“I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof...” - theology overload?


I’m not seeing the problem. Jesus said, “Your faith has healed you.” Time & time again.

Still, you must be holy to enter heaven. The sacraments help us toward that end.


Well, it was changed, and then it was changed back to what it had been originally. If you want to research how the Mass ended up with the words of the centurion, you would have to go back all the way to the Tridentine Mass to research how it got in there in the first place.

It’s sort of like how the Latin was always “et cum spiritu tuo,” which means “and with your spirit,” but in the relatively recent translation was rendered "and also with you,’’ which was not accurate.


Sorry. I completely misunderstood the nature of your question.


Right, but I don’t know exactly what healed means in the prayer. The scripture refers to physical healing. I don’t think that’s what the liturgical prayer is referring to.

Also, whatever “healed” means, the Church doesn’t to my knowledge teach any kind of “faith alone” teachings. That’s more of a Protestant thing. That’s why I think it’s strange to use that scripture passage in reference to receiving the Eucharist, a Sacrament.


With all sincerity: you are overthinking it.

At that moment, we are about to take the Lamb of God into our own bodies, under our ‘roof’ if you will. We repeat the centurion’s words in an act of faith, a faith that reflects the Real Presence.

He gives us spiritual healing, He gives us grace that truly heals the soul.


No need to apologize. I’m not very good at explaining my thoughts.


Well, like the Our Father, this change in english language has always been in spanish prayers. If all these translations are wrong to these people then we spanish-speaking catholic have been wrong for decades!


I thought I was just thinking. You’re saying this whole time I’ve been overthinking? I haven’t even reached analysis paralysis yet.

But this interpretation redefines what the Centurion meant, and so redefines the meaning of the Centurion’s faith.


Matthew 8:8 :ok_hand:t2:


On one hand, the liturgy is so deep that theologians can talk about its cosmic meaning and other stuff way above my head. On the other hand, a child can truly experience Jesus in it and understand it. (I’m more of the child.) So I guess what I’m getting at is what we say in that part is appropriate and doesn’t have to match up with the exact circumstances of the scriptural event.

But as far as redefining goes: If you think about it, Jesus redefines the Pashal Lamb the Jews sacrificed, the Mass redefines the temple sacrifices (among other things), the Eucharist redefines the Lamb and Manna from Heaven, etc…


I can buy that. I don’t think it’s inappropriate at all. I just think it’s somewhat ironic. I mean to use a scripture, which presents an outsider being granted grace through faith, right before we receive the Eucharist, of which, outsiders are not allowed to receive, despite their faith in Jesus’ ability to spiritually heal.


The problem really is with “anima.” The centurion asks for his “servant” to be healed, not himself. But anima makes it about us in a strange way, that almost wrenches it from the story.

I generally teach people that communion is about receiving Christ for others. We ask God to forgive us, and like God, we forgive others. We offer others peace. We see the lamb, the one who sacrifices for others. And we express a faith that the Lord can heal for us, in us, with us. This is a moment of intimacy with Christ, but an intimacy that makes us the Body of Christ, that requires us to forgive as God forgives. Heling my anima is so that I can carry healing to others.

Maybe it doesn’t quite work, but nothing else really works either. I am usually saying it to explain the Our Father, that we do what God does when we forgive. We offer healing, but a healing that comes from God.


I want to address this from the other direction.

I believe I was in the sixth grade when the English words of this prayer were changed from, “Lord I am not worthy that you should come under my roof. Speak but the word and my soul shall be healed,” to, “Lord, I am not worthy to receive you but only say the word and I shall be healed.” My 11 year old self was perfectly happy with all the the other English language changes but that particular one really bothered me because it eliminated the link to the scripture passage. I had somehow come to identify very deeply with the centurion. And this thread gives evidence to the fact that many people were completely unaware of the history behind this prayer before communion but I have never forgotten it. Of all the changes in the more recent restoration of language, this one was the one was the most meaningful to me.

Are you overthinking the the precise meaning of the centurion’s words? Maybe. Maybe not. We do need healing. And I was always taught that receiving communion worthily DOES result in forgiveness of venial sin.


Yes it was not him, but his servant. That’s a good point to bring up in relation to the word anima. I read that the word anima implied something to the effect of a whole, or community, not just the “I” or “soul” of the previous and current translations. That gives it’s use more sense.


I also think the following verses in scripture is relevant:
Jesus responds that he hasn’t seen such faith proclaimed anywhere in the nation, even among “God’s people”. He clarified that the servant was healed because of the centurion’s great faith. In other words, “Lord, I’m not worthy that you come in” and by responding to our faith, he makes us worthy.


Grammatically it is “say with a word”

Also is “”verbum” connected to the “verbum” in John 1?


The story I heard is that the first rendering was “May the spirit of the Lord be with you/And also with you” but they couldn’t break with “The .Lord be with you” phrase.


That would be “verbo” or “in verbo”.
Transliteration is “only say word”
Latin does not use definite or indefinite articles like “a” or “the”.


It is an indication of how poor the old translation was, that most of us had no idea this prayer was a scriptural reference to the centurion.

We may question why the Church cooses this passage of scripture as a basis for this point in the mass, but it seems absurd to blame it on the new translation.


I honestly don’t think it’s important for it to be obvious to the assembly that the prayer is referencing scripture.

As I said before, I don’t think the scripture passage is relevant enough to what’s happening at the Mass at that point for the prayer to have that kind of word for word fidelity to the scripture. I actually find it to be somewhat off putting given the irony that I see in it all.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.