Eucharistic Prayer For The Celebrant(s) Alone?

[ironmonk]

[b]Eucharistic Prayer for the Celebrant(s) Alone?[/b]
by Father Edward McNamara

Why has the Eucharistic Prayer always been reserved to the celebrant/concelebrants? It is worded in first person plural, and so it might seem appropriate for everyone to join in, as in the Credo?


July 10, 2004 / And More on Lectors at Mass

ROME, (ZENIT.org).- Answered by Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum Pontifical University.

Q: In an earlier reply you mentioned that only the priest should say or sing the final doxology of the Eucharistic Prayer. This leads to a further question -- one perhaps not so much of liturgy in the narrow sense as of theology of the sacraments: Why has the Eucharistic Prayer always been reserved to the celebrant/concelebrants? It is worded in first person plural, and so it might seem appropriate for everyone to join in, as in the Credo? -- G.G., Emmitsburg, Maryland

A: From the historical perspective, the fact that this prayer has always been reserved to the priest is confirmed by solid evidence and so it appears to be a constant tradition of the Church.

There is some fragmentary evidence form earliest times but the clearest witness to this practice is St. Justin Martyr who around the year 150 wrote a description of the Mass in which the "president of the assembly" is described as making a lengthy prayer of thanksgiving ("Eucharist" in Greek) over the gifts of bread and wine.

Although the prayer is not yet a fixed text it is clear that only the "president" says it while the people say "Amen" at the end.

To attempt to explain the motives for this reservation I will begin by using another ancient text: the Anaphora of St. Hippolytus of Rome, composed around 220.

This is the earliest known written text for a Eucharistic Prayer and forms the basis for the present Roman Missal's Second Eucharistic Prayer.

The final doxology of this prayer has a variation, not incorporated in the modern text, but which can enlighten us. It says: "Through ... Jesus Christ, through whom be to you (the Father) glory and honor, with the Holy Spirit in the holy Church both now and forever and ever. Amen."

The incision which interests us is the expression "in the holy Church." This expression shows that the honor and glory offered to God through Christ and with the Holy Spirit can only be fully achieved in the Church.

This ecclesial dimension helps us grasp the reason why the Eucharistic Prayer is reserved to the priest.

The celebrant, in saying the Eucharistic Prayer, is acting at the same time in the person of the Church and in the person of Christ.

In acting in the person of the Church he does not simply represent the actual assembly, but the entire Church.

In acting in the person of Christ the priest makes it possible for the present assembly to exercise the common priesthood of the faithful and thus to unite themselves in heart and mind to Christ, as he offers his perfect sacrifice to the Father and who allows us to share in this sacrifice.

This common priesthood of the faithful is a true priesthood, and no mere metaphor. This is why the priest says "Pray, brethren, that our sacrifice (literally, "my sacrifice and yours" -- "meum ac vestrum") be acceptable to God ..."

Yet this priesthood cannot be genuinely exercised except in communion with the ministerial priesthood acting in the person of Christ and the Church. And indeed, one of the primary purposes of the ministerial priesthood is to facilitate the exercise of the common priesthood.

Without this communion the liturgy ceases, in a way, to be an act of the Church, for the concrete assembly is a manifestation of the Church, but is not the Church itself.

Thus the priest, in saying the Eucharistic Prayer alone, but in always using the first person plural, expresses this double aspect of acting in the person of Christ and of the Church. Through the priest's acting in the person of Christ, in a way Christ himself acts in the person of the Church in saying the Eucharistic Prayer.

In other words, Christ himself, as head of his body, the Church, says the Eucharistic Prayer, and says it in first person plural because while, on the one hand, only he can offer the Eucharist, he associates his whole body -- all the faithful -- with him in doing so.

Another consequence of this communion in the whole Church is that we are all engaged in every Mass said anywhere.

This can be seen in some elements of the prayer itself. For example, the intercessions of the first two Eucharistic Prayers contain the expression "una cum" -- "together with N. our Pope and N. our Bishop" (although the same Latin expression is translated differently in the two prayers).

This "together with" is not just a praying-for but a praying-with by which we are united through the celebrating priest to the bishop and through him to the Pope and the universal Church.

From these theological reflections, we can see that if the particular assembly were to join in saying the Eucharistic Prayer it would obscure the beauty of the Eucharistic mystery.

In the first place, it would obscure the reality of ecclesial communion by reducing the prayer to an act of those who happen to be present and not an act of the whole Church. The Church not only extends beyond all political frontiers but breaks the bonds of space and time so as to enter into the realm of the communion of saints.

Second, it would cast a shadow over the reality that Christ himself is drawing us into his prayer of self-offering to the Father. This allows us to exercise the baptismal priesthood that is itself his gift to us and through which we receive the capacity to share in the mystery of his passion, death and resurrection.

Finally, the common recitation might also bring us to forget that since both the common priesthood and its exercise is a gift of grace. We are not equal partners with Christ but beneficiaries of his love.

These are not the only reasons, and the theme merits more than one treatises. My only hope is that I have not committed a sin of presumption in trying to do justice to such a mystery, not only by treating it so briefly, but in trying to explain it in the first place.

* * *

Follow-up: Should Lectors Sit in the Pews?

In line with our June 22 column, several readers asked for other clarifications regarding lectors.

One reader asked about the use of non-Catholic or even non-Christian lectors. We dealt with this point in an earlier reply (Dec. 2).

Others asked if it is appropriate for children, or for those who have not received confirmation, to act as readers.

In weekday Masses specifically celebrated for young children using the special lectionary and missal prepared for this purpose, children may be assigned the task of reader (see Nos. 24 and 47 of the Directory for Masses with Children).

In other Masses, however, especially on a Sunday, the introduction to the lectionary (No. 52) says that when there are no instituted lectors, "Proper measures must therefore be taken to ensure that there are certain suitable laypeople who have been trained to carry out this ministry. Whenever there is more than one reading, it is better to assign the readings to different readers, if available."

This would imply that in general these other lay readers should be adults, although an articulate adolescent could probably also be assigned.

It is important to choose the readers well, out of respect for the God's Word and the dignity of the celebration, but also out of respect for the assembly so that the clarity of diction assists them in understanding and embracing the divine message.

Confirmation is not strictly demanded in order to serve as a supplementary reader. But it is required for an instituted lector.

Still, it is good to choose readers from those who have completed Christian initiation through the sacraments of confirmation and Eucharist.

[morostheos]

oooh...the more I learn the more I love the Catholic Church, it's just so awesome!!! :hearts: My favorite part of that...
[quote]Another consequence of this communion in the whole Church is that we are all engaged in every Mass said anywhere. [/quote]

So we are engaged in Mass ALL THE TIME!

Thanks again ironmonk!

[catholicguy]

Just for clarification, the Creed is properly recited in the first person, [i]singular [/i]form. It is written: "Credo in unum Deum..." which is translated "I believe in one God...". In case anyone is curious, this, along with some other mistranslations by the ICEL (for example, "Et cum spiritu tuo" as "And with your spirit" instead of "And also with you") are being corrected in the latest of the many revisions of the Novus Ordo.

[conservativecatholic]

I have read that a completely retranslated Novus Ordo Mass will be released and approved by The Vatican in 2005 at the earliest.

[cmotherofpirl]

The section on Eucharistic prayer needs to go to the Apologetic section.

[Ellenita]

[quote]I have read that a completely retranslated Novus Ordo Mass will be released and approved by The Vatican in 2005 at the earliest. [/quote]

Hasn't the 'new' translation already gone to the English speaking Bishops for their comment? A catholic newspaper in the UK recently printed the proposed translation along with comment (from the newspaper) that it was 'clumsy' English.

Personally I thought it was rather beautiful and made much more sense, except for the part where we currently say 'Lord I am not worthy to recieve you....' which I have always felt meant recieve you in every single aspect of our being - the proposed change says 'Lord I am not worthy for you to come under my roof....' and although I know that this is a direct quote from the bible, it felt a little different in it's meaning to me.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='catholicguy' date='Jul 12 2004, 12:55 PM'] Just for clarification, the Creed is properly recited in the first person, [i]singular [/i]form. It is written: "Credo in unum Deum..." which is translated "I believe in one God...". In case anyone is curious, this, along with some other mistranslations by the ICEL (for example, "Et cum spiritu tuo" as "And with your spirit" instead of "And also with you") are being corrected in the latest of the many revisions of the Novus Ordo. [/quote]
Don't get lost in translation bro.

Plural vs. Singular doesn't really matter when it's saying the same thing.

God Bless,
ironmonk

[qfnol31]

Sometimes it doesn't matter. I actually agree with him here on the translation, I do wish that ours followed the Latin more. Even if in some cases it's only "I" vs. "We," it's still a poor translation from Latin.

[catholicguy]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='Jul 13 2004, 08:27 AM'] Personally I thought it was rather beautiful and made much more sense, except for the part where we currently say 'Lord I am not worthy to recieve you....' which I have always felt meant recieve you in every single aspect of our being - the proposed change says 'Lord I am not worthy for you to come under my roof....' and although I know that this is a direct quote from the bible, it felt a little different in it's meaning to me. [/quote]
1) It is from the Bible and should be preserved as such. (Isn't that one of the "objectives of NO--more Bible?)

2) "Lord, I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof" does have a MUCh different meaning. This means that we as mere creatures are in no way worthy to be even in the Presence of Our Lord, especially for Him to come once again to us in the Blessed Sacrament; whereas, "Lord I am not worthy to receive" merely is stating the obvious, that we are not worthy to receive Our Lord in Holy Communion. As Thomas à Kempis said: "If thou hadst the purity of an angel and the sanctity of St. John the Baptist, thou wouldst not be worthy to receive or handle the [Blessed] sacrament." Stating that we are not worthy to have Our Lord enter under our roof is not only: 1) the correct translation from Latin (Domine, non sum dignus [i]ut intres sub tectum mean[/i], sed tantum dic verbo et sanabitur anima mea, [said [u]three[/u] times]); 2) directly quoted from Scripture; 3) a much more humble expression, it also is much more poetic. There is no reason to keep such a bland declaration in the Mass for these reasons as well as others.

Edited July 13, 2004 by catholicguy

[catholicguy]

[quote name='ironmonk' date='Jul 13 2004, 09:38 AM'] Don't get lost in translation bro.

Plural vs. Singular doesn't really matter when it's saying the same thing.

God Bless,
ironmonk [/quote]
If it doesn't matter then why did they change it when a student who has been learning Latin for 2 weeks knows that -o is a first person singular ending and -mus is the first person plural ending? There is no reason to mistranslate something just to say "It doesn't matter what it actually says because it's basically the same." The Latin says singular; you use singular. It doesn't even seem like a question or an option to purposefully mistranslate something, which, of course, they did, since any Latin student knows the correct translation (which, unfortunately is done MANY times throughout the Mass, e.g., in the Confiteor [which little resembles the original Confiteor] the "mea culpa, mea culp, mea maxima culpa"--"through my fault, through my fault, through my most greivous fault" is translated: "through my own fault"--did they miss the other two "culpa"s, of course not).

[Ellenita]

Catholicguy, thanks for explaining the 'Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof'. I can see the fullness of the phrase now, and it is very beautiful!

In terms of the creed, it makes much more sense to me to say 'I believe...'. I know that we [i]should[/i] be able to collectively say the creed but actually how can one person affirm what another [i]truely[/i] believes? We make an assumption that everyone with us at Mass believes the same.....

Incidently, I categorically state here that whatever the final English translation decided by the Vatican, I will fully embrace it, just in case anyone is wondering if I am questioning the wisdom of our church!

[catholicguy]

[quote name='Ellenita' date='Jul 13 2004, 03:01 PM'] Catholicguy, thanks for explaining the 'Lord I am not worthy that thou shouldst enter under my roof'. I can see the fullness of the phrase now, and it is very beautiful!

In terms of the creed, it makes much more sense to me to say 'I believe...'. I know that we [i]should[/i] be able to collectively say the creed but actually how can one person affirm what another [i]truely[/i] believes? We make an assumption that everyone with us at Mass believes the same.....

Incidently, I categorically state here that whatever the final English translation decided by the Vatican, I will fully embrace it, just in case anyone is wondering if I am questioning the wisdom of our church! [/quote]
I am glad you see the sense in not only using the proper translation but also that it simply is logical to use the singular and not the plural. However, because members of the Church chose in the past to do this incorrectly and is now fixing it merely goes to show that the "liturgists" do NOT always make the right decision in this area. Therefore, we should not be content if they come out with another translation that does not address all the problems or (God forbid) is worse than the current translation, if that is even possible. God bless.

[ironmonk]

[quote name='catholicguy' date='Jul 13 2004, 01:31 PM'] If it doesn't matter then why did they change it when a student who has been learning Latin for 2 weeks knows that -o is a first person singular ending and -mus is the first person plural ending? There is no reason to mistranslate something just to say "It doesn't matter what it actually says because it's basically the same." The Latin says singular; you use singular. It doesn't even seem like a question or an option to purposefully mistranslate something, which, of course, they did, since any Latin student knows the correct translation (which, unfortunately is done MANY times throughout the Mass, e.g., in the Confiteor [which little resembles the original Confiteor] the "mea culpa, mea culp, mea maxima culpa"--"through my fault, through my fault, through my most greivous fault" is translated: "through my own fault"--did they miss the other two "culpa"s, of course not). [/quote]
You forget that the Church has the power to bind and loose.

What matters is that we have faith in God when He told us the Church would be guided in all truth.

Maybe you don't understand why the Church did something, but the Church is always right in matters of faith and morals... In matters of discipline they have the authority given to them by God to make the discipline.

What about the Aramaic, Greek, and Hebrew. Let the Church which has been guiding all Christians since 33 AD choose what's best for God's people.... as the Lord entrusted her. I trust the Lord's judgement.... for it is Just.

God Bless.

Edited July 14, 2004 by ironmonk