 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 600 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12th, 2008 01:47 am |
|
Is it OK to change the part that says "protect us from all anxiety" to "protect us from all useless worries and anxieties"?
Is it OK to add "and sisters" to the Gospel reading. Today's reading was from Matt 25 when Jesus mentions the least of his "brothers", I believe...
Can a priest omit the word "behold" from Gospel readings? The only time he'll say "behold" is during the Consecration: "Behold the Lamb of God, Behold Him..."
Am I making a mountain out of a molehill??? But it BUGS me!
Jill
____________________
"The alternative to obedience is to turn the conversation into a cacophony of Christians making it up as they go along." - Fr. Richard John Neuhaus
|
|
|
DrDave
Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | Mildura, Australia |
| Posts: | 211 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Cradle - Lapsed - Renewed Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 12th, 2008 04:11 am |
|
Can. 846 ß1 The liturgical books, approved by the competent authority, are to be faithfully followed in the celebration of the sacraments. Accordingly, no one may on a personal initiative add to or omit or alter anything in those books.
My reading of the above canon is that if the discretion to change wording of a particular prayer or reading is not explicitly outlined in the missal, or in directives issued by the Congregation for the Sacraments since the publication of the missal, then it is not allowed.
That said, there are parts of the mass where discretion is allowed, but from memory I don't believe that that discretion applys to the parts of the mass you mention.
Regards Doc
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 03:25 am |
|
Church authorities have repeatedly been very specific and very clear that “no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority” (Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium 1.3.22.3). One of the more recent pronouncements, the Instruction Redemptionis Sacramentum, issued by the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments on April 23, 2004, contains this provision: “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.”
Where the rubrics give specific permission, and only in those places, the priest may improvise. I’m looking in a current missal at the passage you first mention (“and protect us from all anxiety,” said by the priest after the recitation of the Our Father) and find no rubric other than that the priest alone says this prayer. In other words, there is no permission to ad lib.
The official text for the Gospel you refer to may be found online here. The text clearly reads “for one of these least brothers of mine.” It does not mention “and sisters.” The priest or deacon is never permitted to change the wording of the scriptural readings; they must be proclaimed verbatim according to the official text.
Likewise, the priest has no authority to omit words from the Mass or the readings without a rubric specifically allowing him to do so. Therefore, if a text in the Mass reads “behold,” he must say “behold” unless it is specifically allowed to omit it. On the other hand, the part of the Mass you refer to, “Behold the Lamb of God, Behold Him…,’ actually reads “This is the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world.” The word “behold” does not occur here in the official text. Again, the rubric merely assigns the text to the priest; it does not give him permission to change it.
Now the main question you pose is this: Is it all that important that the official text be followed? The Vatican has repeatedly said that it is. However, this does not make you or me the policeman to ensure that this happens. I must admit that I too am dismayed and saddened by blatant priestly disobedience to the Church’s authorities in this matter. But I do not see how my being annoyed gives me any authority to take matters into my own hands, so I ignore the infraction as best I can and pray for the salvation of all present in spite of our failings. If there is anything I can change, it is my own attitude and behavior.
David
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 04:48 am |
|
I think we should also remember that many of today's priests were trained in the 60's, 70's, and 80's when such minor modifications were not only permitted but encouraged. Earlier versions of the rubrics often instructed the priest to say something "in these or similar words" meaning that the priest could often say whatever he wanted as long as he was attempting to convey the same meaning. This phrase still appears in many rites outside of the mass, and is present within the mass during the Penitential Rite and in other places. The instructions have tightened, but unless the bishop is proactive in making sure the exact letter of the law is followed, many priests will continue to act according to their training.
Jesus said the law was made for man, not man for the law. Let's not lose sight of the fact that minor errors, deliberate or not, do not invalidate the sacrifice of the mass. Many priests are vastly overworked and they don't have the time to study the mountain of mail that they receive each day, much less study it for changes in the instructions that may seem not terribly significant.
I'm not trying to justify disobedience, but priests are human, too. When Jesus spoke of "brothers" and the priest read "brothers and sisters", did he change the meaning of the text? Is there reason to believe that Jesus was speaking only of men being eligible for salvation? Yes, it is wrong to change the words, but did he change the meaning? And is it possible that he did not do it intentionally? Our lectionary often changes "brothers" to "brothers and sisters". Maybe it was a simple mistake. Maybe he didn’t even realize he did it.
I know a priest who very firmly follows the rubrics, but at the Memorial Acclamation he says "The Mystery of Faith" rather than "Let us proclaim the Mystery of Faith". Why? Because the Latin literally translates "The Mystery of Faith". Is he wrong in doing so? Technically, yes. But he sees that phrase (Mysterium Fidei, if I remember my Latin correctly), as referring to the sacrifice that proceeds it, not the declaration that follows it. And I like his thinking. But it's still a violation of the rubrics.
There are many other examples of phrases that can be taken in multiple ways. When Jesus said, "Do this in memory of me", many theologians believe he was not referring to the Eucharist alone, but to his entire life. Maybe he was saying "Live as I lived, love as I loved, serve as I served, and as you share my Body and Blood, do it all in memory of me."
As long as the words of the Consecration are not changed in a material way, the Eucharist is valid, and that's what's really important.
Or to paraphrase several sayings: The Eucharist is the focus. The rest is just details.
Let's look at an analogy. I'm 56 years old. It's been 40 years since I took a driving test. I'm a very good driver. I've never had a ticket for a moving violation. Chances are if I took a written test today without studying for it, I'd fail. The questions and answers have changed. Do people who take driving tests still have to give hand signals and parallel park? But the fact that I don't know those things doesn't make me a bad driver.
So let's give our hard-working priests the benefit of the doubt. The overwhelming majority of them are more concerned with saving souls and taking care of their parish than with dotting i's and crossing t's. They'd rather hear an extra confession or convalidate a marriage or teach the faith to a child or visit a sick person or console a widow than memorize the liturgy word for word. And that's exactly how Jesus would want it.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 11:44 am |
|
CajunRick wrote:As long as the words of the Consecration are not changed in a material way, the Eucharist is valid, and that's what's really important.
This is the primary reason I have recommended that we ignore minor infractions, whether by the priest or by others. Instead of passing judgment and holding grudges, we need to concentrate on forgiveness, as our own salvation depends on this: “Forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us.”
David
|
|
|
Annie
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 718 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 01:19 pm |
|
Priests have no leeway to deliberately (as opposed to making a mistake)change the words or actions of the liturgy. This is considered "grave matter" (or mortal sin for a priest). Here are examples of how the Church as addressed this, from Redemptionis Sacramentum, On certain matters to be observed or to be avoided regarding the Most Holy Eucharist:
[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” or to change the same texts approved by the Church, or to introduce others composed by private individuals.
[52.] The proclamation of the Eucharistic Prayer, which by its very nature is the climax of the whole celebration, is proper to the Priest by virtue of his Ordination. It is therefore an abuse to proffer it in such a way that some parts of the Eucharistic Prayer are recited by a Deacon, a lay minister, or by an individual member of the faithful, or by all members of the faithful together. The Eucharistic Prayer, then, is to be recited by the Priest alone in full.
[53.] While the Priest proclaims the Eucharistic Prayer “there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent”, except for the people’s acclamations that have been duly approved, as described below.
[54.] The people, however, are always involved actively and never merely passively: for they “silently join themselves with the Priest in faith, as well as in their interventions during the course of the Eucharistic Prayer as prescribed, namely in the responses in the Preface dialogue, the Sanctus, the acclamation after the consecration and the “Amen” after the final doxology, and in other acclamations approved by the Conference of Bishops with the recognitio of the Holy See.”
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.
Notice this would cover the wholesale making up of the Eucharistic prayer by "Father Wing-it." Other documents also cover issues such as changing "Happy are those who are called to His supper" to something else, such as "Happy are we who are called to the table," which is particularly egregious, cutting out the presence of the Church triumphant and the sacrificial nature of the Mass.
Last edited on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 01:20 pm by Annie
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 07:02 pm |
|
It seems simple enough that a priest ought to be up to speed as to what he is permitted to do and not do, with the liturgy. How difficult is that? A night or two curled up on a couch with the appropriate documents would seem to be sufficient. Because it is seemingly not difficult to determine the rules and rubrics (we are doing it ourselves here in this thread), one can only conclude that priests who do not either are lax in the matter or being deliberately disobedient and seeing how much they can get away with.
My solution? I wish I were as pious as David Emery, and of course it is always great to pray in any situation, but one way that will accomplish this goal is to speak with your feet: find another parish that does honor the instructions of the magisterium. People leaving cause income of the parish to go down. Money speaks. It's sad that it has to be that way, but whatever works . . .
We as laypeople have a perfect right to experience the Mass the way it is intended to be conducted. As long as we don't fall into a "church-hopping" mentality, we can choose to leave a parish if there are serious problems that do not seem to be correctible.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 07:42 pm |
|
Dave Armstrong wrote: We as laypeople have a perfect right to experience the Mass the way it is intended to be conducted. As long as we don't fall into a "church-hopping" mentality, we can choose to leave a parish if there are serious problems that do not seem to be correctible.
I agree, but we still should not forget that the Eucharist is the central mystery of the mass. Changing a few words here and there does not affect the central mystery.
I tend to obsess over little things (spelling and grammar on the Internet has been a real challenge for me!) so it's been difficult for me to get past what is essentially carelessness in the liturgy, but I've done it by focusing on the Eucharist.
Of course, mistakes can get to the point of distraction, in which case it's time to either call the priest to holiness by reminding him of his obligations to follow Vatican guidelines, or to walk with your feet. But I don't consider changing a few words here and there a "serious problem". I would reserve that term to real abuses of the liturgy.
We don't live in an ideal world, and few of us could withstand the kind of scrutiny our priests are often faced with on a daily basis. Let's assume the best, and pray that our Savior does not judge us by that standard.
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 07:52 pm |
|
Yes, I should have made clear that I meant that one could leave a parish in the event of truly serious, ongoing abuses, not just a few incorrect words here and there. The Eucharist is what it is, of course, but that's not at issue, which is the right of Catholics to participate in Mass the way it is intended to be by the Church.
It's precisely because every individual Catholic has an authority higher than the parish priest, that sometimes he or she can "vote with their feet" and be perfectly within their "rights" as a Catholic to do so (and not merely an individualist, as so often in Protestantism). The problem lies with the priest or other "liturgy abusers" at their parish, not with them.
But I fully agree that this is a final recourse, not the first thing to impulsively do. Speaking for myself, I haven't personally criticized a priest a single time for anything, in my 17+ years as a Catholic. But of course I am spoiled a bit at my parish because everything is conducted so wonderfully there.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
David W. Emery
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Brownsville, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 1714 |
| First Name: | David | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 07:56 pm |
|
Dave Armstrong wrote:My solution? I wish I were as pious as David Emery, and of course it is always great to pray in any situation, but one way that will accomplish this goal is to speak with your feet: find another parish that does honor the instructions of the magisterium.
FYI, I’ve also done that on several occasions. But from what I’ve seen, money is a non-issue with those who deliberately change texts. You will notice the same with any agenda-driven act. However, as Rick says, not every deviation is agenda-driven. More recently, I’ve chosen the other path because I see that my own attitude, not the priest’s, is what will save me.
David
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 08:26 pm |
|
That may very well be (I'll accept your word on that), but on the other hand, their bishop will be concerned if the parish isn't generating enough income and that will still land on the priest's head, so he will still ultimately be affected by loss of parishioners.
Your point (and Rick's) of proper respect for the priest and concern over our possible objectionable attitudes in such situations is perfectly valid and needed, but it's really a separate issue from the original concern of this post, which was liturgical purity and correctness according to the rubrics.
The fact remains that there are rubrics and instructions, and these are sufficiently clear. If we point out an abuse to a priest, with perfect humility and graciousness (maybe over dinner or in the midst of 20 compliments, etc., and without the slightest hint of an unsavory "judgmental" or superior attitude) and he simply refuses to make the needed changes, then whether or not his error was inadvertent before, it is now deliberately opposed to Church instruction, since he has been informed of his error.
And what does one do in that situation, if the priest persists in the error? Watch your attitude; pray; absolutely! That's a given. But in the final analysis, like I said, the layman has the right as a Catholic, to the Mass as it ought to be (just as the increasing yearning for the Tridentine Mass as a live option in Catholic worship has arguably played a big role in the present greater availability of that Mass).
Again, I agree with you and Rick about attitudes and priorities, and not entering into unwise battles over relatively small abuses (though they be real and troubling). But there comes a point when one can leave in good conscience, having tried other means with no success.
We all have our own experiences. I haven't (thank God) been subject to all these abuses and doctrinal absurdities (including RCIA horror stories), that I hear about distressingly often here, and from other Catholics elsewhere. Consequently, I've been at my parish the entire time since I was received into the Church, in February 1991 and have not had a single situation where I felt compelled to ever "correct" my parish priest.
I would say in summary that a priest has a reponsibility to make sure the liturgy is done properly and correctly. This is central to his task as a priest (along with dispensing sacraments, administration, prayer, visitation, etc.). He is no more immune from doing his job properly than anyone is, whether it is making sure to teach proper Catholic doctrine (as in my situation as an apologist and now moderator here) or balancing the books properly if one is an accountant or following the standard procedures of doctors and nurses, or constructing a road or a building the right way, or preparing a good meal at a restaurant. Whatever it is, a worker in his field has the responsibility to do it right. All the more in the case of the Catholic liturgy, because of its supreme importance.
Many priests may simply be unaware that they are doing anything wrong. I grant that, and am happy this is the reason rather than disobedience. But once they are made aware that they ought not do something and continue to do so, then there is a serious problem in their attitude, not necessarily in the super-seriousness of a word here or there being botched.
I respect no people on earth more than I do priests and religious. I'm in awe of them. But they are not immune from criticism, when they do things wrong, and come to know without a doubt that they are wrong, yet continue to do it.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 08:39 pm |
|
But I do not see how my being annoyed gives me any authority to take matters into my own hands,
But why cannot a concerned layman point out that the rubrics of the Mass have been violated? Does not every layman have the right to appeal to a bishop, in the case of a straying priest? This is how the Catholic Church hierarchy works. The priest is subject to the bishop, and so a layman can appeal to a bishop for recourse against priestly abuses of the liturgy, just as we can sometimes go over the head of our supervisors at work, to the "big boss" (or higher up the ranks in the military, in serious situations).
That is not taking matters "into my own hands." Laymen are not deprived of all say-so whatsoever in the Church, as if we are dumb sheep. That's not even true in doctrinal matters, where there is such a thing as the "consent of the faithful" (sensus fidelium) that Cardinal Newman has eloquently written about. It's how the Catholic Church works. And we can also appeal to the pope in the case of erring bishops.
Let it be rare, well thought through and considered, done with the right attitude, soaked in prayer; amen! But I don't see how it is intrinsically improper to take such measures, failing gentler ones. I think this is a sort of assumed premise or "sub-discussion" that is occurring in this thread alongside the original topic of the objectionable liturgical messing-around of some priests.
Last edited on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 08:40 pm by Dave Armstrong
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
Dave Armstrong
Network Apologist
| Joined: | Fri Nov 2nd, 2007 |
| Location: | Melvindale, Michigan USA |
| Posts: | 1227 |
| First Name: | Dave | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Nominal Methodist / evangelical non-denom / "Bapticostal" / Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 08:50 pm |
|
"The people, however, are always involved actively and never merely passively: for they “silently join themselves with the Priest in faith, as well as in their interventions during the course of the Eucharistic Prayer as prescribed"
It occurred to me that this is another very relevant factor in laymen speaking up about liturgical abuse. The very fact that Vatican II so highly stressed active liturgical participation of all at Mass means that, to the extent that abuses occur, now we are also forced to participate (in one sense) in the same error. And that is simply unacceptable. It doesn't have to be, and there are things we can do about it.
If talking charitably, kindly, but firmly to our priests and bishops does not change this, then we should go to a parish where it is done right, and if enough people together decide to do that, then perhaps some necessary changes will be made.
This is being a conscientious Catholic and seeking to worship at Mass the way that the magisterium wants it to be, not trying to simply go our own way, as if there was anything wrong with it.
I again offer the analogy of the availability of the Tridentine Mass. If the faithful kept expressing that they wanted that option (and often due to the shabby, shoddy nature of how so many Novus Ordo Masses are done today), and that helped to cause two popes to increasingly abide by their wishes, then surely we can also complain about liturgical abuses and try to rectify that situation as well. The last two popes have often written about such things, so it is perfectly proper for laypeople to follow their lead, as long as we do it with the proper respect and humility for those who have authority over us in the Church.
____________________
I'm happy to offer whatever theological & personal assistance I can. My blog, Biblical Evidence for Catholicism, contains 1900+ papers & web pages (absolutely free) & 16 apologetic books (for sale):
http://www.biblicalcatholic.com/
|
|
|
DaQuodJubes
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| First Name: | Dan | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Former Lutheran |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 10:04 pm |
|
In the LCMS, conservative/confessionals spoke of those who changed the words of the liturgy as liturgical cowboys. Not meant as a compliment. When I was asked similar questions as this by members of other parishes (and I often was), I would counsel them to talk to their pastor privately in a kind and non-confrontational way, and asked them explain the action (just as Jill asked this forum). Tell him that the action confused you and you would like to understand. In the LCMS, most pastors knew when they were doing something they were not supposed to do, and the mere question (if posed in such as way as not to arouse a defensive posture) was enough to make them at least re-think the behavior.
If this happened in the parish we now attend, I would say to the priest, "I've heard a lot of catholics object to how Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28, "a person is justified by faith...". Was that wrong only because his interpretation was wrong, or because he added something that the Holy Spirit did not cause to be written there?" Or something like that.
I would also think about buying him a mug like this one , before thinking better of the idea.
Dan
____________________
God in His omnipotence could not give more,
in His wisdom He knew not how to give more,
in His riches He had not more to give,
than the Eucharist. - St. Augustine
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 600 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 10:37 pm |
|
DaQuodJubes wrote:
I would also think about buying him a mug like this one , before thinking better of the idea.
Dan
OK, I don't get it... "Say the black do the red." I need to know!! What's it mean?? What am I missing??
** edit ** I get it!!! Say the [words in] black and do the [words in] red, Jesus' words, right?? I are really smart!!! 
(I haven't had a Bible like that for a long time. I liked it. Has that fallen out of favor with Bible publishers? ACK! A new topic!)
And thanks to all of you for your good advice. Be hard-of-hearing to minor 'abuses,' (even that word seems strong), but listen for true and serious abuses that damage the faith and which I would perhaps find impossible to participate in. Then proceed lovingly and prayerfully, if necessary.
If anything ever happens to my pastor, I'm moving to Melvindale!
Jill
Last edited on Wed Feb 13th, 2008 10:40 pm by JillD
____________________
"The alternative to obedience is to turn the conversation into a cacophony of Christians making it up as they go along." - Fr. Richard John Neuhaus
|
|
|
DaQuodJubes
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 31st, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| First Name: | Dan | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Former Lutheran |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 11:13 pm |
|
In the missal (altar book), the words that the Priest is supposed to say are written in black ink. The words that tell him what to do (rubrics) are written in red. (such is also the case in Lutheran altar books)
Dan
____________________
God in His omnipotence could not give more,
in His wisdom He knew not how to give more,
in His riches He had not more to give,
than the Eucharist. - St. Augustine
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 600 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Feb 13th, 2008 11:27 pm |
|
DaQuodJubes wrote: In the missal (altar book), the words that the Priest is supposed to say are written in black ink. The words that tell him what to do (rubrics) are written in red. (such is also the case in Lutheran altar books)
Dan
Ohhhhhh...... I guess I are not as smart as I thot as I was..............:?
And I'm even a former Lutheran - though obviously not a priestess.
Welcome, Dan!
____________________
"The alternative to obedience is to turn the conversation into a cacophony of Christians making it up as they go along." - Fr. Richard John Neuhaus
|
|
|
CajunRick
Network Helper
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Houma, Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 4981 |
| First Name: | Rick (& Kermie) | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Lifetime Catholic, Latin Rite |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14th, 2008 01:27 am |
|
DaQuodJubes wrote: If this happened in the parish we now attend, I would say to the priest, "I've heard a lot of catholics object to how Luther added the word "alone" to Romans 3:28, "a person is justified by faith...". Was that wrong only because his interpretation was wrong, or because he added something that the Holy Spirit did not cause to be written there?" Or something like that.
I would simply say, "I'm a convert so I don't understand this stuff yet, but you didn't say what's written here. Why?"
I would also think about buying him a mug like this one , before thinking better of the idea.
I like the way you think. I have a feeling you'll be a great addition to the forum, and we're blessed to have you here with us. Welcome!
I'm looking forward to the day you share your conversion story with us, and even more to the day when you explain your user name!
____________________
Understanding is the reward of faith. Therefore seek not to understand that you may believe, but believe that you may understand. - Augustine
Rick Luquette
Luquette Lane
|
|
|
RCMusicGuy
Member
| Joined: | Sat Feb 23rd, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 23 |
| First Name: | Ron | | Gender: | Male | | Faith History: | Roman Catholic Convert |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 24th, 2008 11:51 pm |
|
JillD wrote: Is it OK to change the part that says "protect us from all anxiety" to "protect us from all useless worries and anxieties"?
Is it OK to add "and sisters" to the Gospel reading. Today's reading was from Matt 25 when Jesus mentions the least of his "brothers", I believe...
Can a priest omit the word "behold" from Gospel readings? The only time he'll say "behold" is during the Consecration: "Behold the Lamb of God, Behold Him..."
Am I making a mountain out of a molehill??? But it BUGS me!
Jill
What Jill stated here a long time ago that started this thread is rather interesting. For me, changing "anxiety" to "worries and anxieties" is not really a big deal. However, changing the quoted words of Jesus in the Gospel from "brothers" to "brothers and sisters" therefore changing the words of Christ is wrong. Omitting the word "behold" is wrong as well. Readings should remain intact, however words changed slightly outside the Word of God, is not such a big deal.
|
|
|
JillD
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Visalia, California USA |
| Posts: | 600 |
| First Name: | Jill | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | heathen, EvFree, Messianic, LC-MS, Catholic 2007 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25th, 2008 05:42 am |
|
I have to share, though, that that phrase "protect us from all anxiety" became an anchor in a storm of anxiousness at various times in the last year. I would wait expectantly for those 5 words and would take a great deal of comfort from them. There was more happening for ME than just those words. I drank them in.
However, when another priest changed the words, it all hit me differently. It was suddenly his thing, his variation, his show. Yes, it seems like a very small thing and it is and I'd never blow it up out of proportion, but for me, that little change took something away from the Mass for me.
The priest is supposed to disappear. It's not his Mass; it's OUR Mass. When he injects his personal preferences, it changes things.
Jill
____________________
"The alternative to obedience is to turn the conversation into a cacophony of Christians making it up as they go along." - Fr. Richard John Neuhaus
|
|
|
Annie
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | Columbus, Ohio USA |
| Posts: | 718 |
| First Name: | Annie | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | nothing, Quaker, Mennonite, Presbyterian, Methodist, Anglican, Catholic |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25th, 2008 01:19 pm |
|
| "Protect us from all anxiety" is the prescribed prayer and should not be changed on the priest's whim.
____________________
Annie
Ora et labora
|
|
|
mrsbmoo
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 29th, 2006 |
| Location: | Virginia USA |
| Posts: | 267 |
| First Name: | Becky | | Gender: | Female | | Faith History: | former Methodist. RCA, Presbyterian, Holiness, Wesleyan... Catholic as of June ... |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 25th, 2008 01:54 pm |
| | |
