Which Eucharistic Prayer is my Priest Using?

[ProVobis]

By “in the 60’s there were over 20 some Eucharistic Prayers being used” do you mean that these 20 some were being used in what is now called the Extraordinary Form of the Mass?

The EF was being dismantled in the period following Vatican II. The LMS (of England and Wales) had a 5-part article on this. Probably one of the reasons Pope John Paul II restored the 1962 Missal (and in Latin), not the 1965 or the 1967 versions, which actually introduced the vernacular and heavier dosage of hymns, dropping of a lot of rubrics, among other things, which the Roman Canon required. Changes were not uniform however, so Masses, say in France, probably were different than those in the U.S. just before the Pauline Missal was promulgated.

This may be of some interest to you.

adoremus.org/9-11-96-FolsomEuch.html

,

 

[Phemie]

I don’t have them in front of me but it seems that if you memorize the first sentence of each of the main four Eucharistic Prayers, you will recognize them at the outset. However, I’m not aware of the other possibilities (up to 13?)

EP I, II, III & IV – All have different first sentences.

Reconciliation I & II – Both have different first sentences.

Various Needs I, II, III, IV – Are identical until after the Mysterium Fidei so it’s anyone’s guess which one is being used until then.

Children I, II, III – All have different first sentences.

 

[Phemie]

Maybe I’m wrong but I thought that the EPs for Reconciliation were eliminated in the revised Missal that came out two years or so ago?

Edit to amend my post to say I thought it was the EPs for use with children that were eliminated?

People thought the EPs for Masses with Children had been eliminated because they weren’t in the Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal. That’s because they were never part of the Roman Missal, never having existed in Latin. They were always a separate document.

There was talk that they were going to be revised but AFAIK that has not happened.

 

[bobballen_18]

The EF was being dismantled in the period following Vatican II. The LMS (of England and Wales) had a 5-part article on this. Probably one of the reasons Pope John Paul II restored the 1962 Missal (and in Latin), not the 1965 or the 1967 versions, which actually introduced the vernacular and heavier dosage of hymns, dropping of a lot of rubrics, among other things, which the Roman Canon required. Changes were not uniform however, so Masses, say in France, probably were different than those in the U.S. just before the Pauline Missal was promulgated.

This may be of some interest to you.

adoremus.org/9-11-96-FolsomEuch.html

,

Thank you for that article. Or maybe I shouldn’t thank you because I am extremely, shall we say, annoyed, at the whole thought process behind why the “multiplication of Eucharistic prayers” occurred. Among other things, it pretty much boiled down to “we need more variety” and there were “theological inaccuracies”. Are you kidding me? For centuries the Roman Rite was using an theologically inaccurate Canon? I don’t believe that for one nanosecond. And what is the deal with wanting variety in the Liturgy, why is variety hailed as something so great?



I’ll stop before I say something else I might be sorry for. I will also unsubscribe from this thread, as I have already kind of hijacked the thread but have now more or less gotten a few answers I was looking for.

 

[JimG]

Thank you for that article. Or maybe I shouldn’t thank you because I am extremely, shall we say, annoyed, at the whole thought process behind why the “multiplication of Eucharistic prayers” occurred. Among other things, it pretty much boiled down to “we need more variety” and there were “theological inaccuracies”. Are you kidding me? For centuries the Roman Rite was using an theologically inaccurate Canon? I don’t believe that for one nanosecond. And what is the deal with wanting variety in the Liturgy, why is variety hailed as something so great?



I’ll stop before I say something else I might be sorry for. I will also unsubscribe from this thread, as I have already kind of hijacked the thread but have now more or less gotten a few answers I was looking for.

This made me chuckle. Yes, for years I grew up with just one Eucharistic Prayer and in Latin at that. But I practically knew it by heart in the English missal translation, and loved it. I would have been an extremely annoyed nine year old if someone had suggested I needed a different Eucharist Prayer! (Of course, I also would have been annoyed if I had been asked to leave my pew for a children’s liturgy of the word!)

 

[Charlie_Ham]

EP I, II, III & IV – All have different first sentences.

Reconciliation I & II – Both have different first sentences.

Various Needs I, II, III, IV – Are identical until after the Mysterium Fidei so it’s anyone’s guess which one is being used until then.

Children I, II, III – All have different first sentences.

Thanks Phemie!
I’m going to continue in that direction and when I’m more confident I’ll start trying to decipher the more esoteric subtleties of each of the Eucharistic Prayers. That’s hard for me - a retired engineer.
The Eucharistic Prayer starts with the Preface Dialog/Preface/Preface Acclamation and for Various Needs I, II, III, IV the Preface is slightly different AND fixed so hopefully that will be a little easier.
Thanks again, Charlie Ham

 

[ProVobis]

But I practically knew it by heart in the English missal translation, and loved it.

But that became a problem because there were various translations of the Roman Canon. The ICEL, after they were given the go-ahead to translate the Mass, did a dynamic translation but this had to eventually be corrected to the Latin. And who knows if someone doesn’t want to change the current translation within the next few years.

I guess they figured words like “vouchsafe” and such were indeed too burdensome and weird to recite out loud every Sunday. They might have had a point as the Roman Canon said quietly and in Latin wasn’t as “burdensome.”

.

 

[JimG]

But that became a problem because there were various translations of the Roman Canon. The ICEL, after they were given the go-ahead to translate the Mass, did a dynamic translation but this had to eventually be corrected to the Latin. And who knows if someone doesn’t want to change the current translation within the next few years.

I guess they figured words like “vouchsafe” and such were indeed too burdensome and weird to recite out loud every Sunday. They might have had a point as the Roman Canon said quietly and in Latin wasn’t as “burdensome.”

.

The time I was thinking of was way before ICEL. There may have been different translations but the only one I knew was the one in my Latin-English missal. And of course, as an altar boy, I already knew the words of the Prayers at the Foot of the Altar. The choir sang the Pater Noster, the Gloria, and the Credo in Latin so the whole congregation knew those. And later, I could sing a long drawn out Ite Missa est to let houseguests know when it was time to leave.

 

[ProVobis]

as an altar boy,

We generally couldn’t hear most of the Roman Canon, though we were clued by the bows and crosses and hands over the chalice to exactly where the priest was. The Canon was more visual than verbal to most. Nothing wrong with that as it led to more contemplative prayer. It was fun following along in the Missal, though, and one could read in Latin or in any translation they want. And we still have that in the EF.

 

[ProVobis]

Thank you for that article.

Thank you for the inspiration to find it. I learned a few things myself reading it.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

People thought the EPs for Masses with Children had been eliminated because they weren’t in the Third Typical Edition of the Roman Missal. That’s because they were never part of the Roman Missal, never having existed in Latin. They were always a separate document.

There was talk that they were going to be revised but AFAIK that has not happened.

The Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children was included in the third typical edition of the Roman Missal when it was published in 2002. They were, however, not included in the reprint which was published in 2008. A decree at that time specified that these Eucharistic Prayers would always be published separately. They have been revised and are currently readily available for use.

The Latin text of the Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children exists of course but, really, only as the basis for translation…unless one could find a congregation of very very young children whose knowledge of Latin surpasses their knowledge and familiarity of their vernacular language.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Was there a perceived, I don’t know, deficiency or lacking in the Roman Canon which made “liturgical scholars” feel like there needed to at least be more options? I’m operating under the assumption that there must have been a reason for this, and I’m trying to find out what it is.

May I ask please why you have chosen to set apart liturgical scholars in quotation marks?

 

[ProVobis]

…unless one could find a congregation of very very young children whose knowledge of Latin surpasses their knowledge and familiarity of their vernacular language.

If by very, very young children you mean 2 yr olds or so, they probably wouldn’t know the difference. I tried this with my great nephew once.

At a young age, I myself learned Polish, English, and a little Latin. I just learned all of them without knowing which language was which. Dominus vobiscum was dominus vobiscum.

 

[bobballen_18]

May I ask please why you have chosen to set apart liturgical scholars in quotation marks?

Father, I’m going to respectfully decline to answer, since, as I’ve already touched on, I think I’ve already hijacked the thread and I have received the answers I was looking for. And any response I make at this point is only going to be a rant.

I would be happy to answer your question in the form of a PM, if you still desire to know my (negative) answer - just let me know.

 

[Charlie_Ham]

EP I, II, III & IV – All have different first sentences.

Reconciliation I & II – Both have different first sentences.

Various Needs I, II, III, IV – Are identical until after the Mysterium Fidei so it’s anyone’s guess which one is being used until then.

Children I, II, III – All have different first sentences.

What text book(s) or other resources do Seminarians use in Seminary when they are preparing to be in a position to select which EP to use? I am near The Saint Meinrad Seminary and School of Theology. I’ll ask there and a recently ordained Priest I know.

 

[twf]

In my experience, EP I, II and III are the norm. I can probably count on one hand the number of times I’ve encountered any of the others.
To answer an earlier question, the only theological deficiency I can think of in the Roman Canon is the lack of an explicit epiclesis. It probably had one in ancient times, but it slowly faded away. EP II and III include an explicit epiclesis. That being said, EP I is still my preference.

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

Regarding after 1962 and in “preparation” for the current Ordinary Form, why would there have been the impression that a different Eucharistic Prayer than the Roman Canon needed to be used? Was there a perceived, I don’t know, deficiency or lacking in the Roman Canon which made “liturgical scholars” feel like there needed to at least be more options?

As you’ve probably seen in Fr. Folsom’s linked article, the criticisms could be summarized thus:

1. The Roman Canon would be burdensome if recited out loud, because it is always the same.
2. The lists of saints are too local.
3. The Canon is unsatisfactory from a stylistic viewpoint, and would require considerable reworking in order to appear as a single literary unit.

To reword, the critics simply wanted more variety; a worldwide Church is commemorating only Roman saints; the text is not a unified prayer but a patchwork cobbled together over time. To elaborate on that last point, the Roman Canon is made up of many discernible “units” of prayer which conclude “Through Christ our Lord. Amen.” Not only was this considered to interrupt the flow of the prayer (and thus those conclusions are now placed in brackets to be used or omitted at the celebrant’s choice), but it was thought that even when lined up nose to tail those various units did not move in a natural order. E.g., the commemoration of the living is well before the consecration, while the commemoration of the dead comes after; why not, asked the critics, place these commemorations right next to each other?

To answer an earlier question, the only theological deficiency I can think of in the Roman Canon is the lack of an explicit epiclesis. It probably had one in ancient times, but it slowly faded away. EP II and III include an explicit epiclesis. That being said, EP I is still my preference.

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.

 

[Phemie]

The Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children was included in the third typical edition of the Roman Missal when it was published in 2002. They were, however, not included in the reprint which was published in 2008. A decree at that time specified that these Eucharistic Prayers would always be published separately. They have been revised and are currently readily available for use.

The Latin text of the Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children exists of course but, really, only as the basis for translation…unless one could find a congregation of very very young children whose knowledge of Latin surpasses their knowledge and familiarity of their vernacular language.

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?

 

[Don_Ruggero]

Father, I’m going to respectfully decline to answer, since, as I’ve already touched on, I think I’ve already hijacked the thread and I have received the answers I was looking for. And any response I make at this point is only going to be a rant.

I would be happy to answer your question in the form of a PM, if you still desire to know my (negative) answer - just let me know.

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.

 

[Don_Ruggero]

What text book(s) or other resources do Seminarians use in Seminary when they are preparing to be in a position to select which EP to use? I am near The Saint Meinrad Seminary and School of Theology. I’ll ask there and a recently ordained Priest I know.

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.