Help Defending OF- The "Talmud" Objection

[1AugustSon7]

While I know we here typically answer questions and defend objections to Catholicism as they appear, at this point I need some help defending an objection outside of this site. I am going to do my best to present the objection without causing any offence; however, one part of the nature of the objection certainly isn’t easy to deal with because it is patently uncharitable and deliberately hyper-scandalous/sensational: Moderators, if anything I write would seem to cross the line in reporting the objection please feel free to edit or delete but know that it is my intention to refute the objection and that I do not sympathize with its underlying animus.

The objection is strictly targeted at the OF. I have the feeling that this objection arose secondarily: i.e., it is not a or the reason for disliking or not attending the OF, but an added excuse to “confirm” someone in that/their stance/attitude.

In the OF, the priest says: “Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation,” etc.:

It is said by some that this part of the Mass “replaced” the Offertory. I am not sure if it constitutes a strict “swap,” but others may know better.

Further, they claim this whole part was taken (as if verbatim) from the Jewish Talmud, specifically from some of its prescribed Benedictions. Therefore, they say, it is not Christian or appropriate for Christians to pray it.

Now presently my answer to this objection would be (and please someone correct me if this is wrong) that it is not so much borrowed or taken from the Talmud as such, but adapted from Jewish prayer/liturgy, since a lot of Jewish synagogue liturgy seems (and again someone correct me if I’m wrong) to be from the Talmud (or perhaps vice-versa?). It is an assumption on their part that this benediction was, as it were, photocopied from the Talmud; whereas, it is more likely from or inspired by Jewish synagogue liturgy: i.e., its relationship to the Talmud being only accidental if it exists.

Ultimately, the objection means to imply:

i) That the sacrificial nature of the Mass is suppressed by this blessing-offering, and

ii) That its source is anti-Christian and, therefore, it becomes something of a coup.

From what I have been able to gather, those promoting this objection are not telling the full truth:

Firstly, that (as I said) it is not a strict (verbatim) quote of an actual or total Talmudic or Jewish benediction, but rather a borrowing and also adaptation of a common element to many Jewish benedictions (i.e., Blessed are you, Lord God of the universe), which common part of the benediction is obviously and completely benign.

Further, this part of the benediction (and those objecting pretend that there is no scriptural basis for this prayer formula) is indeed found in even the New Testament and included in a positive sense:

Luke 1:68: [68] Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; because he hath visited and wrought the redemption of his people:

The “Jewish Table-Blessing” Element of the Objection:

Now those objecting also say that it is (or they have been told it is) a “Jewish” table-blessing, thus emphasizing or stressing their belief that it is effectively a suppression of the sacrificial nature of the Mass as expressed in the EF’s Offertory, with at least the implication that it constitutes some sort of a coup d’etat.

However, it is clearly not, I think, a “Jewish” table-blessing strictly speaking, because since when was food offered at the table by anyone (Jew or Christian) in this manner? I mean, do Jews actually have a formula before eating supper that says, equivalently, “Blessed are You… through Your goodness we have this bread [or wine or whatever] to offer…” ? The traditional Catholic equivalent would be “Bless us Lord and these Thy gifts which we are about to receive from Thy bounty,” etc. The food is not actually “offered,” whereas, in the OF something is actually being offered to God. Are we supposed to believe Jews actually “offer” all their food to God in this way or sense?

So that is where I stand. If anyone could give me any help or commentary or constructive criticism I would appreciate it!

Thank you!

 

[cjforJesus]

While I know we here typically answer questions and defend objections to Catholicism as they appear, at this point I need some help defending an objection outside of this site. I am going to do my best to present the objection without causing any offence; however, one part of the nature of the objection certainly isn’t easy to deal with because it is patently uncharitable and deliberately hyper-scandalous/sensational: Moderators, if anything I write would seem to cross the line in reporting the objection please feel free to edit or delete but know that it is my intention to refute the objection and that I do not sympathize with its underlying animus.

The objection is strictly targeted at the OF. I have the feeling that this objection arose secondarily: i.e., it is not a or the reason for disliking or not attending the OF, but an added excuse to “confirm” someone in that/their stance/attitude.

In the OF, the priest says: “Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation,” etc.:

It is said by some that this part of the Mass “replaced” the Offertory. I am not sure if it constitutes a strict “swap,” but others may know better.

Further, they claim this whole part was taken (as if verbatim) from the Jewish Talmud, specifically from some of its prescribed Benedictions. Therefore, they say, it is not Christian or appropriate for Christians to pray it.

Now presently my answer to this objection would be (and please someone correct me if this is wrong) that it is not so much borrowed or taken from the Talmud as such, but adapted from Jewish prayer/liturgy, since a lot of Jewish synagogue liturgy seems (and again someone correct me if I’m wrong) to be from the Talmud (or perhaps vice-versa?). It is an assumption on their part that this benediction was, as it were, photocopied from the Talmud; whereas, it is more likely from or inspired by Jewish synagogue liturgy: i.e., its relationship to the Talmud being only accidental if it exists.

Ultimately, the objection means to imply:

i) That the sacrificial nature of the Mass is suppressed by this blessing-offering, and

ii) That its source is anti-Christian and, therefore, it becomes something of a coup.

From what I have been able to gather, those promoting this objection are not telling the full truth:

Firstly, that (as I said) it is not a strict (verbatim) quote of an actual or total Talmudic or Jewish benediction, but rather a borrowing and also adaptation of a common element to many Jewish benedictions (i.e., Blessed are you, Lord God of the universe), which common part of the benediction is obviously and completely benign.

Further, this part of the benediction (and those objecting pretend that there is no scriptural basis for this prayer formula) is indeed found in even the New Testament and included in a positive sense:

Luke 1:68: [68] Blessed be the Lord God of Israel; because he hath visited and wrought the redemption of his people:

The “Jewish Table-Blessing” Element of the Objection:

Now those objecting also say that it is (or they have been told it is) a “Jewish” table-blessing, thus emphasizing or stressing their belief that it is effectively a suppression of the sacrificial nature of the Mass as expressed in the EF’s Offertory, with at least the implication that it constitutes some sort of a coup d’etat.

However, it is clearly not, I think, a “Jewish” table-blessing strictly speaking, because since when was food offered at the table by anyone (Jew or Christian) in this manner? I mean, do Jews actually have a formula before eating supper that says, equivalently, “Blessed are You… through Your goodness we have this bread [or wine or whatever] to offer…” ? The traditional Catholic equivalent would be “Bless us Lord and these Thy gifts which we are about to receive from Thy bounty,” etc. The food is not actually “offered,” whereas, in the OF something is actually being offered to God. Are we supposed to believe Jews actually “offer” all their food to God in this way or sense?

So that is where I stand. If anyone could give me any help or commentary or constructive criticism I would appreciate it!

Thank you!

Sorry,but after reading your lengthy post I have very little idea of whet you are trying to refute or defend. Are you saying that the OF mass is not valid because some wording is similar to Jewish prayers? I don’t get it.

 

[1AugustSon7]

Sorry,but after reading your lenghty post I have very little idea of whet you are trying to refute or defend. Are you saying that the OF mass is not valid because some wording is similar to Jewish prayers? I don’t get it.

No, it is not me saying this: some are arguing effectively that in the OF this prayer represents an intention on the part of the authors (ultimately, of course, the Pope) to make the Mass less Catholic or eject what is Catholic from the Mass, symbolized supposedly by this “Talmudic” or “Jewish” prayer/benediction. I am not overly familiar with such prayers and benedictions so I am not sure whether or not it actually is borrowed (word for word) from a certain Jewish prayer/benediction.

My intention is to defend the OF’s prayer at this part of the Mass as being completely legitimate. Anyone with expertise about Jewish liturgy, prayers or belssings and benedictions may be able to help.

By implication they may be arguing that it is somehow invalid, as if by defective intention, but they stress rather its being illegitimate, inappropriate or not fully or authentically Christian/Catholic.

Anyone with knowledge about this part of the Mass might also be able to help.

 

[patrick457]

No, it is not me saying this: some are arguing effectively that in the OF this prayer represents an intention on the part of the authors (ultimately, of course, the Pope) to make the Mass less Catholic or eject what is Catholic from the Mass, symbolized supposedly by this “Talmudic” or “Jewish” prayer/benediction. I am not overly familiar with such prayers and benedictions so I am not sure whether or not it actually is borrowed (word for word) from a certain Jewish prayer/benediction.

It isn’t borrowed word-for-word, but it is highly reminiscent of the blessings (birkat) over bread and wine:

*Benedictus es, Dòmine, Deus univèrsi,
quia de tua largitàte accèpimus panem,
quem tibi offèrimus,
fructum terrae et òperis mànuum hòminum:
ex quo nobis fiet panis vitae.

Benedictus es, Dòmine, Deus univèrsi,
quia de tua largitàte accèpimus vinum,
quod tibi offèrimus,
mànuum hòminum,
ex quo nobis fiet potus spiritàlis.*

Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation,
for through your goodness we have received
the bread we offer you:
fruit of the earth and work of human hands,
it will become for us the bread of life.

Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation,
for through your goodness we have received
the wine we offer you:
fruit of the vine and work of human hands,
it will become our spiritual drink.

===

בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם הַמּוֹצִיא לֶחֶם מִן הָאָרֶץ

בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הַגֶּפֶן

*Bārûkh 'attāh Adonai 'Ĕlōhêinu, melekh hā’ôlām, hām’môṣi leḥem min hā’āreṣ.

Bārûkh 'attāh Adonai 'Ĕlōhêinu, melekh hā’ôlām, bō’re pərî ha’gefen.*

Blessed are you, Adonai our God, king of the world ('ôlām), who brings forth bread from the earth.

Blessed are you, Adonai our God, king of the world, who creates the fruit of the vine.

 

[patrick457]

A little quote from the oldest surviving full description of the ancient (pre-Tridentine) Roman liturgy - the Ordo Romanus I, circa 7th-8th century. Starting from just immediately after the Gospel:

12. The deacon in the meantime returns to the altar, where a collet stands holding a chalice with a corporas lying on it; raising the chalice in his left arm, he offers the corporas to the deacon, who takes it off the chalice and lays it on the right part of the altar, throwing the other end of it over to the second deacon in order to spread it. Then there go up to the throne the chancellor and the secretary, and the chief counsellor, with all the district-officials and notaries: but the subdeacon with the empty chalice follows the archdeacon.

13. The pontiff now goes down to the place where the notables sit, the chancellor holding his right hand and the chief counsellor his left: and he receives the loaves of the princes in the order of their promotion (?). The archdeacon next receives the flasks of wine, and pours them into the greater chalice which is carried by a district-subdeacon, and a collet follows him holding a bowl outside his planet, into which the chalice when full is emptied. A district-subdeacon takes the loaves from the pontiff and hands them to the subdeacon-attendant, who places them in a linen cloth held by two collets. An hebdomadary bishop receives the rest of the loaves after the pontiff, so that he may, with his own hand, put them into the linen cloth which is carried after him. Following him the deacon-attendant receives the flasks of wine, and pours them into the bowl with his own hand, after the archdeacon. Meanwhile the pontiff, before passing over to the women’s side, goes down before the Confession, and there receives the loaves of the chancellor, the secretary, and the chief counsellor. For on festivals they offer at the altar after the deacons. In like manner the pontiff goes up to the women’s side, and performs there all things in the same order as detailed above. And the presbyters do likewise, should there be need, either after the pontiff or in the presbytery.

14. After this, the pontiff returns to his throne, the chancellor and the secretary each taking him by the hand, and there washes his hands. The archdeacon stands before the altar and washes his hands at the end of the collection of the offerings. Then he looks the pontiff in the face, signs to him, and, after the pontiff has returned his salutation, approaches the altar.

Then the district-subdeacons, taking the loaves from the hand of the subdeacon-attendant, and carrying them in their arms, bring them to the archdeacon, who arranges them on the altar. The subdeacons, by the bye, bring up the loaves on either side. Having made the altar ready, the archdeacon then takes the pontiff’s flask of wine from the subdeacon-oblationer, and pours it through a strainer into the chalice; then the deacons’ flasks, and, on festivals, those of the chancellor, the secretary, and the chief counsellor as well.

Then the subdeacon-attendant goes down into the choir, receives a ewer of water from the hand of the ruler of the choir and brings it back to the archdeacon, who pours it into the chalice, making a cross as he does so. Then the deacons go up to the pontiff: on seeing which, the chancellor, the secretary, the chief of the district-counsellors (sic), the district notaries, and the district-counsellors come down from their ranks to stand in their proper places.

15. Then the pontiff, arising from his throne, goes down to the altar and salutes it, and receives the loaves from the hands of the hebdomadary presbyter and the deacons. Then the archdeacon receives the pontiff’s loaves from the subdeacon-oblationer, and gives them to the pontiff. And when the latter has placed them on the altar, the archdeacon takes the chalice from the hand of a district-subdeacon and sets it on the altar on the right side of the pontiff’s loaf, the offertory-veil being twisted about its handles. Then he lays the veil on the end of the altar, and stands behind the pontiff, and the latter bows slightly to the altar and then turns to the choir and signs to them to stop singing.

As you can notice, there were originally no prayers during the Offertory.

 

[patrick457]

From a contemporary document known as the Ordo of St. Amand (8th century):

5. After this the subdeacon takes the gospel-book, and holds it leaning against his breast, below the ambo, while all kiss the book. Then he puts it back in its case. The deacon returns to the altar, and the taperers go before him and put their candlesticks behind the altar, as also the rest of the candlesticks. If there should be a cloth (pallium) on the altar, he folds it on one side towards the east and the corporas is then spread over the altar by the deacons.

6. Then the pontiff washes his hands, and rises from his throne; and the choir go back to the left side of the presbytery. Then the pontiff goes down to receive the offerings from the people, and the archdeacon signs to the choir to say the offertory-anthem. As the pontiff receives the loaves, he hands them to the subdeacon, who puts them into a linen cloth held by the collets who attend him. The deacons receive the flask of wine. The stational chalice is carried by the district-subdeacon, and the deacon pours the flasks into the holy chalice itself; and when it is full, it is emptied into the bowls which the collets carry. Then the pontiff goes with the deacons to the women’s side, and they do the same there. He then goes back to his throne, but the deacons remain to receive the flasks of wine. In the meantime there stand before the pontiff the chancellor, the secretary, the notaries and district-officials, while the presbyters are receiving loaves and flasks within the presbytery, both from the men’s side as well as the women’s; and the collets hold linen cloths and bowls to gather them in.

7. Then the archdeacon washes his hands, and the rest of the deacons wash their hands. Then the collets hold the linen cloth with the loaves, which the pontiff received from the people, at the right corner of the altar: some of which the subdeacon-attendant selects and hands to a district-subdeacon, who gives them to the archdeacon.

The latter places them upon the altar in three or five rows, only so much as may suffice for the people, and remain from that time till the morrow, according to canonical authority. In the meantime the chalice is held by the district-subdeacon, and the archdeacon takes the pontiff’s flask from the hand of the oblationer and empties it into the holy chalice; and in like manner the flasks of the presbyters and those of the deacons as well. Then the subdeacon holds a strainer over the chalice, and the wine which the people offered and which is in the bowl is poured through it. Then one of the choir brings an ewer with clean water in it, and gives it to the oblationer, and the latter offers it to the archdeacon, who takes it and pours it, making a cross as he does so, into the holy chalice which is held by the subdeacon at the right corner of the altar.

Then the pontiff descends from his throne, and comes before the altar; and the archdeacon receives the pontiff’s loaves from the subdeacon-oblationer, and hands them to the pontiff, who sets them on the altar. Then the archdeacon takes the chalice from the subdeacon and sets it on the altar.
The pontiff then signs to the choir to make an end to the offertory-anthem: and they turn back and stand before the platform.

 

[1AugustSon7]

It isn’t borrowed word-for-word, but it is highly reminiscent of the blessings (birkat) over bread and wine:

*Benedictus es, Dòmine, Deus univèrsi,
quia de tua largitàte accèpimus panem,
quem tibi offèrimus,
fructum terrae et òperis mànuum hòminum:
ex quo nobis fiet panis vitae.

Benedictus es, Dòmine, Deus univèrsi,
quia de tua largitàte accèpimus vinum,
quod tibi offèrimus,
mànuum hòminum,
ex quo nobis fiet potus spiritàlis.*

Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation,
for through your goodness we have received
the bread we offer you:
fruit of the earth and work of human hands,
it will become for us the bread of life.

Blessed are you, Lord God of all creation,
for through your goodness we have received
the wine we offer you:
fruit of the vine and work of human hands,
it will become our spiritual drink.

===

בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם הַמּוֹצִיא לֶחֶם מִן הָאָרֶץ

בָּרוּךְ אַתָּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ מֶלֶךְ הָעוֹלָם בּוֹרֵא פְּרִי הַגֶּפֶן

*Bārûkh 'attāh Adonai 'Ĕlōhêinu, melekh hā’ôlām, hām’môṣi leḥem min hā’āreṣ.

Bārûkh 'attāh Adonai 'Ĕlōhêinu, melekh hā’ôlām, bō’re pərî ha’gefen.*

Blessed are you, Adonai our God, king of the world ('ôlām), who brings forth bread from the earth.

Blessed are you, Adonai our God, king of the world, who creates the fruit of the vine.

Thank you, Patrick, so much for this and your other posts. I also like your blog

The matter is complicated, and it requires more expert knowledge of the liturgy, its history and the purposes or function of each of its parts, than I have and could competently defend/explain at this point.

 

[prodigalson2011]

Catholicism was founded by a Jew. Its early practitioners were all Jewish. Catholicism is essentially, to a believer, the evolution of Judaism. Many aspects of the Liturgy have parallels to Judaic tradition: vestments; the Eucharist itself is typified by the manna and the Passover; the tabernacle is rooted in the Ark. Heck, we read from the Jewish Bible every Sunday. Catholicism is inseparable from Judaism.

Sorry, this just seems like a dumb argument from the get-go. Refutation is beyond unnecessary. The Talmud recorded oral tradition, so that prayer more than likely predates Christianity.

 

[patrick457]

Catholicism was founded by a Jew. Its early practitioners were all Jewish. Catholicism is essentially, to a believer, the evolution of Judaism. Many aspects of the Liturgy have parallels to Judaic tradition: vestments; the Eucharist itself is typified by the manna and the Passover; the tabernacle is rooted in the Ark.

Vestments are an indirect parallel, since our modern vestments are actually descended from everyday Roman-era wear. The chasuble (Latin), the phelonion (Byzantine), the phanolion (Coptic), the paynā/phayno (Syriac), the šurdzar (Armenian) and the kāppā (Ethiopian) are all descended from the poncho-like cloak known as the paenula or the planeta.

And the tabernacle is also something that is indirect. Originally there were no tabernacles per se; in fact, in Rome at least the altar did not have anything placed on it unlike today.

The Talmud recorded oral tradition, so that prayer more than likely predates Christianity.

It is the Mishnah (and the supplementary Tosefta) which is the compendium of the oral tradition (ca. 3rd century); the Gemara (the period between 4th-6th century and later) is the commentary. Together, the Mishnah and the Gemara make up what we call the Talmud, of which there are two versions: the so-called ‘Babylonian’ Talmud (6ca. th century) is the one that is commonly used and is the one that most people mean when they speak of “the Talmud.” (The other is the Jerusalem Talmud, which is slightly older - 4th-5th centuries AD - and which survives only in fragments.)

Speaking from another perspective, while the Mishnah does claim to be a collection of earlier rulings and teachings that were earlier passed down orally, it seems to be more wise not to take this description at face value, since in some cases it seems that a degree of rabbinic idealization and editorialism is involved (e.g. later teachings were retrojected into the mouths of earlier sages, and earlier material may have been redacted), which is all the more likely since it took time for both the Mishnah and the Gemara to be codified. So one will have to do some work to determine whether a given material found in the Talmud is historically ‘authentic’ or not.

 

[patrick457]

Thank you, Patrick, so much for this and your other posts. I also like your blog

The matter is complicated, and it requires more expert knowledge of the liturgy, its history and the purposes or function of each of its parts, than I have and could competently defend/explain at this point.

I will be honest with you: these prayers are one of my least favorite parts of the OF. Now I’m not saying that the current Ordo of the Mass is invalid or somehow sacrilegious for including this section, but I just feel that this particular section is a rather half-baked attempt to fill in a gap. As you may (or may not) know, in the EF we had prayers said during the Offertory; when the Roman liturgy was being revised in the 1960s there was this attempt to purge out the medieval ‘accretions’, but for some reason the basic structure of the Mass was left more or less as it was in the EF. Since in the ancient Roman liturgy (the ones attested in Ordo I and the St. Amand Ordo) there were no prayers said during that particular part of the Mass, it seems that what the creators did was to create new prayers out of scratch, apparently using traditional Jewish berachot.

Now does using Jewish models make the Mass invalid? I don’t think so. While I do believe (again, personal opinion) that the finished product is rather artificial, again it doesn’t make the current OF invalid or the destroyer of worlds or whatever. And you’re right: these are not lifted verbatim but are ‘Christianized’ (for one, I really doubt that Jews would ever employ the phrases “the bread of life” or “spiritual drink”). I doubt you can even properly make the accusation that the adapted sources are ‘anti-Christian’. I mean, how in the world is “Blessed are you, Lord our God…who brings forth bread from the earth” anti-Christian?

 

[prodigalson2011]

Vestments are an indirect parallel, since our modern vestments are actually descended from everyday Roman-era wear. The chasuble (Latin), the phelonion (Byzantine), the phanolion (Coptic), the paynā/phayno (Syriac), the šurdzar (Armenian) and the kāppā (Ethiopian) are all descended from the poncho-like cloak known as the paenula or the planeta.

It is true that the style is of Roman descent, but the use of liturgical vestments is a practice that is clearly carried over from Judaism.

And the tabernacle is also something that is indirect. Originally there were no tabernacles per se; in fact, in Rome at least the altar did not have anything placed on it unlike today.

It may have been a later development, but it is clearly based on the Ark. The time of its implementation doesn’t change the fact that it derived from a legitimate part of the Christian tradition (i.e. the Old Testament.)

It is the Mishnah (and the supplementary Tosefta) which is the compendium of the oral tradition (ca. 3rd century); the Gemara (the period between 4th-6th century and later) is the commentary. Together, the Mishnah and the Gemara make up what we call the Talmud, of which there are two versions: the so-called ‘Babylonian’ Talmud (6ca. th century) is the one that is commonly used and is the one that most people mean when they speak of “the Talmud.” (The other is the Jerusalem Talmud, which is slightly older - 4th-5th centuries AD - and which survives only in fragments.)

Speaking from another perspective, while the Mishnah does claim to be a collection of earlier rulings and teachings that were earlier passed down orally, it seems to be more wise not to take this description at face value, since in some cases it seems that a degree of rabbinic idealization and editorialism is involved (e.g. later teachings were retrojected into the mouths of earlier sages, and earlier material may have been redacted), which is all the more likely since it took time for both the Mishnah and the Gemara to be codified. So one will have to do some work to determine whether a given material found in the Talmud is historically ‘authentic’ or not.

I don’t know enough about the Talmud to address this point. I would ask, though, if the use of the particular prayer in the OP’s question dates only to the creation of the OF, or is there evidence of its use in earlier Church history? This would be a good indication of whether the prayer is a legitimate pre-Christian tradition.

 

[patrick457]

It is true that the style is of Roman descent, but the use of liturgical vestments is a practice that is clearly carried over from Judaism.

I wouldn’t put it as “clearly;” it is after all a common feature of religions to sport a ceremonial garment of some kind. Sometimes this could be a piece of clothing that had since passed out of everyday use but is preserved for ritualistic purposes: the modern Jewish tallit or ‘prayer shawl’, for example, originated from the cloak or mantle that formed part of everyday wear in most of the ancient world. By the medieval period, when fashions began to change, Jews still kept wearing a mantle-like piece of cloth in order to preserve the commandment of the tassels, but restricted its use during prayer.

While we could make the case that one could draw a comparison between the priestly garments of the OT and Christian vestments typologically, it is different from saying that historically one is directly derived from the other.

I don’t know enough about the Talmud to address this point. I would ask, though, if the use of the particular prayer in the OP’s question dates only to the creation of the OF, or is there evidence of its use in earlier Church history? This would be a good indication of whether the prayer is a legitimate pre-Christian tradition.

As I said AFAIK there is no evidence that this is ancient Christian liturgical prayer; on the contrary, this is an original composition. In Rome, as has been said, there were originally no prayers during this part of the Liturgy: the Secret (as it is called in the EF) is the only one that was in already in place back then. I believe the same goes for the other Western Rites.