Eucharistic prayer

[eelpis]

Why is it that priests seem to prefer the 2nd Eucharistic prayer?
Is it because it’s the shortest one?

If Mass would be said in Latin more regularly do you think that demand for the 1962 missal would diminish?

 

[FrDavid96]

Why is it that priests seem to prefer the 2nd Eucharistic prayer?
Is it because it’s the shortest one?

Frankly, yes–sort of. It is intended to be used (mostly) at daily Masses. For most priests, it just becomes a matter of habit to turn to EPII at daily Masses. It’s actually well-suited for daily Masses, and it’s not that much shorter than EP III. It’s also convenient because it has its own preface (for most weekday Masses), so there’s one less page to turn, and one less preface to pre-mark.
Lest people become scandalized, that’s not necessarily a matter of being lazy, or thinking that the few extra seconds saved somehow makes a difference. It’s just convenient.

If Mass would be said in Latin more regularly do you think that demand for the 1962 missal would diminish?

 

[James0235]

Why is it that priests seem to prefer the 2nd Eucharistic prayer?
Is it because it’s the shortest one?

A priest once told me that the reason some priests use EPII nearly exclusively is because it is the least explicitly Catholic of the big 4 Eucharistic Prayers.

I once asked an EPII only priest why he never used the Roman Canon. He got very angry at the suggestion that anyone would ever want to use it.

If Mass would be said in Latin more regularly do you think that demand for the 1962 missal would diminish?

Probably not. For most it’s not about the Latin. It’s about the reverence. It is pretty much a given nowadays that any Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Roman Missal is going to be celebrated reverently.

The problem is that in many places the exact opposite is true of the 1970 Roman Missal. It can be celebrated reverently. But, all too often it is not. And, to go a step further, in many places it is near impossible to find it offered without at least a few minor Liturgical abuses.

To quote Pope Benedict:
This occurred above all because in many places celebrations were not faithful to the prescriptions of the new Missal, but the latter actually was understood as authorizing or even requiring creativity, which frequently led to deformations of the liturgy which were hard to bear. I am speaking from experience, since I too lived through that period with all its hopes and its confusion. And I have seen how arbitrary deformations of the liturgy caused deep pain to individuals totally rooted in the faith of the Church.
Explanatory Letter to Summorum Pontificum

But, even if the Ordinary Form were celebrated in Latin more often (as Vatican II called for) and with a sense of reverence more often many people would still prefer the 1962 Roman Missal for a variety of reasons. Many like the prayers themselves better. And then there is the Liturgical Year - Time after Pentecost and Time after Epiphany just sound so much cooler than Ordinary Time.

James

 

[PhilotheaZ]

For most it’s not about the Latin. It’s about the reverence. It is pretty much a given nowadays that any Mass celebrated according to the 1962 Roman Missal is going to be celebrated reverently.

The problem is that in many places the exact opposite is true of the 1970 Roman Missal. It can be celebrated reverently. But, all too often it is not. And, to go a step further, in many places it is near impossible to find it offered without at least a few minor Liturgical abuses.

One thing the use of Latin in the Ordinary Form would prevent is the practice of “ad libbing” the words of the Mass. Most priests don’t know Latin well enough to make up their own words as they go along.

Also, there is a value in having a “sacred language” that is different from our “everyday language.” When we pray in Latin, we are reminded that it is not something ordinary that we are doing, but something other-worldly.