Kiechlin, thanks for linking to my blog post. (I might have been a bit over-zealous about the unchangingness of the Roman Canon, but the modifications to it since Pope St. Gregory the Great
have been few and far between, to the extent that when Bl. Pope John XXIII added St. Joseph’s name, some people gasped for air as if to say, “If the Roman Canon can be changed… then
anything can!”)
E.P. II is based on one of the anaphoras (Eucharistic prayers) found in
chapter 4 of the Apostolic Tradition attributed to St. Hippolytus of Rome (who was an antipope for a time before being reconciled back to the Church). It was not copied word-for-word: certain things were omitted (some of which I think should have been retained) and certain things were added (to bring E.P. II more in line with the Roman Canon and the
other Eucharistic prayers being invented at the time). There was, however, an antiquarian faction that wanted to re-introduce this anaphora
as is, without the Sanctus (Holy, Holy, Holy) after the Preface, without mention of the Blessed Virgin Mary, and without mention of the Eucharist being offered in union with the local Bishop and the Pope. That antiquarian idea was, thankfully, suppressed. But there are still some who prize E.P. II because it’s based on such an old prayer, and older
must mean better, to them.
It should be noted that the anaphora, as found in the Apostolic Tradition of St. Hippolytus, was presented as a
sample, as a
model (see chapter 9:3-4) for what a
newly ordained bishop would pray at the Mass of his ordination (see chapter 4:1-2)! Maybe that’s why it’s so short?
E.P. II was not designed to be used as the everyday prayer over the Eucharist; it was meant to be
one possible prayer used by a newly ordained bishop. And there’s no actual evidence that such a prayer was ever used. I think this document is the only source for it we have. It might have been what “Pope” Hippolytus was trying to legislate. I don’t know.
