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.

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?

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

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.

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.