Posted on 12/30/2003 10:43:12 AM PST by Catholicguy
The Sacrificial Emphasis in Eucharistic Prayer 2
One of the Integrist complaints concerning the Revised Roman Rite of Pope Paul VI (ie., the Pauline Rite) is that it has decreased the number of overt references within the text of the Mass to the nature of the Mass as a sacrifice specifically in Eucharistic Prayer 2 (EP2). Since EP2 is the shortest of the Eucharistic Prayers, it is the one most often used even on Sundays. Many radical Integrists are even questioning the validity of the Mass when EP2 is used. They claim that there is no overt sacrificial terminology in EP2 and that it does not support the Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist. They have even gone so far as to call it a “protestant” corruption of the Mass.
This brief essay hopes to respond to these charges and briefly show that EP2 is sufficiently Catholic in content to reflect the Church’s immemorial understanding of the Eucharist as a sacrifice and as the transubstantiated Body and Blood of Christ.
1) When Jesus instituted the Eucharist, he did so in the context of a Jewish Passover meal or Seder. The Seder in Our Lord’s time was a sacrificial meal since in that meal the participants consumed a lamb that was a sacrificial victim the blood of which was offered to God in the Temple in Jerusalem. Furthermore, many experts consider the Seder to be an example of a Todah sacrifice, which in Old Testament times was often made to God in thanks for God’s providence or in anticipation of deliverance from some threat. The Todah sacrifice was the only one in which the lay people who commissioned the sacrifice were permitted – in fact required – to partake of the flesh of the sacrificial victim. The word ‘todah’ in Hebrew means ‘thanksgiving.’ The Greek equivalent is ‘eucharistia.’ By its very nature therefore the Last Supper and the Mass, which is derived from it, represents a sacrificial meal, not merely a sacrifice. Overemphasis on the sacrificial aspect to the neglect of the meal aspect therefore detracts from what Our Lord was actually doing. While the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist as Jesus instituted it is clear for any unbiased person to see, he did not use any of the overtly sacrificial terminology that the Integrists think is lacking in EP2. In fact there is more sacrificial language in the Mass using EP2 than in what is preserved of Jesus’ words at the Last Supper or in the traditional Jewish Seder liturgy.
2) Every Christian sacrament is composed of matter and form. The matter of the Eucharist in the Latin rite is grape wine and unleavened wheat bread. The form in the Latin Rite consists solely in the words of institution. 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.
3) Regardless of which Eucharistic Prayer is used, every Mass in the Pauline Rite includes the following prayers which contain explicit references to offering sacrifice:
{Presentation of the Gifts / Preparation of the Altar:} 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.
The deacon (or the priest) pours wine and a little water into the chalice, saying quietly: By uniting this water and wine we ask to share in the divinity of Christ, who humbled himself to share in our humanity.
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.
The priest bows and says quietly: Lord God, we ask you to receive us and be pleased with the sacrifice we offer you with humble and contrite hearts.
{Suscipiat} Priest: Pray, my brothers and sisters, that our sacrifice may be acceptable to God, the almighty Father. All: May the Lord accept the sacrifice at your hands, for the praise and glory of his name, for our good, and the good of all the Church.
4) 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. By the time of the Leonnine Sacramentary in the 8th Century the Roman liturgy clearly did not have an Epiclesis, but it has remained part of the liturgies of the East to this very day. The Epiclesis states:
Priest: Let your Holy 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.
This is a clear reference to the Catholic doctrine of transubstantiation. There is no corresponding prayer in the old Tridentine Rite. On this point, EP2 actually has a prayer reaffiming the orthodox Catholic doctrine of the Eucharist that the Roman Canon does not have.
5) The words of institution in and of themselves are inherently sacrificial despite Protestant sophisms to the contrary. They begin by offering the Body of Christ, which was to be ‘given up’ in sacrifice. After that, the blood of Christ is offered, which was ‘shed’ by his sacrificial death for us. This shedding of blood was used to seal a new covenant with God just as the blood of the Passover Lamb initiated the Mosaic covenant in Egypt and the blood of oxen sealed that covenant on Sinai in Exodus 24:8. There are also overt references to sacrificial offering and transubstantiation in the prayers that conclude this section of the liturgy. It is these elements of EP2 that led to it being rejected by Protestant denominations as being “too Catholic” for them to use.
In EP2 these are the official the words of institution (in bold) with the prayers that immediately follow them:
Priest: Take this all of you and eat it; this is my body which will be given up for you.
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 men so that sins may be forgiven. Do this in memory of me.
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.
So in conclusion, the Pauline Rite when using EP2 is overtly and unmistakably Catholic in its doctrinal presuppositions supporting the dogmas of Eucharistic Sacrifice and transubstantiation. The Integrist claims that EP2 is a ‘protestant’ corruption of the Mass are false.
No, not all. The Blessed Mother suffered a natural death, yet she was conceived without original sin.
Try again, Hermann.
Bzzzzzttt!
"Natural death" is an oxymoron. The most unnatural thing possible for a human is to have their soul ripped out of their body by death. This was not God's design for us.
The Blessed Mother, by a singular miracle was born full of grace, which exempted her from the spiritual effects of original sin. But her human flesh was subjected to the same rigors that we all have had from Adam, and that Christ had too - sickeness, injury, fatigue, hardship, and death.
After all, as you readily admit, she still died, and death came into the world because of Adam's sin.
So St. Paul's "many died" really does mean "all died".
"Again we offer to You this spiritual and unbloody sacrifice, and we implore and pray, and entreat You, send down Your Holy Spirit upon us and upon these gifts here present. (Blessing the bread) And make this bread the precious body of Your Christ. (Blessing the chalice) And that which is in this chalice, the precious blood of your Christ. (Blessing both) Having changed them by Your Holy Spirit:"
That phrase in the Roman Canon is very Cranmerian and non-objective. The 3rd Canon drops the "ut nobis" and makes it clear that it is an objective becoming.
Bzzzzzt! ;-)
Welcome to the Newchurch; "everybody goes to Heaven because Christ died for all."
Why should a Catholic even assist at Holy Mass tomorrow? After all Christ has already shed His blood for us?
I had no idea you had such affinity for the theology of Calvin, Jansen and Quesnel! But why am I not surprised since you are such a strident SSPXer?
Condemned Jansenistic Proposition 5. "Semipelagianum est dicere Christum pro omnibus omnino hominibus mortuum esse aut sanguinem fudisse." - "It is Semipelagian to say that Christ died and shed his blood for all men." (Pope Innocent X, "Cum occasione", 1653, repeated by Pope Alexander VII, "Ad Sanctam Beati Petri Sedem", 16 October 1656)
Irish, You are a disgraceful embarassment to traditional Catholicism.
You don't even know the traditional Mass you claim to honor and love.
"Who, the day before He suffered for our salvation and that of all men, that is, on this day, took bread into His most sacred and venerable hands" (Proper "Qui pridie quam pateratur", Holy Thursday, Missal of St. Pius V)
Now, will you go to confession to cleanse yourself of this obvious heresy? Probably not. Too proud.
My Novus Ordo priest says the Sacrament of Confession is no longer necessary. He says his bishop will back him up on this.
Let's continue shall we?
In like manner, after He had supped, taking also this excellent chalice into His holy and venerable hands, and giving thanks to Thee, He blessed and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take and drink ye all of this, FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT: THE MYSTERY OF FAITH: WHICH SHALL BE SHED FOR YOU AND MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS.
"All" are instructed to participate in Holy Communion, but the remission of sins is reserved for "many".
Go ahead, Hermann. Try to twist Christ's own words to fit your novus mold.
Yikes. In what hell does your dioscese reside? If you don't mind me asking.
No need to debate the topic of "all" and "many" in the consecration. The issue was definitively settled by the Council of Trent.
Catechism of the Council of Trent:
The additional words for you and for many, are taken, some from Matthew [26: 28], some from Luke [22: 20], but were joined together by the Catholic Church under the guidance of the Spirit of God. They serve to declare the fruit and advantage of His Passion. For if we look to its value, we must confess that the Redeemer shed His blood for the salvation of all; but if we look to the fruit which mankind have received from it, we shall easily find that it pertains not unto all, but to many of either those who were present, or those chosen from among the Jewish people, such as were, with the exception of Judas, the disciples with whom He was speaking. When He added, And for many, He wished to be understood to mean the remainder of the elect from among the Jews or Gentiles. With reason, therefore, were the words "for all" not used, as in this place the fruits of the Passion are alone spoken of, and to the elect only did His Passion bring the fruit of salvation. And this is the purport of the Apostle when he says: "Christ was offered once to exhaust the sins of many" [Heb. 9: 28]; and also of the words of Our Lord in John: "I pray for them, I pray not for the world, but for them Whom Thou hast given me, because they are Thine"According to the Missale Romanum:
Wherefore the words of Consecration, which are the Form of this Sacrament, are these:Hoc est enim Corpus meum; and Hic est enim Calix Sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei: qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in Remissionem peccatorum [For this is My Body; and: For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament: the mystery of faith: which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins] . . . If anyone removes or changes anything in the Form of Consecration of the Body and Blood, and by this change of words does not signify the same thing as these words do, he does not confect the Sacrament.
"He says ..." Have you actually asked the Bishop?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.