The Sacrificial Emphasis in Eucharistic Prayer 2

Art Sippo ^ | Jan 2001 | Dr. Art Sippo

[Catholicguy]

I assist at the Mass of all times every Sunday, normally at St. Thomas More in Boynton Beach, FL. Me and The Fam normally hear Eucharistic Prayer Two.

I thought this essay might be helpful to Catholics accosted by the you-know-whos who tell us we are really protestants ect.

[polemikos]

nice summary

[Sneer]

Who are what is considered to be an Integrist? I can't find the word in the dictionary. Thanks.

[Desdemona]

Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this bread to offer, which earth has given and human hands have made. It will become for us the bread of life. All: Blessed be God for ever.

...

Priest: Blessed are you, Lord, God of all creation. Through your goodness we have this wine to offer, fruit of the vine and work of human hands. It will become our spiritual drink. All: Blessed be God for ever.

I don't remember the last time I actually heard this. YOu see it happen with background music, but rare is the occasion any more when the priest waits for the music to be over before doing this.

I like EPI because of the language. It just resonates more, IMO.

[NYer]

Eucharistic Prayer II

Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness. Let your Spirit come upon these gifts to make them holy, so that they may become for us the body and blood of our Lord, Jesus Christ.

> Before he was given up to death, a death he freely accepted, he took bread and gave you thanks, He broke the bread, gave it to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and eat it; this is my body which will be given up for you.

When the supper was ended, he took the cup. Again he gave you thanks and praise, gave the cup to his disciples, and said:

Take this, all of you, and drink from it; this is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.

Let us proclaim the mystery of faith:

Memorial Acclamation

In memory of his death and resurrection, we offer you, Father, this life-giving bread, this saving cup. We thank you for counting us worthy to stand in your presence and serve you. May all of us who share in the body and blood of Christ be brought together in unity by the Holy Spirit.

Lord, remember your Church throughout the world; make us grow in love, together with John Paul our Pope, {name} our bishop,a nd all the clergy. Remember our brothers and sisters who have gone to their rest in the hope of rising again; bring them and all the departed into the light of your presence. Have mercy on us all; make us worthy to share eternal life with Mary, the virgin Mother of God, with the apostles, and with all the saints who have done your will throughout the ages. May we praise you in union with them, and give you glory through your Son, Jesus Christ.

Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever. Amen.

* * * * *

Thank you for posting this thread. It is also important to understand what renders a mass invalid. From the web site in my tagline ....

3. Levels of Abuse - Invalid and Illicit 

Before getting into the specific abuses, it is important to understand the rules for celebrating the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass. These rules are officially called rubrics. These rubrics are contained in the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (GIRM)^[1], and many clarifications have been made in other documents such as Instruction Concerning Worship of the Eucharistic Mystery (Inaestimabile Donum).

The most serious type of abuse makes the Mass "invalid." For a Mass to be invalid, the Consecration of the Eucharist does not occur. Going to an invalid Mass is like not attending Mass at all since Jesus is not physically present via the miracle of transubstantiation^[9]. The issue of fulfilling the Sunday obligation under such a circumstance will be dealt with later in this article.

Please read the information posted at this link. There are many abuses that go undetected by most parishioners who simply are not aware of the regulations that govern the mass. Most importantly, KNOW YOUR RIGHTS! According to Inestimable Dominum, "The faithful have a right to a true Liturgy.

IS YOUR MASS VALID?

[Catholicguy]

I hear it clearly every Sunday

Me too re the EP1.

[Catholicguy]

Definition of "Integrist"
(Extreme Traditionalist)

TCR Note: Since some have inquired about the terms "Integrist" / "Integralist" (the term used by Cardinal Ratzinger to describe SSPX and similar errors, see The Ratzinger Report) we thought it would be helpful to share the following historical sketch from a correspondence several years ago.

Quick definition: Integrism is that form of both historical and theological error, and sometime outright rebellion / schism, which confuses the substance and accidents of faith and considers them both to be "Integral" to the Faith.

"The term "integrism" was coined during the pontificate of Pius X and his successor after the former condemned modernism. As it is customary, after such a condemnation, some zealots begin to see 'modernists' under every stone. An organization headed by Msgr. Begnini (not Bugnini or Benelli!) called "La Sapinière" from the name of their headquarters started a witchhunt and went to denounce as modernists perfectly orthodox theologians or scripture scholars.

Scholars like Lagrange, O.P. (who was the first one to see the danger and to denounce it in the writings of Loisy), Lebreton, SJ, de Grandmaison, SJ, etc.. became suspect because they endeavours to refute the arguments of modernists on their own fields. I believe, Begnini's organization was later suppressed by Benedict XV. Jean Madiran, the publisher of Itinéraires, has a book on 'L'intégrisme, cet inconnu'. Also, Jean Toulat, a Catholic sociologist, who is usually fairly objective had published a volume on modernism and one on integrism which are quite interesting on the historical and sociological level. I remember also reading lines of Louis salleron on Itineraires in the 70's on this subject which were quite pertinent. . For Salleron, it is more a distinction in character than a distinction in ideas. You may find people who are quite 'integrist' idea wise bu very 'progressive'in their moral life. Salleron, used to say that M.-D. Chenu, O.P., (whom he knew well) was certainly a progressist as far as theological, political and social issues but rather integrist in other areas of life.

"Regarding theology, the progressivist is charmed by anything new; the progressivist theologian wants theological issues to be as free as possible and tends to limit unduly what is required to be believed to remain Catholic. The 'integrist' theologian, au contraire, tends to restrict what is legitimate theological opinion. He 'theologizes' i.e. he takes a theological opinion and makes it a dogma or at least a theological certitude which no one is free to reject. In liturgy, the progressist thinks that the non-sacramental rites and symbols can be adapted without any restraint. The 'integrist' believes that every rubrics is as important as the next one, and will even try to impose the personal view of a liturgist as mandated by the church. A recent example which come to mind is a person who insisted that only red wine should be used for Mass and was making a big deal about it. The example of ( a canonist) is also quite good. I guess one could say that the problem of progressivists and integrists is to fail to make a distinction between what is essential and what is accidental, what is important and what is not. The progressivist tends to make everything unimportant and therefore changeable and the integrist will tend to make everything important and therefore un-changeable. In both case, it is a misunderstanding of tradition.

A correct concept of tradition is the basis for a true progress. The progressivist is suspicious of tradition. We live in a different world. Tradition cannot apply as such, they think. We have to find new ways. The integrist receives tradition but without distinguishing what was bound to a certain period of time and what is perennial because based on natural law and revelation. As Salleron was pointing out, one can find a progressist in theology and an integrist in liturgy. Etc...

"For example, if we look at the Traditional Mass, one of the rubrics states the priest can only have his hands shoulder-length apart during some parts of the Mass. I know a very holy Indult priest who was a little sloppy in this regard, given his tendency for pious exageration in order to combat liturgical abuse. His hands would be closer to a shoulder-length-and-a-half apart. Some local Lefebvrites condemned this action as a liturgical abuse no different than our Call-to-Action priest who uses honey-cake and dancing girls at his Novus Ordo. On the one hand we had actions that were invalidating and a grave lack of respect. Where on the other hand we had a slight pious exageration. See the difference?

"To maintain, in the name of the law, that the going astray from the rubrics of both priests is somehow equal in abuse, would be an example of integrism. The error is usually not in the denial of doctrine, but rather in the invention of doctrine.

---

"The conception of theological orthodoxy which triumphed over modernism by force majeure rather than by free and open debate was described appositely by some of its defenders [!] as 'integralism' [ Integrism]. In their minds it stood or fell as a whole, and a divinely guaranteed whole at that. It comprised certain clearly defined philosophical foundations together with a systematic superstructure the various elements of which were each seen as indispensable to the whole. Its defenders became convinced during the first decade of the twentieth century that both foundations and superstructure were under insidious and radical attack from the inside."

Gabriel Daly--Transcendance and Immanence, a Study in Catholic Integralism and Modernism. Oxford U Press. 1980

By this definition we can see in retrospect that, with Vatican II, which, of course, came much later than the period discussed in the quotation, the Church determined that neither Integrism nor modernism could stand as a theological or ecclesiological "superstructure".

The Church, dialectically, as it were, takes the meat and leaves the bones from both "isms" while maintaining her dogmas, the Deposit of Faith, completely in tact. Neither "ism" likes this approach. Thus liberals and Integrists both attack JPII.

1) The truth in aspects of Integrism (which could not be accepted as a total system) was its insistence on immutable truths grounded in revelation.

2) The truth in aspects of modernism (which could not be accepted as a total system) was that scholasticism had grown old and was less well understood by many educated moderns. It needed to be translated, albeit without losing its substance.

The same with the "higher critical" (as opposed to textual) approach to the Scriptures. Pius XII in his encyclical, Divino Afflante Spiritu, accepted only the aspects of it which were **compatible with** the Faith and rejected any aspect of its methodology which were founded upon agnostic or relativist presuppositions. This has always been the way of the Church, as seen in St. Thomas' approach to Aristotle, to take but one example.

Vatican II represented the Church's steady course, 'twixt both relativism and legalism. --- TCR

[Tantumergo]

"In EP2, the ancient liturgical prayer of Epiclesis was restored. It had been part of many liturgies since the First Council of Constantinople in order to emphasize the divinity of the Holy Spirit but dropped out of western usage sometime in the first Christian Millennium."

This eejut has swallowed the liberal propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

The reason why the Roman Canon, and hence Tridentine Mass, does not have an explicit epiclesis is that it is the most ancient rite and was around long before Constantinople I and all the various Eastern rites.

It did not "drop out of usage" - it was never there in the first place. The identity of the Holy Spirit was never a case of theological dispute at the time the Roman Mass was composed.

By returning to a supposedly more ancient rite, the "reformers" have in fact introduced novelties that were never part of the Roman liturgy.

[Canticle_of_Deborah]

The term Integrist is used as a slur towards anyone who resists change/modernisation of the Church and her Liturgy.

There are several other terms used which should not be repeated in Christian company.

[Catholicguy]

Contact Catholic Encyclopedia Editors and alert them so they can correct this error in future issues. This entry was written by the noted liturgical liberal eeejut Fr. Adrian Fortescue.

Maybe you have fallen for the vacuous "histories" of the ill-informed integrists :)

Epiklesis

Epiklesis (Lat. invocatio) is the name of a prayer that occurs in all Eastern liturgies (and originally in Western liturgies also) after the words of Institution, in which the celebrant prays that God may send down His Holy Spirit to change this bread and wine into the Body and Blood of His Son. This form has given rise to one of the chief controversies between the Eastern and Western Churches, inasmuch as all Eastern schismatics now believe that the Epiklesis, and not the words of Institution, is the essential form (or at least the essential complement) of the sacrament

[Maximilian]

I assist at the Mass of all times every Sunday, normally at St. Thomas More in Boynton Beach, FL. Me and The Fam normally hear Eucharistic Prayer Two.

You can't go to "the Mass of all times" and also hear Eucharistic Prayer II. You can only do one or the other. Notice how Sippo starts off by clearly delineating the fact that the New Mass is indeed a new rite. He calls it the "Pauline Rite." The "Pauline Rite" is not the Mass of all times. It is not the same Mass that has been offered in the Roman Church since the time of the apostles.

[Maximilian]

Sippo manages to beat around the bush, throw in a few ad hominem insults and make some irrelevant comments, but the one thing that he does not manage to do is the thing that he said he would do at the outset: demonstrate that Eucharistic Prayer II has any language referring to sacrifice. It does not.

In fact, his first and apparently most significant point is that the Mass really isn't about "sacrifice" anyway. Instead it's a recreation of an Old Testament "Todah." He makes his opponents' point for them. He says that he's going to prove that EPII has language of sacrifice, but then instead he claims that it really doesn't matter whether it does or not because the Mass really isn't a sacrifice.

In the meantime, where does Good Friday fit into all of this? What about the sacrifice on the Cross? Does that have some role in the New Mass? Apparently not, according to Sippo.

Thank you, Mr. Sippo for proving the point better than any "integrist" could ever do. The New Mass is a different Mass from the "Mass of all times." Search the article for the terms "Good Friday" (or just Friday), "Cross," "Passion," "Unbloody." Each one of these terms will return zero hits. The entire concept of what the Mass represents: "an unbloody reenactment of Christ's passion and death on the Cross" no longer exists in the New Mass. Now it is a reenactment of a "Todah." Whatever. Just don't pretend it's the same Mass.

[St.Chuck]

You can't go to "the Mass of all times" and also hear Eucharistic Prayer II. You can only do one or the other.

Sneer, Max's post is an excellent example of how an integrist thinks.

[Land of the Irish]

THE TRADITIONAL (TRIDENTINE) MISSAL AND THE NOVUS ORDO MISSAL Compared

[Maximilian]

Sneer, Max's post is an excellent example of how an integrist thinks.

Yes, me and Art Sippo, integrist pals. Here's what Sippo said in his first sentence:

the Revised Roman Rite of Pope Paul VI (ie., the Pauline Rite)

I guess Sippo is another one of those nasty "integrists" who believes that the "New Mass" is actually "New," or at least "revised," or the "Pauline Rite."

[St.Chuck]

I guess Sippo is another one of those nasty "integrists" who believes that the "New Mass" is actually "New," or at least "revised," or the "Pauline Rite."

More integrism. Calling the rite by a different name merely explains that the incidentals, the words of the prayers are changed. Sippo maintains that the sacrificial nature of the mass is unchanged.

[Land of the Irish]

the words of the prayers are changed

Yeah, no big deal.

"Pro multis" now means "pro omnibus". Black now means white, etc.

[Maximilian]

Calling the rite by a different name merely explains that the incidentals, the words of the prayers are changed. Sippo maintains that the sacrificial nature of the mass is unchanged.

Different rites can all have a "sacrificial nature," but they are not the same rite. The Malabar rite and the Russian Orthodox rite can both express a sacrificial nature, but they're not the same rite, they're different rites. The immemorial Latin Mass and the New Mass may (or may not) both express a sacrificial nature, but they are different rites. That is what Sippo says.

Besides which, "words of the prayers" are not "incidentals" to a sacrament. They ARE the sacrament. The form of the sacrament is defined by the words. If you and Sippo and others believe that "words of the prayers" are "incidental" to the Mass, then I guess that explains everything that needs to be understood.

[St.Chuck]

Pro multis" now means "pro omnibus". Black now means white, etc.

Many and all are not polar opposites as are black and white. Many can include all, and all can include many. I'm sure this topic has been bandied about many times before, but the point of the article was to refute the integrist claim that the mass as celebrated today is not a sacrifice.

If the prayers during mass that are said are not to your liking and do not describe and teach the Catholic faith as you would like, the pope has made older forms available, and Mons. Perle has said that even SSPX masses are perfectly legitimate alternatives. If you need to hear "for all" every Sunday, lest you become confused or that your faith is being improperly formed, then I would suggest you opt for those alternatives.

[St.Chuck]

If you and Sippo and others believe that "words of the prayers" are "incidental" to the Mass, then I guess that explains everything that needs to be understood.

This is Sippo's contention that I cannot find fault with.

" There are several different compositions for the words of institution in the Latin Rite, but the least common denominators among them are the words “This is my Body” and “This is the cup of my Blood.” These words recited by a priest over the appropriate matter with the intention of confecting the sacrament are sufficient in themselves to validly confect the Holy Eucharist. The overtly sacramental terminology that the Integrists are concerned about is not required to validly confect the Mass. The use of such terminology is only licit in the Mass when it appears in an approved liturgical usage. As such, the presence or absence of such terminology does not in and of itself affect either the liciety or validity of a Mass.

If you and Sippo and others believe that "words of the prayers" are "incidental" to the Mass, then I guess that explains everything that needs to be understood.

I would only be concerned about the words that are needed to be said to consecrate the bread and wine. It is not necessary, or possible, that every tenet of the faith be reflected in the prayers of the mass.