From a reader:
I was reading in the local Archdiocesan paper about a new development in the liturgy here in New Zealand.
Instead of the use of bells at the time of consecration in some parishes (I know two) a maori call ( the maori are the native people of New Zealand) will be used. The caller rises to proclaim "Haere mai e Hehu e…ou inana e noho ehuna nei i roto i tenei taro e" which the rest of the congregation responds "Nau mai haera mai".
It must be noted that the rest of the liturgy is in English.
I can tell that this is an abuse and is not allowed. What should I do to stop this?
I have no idea what that Maori "call" means, but its meaning is irrelevant.
Be so kind, dear readers, as to open your editions of the "Sacramentary" in whatever English edition you have, or the Missale Romanum, in any edition, and please point out where in the rubrics anyone is directed to say ANYTHING during the elevation, much less a Maori call.
I think it would be interesting to ask by what authority the people implementing this liturgical abuse are adding unauthorized texts to the liturgy… nay, rather, to the most solemn moment of Holy Church’s liturgy.
‘Welcome Christ, your body concealed within this bread’. The priest then replies, followed by the caller then singing: ‘Haere mai e Hehu e. ou toto e noho e huna nei i roto i tenei waina e.’ (Welcome Christ, your blood concealed within this wine) and the congregation answers as before."
After the consecration of the bread and the wine as the Body and Blood of Christ, the sacred species are the Body and Body of Christ. Christ’s presence is not "concealed within" the bread, as if Christ and the bread are together. That is a heresy condemned by the Council of Trent, to wit:
If anyone says that in the sacred and holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body, and of the entire substance of the wine into the Blood, the species (appearance) of the bread and wine only remaining, a change which the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema." [DS 884]
This was reaffirmed clearly by Pope Paul VI in 1965 in Mysterium fidei 46, et alibi, and other citations can be multiplied.
The translation of that Maori phrase, if accurate, does not explicitly deny the doctrine of transubstantiation. However, is this the sort of thing any Catholic should ever say? If you are going to say something, say something clear and correct.
Furthermore, apart from the issue of what it says – and that is a serious problem – where do they get off making changes to the Church’s liturgy? What this approved by a bishop? By a bishops conference? What it approved by the Congregation for Divine Worship? If it was, I hope someone will correct me rapidly so that I can add that information and clarify the situation.
It may be that the local bishop doesn’t know that this is going on. Clipping articles and sending them to him, with a question about his approval might help you get some clarity. Even a sound or video recording of this might help the bishop understand what is happening.
If the local bishop is unresponsive, which happens from time to time because of the many burdens they bear, you could send your concrete information to the Congregation for Divine Worship and Discipline of the Sacraments, where I am sure it would be studied with great interest.