Prayers for the Emperor during Holy Week (pre-1955 Masses)

[Vouthon]

I recently procured an old missal belonging to my great-grandfather from the early decades of the twentieth century and while reading through it, happened to notice a series of “imperial” prayers recited in the liturgy for Holy Week.

I must admit, this confounded me a little given that - as any student of general European history is likely to be aware - the Holy Roman Empire ceased to exist as an entity under international law in Europe in 1806 and its successor Austrian/Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed in 1918, with the abdication of the last Emperor Blessed Karl I of Austria (who died in exile on a Portugese island). And so the Holy Roman Empire fell in 1806, its successor Empire in 1918 and yet the prayers for the Emperor remained in the official Roman missals until 1955, being publicly recited by faithful Catholics in masses from continental Europe, the British Isles and the United States.

To me this begs the question: why continue to pray for the incumbent of an office that no longer exists, for as long as nearly one hundred and fifty years after said Empire has been dissolved? On behalf of whom exactly and for what purpose were Catholics reciting these liturgical prayers for so long in the absence of a Holy Roman Emperor? Here they are below.

In the Collects of the Mass of the Presanctified on Good Friday, after the intercessions for the Pope:

*Oremus et pro Christianissimo imperatore nostro [Nomen] ut Deus et Dominus noster subditas illi faciat omnes barbaras nationes ad nostram perpetuam pacem.

OREMUS.
Diaconus: Flectamus genua.
Subdiaconus: Levate.

Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, in cujus manu sunt omnium potestates, et omnium jura regnorum: respice ad Romanum benignus imperium; ut gentes, quae in sua feritate confidunt, potentiae tuae dexterae comprimantur. Per Dominum…*
R: Amen.

Translation:

**Let us pray also for the most Christian Emperor [Name] that the Lord God may reduce to his obedience all barbarous nations for our perpetual peace.
LET US PRAY.

Deacon: Let us kneel.
Subdeacon: Arise.
O almighty and eternal God, in whose hands are all the power and right of kingdoms, graciously look down on the Roman empire that those nations who confide in their own haughtiness and strength, may be reduced by the power of Thy right hand. Through the same Lord…
R: Amen.**

At the end of Exsultet on the Easter Vigil, in place of the current prayer for “our temporal rulers”:

Respice etiam ad devotissimum imperatorem nostrum [Nomen] cujus tu, Deus, desiderii vota praenoscens, ineffabili pietatis et misericordiae tuae munere, tranquillum perpetuae pacis accommoda, et coelestem victoriam cum omni populo suo.

Translation:

Look also upon our most devout Emperor [Name], the desires of whose longing you, O God, know beforehand, and by the inexpressible grace of your kindness and mercy grant him the tranquility of lasting peace and heavenly victory with all his people.

Variant:

Regard also our most devout Emperor [Name] and since Thou knowest, O God, the desires of his heart, grant by the ineffable grace of Thy goodness and mercy, that he may enjoy with all his people the tranquillity of perpetual peace and heavenly victory.

I consider them to be intriguing and beautifully written prayers but I just wonder as to their purpose post-1806 and why they were retained deep into the mid-twentieth century?

 

[angeltime]

Pax et Bonum! I am not very bright on this topic, but did find it interesting since I do lean very much toward tradition. The first thing I thought, was that perhaps this Emperor is “remembered” by his history and then the affects of future leaders - be it Emperors, or any Politician, King, Queen, Pope. I see all of this compiled into the prayers - which are beautiful. Just because there is no longer an Emperor, does not mean we wipe him out of our memory. I know the Greek Church went through a terrible time - Iconastic I believe it was called, and to this day, they announce before their Liturgy commences, “Guard the Doors!” So, again this period of history is over, but not wiped from the minds of those living today, and the effects in their Church. angeltime

E

 

[FrDavid96]

Pax et Bonum! I am not very bright on this topic, but did find it interesting since I do lean very much toward tradition. The first thing I thought, was that perhaps this Emperor is “remembered” by his history and then the affects of future leaders - be it Emperors, or any Politician, King, Queen, Pope. I see all of this compiled into the prayers - which are beautiful. Just because there is no longer an Emperor, does not mean we wipe him out of our memory. I know the Greek Church went through a terrible time - Iconastic I believe it was called, and to this day, they announce before their Liturgy commences, “Guard the Doors!” So, again this period of history is over, but not wiped from the minds of those living today, and the effects in their Church. angeltime

E

No, it’s definitely a place to insert a current name. My 1944 printing (U.S. printing, no less) actually has a footnote saying that the words “emperor-elect” (in Latin, of course) should be used if he is not-yet crowned. So that means the name is certainly being used in the present-tense, not just historic. I checked because I thought it might be just a generic place to pray for civil authority. No such luck. The rubrics/text clearly refer to the Roman Emperor.

Also, no luck on options. Again, I thought that maybe there would be rubrics to use the word “king” or even (possibly) president, if either might apply instead. Nope. “Imperatore” is the only option.

 

[PaulfromIowa]

You don’t say the publication date of this Missal other than early 20th century. I would not be surprised if the Mass in countries with a Catholic King or Emperor would include such prayers. The Bible tells us to pray for our leaders. I would doubt very much if such prayers were said in the Mass in the United States or Britain.

 

[FrDavid96]

You don’t say the publication date of this Missal other than early 20th century. I would not be surprised if the Mass in countries with a Catholic King or Emperor would include such prayers. The Bible tells us to pray for our leaders. I would doubt very much if such prayers were said in the Mass in the United States or Britain.

That’s exactly why I checked the Missal from 1944 printed for use in the United States.

See my earlier post.

 

[Vouthon]

You don’t say the publication date of this Missal other than early 20th century. I would not be surprised if the Mass in countries with a Catholic King or Emperor would include such prayers. The Bible tells us to pray for our leaders. I would doubt very much if such prayers were said in the Mass in the United States or Britain.

It is a 1935 printing but I’m not sure if its a re-publication of an earlier edition or one that was issued that year.

And it was published in the UK, London I think.

 

[twf]

That’s exactly why I checked the Missal from 1944 printed for use in the United States.

See my earlier post.

Father,
Any idea how US priests might have dealt with this matter? How does one name and pray for an Emperor who doesn’t exist? Furthermore, it must have been very odd for Americans to pray that their own nation would be conquered and subjected to the peace of the Roman Emperor (as some of the other prayers seem to imply) . As a Canadian and a staunch monarchist I get a kick out of seeing republicans squirm in these situations.

I have a recording of an Orthodox divine liturgy recorded, I think, in the UK, where they pray for Queen Elizabeth in the place where St. John Chrysostom would have intended prayers for the Eastern Emperor.

 

[angeltime]

Pax et Bonum! I am left wondering now if “Emperor” can cover a few titles/roles/positions? For example, we see in scripture where the word Brother, Sister is used often and I think now we have come to know that this can refer to those in a “clan” or “community”, not just a family blood member/relative. angeltime[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[FrDavid96]

Father,
Any idea how US priests might have dealt with this matter? …

No. I don’t.

That’s the point I was trying to make earlier. My thoughts were “in the U.S. there would be a variation to insert the President’s name” so I picked-up the 1944 Missal I have on a nearby shelf. Instead, I found the opposite of what I thought I would see. It clearly says Emperor and clearly intends Roman Emperor. No mention of a President. No option to replace Emperor with King or Queen (Rex or Regina) as the case might be.

And yes, it does make this republican squirm. But I’ll throw it right back atcha that it clearly means Roman Emperor, so Elizabeth Regina wouldn’t have been mentioned (even though it is the 1944 printing) either.

 

[FrDavid96]

Pax et Bonum! I am left wondering now if “Emperor” can cover a few titles/roles/positions? For example, we see in scripture where the word Brother, Sister is used often and I think now we have come to know that this can refer to those in a “clan” or “community”, not just a family blood member/relative. angeltime[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

Nope.

Imperator means emperor–very specifically. King or queen would be rex or regina.

For example, take a look at British coins.

Here’s a farthing from 1937
http://coinsgalore.co.uk/bmz_cache/d/dce7b39f321abd650adcbc5d476eb20f.image.360x183.jpg
George VI is titled “Emperor of India” (Ind. Imp.)

Contrast that with the 1951 farthing
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
He’s still King (Rex), but no longer Emperor

 

[angeltime]

Pax! Would it have been too costly to change the wording in the Missal - especially if it involved one simple change? In other words, to re-print and re-distribute? I remember a time ago, when in Canada the lectionaries were put out across Canada and were not checked thoroughly. They were distributed in trust. The problem began to surface that inclusive language was changing meanings. The Bishops had said it was too late and too costly now to get them back and reprint - so they had to be used until the next issues were printed. Could there be any connection in the way these things are being handled?? Just checking…angeltime

 

[Vouthon]

No, it’s definitely a place to insert a current name. My 1944 printing (U.S. printing, no less) actually has a footnote saying that the words “emperor-elect” (in Latin, of course) should be used if he is not-yet crowned. So that means the name is certainly being used in the present-tense, not just historic. I checked because I thought it might be just a generic place to pray for civil authority. No such luck. The rubrics/text clearly refer to the Roman Emperor.

Also, no luck on options. Again, I thought that maybe there would be rubrics to use the word “king” or even (possibly) president, if either might apply instead. Nope. “Imperatore” is the only option.

That’s an incredible detail regarding the footnotes - that “emperor-elect” is to be employed if he is not yet crowned, clearly implying and taking for granted the existence of an Emperor and Roman Empire…only problem being, neither of them actually existed in the period from 1806 to 1955

I honestly cannot fathom this. If a priest were reading this out would they have simply said “Emperor” I wonder, without referring to a name? But then, what would be the point in doing this for a non-existent emperor?

It is even more peculiar when you consider that one of the prayers expressly asks that the Almighty extend the authority of the Roman Emperor over the “barbarian nations” so as to inaugurate lasting peace…and yet there is no Empire to extend over said nations

 

[FrDavid96]

Pax! Would it have been too costly to change the wording in the Missal - especially if it involved one simple change? In other words, to re-print and re-distribute? I remember a time ago, when in Canada the lectionaries were put out across Canada and were not checked thoroughly. They were distributed in trust. The problem began to surface that inclusive language was changing meanings. The Bishops had said it was too late and too costly now to get them back and reprint - so they had to be used until the next issues were printed. Could there be any connection in the way these things are being handled?? Just checking…angeltime

Well, no.

Again, I’m going to reference my 1944 U.S. Missal. The opening pages make it clear that it’s published and printed in the U.S. Back then, books had to be type-set by hand. So that means that each individual letter had to be put into place, unless they used some type of plates made in Europe. Even if they did use plates (which is unlikely for several reasons, including that we use different size papers), if there was such an adaptation for the U.S., modifying a page or two for Holy Week would have been relatively simple.

Even in that time period, different countries did have different Missals. The Mass was the same, but the calendars were different, so each country’s Missal already had several modifications that had to be made by the printer.

Since we know that country-specific modifications were indeed made (not just adding some title pages), I don’t see why the Holy Week pages would have been an exception.

 

[angeltime]

Pax! thankyou very much for making the picture clear! angeltime[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[twf]

No. I don’t.

That’s the point I was trying to make earlier. My thoughts were “in the U.S. there would be a variation to insert the President’s name” so I picked-up the 1944 Missal I have on a nearby shelf. Instead, I found the opposite of what I thought I would see. It clearly says Emperor and clearly intends Roman Emperor. No mention of a President. No option to replace Emperor with King or Queen (Rex or Regina) as the case might be.

And yes, it does make this republican squirm. But I’ll throw it right back atcha that it clearly means Roman Emperor, so Elizabeth Regina wouldn’t have been mentioned (even though it is the 1944 printing) either.

The history of Church and Empire is so intertwined that I suppose it makes sense. An institution as rooted in tradition as the Church doesn’t easily throw off 1500+ years of commemorating a Christian / Roman Emperor (in one form or another). There was even a period of time in the early Middle Ages when the Roman Emperor in Byzantium, at least officially, appointed the Pope of Rome as I recall…

True, Queen Elizabeth wouldn’t fit the bill either. Her father King George would have at least held the title Emperor, as you pointed out in an earlier post, even if he wasn’t a “Roman” Emperor… but then, that title has been adopted by various distinct thrones throughout history. The Tsar of Russia, for example, was “the Roman Emperor” for Eastern Christians after the fall of Byzantium. There is perhaps some flexibility here. I wonder what Catholics in the British Empire did…

 

[FrDavid96]

That’s an incredible detail regarding the footnotes - that “emperor-elect” is to be employed if he is not yet crowned, clearly implying and taking for granted the existence of an Emperor and Roman Empire…only problem being, neither of them actually existed in the period from 1806 to 1955

I honestly cannot fathom this. If a priest were reading this out would they have simply said “Emperor” I wonder, without referring to a name? But then, what would be the point in doing this for a non-existent emperor?

It is even more peculiar when you consider that one of the prayers expressly asks that the Almighty extend the authority of the Roman Emperor over the “barbarian nations” so as to inaugurate lasting peace…and yet there is no Empire to extend over said nations

I don’t know what was done. I see your points, of course.

I know what was printed, only because I have an example in my hand.

Were there indeed modifications which were approved, but for some reason, weren’t printed in the Missals? I imagine the answer would be “yes” but I cannot provide any actual proof.

As I wrote earlier, I consulted the U.S. Missal fully expecting to find a variation printed there, and was surprised to find none.

Again, I imagine that there were modifications; that’s worth nothing.

 

[FrDavid96]

Here’s another bit of trivial information:

In the Roman Canon (again, 1944 Missal) at some point, some priest added in pencil the name of St Joseph (added, I think in 1964?)

Who cares? Right?

Well, that has me thinking: If he (whoever he was) took a pencil and added St. Joseph to the printing, might he also have changed the Good Friday petition? I found no such note. Granted, Good Friday is once a year, while the Roman Canon is every day. It proves nothing. I just thought I’d mention it.

 

[FrDavid96]

… I wonder what Catholics in the British Empire did…

If there’s anyone reading this thread who has an old Missal printed anywhere in the British Empire, please post what it says. I know we’re all curious now.

 

[twf]

Here’s another bit of trivial information:

In the Roman Canon (again, 1944 Missal) at some point, some priest added in pencil the name of St Joseph (added, I think in 1964?)

Who cares? Right?

Well, that has me thinking: If he (whoever he was) took a pencil and added St. Joseph to the printing, might he also have changed the Good Friday petition? I found no such note. Granted, Good Friday is once a year, while the Roman Canon is every day. It proves nothing. I just thought I’d mention it.

I think St. Joseph was added in 1962? Either way, on an unrelated topic, its a great example of the very gradual development of the cult of St. Joseph in the Church. He doesn’t occupy the same “most exalted saint after Our Lady” status in the Eastern Church, nor did he in the early Church…I can’t think of any other first century saint who became increasingly popular down through the centuries. The pencil annotations in your Missal suggests adding St. Joseph to the Roman Canon was an organic, perhaps grass roots development. Interesting.

 

[angeltime]

Peace…well, it seems you are getting to the topic of tampering and who actually knows? - we are just following…I have wondered about the Rules of Life that have been changed so many times, losing their originality as laid out by the Founders and becoming more man-made instead of divinely inspired. This is a big topic with some now too. Even when we have documents put out to us from the Church, they need to be interpreted properly by skilled interpretors in each language, before they get to the public and clergy or their will be confusion and error as well as those who just do what they want to get it done. hmmm…
angeltime[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]