A Pray Tell reader writes in with this question:
I attended a baccalaureate Mass celebrated by a bishop, and he used the Roman Canon as the Eucharistic Prayer. This isn’t necessarily wrong, but it struck me as odd. I wonder if in general bishops are using Eucharistic Prayer I more often now, especially at larger gatherings such as First Communion and Confirmation.
What is your experience? Is use of Eucharistic Prayer I (the Roman Canon) increasing?
As I mentioned in my post on the event, Archbishop Lori used it at his installation.
It has seemed so to me; but I could not be sure that my sample was representative.
But if it’s true, I can’t say I’m surprised, given the tenor of recent appointments. As a critic of the decision to allow multiple EP’s in the mass, I can’t say I’m disappointed if more prelates choose to stick with the most venerable usage.
But for those who prefer EP 2, 3 or 4, that’s still an option, of course. That hasn’t changed.
I’ve only heard EP1 in the imposed translation a handful of times, one of which was on Holy Thursday. Even in the old translation, it was problematic. Now it’s just terrible.
One place where I heard it was a rather traditionalist church where, I suspect, they use it very often indeed. I was struck by how we had the full package: altar rails shut, and text mumbled rather than proclaimed. Strangely, it was probably the Mass at which I’ve been irritated least since the changes were foisted on us. You could at least tune out; there was something prayerful about the whole thing. Perhaps there’s a real issue as to whether and how the EPs should communicate at all.
I’ve yet to hear anyone try EP4 … I wonder why.
What I do notice is an increased use of the reconciliation prayers and the four for special needs and occasions. Rather less vandalism has been done to these texts; and it is easier not to cause scandal when resorting to prudent editing. They are becoming my default option.
In my limited experience at Masses celebrated by our Bishop (recent Chrism Mass, deacon ordination) and at Masses on significant occasions at the local seminary, I’d say yes. Also noteworthy is our young parochial vicar (approaching his first anniversary of ordination) who says the Roman Canon exclusively. After the drought of the last 30 or 40 years, the return of the Roman Canon is most welcome!
Huh? Some drought… some return! I’ve only heard it about twice in the last six months.
Ironic – by rewriting the Roman Canon in turgid and repulsive English, the guardians of the “authentic” have shoved it into the abyss of near extinction. So sad, so infuriating, so unnecessary, and so utterly dumb.
Sometimes the Holy Spirit helps us to pray. If the English is bad, perhaps the ‘groans of the Spirit’ can help us along.
I myself use the Roman Canon mostly on days where one of those saints are mentioned or when there is a special inclusion. The Spanish missal (still 2nd edition) has inclusions in all the Eucharistic Prayers. I wish we could do that in the Latin (and thus be able to do it in the vernacular).
Well, I can’t comment about large events, but in my parish and other parishes I attend, it’s become much less common in the last 6 months. I’ve only heard the more progressively liturgical priests attempt it. EP2, which was much less common before the transition, now is much more common (EP3 used to be the most common on Sundays – I am hearing it a bit more, but EP2 now is most common). I await the summer to see if EP4 and the other EPs start to bubble back to life.
I’ve noticed the same as well. But I have to ask: what is so odd about using it at large events?
I was wondering the same thing. Is there some reason to NOT use it at large events? Our Bishop uses it for Ordinations, Confirmation and other large gatherings, but that’s always been the case.
It might be worth discussing how presiders/liturgists decide which Eucharistic Prayer is chosen each season or each Sunday or each day.
During Lent/Easter we’ve stuck with (mostly) EP #3 (except EP #1 on Holy Thursday). But during Ordinary Time, it’s a 2-person team decision of which of the 10 Eucharistic Prayers (and which preface) should be used to match most closely to the Sunday readings. There’s no flipping to #2 or #3 by default, but rather a conscious Sunday by Sunday decision. It’s always amazing that with careful planning, and *excellent* presiding skills, how the Eucharistic Prayer can augment the Sunday readings.
(And to the original question about more use of EP #1 for large gatherings, I found the case before, and will probably be the same for ever and ever. No change whatsoever.)
Wonderful. Would that every community deliberated about the choice of EP that way.
Since the six alternative EPs (the two for Reconciliation, and then the EP that is limited to use at votive Masses for Various Needs, which has four variations) are not widely circulating in hand missals, I should note these helpful links for those who would like to see the new translations of the six other EPs:
I have been hearing the first Eucharistic Prayer on (too) many occasions, frequently by bishops, almost always on “state occasions.” As one recently reasoned, “How many concelebrants are there? Use 1 so they can all have a part.” While nice to be included, listening to the concelebrants make their way through the prayer, and hearing their comments afterwards, they would have been happier with anything but 1.
In our parish, we have yet to hear EPI. Most of the time it’s EPII, followed by Reconciliation, and on rare occasions EPIII. I don’t expect any changes.
I’ve found the Roman canon rarely used outside of parishes where the EF mass is celebrated, and some places have actually dropped the EF for a mixed Latin-English OF mass.
I’m surprised, at the rise in the choice of EP-IV for Sundays. Some celebrants appear to add wording to the EP-IV, as does my pastor, fleshing out the narrative with references to Old Testament sacrifices.
As for the other EPs such as Reconciliation I and II, I’ve yet to find a parish in metro NY where they’re used on a Sunday or feast. Are these more common in the south or mid-west?
I was talking to a priest friend of mine who told me from his experience in the Diocese of Rockville Center Long Island, the nation’s largest diocese, the Roman canon is rarely used. EP-II appears to be used only for weekday masses, but EP III and IV seem to still be the favorites.
My parish uses the Roman Canon exclusively for celebrations of the Ordinary Form. The full 2010 English translation is said at all weekday Masses, though Latin is not uncommonly heard at Sunday Masses. Sometimes at weekday Masses the memorial acclamation and the concluding doxology per ipsum are said or sung in Latin.
I have found that concerns about the length of the Roman Canon in English translation are unfounded. A clear and pronounced recitation of the new translation of the Roman Canon, even with the complete litanies of saints and the inclusion of the “through Christ …” conclusions, does not appear to take that much longer (perhaps three minutes?) than the recitation of EP III. The pastor of my parish can say daily Mass with a brief two to three minute sermon in about thirty to forty minutes (the peace is never exchanged.)
I would hope that more priests recite the Roman Canon more often, even for weekday Masses. I am convinced that said weekday Mass can be celebrated in a timely manner even when this eucharistic prayer is used.
Just as a note: EP I, before and after the translation, does not portray a Vatican II ecclesiology. Those who use EP I are making a theological statement directed at the community. Another question might be: What is the bishop really trying to say to the local church when he employs EP I?
Sorry, but I find that this totally begs the question of what this thing called “a Vatican II ecclesiology” is. I would be suspicious of anything claiming that title that was incompatible with the Eucharistic Prayer used by the Latin Church for nearly 1500 years.
And yet, the Roman Canon was retained as a valid Eucharistic Prayer in the reformed Roman Rite.
Without tooting my own horn, I’d say I’ve done a lot of research on the EPs for a layman outside of an academic environment. I know about the defects of EP I as enumerated by Cypriano Vagaggini and others (e.g. Kung, Emminghaus): no mention of the Holy Spirit, no clear epiclesis, not enough variation, lack of organization and transitions, peculiarities in the institution narrative, too little emphasis on praise/thanksgiving, too many and too specific intercessions, no depiction of salvation history, no eschatological dimension, too much duplication.
But what are the defects of EP I in terms of Vatican II ecclesiology, Robert?
Oh, the Roman Canon doesn’t “portray a Vatican II ecclesiology”? That’s a bit like saying that the problem with the Fourth Amendment is that it isn’t in line with the Patriot Act (and those who cite the Fourth Amendment are making a political statement directed at the community), isn’t it? 🙂
Indeed… and it would seem that there are those just as anxious to do away with the Roman Canon, and for much the same reason.
There’s a serious issue here which needs to be detached–a bit–from the vexed question of what counts as ‘Vatican II ecclesiology’. The absence of the features named by Jeffrey give EP1 a quite distinctive feel–at the centre is simply an act of transformation, to which word and text are subordinated. Only charity, and respect for tradition, enable me not to see this traditional prayer as encouraging a magical understanding of the sacrament, with no real connection to the narrative of salvation. I am sometimes tempted to talk of ‘this magic moment’ theology.
That our Eucharistic practice moved at the Council from an exclusive use of this prayer (with other features suggesting a paranormal aura such as mumbled Latin–after all, the Roman Canon led to the coining of the phrase ‘hocus pocus’) to one where a different structure was more commonly used seems to me a marker of profound change (in my view enrichment). If there’s a move to rehabilitate EP1, and present it as somehow better than all the others, then, particularly given the idiocies of the imposed translation, this shift is ideologically freighted.
I think the derisive “hocus pocus” derives from the words of consecration which remain constant no matter which EP is used.
Looking over the discomfort some have with this part of the reformed rite of Mass I can’t help but wonder what other aspects of the OF some here deem to run contrary to their own understanding of V2 ecclesiology. It might be a risky undertaking because in the end, one might find that it is his own understanding of V2’s ecclesiology, not the rite, that is the question.
I would resist any move to identify EP I as “better than all the others.” If I were to pick one for that title, and were able to put concerns for antiquity aside, I’d probably go with EP III.
But I also think that it is a misreading of EP I to see it as a moment of transformation surrounded by more or less significant words. Of course, you are in good company reading it that way (Thomas Aquinas read it the same way), but I think what is really distinctive about EP I is the communal offering of sacrifice — a sacrifice that creates unity both synchronically and diachronically (thus the mention of the OT sacrifices and of the apostles and martyrs), as well as among human beings and between earth and heaven (thus the mention of the heavenly altar).
The idiom of the prayer is fairly alien, which is why it is good that we have alternatives. But theologically speaking I think the prayer has more going for it that it is often given credit for.
I have looking into the origins of “hocus pocus” and at best its origins are unclear. The it is derived from a mockery of the words of institution is unsubstantiated.
Jeff, I hate the term hocus pocus.
I believe it is derived/corruption of “Hoc est enim corpus meum” to mock transubstantiation (from Anglican prelate John Tillotson in 1694).
We rarely get EP1 on Sunday because it takes more time in a crowded schedule of celebrations. We use it for big feasts and concelebrated liturgies. EP1 has suffered more from the new translation than any of the other eucharistic prayers: it now comes across as a sort of pious gabble, less comprehensible in the English than in the Latin.
I agree with everything Fr Endean wrote. Using EP1 requires that we lift it out of context and reinterpret it. In Latin it evokes a Mass that is fundamentally a holy transaction (commercium) between the priest and God, with the people either absent or irrelevant to what is going on at the altar.
EP1 can be reinterpreted to bring the assembly into the sacred action, and I think the 1973 translation tried to do that. Here is the Unde et memores section in the 1973:
Father, we celebrate the memory of Christ, your Son. We, your people and your ministers, recall his passion, his resurrection of the dead, and his ascension into glory; and from the many gifts you have given us we offer to you, God of glory and majesty, this holy and perfect sacrifice: the bread of life and the cup of eternal salvation.
The new translation buries the assembly in a long paragraph:
Therefore, O Lord, as we celebrate the memorial of the blessed Passion, the Resurrection from the dead, and the glorious Ascension into heaven of Christ, your Son, our Lord, we, your servants and your holy people, offer to your glorious majesty, from the gifts that you have given us, this pure victim, this holy victim, this spotless victim, the holy Bread of eternal life and the Chalice of everlasting salvation.
This isn’t entirely a result of linguistic incompetence. Some traditionalists will say: well, you want it all to be about US, not about God – and they will interpret the Latin and the silent canon as a “verbal iconostasis” and call for a return to private Masses, confessions heard during the liturgy, far less frequent communion of the people, and a separation of receiving communion from the celebration.
All these moves, in my view, not only go against Vatican II but against the concerted work of liturgists and popes going back at least to Pius XII.
Since I am at heart a 1950s liberal (my heroes are Congar, Chenu and de Lubac), I have perhaps been overly influenced in my reading of the Roman Canon by the likes of Roguet and Jungmann, who underscore the repeated use of the first person plural in this prayer: from the opening rogamus to the offerimus of the Momento, Domine (as well as the reference to omnium circumstantium), to the repeated interjection of quaesumus, to the Nobis quoque. The text of the prayer itself almost always points to the communal offering of the sacrifice.
Like I said, I do not want to argue that the Roman Canon is a perfect prayer — no human prayer is. But I think its defects are often exaggerated and its virtues ignored. For instance, it is, apart from a brief allusion to Micah 1:11 in EP III, the only Eucharistic Prayer that connects the sacrificial worship of Christians to that of ancient Israel.
I do agree that the new translation makes the prayer rather less attractive for use. As is the case generally with the Sacramentary/Missal, I thought the old translation to be too loose and the new translation to be. . . well, barely recognizable as English (OK, that is perhaps a bit hyperbolic).
Fritz — to be very clear, I think the Roman Canon is very beautiful, especially the repeated invocation of the saints. I would like to see it used more often, though in Latin rather than in the mangled English of the new translation.
I do think it has to be re-interpreted, though, or interpreted in light of some of the teaching you allude to. Yes, EP1 mentions the sacrificial rites of ancient Israel. But that can lead to an exaggerated view of the ministerial priesthood and the purity cult.
Yes, it generously uses the first person plural, though I have heard priests and bishops expound the prayer as though this were the royal or papal plural.
The “we” needs to be understood not only as the clergy (even over time) but also as the people of God present in the assembly.
In the case of the Roman Canon I think that the changes made by the 1973 translators were right and just.
And — in the case of the Roman Canon, not necessarily everywhere — I don’t think your comment is in the least hyperbolic.
Fritz, well said!
re: Jonathan Day on May 22, 2012 – 4:44 am
Perhaps unde et memores sufficiently involves the assembly, even if this involvement is not as explicit as in EP III.
The anamensis in EP III expands into two paragraphs. (Could we call these paragraphs the memores igitur and respice quaesumus?) One could argue that EP III’s elaboration on the Roman Canon anamensis offers a more complex inclusion of the assembly in prayer, while the Roman Canon offers only an inclusion of the assembly within the context of sacerdotal prayer.
The first section of the Roman Canon (“unde et memores … ab infernis resurrectionis“; “Therefore O Lord … your Son our Lord”) decompresses into the entire paragraph memores igitur (“Therefore O Lord”) in EP III. An invocation of the paschal mystery is clearly apparent in both eucharistic prayers, even if EP III’s elaboration is arguably more precise.
Similarly, EP III’s respice quaesumus thematically follows the Roman Canon’s praise of the just completed sacrifice, although again with greater specificity. Yet EP III’s expansion of the one prayer of the Roman Canon into two preserves not only “offerimus” (“we offer”) from the Roman Canon’s unde et memores in the prayer memores igitur, but also introduces respice (“look”) in respice quaesumus. This second imperative verb offers an interesting double entendre: “Respice, quaesumus, in oblationem Ecclesiae tuae” (“Look, we pray, upon the oblation of your Church”) does not reference a vocative Domine (“Lord”). One might conclude that the respice could refer to God the Father, the celebrant, or the assembly. This ingenious imperative clarifies the Roman Canon’s “offerimus“.
I am a member of our cathedral parish and a diocesan staff member, so I get to celebrate Mass with our bishop fairly regularly. Without having kept track, my sense is that he uses EP1 on solemnities and for major events (ordinations, our annual Celebration of Confirmation of adults, etc.). He does not use it for “regular” Sunday Mass or at our monthly curial Mass.
Almost all the priests (quite a large number) and a few bishops I have spoken to have abandoned EPs I and IV as unusable and concentrate on II and III for all celebrations. Some of them have discovered Reconciliation and Various Needs and Occasions at the back of the book and are now using those in preference to any others, particularly VNO. I do know of one priest who seems to use nothing but EP I but he is a recently-ordained man of conservative persuasion.
Suggesting that these priests are similarly displeased with EPs IV and I.
In our diocese I don’t think it is increasing or decreasing. For large diocesan events, depending on the degree of Solemnity, Eucharistic Prayer I is used for ordinations and when “inserts” are available for the particular celebration, such as Holy Thursday, Easter, Ascension and Pentecost. Our bishop also used it for the Chrism Mass. However at our Clergy Conference he used Eucharistic Prayer II and also for our tri-parish Confirmation, but Eucharistic Prayer II does have an “insert” for Confirmation.
I don’t think I’ve every heard IV at a Diocesan event. Of course one is obliged to use its preface. When the Credo is required Eucharistic IV does seem to be redundant in then recalling major elements of the Creed again. I seldom use it and only have used it once since the revised translation came out. However, since the revised translation came out in Advent, I’ve used each Eucharistic prayer in the missal for daily or Sunday Mass.
In the three different locations where we normally go to Mass — parish, cathedral, campus ministry — we have not once heard the first Eucharistic Prayer in its new transliteration.
I can count the number of times I have NOT used the Roman Canon on maybe two hands…
OK, – can you say why?
awr
I’m rather unpersuaded that any of the novel Eucharistic Prayers composed for the 1969 Missal (and thereafter) have any features that recommend their regular use, unless you consider brevity a good thing. The need to de facto replace such an ancient prayer of the Roman Rite shows, for me, the height of the hubris of the reformers. It was called the Canon of the Mass for a reason. Furthermore, the special inserts only really make sense pastorally if the people are used to hearing the prayer normally. There’s nothing worse than hearing a priest stumble through the prayer on Holy Thursday, not having said the prayer since Christmas…
In a pinch, I’d pick III for a legitimate reason, especially if time is an issue (TV Mass, etc.) It at least pays reverence to the structure of the Canon of the Mass.
For reference, I regularly (always on off day/vacation/retreat) celebrate Mass in the Extraordinary Form.
Mentioning the Holy Spirit in more than just the concluding doxology is not something that would recommend the new Eucharistic Prayers?
Fr Naugle states that it was the height of hubris to replace EPI!
Did they replace it? It was always there in my Missalette, I thought they just offered additional EP’s, silly me.
Fr. also states: I regularly (always on off day/vacation/retreat) celebrate Mass in the Extraordinary Form.
You didn’t need to tell us that, somehow we figured that one out.
btw Eastern Orthodox fault EPI for not having an epiclesis and some have said that the EPI is invalid.
As far as using EPI, I will quote you: “I’m rather unpersuaded”
Did they replace [EP I]?
It was suggested by some (not all) of the reformers that the Roman Canon should either be retired or vastly (substantially) reworked. Details can be found in Bugnini’s The Reform of the Liturgy; one (conservative) priest’s summary of the development is here.
The introduction of three new EPs, none of which really share the structure and feel of the Roman Canon, has had the effect in some places of virtually retiring (replacing) the Canon.
Enrico Mazza, The Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite, xxxi: “The RC [is] practically not used today. […] Though theoretically in use, it has become marginal in practice; its use today is so minimal as to be statistically irrelevant. The Canon, whose text was most characteristic of the Roman liturgy from the fourth century on, is now practically unused.”
re: Kim Rodgers on May 22, 2012 – 7:48 pm
Some “western rite Orthodox” (i.e. Orthodox Christians, most often Antiochian, who celebrate western Christian liturgies) celebrate a “Liturgy of St. Gregory”, which is often an English translation of the Tridentine Mass with some modifications according to Orthodox beliefs and practices. In this case, the epiclesis from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is added to Roman Canon after the supra quae (“Be pleased to look upon these offerings […]”) (my ellipsis) in order to correct the perceived lack of an explicit epiclesis in this eucharistic prayer.
However, some Orthodox theologians, such as the 14th century Nicholas Cabasilas, considered the Roman Canon’s supplices te rogamus (“In humble prayer we ask […]”) (my ellipsis) to be a sufficient epiclesis.
In any event, a good number of Orthodox Christians regard the Roman Canon as a historic and valid Christian anaphora. I also do not think that a preference for the eucharistic prayers composed for the reformed Mass necessarily precludes respect for the Roman Canon. I attend a church where the Roman Canon is used exclusively. However, I, like Deacon Fritz, hold Eucharistic Prayer III in high regard. I would say that EP III is especially suitable for celebrations of the Ordinary Form entirely in the vernacular.
Jordan, I think we are saying the same thing.
I said ” …and some have said that the EPI is invalid” (not all)
and you said: …”a good number of Orthodox Christians regard the Roman Canon as…. valid” (not all).
Considering the fact that is seems the epiclesis has always been an important part of most canons (including the Apostolic Constitution) I have read (in Orthodox literature) that the epiclesis was somehow lost or dropped in EPI thus giving the interpretation (to some, not all) that it is less than valid; you know the Orthodox w/ their emphasis on all persons of the Trinity being treated equally….
Since the new translation, our pastor has almost exclusively used the Roman Canon on Sundays. The other priests serving or visiting the parish haven’t, but the pastor has. I don’t have any particular agenda about it, but I do like the bit about the angel taking the sacrifice to the altar on high, and the part about venerating the BVM and the saints and martyrs. I feel connected to the church suffering and triumphant, and with the angels when the Roman Canon is used.
Since I like a sung EP, I am very willing to have fewer EPs, even only one EP to achieve that goal.
Most priests can learn to sing at least one EP; I have heard it done by priests who had very, very unpromising voices.
Since in most parishes the EP is usually not sung very often, I prefer EP2 and EP3. I bring along my Gregorian Missal which has the Old Missal text, and sing it mentally while the priest says the New Missal text.
Never have I participated in an OF Mass in which the Roman Canon was used.
The EP1 has been used occasionally over the years for special occasions and seasons but not on a regular basis before or since the new translation (where I have lived).
I have no particular dislike of the canon but I disagree when I read that it is was discarded or replaced. That’s silly.
Rather, I think that it is considered “special” and like most things held in high regard it is used for “special” occasions and not because it was replaced. (Sort of like grandma’s special china, not for everyday use!)
I’ve heard it fairly frequently over the past 24 years, from a variety of clergy. What does that say? Parishes who hire liturgists are inclined to be appropriately broad and inclusive in their liturgical practices? Who knows?
My pastor told me he was prioritizing working on EP I and II in the new translation. I’ve probably heard EP I somewhat less since Epiphany. Nothing yet of the R’s and SNO. It’s probably been a decade since I’ve heard IV.
Another casualty of MR3: instead of discussing why we use which prayer and suggesting that the decision is a worthy and important one, we’ve backtracked into something else. And we still have the mindless selection of I or III, less for thoughtful or pastoral reasons, but more for ideology and personal taste.
I hear EP II almost all the time. It has some claim to roots older than the Roman Canon, as it was taken and adapted from an even more ancient source (Hippolytus, IIRC).
I remember hearing or reading about some encouragement to use the Roman Canon/EPI on special feasts, since it has several emboli that are inserted in those observances.
A Lutheran liturgical scholar friend of mine thinks the Roman Canon is heretical because of all of the pre-consecratory references to “our offering,” or “this offering”. The Canon is far older than the Reformation disputes about justification by faith alone, but I admit it IS very difficult to read it with a pre-Trent mindset. (Interesting that Luther, in eliminating all the “offereing” language, left little more than the institution narrative in place. Luther believed that Christ was truly present in the eucharistic species — the debates were over the mode of the presence of Christ, not the reality of that presence — which led my friend to comment rather wryly that, in some sense, Luther out-Trented Trent.)
I recall reading that “Hyppolitus” was actually “Pseudo-Hyppolitus” and that modern scholarship locates the Roman Canon before Pseudo-Hyppolitus.
Only 60% of the text of the EP recorded in Pseudo-Hyppolitus made it into EPII, the rest is a product of the committee. In effect EPII is a fantasia on a theme of a later pseudographical work.
“First published in the early twentieth century, until recently [the so-called ‘Apostolic Tradition’] was considered the work of Hippolytus, a third-century Roman presbyter and theologian. That attribution has been seriously challenged. It now seems that this is a document of “living literature” compiled in stages. The most complete manuscript is a Latin translation that dates from the end of the fifth century. Therefore, it is erroneous to make sweeping generalizations about the anaphora such as: this is the Roman anaphora of the early third century. It is fairly clear that the author was not the early third-century Roman presbyter, Hippolytus. It is not altogether clear that the document is Roman at all, nor that every feature of it comes from the third century. In fact, there is a growing consensus that the institution narrative in this prayer was a fourth-century addition.” (Foley, et. al., A Commentary on the Order of the Mass, 311)
As for variances between “Apostolic Tradition” (ApTrad) and EP II, there was at first an effort to use the text as it stood, without any omissions or additions (from the later Roman tradition). That was quickly abandoned. EP II is not a mere revision of the ApTrad, because it contains whole new elements (e.g. the Sanctus, a preliminary epiclesis) and a general structure shared with the other EPs (EP I excluded).
Material from the ApTrad that is not in EP II: archaic or ambiguous terminology (e.g. angelum voluntatis tuae, terminum figere), the Passover theme (possibly inherited from the Peri Pascha of Melito, the Peri Pascha of pseudo-Hippolytus, and the resurrection homily of pseudo-Epiphanius).
Material in EP II that is not in the ApTrad: Sanctus with post-Sanctus employing “vere sanctus”, pre-institution epiclesis, memorial acclamation after institution narrative, intercessions.
ApTrad material that was revised in EP II: certain language, a salvation history theme, the epiclesis, the institution narrative (esp. the words of institution), the doxology (simplified).
So, JP and jfr (if you are following this):
– you clearly show how EPII had roots back to the 3rd century or earlier but that it was developed and added to over the centuries. Thus, the original ICEL took the later developed EP and made it into the 1973 version
– your comment at #41 does an excellent job of referencing Bugnini and providing a link to notes about the Roman Canon and the other EPs. The link to Folsom’s article is interesting but wonder if jfr would agree with some of his “opinions” and conclusions. He clearly wants to retain the Roman Canon, as is, and seriously questionned any additional EPs or the use of the new EPs replacing the Roman Canon on Sundays. He seems to arrive at “practical” reasons for the new EPs and Sunday use and uses Jungmann to dismiss the “epiclesis” issue with the Roman Canon – who knows?
Yet, it leaves me with a question:
– why wasn’t the same thing done to the Roman Canon? Even Folsom cites that the Roman Canon and changing or not changing it left the church with issues both negative and positive? It has roots that may not go back as far as EPII but it was not revised or changed by ICEL? Thus, the Roman Canon does not mirror the other EPs in structure. (Consilium seems to have come up with a “workaround” and finds the Holy Spirit in the Canon? It seems to have retained what some would call “accretions”?
Just wondering?
ICEL took the later developed EP and made it into the 1973 version
I wouldn’t say they “made it into the 1973 version” because that implies (to me) a stronger identity between the two EPs than really exists. EP II is modeled on the ApTrad, using whole portions of it, even, but the model has been considerably updated to conform with an “ideal anaphora”: one that is explicitly Trinitarian, has two epicleses, specific intercessions, etc.
your comment at #41 does an excellent job
Oh, stop it… you’ll make me blush.
[Folson] uses Jungmann to dismiss the “epiclesis” issue with the Roman Canon
Is there a problem with Jungmann’s scholarship on this matter?
why wasn’t the same thing done to the Roman Canon? [why] was not revised or changed by ICEL?
Possibly because the Canon, unlike ApTrad, was continuously in use in the Church. It was “fixed” at the time of Gregory VII, and although local variations appeared, Trent restored it to its Gregorian form. Because it was ancient and continually in use, it was hard to say it isn’t fit to be used as is. The V2 modifications were ever so slight.
There may have been a Greek predecessor of the Latin canon.
Its antiquity is suggested by its lack of mention of confessors, whose cultus came about in the 4th c.; and its lack of mention of the Holy Spirit, another 4th c. development. (Consider the Gloria: the Holy Spirit is only mentioned in passing at the end; why not reform the Gloria to give the Holy Spirit more attention? And if Addai & Mari don’t need an “explicit” inst. narr., does the Canon need to mention the Holy Spirit explicitly?)
Consilium […] finds the Holy Spirit in the Canon?
Dunno. Perhaps it suffices to be mentioned in some Prefaces and in the Doxology. Also in Offertory prayer Veni Sanctificator, no longer in use; perhaps that should have been inserted into the revised Canon? Some think the “angel” (in the “Supplices te”) may be an oblique reference to the Holy Spirit. (Others say it’s Christ, others say it’s just an angel.)
The jury is out on whether the Canon ever had a “real” epiclesis. If it did, was it removed on purpose (to make a point about the institution narrative as the “form” of consecration) or did it get “lost” through revisions? If it didn’t, why? Perhaps for the same reason ApTrad doesn’t have a Sanctus — it wasn’t an established component of the anaphora at the time. Some scholars say the “Quam oblationem” is (or acts as) its epiclesis. Ambrose (pseudo?) does not mention the Holy Spirit in his De Sacramentis, in the “Fac nobis” prayer which is analogous to the “Quam oblationem”.
A personal observation regarding the Holy Spirit and a pre-institution epiclesis in the EP:
If we use the scriptural accounts of the Last Supper as a general model for a Eucharistic Prayer, Jesus makes no mention of the Holy Spirit at all in the synoptics. It is only John’s Gospel that includes mention of the Holy Spirit in the context of the Last Supper, and there it happens to be after the (absent) institution narrative. John 14-17 provides a rough model for the intercessory prayers in the anaphora, strongly emphasizing unity.
“This isn’t necessarily wrong,”
What in the world does that mean?
That this person thinks it _might_ be “wrong” to use the Roman Canon?
Help me to understand, please.
Mentioning the Holy Spirit in more than just the concluding doxology is not something that would recommend the new Eucharistic Prayers?
Ah, yes. The subtle accusation that about 1500 years of liturgy in Rome somehow ignored the Holy Spirit. The Apostles Creed has little to say about Him as well; perhaps we should re-write the baptismal promises?
In a word, no. I am not persuaded that explicit reference to the Holy Spirit justifies a need for new texts, especially in light of HOW ancient the Roman Canon is.
The reformers are the ones who deleted the “Veni, Sanctificator…” from the Mass. Furthermore, the limiting of the Preface of the Most Holy Trinity to only one day of the year is a dramatic loss of emphasis on the distinctly Latin formulation of Trinitarian doctrine.
The claim that the reform somehow treats the Holy Spirit in a way that is more full is a claim which I reject.
In fact, I throw this out there for discussion: Is there a subtle pro-Eastern/anti-Western bias on the part of some the reformers and their defenders? Why is explicit reference to the Holy Spirit necessary when it has little in the early Latin tradition to recommend it? Why is the Latin emphasis on the sameness of the Godhead (“…Quod énim de tua glória, revelánte te, crédimus, hoc de Fílio tuo, hoc de Spíritu Sancto, sine differéntia discretiónis sentímus.”) discarded in preference for a more dynamic Eastern emphasis on the distinctness of the Divine Persons?
Father, with all due respect, I think you are presuming an awful lot about my motivations here. I might equally say that your response shows an unwillingness to hear any criticism of the preconciliar liturgy because of a romantic attachment to the past. But that would be unfair.
As to your question for discussion, I think the de Regnon paradigm of Eastern vs. Western theologies of the Trinity has been pretty comprehensively blown out of the water by people like Michele Barnes and Lewis Ayres, so casting the contrast as Western unity vs. Eastern dynamic distinction is probably unhelpful. The Fathers of the East, no less than those of the West, stress the unity of the Godhead; Augustine, no less than the Cappadocians, stresses the distinction and dynamism of the persons. Having a Eucharistic Prayer that makes explicit the agency of the Spirit in the eucharistic action is not a betrayal of the Western tradition.
Also, the canon of the Mass is not the canon of Scripture. It is ancient and venerable, but not inspired. It is possible that it has deficiencies.
Finally, the baptismal promises have been rewritten, in the sacrament of Confirmation, to emphasize the Spirit. There is, however, precedent for this, since the creed of Nicea (the baptismal creed of the East) was rewritten in 381 to do the same thing.
by
Tags:
Please leave a reply.