There are presently 9 Eucharistic prayers now in use in the Latin Rite of the Catholic Church. Twas not always thus, however. For four hundred years prior to the Second Vatican Council, there was only one Eucharistic Prayer in general use in the Latin Church (others such as the Ambrosian Rite of Milan and the Dominican Rite are not for general use, but for particular settings).
Through a complicated maze of scholarship, popular demand, and political pressures, the 1960’s saw the multiplication of the Eucharistic prayers for general use from one to four, each called by its Roman numeral, I-IV . In the 1970’s five other particular use Eucharistic Prayers were added to the sacramentary namely the Eucharistic Prayers for Children I, II, III and for Reconciliation I and II.
Eucharistic Prayer I: The Roman Canon
The Roman Canon is the longest and perhaps the most ancient of the Eucharistic prayers. St. Ambrose had quoted portions of it in the mid 300’s. Among the ancient Eucharistic prayers of the various rites, East and West, it has a strikingly unique structure with a heavy emphasis on the sacrificial nature of the sacrament and the role of the priest in offering it.
Major features of 19th and early 20th century scholarship included literary criticism, archeology, and the study of ancient texts. All were brought to bear on the study of liturgy and provided a more detailed analysis of liturgical developments. The liturgical movement which sought a revival of participation in the liturgy was shaped by this scholarship. By the 1950’s there was increasing pressure in theological circles to translate the liturgy into the vernacular. It has been said that the Church behind the Iron Curtain was also calling for a vernacular liturgy as there were no other means available to evangelize the youth. Many liturgical theologians were calling for various re-workings of the Eucharistic Prayer known as the Roman Canon. The venerable ancient prayer, it seemed to some, did not flow well in the vernacular and was lacking some of the elements found in the Eastern liturgies.
To see a comparison of the four general Eucharistic prayers, visit here.
Criticisms of the Tridentine Canon:
- The prayer seemed to jump around from one idea to another without a coherent flow. Translation to the vernacular would make it’s awkwardness quite visible.
- Much repetition throughout particularly of references to offering sacrifice (even prior to the consecration)
- Missing references to the action of the Holy Spirit, particularly the Epiclesis after the consecration emphasized in Eastern liturgies
- The expression, “which shall be given up for you” is not found after “This is my body,” leaving the words of institution dangling oddly.
- The words “mystery of faith” were included in the consecration of the chalice. Christ had not said these words.
- The Roman Canon lacked an overall sense of salvation history found in some Eastern liturgies.
- The Roman Canon was said virtually silently so that it could not be heard by the people.
Visit this site for more.
The Modified Roman Canon
The new form of the Roman Canon has addressed some of these issues in various ways while arguably retaining much of the spirit of the ancient prayer. To address others of these criticisms, new Eucharistic prayers were written. Here are some changes made to the Roman Canon:
- Removal of repetitive phrasing
- The offering of the host and chalice prayers completely rewritten, removing all references to the host, blood, sacrifice, offering, sin or salvation.
- The prayer for the Lavabo is almost completely omitted.
- To “For this is my body” is added “which will be given up for you.”
To see a comparison of the Tridentine and new forms of the Roman canon visit here.Today in most parishes in America the Roman Canon, once the only Eucharistic Prayer in the Church is now the least used. It is longer and has more rubrics than the other Eucharistic Prayers. It is the most solemn of the prayers and employs sublime images absent in the others such as this portion:
Almighty God, we pray
that your angel may take this sacrifice
to your altar in heaven,
then, as we receive from this altar
the sacred body and blood of your Son,
let us be filled with every grace and blessing.
Eucharistic Prayer II
- Shortest of the 9 prayers in the present sacramentary
- Long been considered to have come from Hippolytus, but some scholars have challenged that hypothesis, placing it perhaps as late as the mid 300’s.
- This prayer is notable for its complete lack of reference to sacrifice.
The prayers following the Memorial Acclamation in all the other prayers use sacrificial language particularly victim and sacrifice.
Here is this section in EPII:
In memory of his death and resurrection,
we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup.
We thank you for counting us worthy
to stand in your presence and serve you.
May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ
be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.
Compare with the following quotes from the same section in the other Eucharistic prayers:
…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. (EPI)…we offer you in thanksgiving this holy and living sacrifice.
Look with favor on your Church’s offering,
and see the Victim whose death
has reconciled us to yourself. (EPIII)…looking forward to his coming in glory,
we offer you his body and blood,
the acceptable sacrifice
which brings salvation to the whole world.
Lord, look upon this sacrifice
which you have given to your Church;
and by your Holy Spirit,
gather all who share this one bread and one cup
into the one body of Christ,
a living sacrifice of praise. (EPIV)
Eucharistic Prayer III
- Only one that is not based on an ancient source but is a new composition.
- Does not have its own Preface and is therefore most used on Sundays and Feast days where there are over 80 prefaces for those occassions.
- Beautiful phrasing, perhaps most notably, ” From age to age you gather a people to yourself, so that from east to west a perfect offering may be made to the glory of your name,” in the opening of the prayer following the Sanctus.
Eucharistic Prayer IV
- The longest of the three new prayers.
- Recounts salvation history in answer to the criticism of the Roman Canon
- Adaptated from several Eastern liturgical sources and considered the most ecumenical of the Eucharistic prayers.
- Has its own proper preface, so it is best suited to Sundays and weekdays during Ordinary Time, (when the proper prefaces of Feast days and Sundays in Advent, Christmas, Lent and Easter are not required)
- Disliked by some fot the great number of references to “man,” frowned upon in feminist circles
David Bennett
Jennifer
asimplesinner
Fr. J.
Chad Toney
Jorge Flores
Jonathan B
carmelbennett
nicenehobbit
Jason S
jaybird68
papaz
March 13, 2008 at 11:41 pm
There are actually 13 for general use (not counting variations for monastic or geographical rites, or the Anglican Use communities).
see: http://catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/EP.htm
March 13, 2008 at 11:59 pm
SS, you are right. The last four are virtually never used and are not found in the sacramentary–I have never used or heard any of them. I have actually not even heard of anyone hearing them used, either!
March 14, 2008 at 12:20 am
Regarding your criticisms of the Tridentine Canon, I would like to offer the following reply:
The Roman Canon far predates the reforms of Trent as you point out in your post. The Canon has existed in its present form since the Latin reforms of the 300’s when the Liturgy of Rome transitioned from Greek to Latin. The antiquity of the Canon does require our ears and sensibilities to adjust to its form rather than the other way around.
The Roman Canon is remarkably concise and efficient in comparison to Byzantine penchant for repetition.
The Eastern emphasis on the action of the Holy Spirit in the Epiclesis after the consecration is a rather late development and represents a specifically Eastern theological concern of the late medieval period. It would be silly to conform the early Roman Canon to a late Greek form. The Quam oblationem and the Supplices prayer are indeed early Roman prayers similar to a Greek Epiclesis. Unlike the Greek Liturgy, the entire Roman Canon is addressed to God the Father.
As I’m sure Father is aware, the expression “which shall be given up for you” is not found in the Institution Narratives after the words, “This is my body,” in either the Gospels of Sts. Matthew or Mark. I’m sure that Father wouldn’t characterize the Gospels as “leaving the words of institution dangling oddly.” The Roman Canon simply presents the Institution Narrative as it is found in these Gospels.
I’m sure Father would not want the Roman Canon to conform to Eastern liturgies. This would be a false Hellenization of the Latin Liturgy.
The practice of saying the Canon in a quiet voice is ancient. Quiet voice is called for in the Ordinary Use, as well. The congregation may not be able to hear the prayers but they are able to read the prayers and follow along in silent contemplation or, as is common in the Ordinary Use, sing a song and take out our wallets while with Father says his prayers quietly at the altar.
Regarding the additional modern Canons:
It should be noted that Eucharistic Prayer II was originally added because it was thought that it represented the Greek tradition in Rome, the so-called Hippolytan Tradition. This has been shown to be a much later composition and incomplete. The archeological attempt to dig up and reanimate a tradition that has been long dormant certainly does not represent a hermeneutic of continuity. Because it is the shortest Canon, it is now the most common.
Eucharistic Prayer III is a modern construction by committee. This again does not represent a hermeneutic of continuity called for by the Council. Father should note that the “beautiful phrasing” in English does not represent what the Latin original actually says and that the Latin is rather awkward, dissonant and ugly (to be quite frank).
Eucharistic Prayer IV is an attempt to Hellenize the Latin Liturgy as it is based upon the Byzantine Divine Liturgy. This was specifically warned against by the Council and represents a silly attempt to make the Roman Liturgy more “Byzantine.”
March 14, 2008 at 12:46 am
Gilgarza,
I agree with what you have written. I only object to your writing of me in the third person, which is disrespectful.
I have given you the links where I have found the material presented. It has not been my intention to make judgments about the reforms. As a priest and as a Catholic, it is not my place (nor yours, really) to judge the authoritative decisions of the Church. I have simply sought to offer a description of the changes and a very limited perspective on some of the motivations behind them.
Some love them. Some hate them. That is their business.
I am not an expert on liturgy and do not want to be. My purpose is not to debate the merits of the Church’s actions but to give beginners and the curious an introduction. I appreciate suggestions and constructive criticism.
In looking over what you have written on the three new prayers, I am glad that your facts and those I reported are essentially the same. You have included your judgments about the fittingness of those changes. That is fine. I have not and will not do the same. I will presume with the Church.
I simply ask that you refrain from making your comments personal. This is not about me or my opinions, it is about the liturgy.
God Bless,
Fr. J.
March 14, 2008 at 3:56 am
I have never heard Eucharistic Prayer I in my life.
I am aware of it. Don’t get me wrong. But Number 2 is used nearly 100% of the time. I do recall my late pastor saying once, “Eucharistic prayer numbah tree” (he was Irish), before reciting the prayer at mass. This was actually my first clue that there was such a thing as a Eucharistic prayer.
This seems a shame. Number 1 is beautiful. Of course, in my time attending the Tridentine mass (a time which has sadly come to an end for me), I have heard the Canon as it was in 1962.
March 14, 2008 at 3:57 am
What’s up with the little smiley face toward the top of the page?
It’s freaking me out.
March 14, 2008 at 4:04 am
I’ve always loved this revision of Christ Pantocrator. It’s much more inspiring then the florentine version.
I agreed with the idea of having different Eucharistic prayers to avoid formalism, however human nature being what it is, in practice I have found the majority of priest at the local parish chose #3. In the past 40 years going to churches in CA,NJ,MY,VT,TX, FL I have never hear even once Eucharistic prayer #4. This is of course an extremely limited sample of no value except to me, but I would venture a guess that this is the case at larger. In which case the intent to avoid formalism doesn’t work at all when offered a varable number of prayers.
March 14, 2008 at 4:59 am
Quick,
I haven’t heard #4 since I was little, though I use it on occasion myself. I know I heard it when I was young (early 70’s) because I remember the words about the dead “whose faith is known to you alone.” For some reason that line got me every time.
For about the past 3 years, I have been using all four of the general prayers, though I dont know anyone else who does so. Reconciliation I is a favorite in my community for its wording about the cross (Holy Cross Fathers), so I use it quite frequently, also. I think your lack of experience with #4 is pretty common, same with #1, Rob.
I am eerily drawn to this Pantocrator and have been for years. Cant explain it, but maybe it is in part because the artist held nothing back.
March 14, 2008 at 10:55 am
Thank you for this post Father. I am familiar with Ep I-IV, including the Roman Canon, which as you have pointed out here and elsewhere is not often used. Jennifer and I insisted that for our wedding, EP I be used. It is probably my favorite and we wanted a chance for our wedding guests to be exposed to it (we also chose hymns that were more well-established…no Haugen and Haus stuff).
March 14, 2008 at 2:02 pm
David. It is great that you had the presence of mind to ask for EPI. Not many would even know of it, much less think to ask for it. Unfotunately so many couple just want the ceremony as short as possible so they can get on to the “good stuff.” EPI in my opinion is fitting for a wedding as it is the lay parallel to an ordination which is the one time EPI is sure to be used.
March 14, 2008 at 7:41 pm
Father,
Could you please explain something for me? I had always thought that EP II and III(?) were for Daily Mass (shorter times) and that EP I and IV were for Sunday Mass (and Saturday Vigil.)
Yet I’ve rarely heard any but EP II at any given time.
Do you follow the practice in the first paragraph that I’ve written?
Your Unworthy Son,
Eric
March 14, 2008 at 8:00 pm
I generally follow this rule of thumb:
EP I for Solemnities and Sundays in “Strong Seasons” (Christmas and Easter)
EP II for weekdays
EPIII for Sundays in Ordinary Time, Advent, Lent and Feasts with a proper.
EP IV for weekdays, Sundays in Ordinary Time, Pro-Life Masses
Rec. I Anytime.
That is how I do it based on some general principles, but it is up the priest to choose. I would prefer for the Church to require EP I for specific occasions so that it remains in the consciousness and practice of the faithful.
March 14, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Fr. J:
You said: “As a priest and as a Catholic, it is not my place (nor yours, really) to judge the authoritative decisions of the Church.”
Sure it is. I don’t call into question the capacity of the Church to make such decisions. Of course the Church has the authority to make decisions about the Liturgy. The decisions that have been made (largely on the local or regional level) were simply poor, ill conceived and against the express direction of the supreme authority of the Church.
You might suggest that calling out the vernacular (for example) for being ugly and not in accord with the Council is scandalous for beginners and newbies. I would answer that the scandal is being forced to repeat the same grammatical errors each week.
We can’t have it both ways. We can either follow Vatican 2 in our worship or we can dissent. I would most humbly suggest that the manner and form of the modern celebration of the Ordinary Use simply represents major dissent against the Council. It is also a gleaming monument to bad taste.
I think by now we shouldn’t be afraid of calling a duck, a duck. Even if it does have episcopal approval. :)
March 15, 2008 at 12:24 am
Gilgarza,
You may not agree but I believe that the Church is in a time of purgation. As any cross, the sorrows of the Church now will ultimately be for her good and future flourishing in this world and/or the next. We are presently being attacked from all sides, from the gay movement, the abortion movement and the secularists. Included among those now attacking the Church are some Orthodox and many traditionalists whose attacks have the bad fruit of making the dissatisfied all the more miserable and of discouraging none too few conversions.
I, as a priest have a duty to celebrate as well as I am able the rites of the Church which I love. Crosses can be born gracefully or ungracefully. If I were to continuously engage in undermining the very rites I was ordained to offer, I would be guilty of inflicting a further wound on the Church because it would affect the way I celebrate these rites and devalue them in the eyes of those with whom I have shared my complaint.
While the rites of the Church are not perfect, they never have been and never will be until we reach the heavenly liturgy. And while they are not perfect, they are the means of grace for the faithful, myself included. It would be a participation in an evil to elevate complaints over taste, and text to such a level that they cloud vision of myself and others of the grace mediated which is Christ himself. Besides, as with the old days, it is as true now that griping is unbecoming of those who have received so much.
What we have among so many in the Church who fancy themselves as liturgical purists is a commitment to their own preferences. Personal preferences, we must learn, are matters of the flesh which need to be crucified and buried so that we can be open to the grace offered and not focused on whatever superficial wrapping we would have preferred it come in. This is a basic lesson in life.
March 15, 2008 at 2:30 am
I wholeheartedly agree with you that the Church is in a time of purgation. I disagree with you that there is any merit whatever to bearing the Marty Haugen Cross gracefully.
My point is that the Council has called for Latin to be preserved, selective minimal use of the vernacular, Gregorian chant to have pride of place, Altar rails to be used, and a laity that know their Latin prayers and hymns. The GIRM calls for the celebrant to face the same direction as the congregation.
This punch list isn’t a matter of personal preference, taste or choice. It is the clear teaching of the Church. What on earth are we waiting for? :)
March 15, 2008 at 2:45 am
“My point is that the Council has called for Latin to be preserved, selective minimal use of the vernacular, Gregorian chant to have pride of place, Altar rails to be used, and a laity that know their Latin prayers and hymns. The GIRM calls for the celebrant to face the same direction as the congregation.
This punch list isn’t a matter of personal preference, taste or choice. It is the clear teaching of the Church. What on earth are we waiting for? ”
Unfortunately, Pope Paul VI on his own authority reversed what the SVC had taught. He did so on the same authority with which Benedict XVI issued the MP SP. So, we have to live with it.
March 16, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I’m interested in your take on exactly how Paul VI reversed the Council. This is a new perspective for me.
March 16, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Simple. He issued reforms one by one that contradicted the SVC, such as the use of the vernacular which was done in steps.
March 16, 2008 at 10:06 pm
I’m aware that episcopal conferences (eg, the old USCC) and commissions (eg ICEL) granted permission for experimentation that eventually became accepted but I’m unaware of any document issued by Paul VI mandating a practice in contradiction to the Council.
For example, with Vatican approval ICEL created a Frankenstein Liturgy that is ugly, contains many grammatical errors, is frequently theologically wrong or silly, contrary to our Tradition, frequently opposed to Scripture and which bears very little resemblance to its Latin Ordinary Use parent. But why use it? Particularly because an entirely vernacular Liturgy is not what the Council directed. Quite the contrary. No priest is mandated to celebrate entirely in the vernacular. In fact, Liturgies in Rome use vernacular only for readings, propers and intercessions, as a general rule. Americans in Rome generally mumble through or stand silent through the Gloria, Credo and Pater Noster even though every Roman Catholic is supposed to know that stuff. (It’s great to belt out a Pater Noster with all the folks from around the globe, much better than holding hands).
So, back to my original question. If it runs contrary to the Council, isn’t mandated, is wrong, frequently silly and just plain ugly, why do it? Especially when there are such great alternatives. What is with the death grip on mediocrity?
March 18, 2008 at 1:23 am
Fr. J:
Please excuse my harp on this subject. :) I’d like to give you another specific example to illustrate my point.
The issue is the direction that the priest faces when he celebrates Mass of the Ordinary Use. The rubrics of the Mass of the Ordinary Use are specific in this regard. The celebrant is directed to “face the people” at specific times. They are:
1. During the Salutatio “ad populum conversus” literally to turn around toward the people
2. Before the Orate, fratres “versus ad populum” literally in the direction of the people
3. Before the Pax Domini “ad populum conversus” (note that the exchange of peace is optional “pro opportunitate” if it is an opportune time)
4. Before the Ecce Agnus Dei “ad populum versus (note the rubric calls him to immediately turn back in the direction of the altar “ad altare versus” for his communication)
5. Before the final Salutatione “versus ad populum”
So, if the celebrant is facing the people at all times from behind the altar, how could he “turn” and face the people?
The only way the celebrant can “turn” and face the people is if he is in front of the altar facing the same direction as the people leading them in prayer. The rubrics clearly call for the priest to turn and face the people and turn and face the altar.
So, why don’t priests follow the rubrics of the Mass? :D