Priest reading different Eucharistic Prayers

I have noticed that our pastor doesn’t seem to read the Eucharistic Prayer’s as they are written in our seasonal missalette. I don’t mean that he misses a word here or there, but whole sentences get changed or are misread.

For example in Prayer II he says “In memory of his passion on the cross” instead of “In memory of his death”. This is a typical example of rephrasing and the whole prayer is like that. I thought this was something unique to our pastor but then at breakfast today my brother who is in a different parish and who ushers says his pastor reads something different then what is in the missalette and it makes it hard to follow along.

Is this something that priest are doing now-a-days changing the phrasing of the words or or are there other prayers he is reading from in the missal?:confused:

are you quite sure your missalette contains all the options for Eucharistic prayers, and quite sure he has not chosen another one? I mean, beyond shadow of a doubt. You do know there are some changes in wording that are seasonal as well. There have been several revisions to the Roman missal over the years and it is possible he is using an older edition that has minor wording changes as well. Unless you have proof positive your priest is deliberately changing the words of the Mass, put it out of your mind and simply assist at Mass and focus on the mystery of the altar.

Unfourtunately, this seems to be a trend that Priests “make-it-up-as-you-go-along”. But, also keep in mind that there are some Eucharistic prayers which are not in most Missals. I would ask him about this! Say something like “Father, when you were praying the Eucharistic prayer I couldn’t quit follow it in my missal because it was different! What number are you using?”

In the good old times it was the common knowledge that intentionally change even a single word in the Canon is grave sin.

Apparently his reaching died out with the multiple canons, and some priests even add their own sentences ad libitum. Most of these additions come from good intention, to carve into the mind of the faithful some truth (my territorial pastor often adds: we believe in the real presence).

The resolution would be to require some system for the variations of the canon, and making the Roman canon the most frequent, may be shortening or omitting the two lists of the saints (Apostles and early Roman martyrs).

I’ve experienced moderate improvisation on themes many times - so long as it’s inspired by a well meaning spirit, I see no cause for complaint

The Church stopped allowing ad libbing of Eucharistic prayers well over a millenium ago for good reason-the potential for heretical statements to be included. I think that we should stick to the texts provided to us by the Church when it comes to Eucharistic prayers.

The church has said so many times that the priest is never to change the wording of the Mass, particulary in the Canon.

Sacrosanctum Concilium art. 22.3 (1963)
o Therefore no other person, even if he be a priest, may add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on his own authority.

Canon 846.1 (1983)
o The liturgical books approved by the competent authority are to be faithfully observed in the celebration of the sacraments; therefore no one on personal authority may add, remove or change anything in them.

Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1125 (1992)
o For this reason no sacramental rite may be modified or manipulated at the will of the minister or the community. Even the supreme authority of the Church may not change the liturgy arbitrarily, but only in obedience of faith and with religious respect for the mystery of the liturgy.

General Instruction of the Roman Missal, no. 24 (2003)
o Nevertheless, the priest must remember that he is the servant of the Sacred Liturgy and that he himself is not permitted, on his own initiative, to add, to remove, or to change anything in the celebration of Mass.

Redemptionis Sacramentum, nos. 31, 59 (2004)
o They ought not to detract from the profound meaning of their own ministry by corrupting the liturgical celebration either through alteration or omission, or through arbitrary additions.
o 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

If the priest is adding phrases to the Canon, and you know he is doing it (ie, not using a different eucharistic prayer) I would talk to him, and if that goes nowhere, talk to the bishop or write a letter. Here’s some usefull tips.

So exactly how many Eucharistic Prayers are in the Roman Missal. I thought there were only four prayers approved for masses, Prayer I, II, III, IV. Our missalette contains these four. I am also aware of two prayers in the missalette for Reconciliation. :slight_smile:

:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

Perfect!

there are at least 4 more, including Masses for children. if it sounds “dumbed down” it may be one of the latter.
Is it too late to start a novena in hopes the revisions to the RM have eliminated them?:gopray:

I’ve noticed this too, and our priest is clearly reading and not improvising. It does make it hard to follow along, so I’ve stopped trying (for that part of the service). I try to listen carefully and prayerfully, and eventually we get to a part that matches the missalette. :slight_smile:

Aren’t the euch. prayers for Masses for children already being eliminated?

Excellent response! As another poster said, he may be using a form that is not in the missalette, or he may be using a older version that had slightly different words. I like “listen carefully and prayerfully” and always be charitable towards the priest! :smiley:

There are the four main Eucharistic prayers, plus two for reconciliation, plus three for children, plus four for Various Needs and Occasions. See here.

Fr. Z seems to think so on the basis that they will not be “in the Missal,” but then again then they’re not currently “in the Missal” either; they’re in a separate directory from 1975 and were approved for indefinite use in 1980. To my knowledge neither the Vatican nor the bishops’ conferences have clarified whether they will continue to be able to be used, but I don’t see why the promulgation of the new Missal alone would suppress them.

BRAVO!!! Thank you! Our pastor changes virtually EVERY prayer and EVERY reading and EVERY end-of-Mass blessing to his own preference of language, which really torques me. I live in a liberal diocese and our pastor is all about not offending the Protestants who might be visiting, using inclusive language, and ordering the choirs to use fluffy, meaningless, generic, ‘we the people’ songs. He doesn’t even say the words “Mass”, but rather ALWAYS “Eucharist”, nor does he EVER genuflect. EVER. Not before the tabernacle, not at the appointed times during the Consecration, and just now, upon returning from a conference/retreat, not only didn’t pour wine in the his (the main) chalice, but had the altar servers take the main chalice off the altar altogether. He did not raise the main Host either, but kept it in the ‘bowl’ (not sure the right term as of this moment for the ‘dish’ that the rest of the Hosts are used in during the Consecration - he doesn’t use a patten) and raised that whole thing instead. Every time he returns from a conference he introduces a new abuse. He is not a priest of “Renewal” but of “Removal”, for he has even removed a whole Mass from our schedule altogether, so that now we have one Saturday vigil Mass and one Sunday morning Mass. Yes, this is a small town, but both Sunday Masses were well-populated. I’m very, very unhappy, and am considering writing him a letter (have never needed to do that before, and never wanted to, because I know our beloved priests get plenty of ‘protest’ letters from parishioners, and I never wanted to be one of ‘those’ types of people) but I can take the abuse no longer.

Do you mean that no wine was ever on the altar? If so, this is one of the gravest abuses possible. I would strongly encourage you to report this to your bishop.

No, he did pour the wine into the four OTHER chalices, but set aside (then had the altar servers take away) the main (center - his) chalice from the altar. He used to not pour water into the vase that contained the wine at all, but several parishioners called him out on that; so since then he puts so little into the vase that it’s only a drop, so it’s anyone’s guess if it hits the wine (and hence, even makes it into the wine) at all, (perhaps hitting the wall of the vase). Our priests in this diocese don’t pour a little amount of water into EACH chalice, which is how it SHOULD be done if the diocese allows parishioners to partake of the Precious Blood (which not all dioceses allow), but rather into the vase, so it’s apparently supposed to mix between the time they pour it into the vase, and the time they pour the wine into the chalices. Being only a single drop (literally; I have watched very carefully), it’s difficult for me to accept that this is a true and proper mixture of wine and water. Our pastor believes (and has said) that the mixture of water and wine is “only a SYMBOL” of the “ritual” of what ‘took place’ in those days. But if you read the “LIfe of Christ And Biblical Revelations” according to the visions of the Venerable Anne Catherine Emmerich, and THE BIBLE ITSELF, this is no MERE RITUAL! Blood and water flowed from our Lord’s Sacred Heart when It was pierced, and this has been a truth handed down from the very day that it happened, so WHY does this priest put so *little value *on the water being poured into the wine?! IT IS PART OF THE RUBRICS OF THE HOLY SACRIFICE OF THE MASS, so why do they think they have any authority to compromise the law?!

What did he say when you asked him?

I didn’t ask him about it. When he first came to our parish he didn’t put the instruments of the altar back in the sacristy but left them out on a table to the side, which really bothered me (churches are subject to crime, just like any other establishment). I came in to Adoration once and not only were they left out but the lights in the church were on and the candles were burning, and this at 8:00 p.m., 2 1/2 hours AFTER Mass was over, so I sent him an e-mail voicing my concerns. He responded that while the candles and lights being left on were unfortunate, leaving everything out was how he wanted it, and I knew then from that point forward that he would never consider parishioner’s concerns about anything far more important. Over the course of several weeks, I noticed that I didn’t see a number of parishioners anymore, and every year since his arrival there has been one more abuse added, one more good thing taken away. Matt. 12:30 ~ He that is not with me, is against me: and he that gathereth not with me, scattereth.

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.