Another form of clerical abuse.
From a reader:
I’m a DRE with an important question. Today at Mass, a visiting priest in the diocese indicated the following during his homily:
1. He is very much opposed to the new, more accurate translation.
2. He has allowed females to preach during the liturgy (I can only
imagine he meant he’s allowed females to preach during the homily).
3. He thinks the laity are not intelligent enough to understand what
“consubstantial” & “prevenient grace” are.
That said, during the Narrative Institution & Consecration during the Liturgy of the Eucharist, the visiting priest substituted “for all” in place of “for many”. The priest was looking at the Roman Missal on the altar while he recited the words of Consecration, paused briefly before the phrase “for all” and used “for all”. It certainly seemed as if this visiting priest (who is a priest ordained in my diocese) intentionally used the phrase “for all”. I’ve understood it to be gravely illict to use any formula for Consecration other than the one printed in the translation of the Mass that has been confirmed by the Holy See and that if the degree of departure is substantial enough, the Consecration would be considered invalid. Would the intentional substitution of “for all” instead of the approved “for many” be a degree of departure substantial enough to render the Consecration invalid?
What makes this enough more offensive and scandalous is that some of my students in the religious education program were present for this Mass and were greatly confused by the priest’s homily and actions. I spent nearly all of November preparing and educating my students, who I look upon as my own children, for these new translations. Many were excited to know that we would be using a translation that was closer to the prayers our Catholic ancestors used.
Be sure to review Redemptionis Sacramentum 51 and 176 ff. RS 51 includes the line: “It is not to be tolerated that some Priests take upon themselves the right to compose their own Eucharistic Prayers”
First, the illicit substitution of the words “for all” in place of “for many” would NOT invalidate the consecration. It is, however, unquestionably a serious liturgical abuse. It is scandalous. It should be reported, first of all to the pastor of the parish, and secondly to the diocesan bishop.
If you do write to the local bishop and the pastor, do not fail to explain how disturbing this experience was for the children who had been prepared for the corrected translation.
Use the words “upset” and “children” several times in your letter.
It is unlikely that this sort of priest will be much impressed by a “stern talking-to” by the pastor, or even the bishop. However, something in writing will be added to Father’s file at the chancery where it will remain until some other day or a new bishop comes “which knows not Joseph”.