something I have encountered through a friend, and am always at a loss at what to advise. Perhaps this timely subject will receive more attention here in Open Mic.

Pax,
TradMom

(Originally posted by Devotedtohim)

I would like to go to the pastor of my parish regarding this, but I need to know the facts first. Yesterday, at Mass, the new priest MADE UP HIS OWN LANGUAGE as he said the Eucharistic Prayer. Here is an example - I took the Eucharistic Prayer II, and whatever is in parenthesis is what he took out, and obviously, you can see what he made up. (No, I didn't tape or take notes - this is an example, but a pretty accurate one.)

[color="#0000FF"]Lord, oh my Lord, my precious Lord, who lived and died on the Cross for all of us, you are holy holy holy beyond all holiness and understanding (indeed), the (fountain) waterfall of all grace, mercy and loveliness which we shall drink and eat of (of all holiness). Let your holy and most revered and wonderful awe inspiring Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy in your name so we can partake of them and eat them as we know they are truly your body and blood, for you are our Lord, the one and only Lord, the one and only Savior who died upon the Cross to redeem us. (so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.) [/color]

I KNOW this is not right but I don't know WHAT it is. Does this make the Mass (or at least the Eucharist????) invalid, illicit? Is there any "loophole" that says a priest can just add whatever he wants when he offers Mass that I don't know about? Forgive my ignorance, but I always thought that the words/the language of the Mass were very specific and had to be exact.

I hope someone out there can help me - and please, if I am wrong, and he is right in adding whatever he wants, please let me know and I will let it go. That's why I came here first.

God bless!

Katherine

[Vincent Vega]

What colour socks was he wearing with his birkenstocks?

[EcceNovaFacioOmni]

Changing the words of the Eucharistic prayer is improper, but I don't think this instance invalidates the Mass. If he changed the words of institution it would be a different matter.

[rkwright]

The only words necessary* are "This is my body...this is my blood".

*As I understand the Eastern Church does not believe "transubstantiation" occurs at this point, but rather at the epiklesis. Further, as other phatmassers before have pointed out, there is a least one liturgy which Rome has approved which does not contain "This is my body... this is my blood".

[TradMom]

+Praised be Jesus Christ!

I know the original poster in real life, and as I mentioned, I have a friend (different parish) who also has a priest who does this. (Yes, we ARE in Los Angeles.) Is it appropriate to bring this to the attention of the pastor of the parish or is adding/deleting words of the Eucharistic prayer "fine" to the point that it doesn't warrant any kind of action?

I have to say that I have really learned something from this. I certainly consider myself to be one of the more "educated" Catholics around (at least in my immediate circle!) and I was under the impression that these words are to be carefully said as written. In fact, I am EVEN MORE confused since so much of the Pre-Vatican II Traditionalists often use the change of language as their support for not going to the NO Mass, and further - I was under the impression that some (current practicing Catholics now) are up in arms the language is being revised (or reversed - depending upon who you talk to!) once again.

May it please God that someone here will enlighten me.

Pax,

TradMom

[Brother Adam]

In the Spirit of Vatican 2 and all:

1. Regulation of the sacred liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on the Apostolic See and, as laws may determine, on the bishop.
2. In virtue of power conceded by the law, the regulation of the liturgy within certain defined limits belongs also to various kinds of competent territorial bodies of bishops legitimately established.
3. Therefore no other person, [b]even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority[/b].

Sacrosanctum Concilium, 22.

[MIKolbe]

I am not sure about appropriateness (or even if it should be an issue), but under canon 212 (sect 2 & 3 specifically) you certainly have the right to bring it to the Priest's attention.

Personally, I would not concern myself with what pre-vat 2 think or people who go to the 'NO Mass' think. We are one Church. We have one Mass, in 2 forms. To find 'support for arguments' or getting 'up in arms' are only distractions from the Mass and our faith.

[Brother Adam]

To clarify further, based on the information we have the Mass was not invalidated, but it was a serious liturgical abuse on the part of the priest to change the canon.

Those who are up in arms about the new translation of the Roman Missal are mostly progressive Catholics who thought the Church would have looked like the Anglican church by now. It is best to simply ignore them.

[rkwright]

I didn't mean my comments to be interpreted as "the priest can say anything he wants as long as he says this is my body, this is my blood". Far from it, Priests should stick to the rubics - say the black - do the red.

[let_go_let_God]

[quote name='rkwright' timestamp='1291747870' post='2191460']
Priests should stick to the rubics - say the black - do the red.
[/quote]

If we still had the rating system, +1

God bless-
LGLG

[TradMom]

+Praised be Jesus Christ!

Thank you - all. I appreciate the specific codes and information. It didn't (and doesn't) "feel" right to me, but, well, I believe we all know that feelings can often lead to trouble!

Pax,
TradMom