Which Eucharistic Prayer is my Priest Using?

[Don_Ruggero]

thank you Father! I know that part of the reason for the changes to the Mass was an attempt to return to a version of the liturgy which most closely matched that of the earliest Church. Is that why there are some priests (and Bishops) who prefer Eucharistic Prayer II and almost exclusively use it (or almost never use Prayer I)?

You are welcome.

I would not agree, though, with the thought that the Council Fathers were attempting to “return to a version of the liturgy which most closely matched that of the earliest Church.” The Council Fathers at Vatican II were most concerned about the Church of today and the Church of tomorrow. In that, they had captured the vision of Saint John XXIII, who had convoked the council. They were certainly keen on re-introducing to contemporary liturgy elements that had regrettably been lost during the course of history – that was very important to them – as well as to reform the liturgy, such as it was in that moment, relative to the Mass and also relative to the other sacraments and sacred celebrations.

It is an interesting question as to why priests and bishops have the preferences they do. It is not a point that really admits of a universal empirical answer – although you would always find it to be a question sure to elicit interesting and varied answers whichever cleric you asked! And it really is one you would have to ask the individual offering the Mass. Many factors, I would venture to guess, enter into the equation for most of us.

I would wish to say that I do not think it can properly be framed as though a celebrant is not choosing Eucharistic Prayer I but rather that he is choosing another. For example, the only reason I would consciously choose not to use Eucharistic Prayer I is for an issue of time or if the congregation were primarily young children. In other instances, it is not a rejection of Eucharistic Prayer I but simply a preference for another selection. Conversely, there are specific circumstances in which I positively prefer Eucharistic Prayer I over any other choice.

Personally, I have not been swayed by the more recent scholarship concerning Eucharistic Prayer II. Should I live long enough, it will be interesting to see where further scholarship on the matter goes. I have my own thoughts, which are beyond the scope of a forum like this. Without doubt, at its base is an anaphora of the greatest antiquity and, yes, that awareness informs my frequent use of it and I am indeed pleased it is in the Roman missal…although, for several reasons, I have a most special regard for Eucharistic Prayer III, personally, and that is the one I use most frequently.

I quite cherish the first Eucharistic Prayer for Masses of Reconciliation, since its origin evokes very special memories, as well as the Swiss Canon. I use them and Eucharistic Prayer IV as frequently as occasion allows.

It was always when I would answer questions, such as these, in the classroom that these various points would again be at the forefront of my mind, such as they are presently. I am, however, not consciously remembering, for example, Cipriano Vagaggini whilst saying Eucharistic Prayer III – although I am fondly remembering him in the moment as I type this and I am glad that you evoked that memory.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

I didn’t realize the revision had been done. In Canada, it’s been available since February – interesting note, it’s not available in French. Which leads to the question, do these EPs exist in any other language or just in English?

I am afraid I am at a loss to explain why it would not be available to you. Yes, the texts certainly exist in French in Europe – and I know the texts also exist in Quebec since they were specifically mentioned on page 8 in last year’s instructions for the celebration of the family in the Archdiocese of Gatineau…see link below.

Because of the decree of Pope Benedict XVI in 2008, these Eucharistic Prayers must be published in a separate volume now. If your parish has not a copy, one should be readily obtainable via the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops or at least through the Assemblée des évêques catholiques du Québec [with apologies for transgressing the rubric that everything in the forum must be in English…that is the organization’s proper name and I have never encountered an official English version of the name].

I should also clarify that the Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children exist beyond French as well. The texts in Italian, for example, are easily found by searching the term on the Internet: “preghiera eucaristica per i fanciulli”.

eveques.qc.ca/documents/2014/3SQF2014_Celebrationeucharistique.pdf

 

[ProVobis]

The lack of an epiclesis could indeed be added to Fr. Folsom’s summary list, but it is not so clearly a deficiency as the most vocal of critics maintain. Simply put, the assumption that the Roman Rite must have once had an epiclesis that somehow got dropped in the course of history is nothing more than an assumption which is in turn premised upon the assumption that all ritual families simply must have been built with all the same “important” elements. But there is absolutely no evidence that the Roman Rite ever had an epiclesis, and this lack is easily explained through chronology: the Roman Canon predates the 4th-century disputes over the divinity of the Holy Spirit which made it seem so important for the Eastern Rites to include an explicit invocation of that Person.

In the EF, the Holy Spirit isn’t entirely ignored. For example, in the Veni Sancficator prayer right toward the end of the Offertory. So I agree with you that it is not that much of a deficiency though it is sort of disguised in the EP1 as listed here.

catholic-resources.org/ChurchDocs/RM3-EP1-4.htm

with links for some other Eucharistic Prayers.

 

[Charlie_Ham]

If I may say, seminarians will certainly typically analyze the Eucharistic prayers from an academic perspective. Those who do advanced studies in liturgy, such as at the Pontifical Institute of Sacred Liturgy at Sant’Anselmo in Rome, will have a much deeper exposure to the anaphoras of East and West, their theology, history, construction, etc.

That said, it is not so much by recourse to academic texts and such resources but from the priest’s personal familiarity with the texts on the one hand and the nature and particularities of the liturgy over which he is presiding on the other hand that will inform the choice that he makes to use one Eucharistic prayer as opposed to another. Also, the external considerations such as time and the request of those involved with the laity, such as a young couple being married or a nun celebrating her golden jubilee of religious profession.

You are blessed to be near the beautiful archabbey of Saint Meinrad. As you know, it is a daughter of Einsiedeln in Switzerland, an abbey more than a thousand years old. The professors at Saint Meinrad I hold in high regard and they will surely guide you to excellent texts, available to you locally. God bless you.

Thank you, Fr. Ruggero! For me, it is not how the the Eucharistic Prayer came to be or how the decision of which Eucharistic Prayer to use is made, I want to be able to savor every sentence. I don’t want to just be able to recognize the Epiclesis, I want to think, “Oh, this is EP III and I love the way this Epiclesis focuses on ] compared to ] in EP VN II.”, for example.

There are two courses at St. Meinrad within the next year called Eucharist. The text for one is P. Bradshaw’s “The Eucharistic Liturgies” and the other is J. Emminghaus’ “The Eucharist: Essence, Form Celebration.” I’ve ordered the latter and will keep plugging away. Thanks for your thoughts everyone.

 

[ProVobis]

I see. No. I would like you not to answer in the form of a PM since, in fact, you would speaking against my brothers in Holy Orders whom I held in great esteem and, depending upon whom you would be attacking, is likely someone I knew.

Does this imply the laity was not involved at all in providing any (name removed by moderator)ut into the writings and translations of the Eucharistic Prayers? I was curious myself into the history behind the seeming rupture involved in effectively replacing the traditional Roman Canon. I am not questioning the legitimacy of doing so, however.