Why do so few priests use the Roman Canon? (Eucharistic Prayer I)

  • Thread starter Thread starter WetCatechumen
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
W

WetCatechumen

Guest
I’ve been attending Mass for nearly exactly a year now, and this perplexes me. The first Mass I heard was one of the other prayers, and while I sincerely enjoyed this church and my experience there brought me home to Rome, I’ve realized since that the other Eucharistic prayers are wholly inadequate for the majesty of the sacrament.

The Roman Canon is just undeniably superior to the other prayers, yet I’ve only ever heard three priests say it. My parish’s pastor says it at Sunday Masses, and I heard another priest use it at a daily Mass, and another one of my parish’s priests used it. However, almost always I hear priests use Eucharistic Prayer II.

Why is this?
 
I don’t know that you have too big a sampling in only one year.

We currently have 4 priests in residence at our parish and have had 5 or 6 additional priests regularly say Mass here during the time we have been parishioners. Of those 10 priests, 2 used the Roman Canon regularly. 2 others (both from other countries) very rarely used it. Among the other 6, they do often say Eucharistic Prayer II, but I have also heard many other choices. One priest in particular will let us know which prayer he will say and explain a bit about it. I find that very helpful.

There are several versions, so just because you hear something unfamiliar does not mean that Father is being creative.

As to why priests choose one Eucharistic prayer over another, I have no idea. I suggest you ask the priests at your parish. Over time, you will have a bigger sampling and more information to draw conculsions from.
 
WetCatechumen said:
The Roman Canon is just undeniably superior to the other prayers, yet I’ve only ever heard three priests say it. My parish’s pastor says it at Sunday Masses, and I heard another priest use it at a daily Mass, and another one of my parish’s priests used it. However, almost always I hear priests use Eucharistic Prayer II.

Why is this?
Click to expand...
Undeniably superior?

Certainly you’re entitled to your opinion on this matter and you’ve made it clear. But “undeniably” is a bit over the top. Its really not “undeniable” as you point out that a lot of highly trained priests are denying it.
 
Our parish always uses it. We have other priests that celebrate several of the Masses each Sunday and they also use it.

Most of the other parishes I have been to don’t. I have no idea why one is chosen over another.

Yours in the Hearts of Jesus and Mary

Bernadette
 
Sr_Sally said:
I don’t know that you have too big a sampling in only one year.

We currently have 4 priests in residence at our parish and have had 5 or 6 additional priests regularly say Mass here during the time we have been parishioners. Of those 10 priests, 2 used the Roman Canon regularly. 2 others (both from other countries) very rarely used it. Among the other 6, they do often say Eucharistic Prayer II, but I have also heard many other choices. One priest in particular will let us know which prayer he will say and explain a bit about it. I find that very helpful.

There are several versions, so just because you hear something unfamiliar does not mean that Father is being creative.

As to why priests choose one Eucharistic prayer over another, I have no idea. I suggest you ask the priests at your parish. Over time, you will have a bigger sampling and more information to draw conculsions from.
Click to expand...
That’s exactly why I stated how long I’d been attending - my sampling is only from my diocese and only from a few parishes and not more than 15 or so priests. However, excluding my own priest I almost always hear prayer number II.
Kielbasi said:
Undeniably superior?

Certainly you’re entitled to your opinion on this matter and you’ve made it clear. But “undeniably” is a bit over the top. Its really not “undeniable” as you point out that a lot of highly trained priests are denying it.
Click to expand...
Both bring about a valid, licit sacrament. This is true. However, both folk Masses and high Masses of the extraordinary form bring about valid, licit sacraments. However, the EF High Mass is superior because the spirit of its use (usually) and the content of the form, as well as the reverence, are more in line with purpose of divine worship and the tradition of the church.

Likewise, Eucharistic Prayer I is superior for Latin Rite Catholics because it is (basically) the same eucharistic prayer Catholic priests have been using since St. Gregory the Great and before. The other ones are valid prayers and good for use, but certainly, the first is the oldest and greatest.

And in addition I’d like to say I’ve never heard a priest say Eucharistic Prayer IV.
 
As far as I know, that is the one my priest uses. And my parish is full-on guitar-strumming rock band clap your hands Novus Ordo style.
 
I hate to say it, but I imagine the time required to say the Eucharistic Prayer I (The Roman Canon) in its entirety is a bit longer then the other Eucharistic prayers. I personally love Eucharistic Prayer 1 and it is said on a semi-regular basis at my Parish (And Always during the EF)
 
WetCatechumen said:
That’s exactly why I stated how long I’d been attending - my sampling is only from my diocese and only from a few parishes and not more than 15 or so priests. However, excluding my own priest I almost always hear prayer number II.

Both bring about a valid, licit sacrament. This is true. However, both folk Masses and high Masses of the extraordinary form bring about valid, licit sacraments. However, the EF High Mass is superior because the spirit of its use (usually) and the content of the form, as well as the reverence, are more in line with purpose of divine worship and the tradition of the church.

Likewise, Eucharistic Prayer I is superior for Latin Rite Catholics because it is (basically) the same eucharistic prayer Catholic priests have been using since St. Gregory the Great and before. The other ones are valid prayers and good for use, but certainly, the first is the oldest and greatest.

And in addition I’d like to say I’ve never heard a priest say Eucharistic Prayer IV.
Click to expand...
These statements are all just your opinions. I don’t think anyone has the right to proclaim them as undeniable.

It would be far better to preface any future similar statements with ‘in my opinion’.

Others (perhaps more educated in the Faith, more experienced in Parish life, more qualified in theology) including the Pope himself, since the prayers you dismiss as lesser have been approved by him, plainly think otherwise.
 
EP 1 is longer than the others, making is less appealing to those with short attention spans.
 
WetCatechumen said:
I’ve been attending Mass for nearly exactly a year now, and this perplexes me. The first Mass I heard was one of the other prayers, and while I sincerely enjoyed this church and my experience there brought me home to Rome, I’ve realized since that the other Eucharistic prayers are wholly inadequate for the majesty of the sacrament.

The Roman Canon is just undeniably superior to the other prayers, yet I’ve only ever heard three priests say it. My parish’s pastor says it at Sunday Masses, and I heard another priest use it at a daily Mass, and another one of my parish’s priests used it. However, almost always I hear priests use Eucharistic Prayer II.

Why is this?
Click to expand...
As others have pointed out, they may just have a different opinion than you. Having been in attendance at Mass for something substantially longer than a year, they may feel a certain sense of entitlement about having a different opinion than you, too.

They may also not appreciate correction when they are not incorrect. When there are four options available and you get criticized every time you don’t use one particular choice, it is only human nature to feel resistance to being buffaloed into following someone else’s personal agenda. Maybe you have never pushed the point at all, but maybe someone lacking diplomacy has gone before you.

In other words, passive aggression is a possibility. So if you ask about this, be respectful of the fact that this is a choice that comes with ordination, not baptism.
 
Chatter163 said:
EP 1 is longer than the others, making is less appealing to those with short attention spans.
Click to expand...
They may be indulging parishioners who clock-watch, too, and who complain accordingly. It could be that they try to respond to accomodate complaints, but that those in the OPs camp are outnumbered.

In other words, maybe they can’t win, no matter what choice they make.
 
Kielbasi said:
Undeniably superior?

Certainly you’re entitled to your opinion on this matter and you’ve made it clear. But “undeniably” is a bit over the top. Its really not “undeniable” as you point out that a lot of highly trained priests are denying it.
Click to expand...
So may Catholics view tradition with such cavilier apathy and disrespect. This is a symptom of the new “openess to the world” isn’t it? Remember the words of the Council of Trent:

CHAPTER IV
On the Canon of the Mass.
And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently [Page 156] offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savour of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs.

CANON VI.–If any one saith, that the canon of the mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.
 
franklinf said:
It’s too Catholic?

(joking)
Click to expand...
sadly, it’s not a joke. The Roman Canon is the lex orandi lex credendi of our Faith, even in it’s ‘truncated’ EPI form.

Why the idea of Sacrifice, a Priesthood set apart from the faithful, the Communion of Saints is so intimidating to Catholics is certainly a head scratcher.
 
JuanCarlos said:
The NO translation of it is so inaccurate that I have heard of at least one priest who would not use it because it did not do the Roman Canon justice. Compare the current NO translation with this one, which is on its way for approval

usccb.org/liturgy/missalformation/RomanCanon.pdf
Click to expand...
I studied some Latin in high school so I can kind of understand what things mean with the translation nearby . . .

Not so with the old translations. :eek:

They’re not literal at all . . .

The new translations actually follow the old text. It’s like the translators thought, “Hmm. Well, this is close enough. I think it basically says the same things as the Latin text. Sounds good to me.”

I can understand, but the majority of the intent of the prayer is the same.

However, if I may post a comparison:
Father, we celebrate the memory of Christ, your Son.
We, your people and your ministers,
recall his passion,
his resurrection from the dead,
and his ascension into glory;
and from the many gifts you have given us
we offer to you, God of glory and majesty,
this holy and perfect sacrifice:
the bread of life
and the cup of eternal salvation.
Click to expand...
Therefore, O Lord,
as we celebrate the memorial of the blessed Passion,
the Resurrection from the dead,
and the glorious Ascension into heaven
of Christ, your Son, our Lord,
we, your servants and your holy people,
offer to your glorious majesty
from the gifts that you have given us,
this pure victim,
this holy victim,
this spotless victim,
the holy Bread of eternal life
and the Chalice of everlasting salvation.
Click to expand...
I REALLY don’t think these two say the same thing. I mean, the intent and affect of the words is mostly the same, but if someone told me that both of these were translations of the same text, I wouldn’t believe them. One is a paraphrase.

I would translate this in my halting Latin like this:
Unde et memores,
From here, remembering,
Domine, nos servi tui,
Lord, we your slaves,
sed et plebs tua sancta,
but also your holy people
eiusdem Christi, Filii Tui, Domini nostri,
of the same, Christ, your son, our Lord,
tam beatae passionis,
of [the] Blessed Passion,
necnon et ab inferis resurrectionis,
and also of [his] resurrection from the dead
sed et in caelos gloriosae ascensionis:
but also [his] glorious ascension into [the] heavens:
offerimus praeclarae maiestati tuae
offer to your illustrious majesty
de tuis donis ac datis
from your gifts [that] you gave us,
hostiam puram
[the] pure victim,
hostiam sanctam
[the] holy victim,
hostiam immaculatam
[the] immaculate victim,
Panem sanctam vitae aeternae
[the] holy bread of eternal life
et Calicem salutis perpetuae
and [the] chalice of perpetual salvation
Click to expand...
I took four years of Latin, but that was over two years ago, and the course was not rigorous. However, using a Latin dictionary and grammar aid I was able to knock this out . . .

In my own unprofessional opinion (kindly do not cite me), the new translation is more accurate to the Latin text.

I removed two words from the latin in my translation and the words I added are in brackets.
  • Father is not in the latin text.
  • The descriptor “blessed” is removed from passion.
  • The word “holy” is removed from people.
  • “Servants/slaves” is changed to “ministers”.
  • “Heavens” is removed and adjection glorious changed to the place of Christ’s ascension.
  • The descriptor “many” is added to “your gifts”.
  • The latin says “we offer to your glorious majesty”, not to “you, God of glory and majesty”. The sacrifice is being offered to his majesty.
  • Here is the worst offense of all, the poetic states three times, “pure victim, holy victim, immaculate victim”, but the wording is changed, dropping pure and immaculate, and combining them to say “perfect”, and the word “victim” is changed to the less personal “sacrifice”.
  • “Holy” is removed from “bread of life”
  • “Chalice” is changed to cup.
Those are some differences I noticed. The new translation is superior to mine (as my Latin stinks), but I think mine is a little closer than the old one. . .
 
My experience matches the OP’s. Our current pastor (who is generally orthodox, btw) and his immediate predecessor have never used EP I at any mass at which I was in attendance, which is pretty much weekly. On those Sundays at which I’ve attended other parishes, I’ve seldom heard it used either. The pastor before that used it a few times, usually on Christmas, Easter, etc.
 
WetCatechumen said:
I studied some Latin in high school so I can kind of understand what things mean with the translation nearby . . .

Not so with the old translations. :eek:

They’re not literal at all . . .

The new translations actually follow the old text. It’s like the translators thought, “Hmm. Well, this is close enough. I think it basically says the same things as the Latin text. Sounds good to me.”

I can understand, but the majority of the intent of the prayer is the same.

However, if I may post a comparison:

I REALLY don’t think these two say the same thing. I mean, the intent and affect of the words is mostly the same, but if someone told me that both of these were translations of the same text, I wouldn’t believe them. One is a paraphrase.

I would translate this in my halting Latin like this:

I took four years of Latin, but that was over two years ago, and the course was not rigorous. However, using a Latin dictionary and grammar aid I was able to knock this out . . .

In my own unprofessional opinion (kindly do not cite me), the new translation is more accurate to the Latin text.

I removed two words from the latin in my translation and the words I added are in brackets.
  • Father is not in the latin text.
  • The descriptor “blessed” is removed from passion.
  • The word “holy” is removed from people.
  • “Servants/slaves” is changed to “ministers”.
  • “Heavens” is removed and adjection glorious changed to the place of Christ’s ascension.
  • The descriptor “many” is added to “your gifts”.
  • The latin says “we offer to your glorious majesty”, not to “you, God of glory and majesty”. The sacrifice is being offered to his majesty.
  • Here is the worst offense of all, the poetic states three times, “pure victim, holy victim, immaculate victim”, but the wording is changed, dropping pure and immaculate, and combining them to say “perfect”, and the word “victim” is changed to the less personal “sacrifice”.
  • “Holy” is removed from “bread of life”
  • “Chalice” is changed to cup.
Those are some differences I noticed. The new translation is superior to mine (as my Latin stinks), but I think mine is a little closer than the old one. . .
Click to expand...
Thanks for your (name removed by moderator)ut. I took only two years of High School Latin, but from what I can see you did a spot on job. The newer translation is basically just a cleaned up version of your own.

Pray for the acceptance of the new missal! :signofcross:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top