The Sacrificial Emphasis in Eucharistic Prayer 2

Art Sippo ^ | Jan 2001 | Dr. Art Sippo

[Land of the Irish]

Many can include all, and all can include many.

You'd be a good Amchurch cardinal.

[Land of the Irish]

Many can include all, and all can include many.

And "is" depends on what the definition of "is" is.

[Romulus]

I think one could argue the following is a true epiclesis:

P. Veni, Sanctificator omnipotens aeterne Deus. et bene dic hoc sacrificum tuo sancto nomini praeparatum.

P. Come, O Sanctifier, Almighty and Eternal God, and bless, + this sacrifice prepared for the glory of Your holy Name.

[St.Chuck]

You'd be a good Amchurch cardinal.

Thanks. I think you'd be quite happy in my reign. I just thought your analogy didn't quite fit. You implied that the words had been changed to mean the exact opposite of what they did before. White, turning to black would sound like this: "....Which shall be shed for noone and for few unto the forgiveness of sins." Maybe you should not have said black and white but rather white and cameo, but with such little contrast you wouldn't get to delight in your indignation.

[Catholicguy]

The Mass is the Mass is the Mass. The Christian Church has always had only one Mass - many Rites, Liturgies, yes - but one one Mass.

Please read Quo Primum. It delineates it is a new rite.

[Catholicguy]

Paul VI taught differently. So does the Catholic Catechism. The Living Magisterium teaches it is a sacrifice.

I understand schismatics teach in opposition to the Living Magisterium but their "teaching" carries precisely the same weight as does "teaching" issuing from the Anglicans, the Lutherans, or, for that matter, the Rastafarians.

[Catholicguy]

Quo Primum

.... This new rite alone is to be used unless approval of the practice of saying Mass differently was given at the very time of the institution and confirmation of the church by Apostolic See at least 200 years ago, or unless there has prevailed a custom of a similar kind which has been continuously followed for a period of not less than 200 years, in which most cases We in no wise rescind their above-mentioned prerogative or custom. However, if this Missal, which we have seen fit to publish, be more agreeable to these latter, We grant them permission to celebrate Mass according to its rite, provided they have the consent of their bishop or prelate or of their whole Chapter, everything else to the contrary notwithstanding. All other of the churches referred to above, however, are hereby denied the use of other missals, which are to be discontinued entirely and absolutely; whereas, by this present Constitution, which will be valid henceforth, now, and forever, We order and enjoin that nothing must be added to Our recently published Missal, nothing omitted from it, nor anything whatsoever be changed within it under the penalty of Our displeasure....

The vacuous liturgical histories written by integrists can't even get that simple point right and your ilk is doomed to endlessly repeating a new rite isn't right.

Pot. Kettle. Black.

[Tantumergo]

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

With respect to the great Fr. Fortescue, I think that some liturgical scholarship has genuinely moved on since his day.

The notion that the Roman rite actually dropped an explicit epiclesis is more likely to arise from schismatic Eastern polemic against the Catholic Church, than it has any basis in fact.

Far from being "integrists" some of the main scholars in this arena are liturgical ecumenists who would not be seen dead in the traditional camp.

Particularly the Jesuit Robert Taft has done a lot of work on the comparative origins of Eastern and Western rites - I think some of his scholarship could be usefully employed to update Fortescue's history!

[Catholicguy]

Better review Aquinas before pursuing that point.

[Catholicguy]

Excellent post, as usual.

[Catholicguy]

Ihave read a lot of Fortescue, Dom Cabrol, Jungmann and Dom Gueranger. I don't have the stuff at my fingertips - I got the books laying all about - but Fortescue, imo, is correct and Dr. Sippo is orthodox.

I know there are disagreements ahout Liturgical History - which makes it so much fun - but Dr. Sippo ain't a lib; nor, are you an integrist.

[Tantumergo]

"P. Come, O Sanctifier, Almighty and Eternal God, and bless, + this sacrifice prepared for the glory of Your holy Name."

Which rite does that prayer come from?

In the Tridentine rite I would have thought that the following is clearly an epiclesis although the Holy Ghost is not explicitly invoked:

P: And do Thou, O God, vouchsafe in all respects to bless (+), consecrate (+), and approve (+) this our oblation, to perfect it and render it well-pleasing to Thyself, so that it may become for us the body (+) and blood (+) of Thy most beloved Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

[Tantumergo]

"but Dr. Sippo ain't a lib; nor, are you an integrist."

I'm sure he isn't, but what I want to know is what grounds he and Fortescue have for asserting that there used to be a SPECIFIC and EXPLICIT epiclesis in the Roman rite that was subsequently dropped?

If it is based on the presence of an epiclesis in Hippolytus' anaphora (which the Concilium and ICEL butchered to produce the present EPII), then I think their mistake lies in assuming that the Hippolytan prayer was ever a formal part of the Roman Rite. There is no evidence to suggest that it ever was!

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Supposedly there is a letter of St. Gelasius I that refers to an epiclesis in the Roman Canon. The Roman Canon certainly had a different original order than it does today.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

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

You mean, like, say, "neo-Catholic" for anyone who disagrees with the slightest part of the SSPX-Ferrara-Woods-Remnant agenda?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

It is not the same Mass that has been offered in the Roman Church since the time of the apostles.

Awaiting patiently the apparently stunning new proofs that St. Peter created the Roman Canon and composed the proper collects.

[Tantumergo]

"Supposedly there is a letter of St. Gelasius I that refers to an epiclesis in the Roman Canon."

Fine, but as I said in a later post, the Quam oblationem, could be taken as an implicit epiclesis - what form did it take under Gelasius? Was it an explicit invocation of the Holy Ghost which the Roman Rite subsequently dropped?

"The Roman Canon certainly had a different original order than it does today."

It quite possibly did - I would be interested to see the earliest form of it.

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Many can include all, and all can include many.

You'd be a good Amchurch cardinal.

And you make an extremely poor exegete of Romans 5.

Romans 5.15 But not as the offence, so also the gift. For if by the offence of one, many died: much more the grace of God and the gift, by the grace of one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many.

"Many died" because of original sin? Not all?

16 And not as it was by one sin, so also is the gift. For judgment indeed was by one unto condemnation: but grace is of many offences unto justification.

17 For if by one man's offence death reigned through one; much more they who receive abundance of grace and of the gift and of justice shall reign in life through one, Jesus Christ.

18 Therefore, as by the offence of one, unto all men to condemnation: so also by the justice of one, unto all men to justification of life.

"unto all men justification"? Do you mean to tell me St. Paul is preaching universalism?

19 For as by the disobedience of one man, many were made sinners: so also by the obedience of one, many shall be made just.

"many were made sinners"? What, now we are back to large numbers of exemptions from the law of sin?

Your strict definitions of "all" and "many" would make a hash out of this passage, among others.

Want to try again Irish?

[Hermann the Cherusker]

Roman Rite too at one time had an Epiklesis after the words of Institution. Pope Gelasius I (492-496) refers to it plainly: "Quomodo ad divini mysterii consecrationem coelestis Spiritus adveniet, si sacerdos...criminosis plenus actionibus reprobetur?" ("Epp. Fragm.", vii, in Thiel, "Epp. Rom. Pont.", I, 486).

-Catholic Encyclopedia, "Epiklesis"

[Hermann the Cherusker]

A proper epiklesis occurs after the words of institution. The easterners (such as Nicholas Cabasilas), in using the Divine Liturgy of St. Peter, interpret the prayer: "We beseech Thee, almighty God: command these Gifts to be carried up by the hand of Thy holy Angel to Thine altar on high, in the sight of Thy Divine majesty, that as many of us as receive a holy Portion of the Body and Blood of Thy Son at this altar, may be filled with every heavenly grace and blessing, through our Lord Jesus Christ" as already containing a complete epiklesis. See note 34 on the linked page.