Sloppy Mass?

Hi -

This Wednesday I attended a Mass during a “mission” conference.
Some things I noticed: (Would they be defined as sloppy, or liturgical abuse, perfectly fine? or what?)
The priest (a Jesuit) after the sign of the cross, said “Peace be with you”. I was under the impression this greeting was reserved for the Bishop.

In the penitential rite…“you came to call all sinners” vs “call sinners” No big deal to me.

During Eucharistic Prayer II, he said something else instead of “stand in your presence and serve you.” and also said "May all of us who share in the Body and Blood of Christ be brought together in unity by your (instead of the) Holy Spirit.
He replaced “all the clergy” with “all those who serve you”.

Before communion he added “May the Body and Blood of Christ bring us to everlasting life”

Also, I’m pretty sure he gave the Body to the deacon before he himself received, and the deacon held it in his closed hands until the priest communicated, at which time he did also. This seemed kind of weird to me.

Now, it sounds like I make a bigger deal of all this than I really feel about it.
But shouldn’t the rubrics be followed with exactitude?

Yeah it’s fairly simple** say the black, do the red**. I don’t know why they just can’t do this! :shrug:

But it doesn’t invalidate the Mass; Ex opere operato. The efficacy of the Sacraments derives from the action of the Sacrament as opposed to the merits or holiness of the priest or minister.

Honstly you sound very picky…I don’t know how you actually paid attention to Jesus if you were paying that much attention to words.

And anyone can tell you “peace be with you” it’s fallen out of practice now, but it was a common greeting among early christians.

I say it probably should be exact due to the fact that there is always a slight chance that these small differences could lead to further small changes.But in all the different Churches I’ve attended none of them have deviated far enough for me to be concerned.

i didnt find anything especially out of the ordinary. i have been to several masses where the exact same words you used were used. as long as the words of consecratiobn (ie. “this is my body” changed to “this is the body”) were not changed, it’s good to go. there’s no problem with those small things. i’ve heard priests give a couple words after the opening prayer, in a similar fashion, they simply say “peace be with you”… and as an earlier poster pointed out, it was a common greeting between Christian till fairly recently.

God Bless!

whats wrong with paying attention to the mass.
I dont pay attention to the words that much mainly because i cant understand latin all that well and its silent most of the time but i dont see why listening to the words is wrong

He’s not an automaton and he’s “performing” in front of a thousand people (who are staring at him).

He’s trying to recall from memorization every word, every sentance, move throughout, speak from memory and /or from a book that probably isn’t printed in LARGE PRINT.

The “all the clergy”- thing strikes me as really odd, and perhaps the not receiving first thing. I don’t think I’ve ever seen that. Hopefully he just got so into worshipping that he made a very small error which the deacon corrected the best way he knew how? It happens. I am an altar server, and when I first began serving the Lord in this capacity, I would always forget to ring the bells at the consecration because I was so focused on adoring Jesus truly present in the Eucharist. The priest, the deacon, the parish life associate, and my family members ribbed me about it a little and I asked the Lord to help me to do both (chagrin, “garsh”, blush) and the Lord has helped me to be able to do both since. I have made mistakes. They were completely unintentional, and not representative of a lack of love or reverence. I assume others have too. I think we have to allow for that unless they tell you directly that they don’t believe, don’t care, etc… we give others the benefit of the doubt as the catechism teaches.

I am not an expert on what is correct and what is not but have often noted the types of variations that you mention, and more. I have attended Mass at dozens and dozens of different churches over the years and am not surprised by the slight differences in wording and rubrics that I encounter. I think people who are used to one church and perhaps even one Priest saying Mass for a long period get used to that and are surprised when at another church or with another Priest it isn’t exactly the same.

Although some want every Mass to be said in the exact same way, and everything to look the same and follow the same “script”, I don’t think that was the case in the early church at all. And the “national” churches were certainly different, as some of us experienced at Masses in various ethnic churches in America. I would think that the push to standardize the Mass was DUE to the many variations that were occurring, some more extreme than others.

But I doubt that God considers it important that every Mass be exactly the same. As Jesus so emphatically taught us, it is the internals that matter, not the externals.

I am sorry but I cannot resist.

May be the reason that in the good old times the Mass was recited in inaudible voice was to prevent such criticism.

Mumbled in Latin so no one knew the difference :smiley:

Well-trained servers would pick up on it. The servers take their cues from the rubrics as well as the Latin, even when the choir is singing. The priest was only required to say parts of the Mass in “low-tones” but most of it wasn’t that inaudible when the congregation is quiet.

Please stay on topic. The discussion is about the here and now, not the “good old days”. No discussion of the “old Mass” please. Thank you all.

I don’t have much time on my hands, but I’ll answer quickly according to your three options, as much as possible. I don’t mean to come off as harsh or cold, I just can’t spend much time on this.

Liturgical abuse. Definitely.

As far as I know, anything may really be used as a “trope”. I may be wrong though.

I’m not sure.

You aren’t very specific, but probably an abuse.

Lord, remember your Church throughout the world; make us grow in love, together with N. our Pope, N., our bishop, and all the clergy./INDENT]

Liturgical Abuse.

Actually, all priests [should] say this. The rubrics specify to say it quietly, but due to potential sloppiness, microphones, or both, you heard it this time.

Either sloppiness or abuse.

Yes, the rubrics should be followed with no modifications.

I hope this is helpful.

People wouldn’t have to worry about these things if priests would celebrate the Mass as it is intended. While I’m not proposing that the OP is immaculately conceived, the simple truth is that abuses distract us from focusing on The Lord. If priests want to help people focus, they will need to start celebrating the Mass with dignity, according to the books. Not that all priests don’t, but whenever we travel, nearly every church I find has been very frustrating to attend.

While that may be true, in the introductory rites, it is still reserved for a bishop.

Thank you all for your replies!
I tend toward being very severe and uncharitable when it comes to the liturgy (of all the things to be uncharitable about:rolleyes:)
But I get the idea it was probably acceptable (except maybe the greeting at the beginning of mass, which, however, my parish priest said was fine in the OF).

I pray people will always pay attention to the rubrics Mother Church has laid out for us, for the greater glory of the Most High God (and the peace of mind of certain scrupulous parishoners:p.)

Thanks Again!

I think you have a right to expect better. While some of those may be little slips of the tongue, others sound more like denigrations of the priesthood. The full, unadulterated liturgy of the Church is your birthright and no-one, lay or cleric, should deny it to you.

On the other hand, I’d be prepared to travel a long way to find a parish where those were the only abuses going on.

I never heard about such right of the laity.

Can 682. Laici ius habent recipiendi a clero, ad normam ecclesiasticae disciplinae, spiritualia bona et potissimum adiumenta ad salutem necessaria.

of 1917 only gave rights to valid sacraments and sacramentalia, not any power to make decisions about the validity or licentiousness.

The 1982 CIC gives wider rights to laity, but no right to be judges about the mode of administration of the sacraments.

What is your source?

Redemptionis Sacramentum §11

For arbitrary actions are not conducive to true renewal, but are detrimental to the right of Christ’s faithful to a liturgical celebration that is an expression of the Church’s life in accordance with her tradition and discipline

Redemptionis Sacramentum §12

It is the right of all of Christ’s faithful that the Liturgy, a[FONT=Arial]nd in particular the celebration of Holy Mass, should truly be as the Church wishes, according to her stipulations as prescribed in the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms.

[FONT=&quot] [FONT=Arial]It should be pretty clear from this that the laity do have the right to Mass and other sacraments celebrated exactly as the Church intends, ‘according [/FONT]to the liturgical books and in the other laws and norms’.

The right to be judges, as you put it? I’m not sure how such a right would work. But I’m confident that we do have the right to properly celebrated liturgy, even if it is up to the hierarchy of the Church to arbitrate and uphold that right.[/FONT]

For all who have any concern about liturgical abuses, I suggest you take a look at this new thread. Complaint about liturgical abuse –*a satisfied customer

I found it encouraging.

Secondly, re:

I don’t *recall *being at an OF Mass where this was not said.


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