Contributions of a wildly speculative nature are invited. The question: Eucharistic Prayers. The Roman Canon and the Oriental anaphoras are there, sanctified by time just like so much of what emerged from the early centuries (Canon of Scripture ...). Could there be new Eucharistic Prayers? A distinctively medieval EP? An Anglican EP, Cranmer deftly extricated from the fogs of Zwinglianism?
Say as much as you klike!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
"An Anglican EP, Cranmer deftly extricated from the fogs of Zwinglianism?"
Why not? Most of the major renovation work on the classical Anglican anaphora was done, by the Scots (Laudian Prayer Book, Non-Jurors), the Tractarians, and the Ritualists. As we speak the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch have a handful of ex-Anglican parishes using one.
A mediæval Eucharistic Prayer… what a nice idea.
It puts me in mind of a certain Dominican of the late Middle Ages or early Renaissance (I forget his name and dates, and where I read of him - I searched in Dix but had no luck) who, not backward in coming forward, petitioned the then Pope to do something about the Canon of the Mass, which said friar accused of being insufficiently devout and Passion-oriented (this was before Trent, so he didn't incur any anathemata).
Whatever did that fellow have in mind? Well, the O.P. rubrics required that the the priest at High Mass not sit while the brethren in choir sang the Gloria in excelsis - none of that Roman lolling in the sedilia – but remain at the altar and read some of the prayers for preparation in the front of the Missal. What prayers? Nice lengthy orations such as the Summe sacerdos et veer Pontifex (attributed to St Ambrose, but actually penned by Abbot John of Fécamp, in the eleventh century).
Now, I wonder if that Dominican, accustomed day after day to celebrating High Mass, devoutly reciting the Summe sacerdos during the Gloria, found its tone and topics devouter than the rather different style of the Canon.
The text of that long apologia by John of Fécamp is still in the front of the EF Missal, provided for priests to say ere they begin Mass (divided into daily snippets, but originally just one great long prayer) - Latin and English may helpfully be found at Orationes sancti Ambrosii,
Indeed, it struck me recently that Summe Sacerdos could well be valid for use as an Anaphora IF the argument as to the validity of Addai and Mari be accepted: both are unquestionably ancient, used by true particular churches, and both speak of the sacred mysteries in "a diffuse euchological manner" if I recall the Vatican phraseology correctly.
If Addai and Mari (Roma locuta est and all that) can be used to confect the Eucharist, why not Summe Sacerdos? Of course, the latter was only used in the West as a propædeutic to the recitation of the Canon of the Mass, whereas the former was used in the East as the Eucharistic Prayer… but if one, surely also the other would "work".
I cannot forbear to suggest, however, two or three minor improvements: in the portion assigned to Wednesday, addition of "una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N." after mention of Holy Church would be ecclesial; to garner the intercessions of the saints and angels, append at the end of the Thursday part these words from another apologia, "Et adjunge voces nostras vocibus sanctorum et angelorum tuorum, ut sicut illi te laudant ineffabiliter in æterna beatitudine, ita nos quoque eorum interventu mereamur te laudare inculpabiliter in hac peregrinatione."
Oh, and if Verba consecratoria are really needed for scrupulous sorts, there are several Anaphorai (Coptic, Ethiopian, Maronite, Armenian) addressed to the Second Person of the Trinity, any of which could have the Institution narrative copied and inserted after the Friday section of Summe Sacerdos. Myself, I favour that of the Ethiopian Anaphora, done into God's own Latin.
And best of all, Summe Sacerdos is twice as long as the Roman Canon, making it eminently pious for priest and people - he at the altar can have a nice devout pray, as they can in the pews.
I have thought about this question since my Oxford undergraduate days and after careful situation including a conversation with the late Dom Botte, who was involved with creating the new eucharistic prayers. He expressed surprise that the Holy Father was ready to implement what had been preparatory and speculative as far as he was concerned. For my part have concluded that revision of the anaphora after a certain point in historical time is highly suspect, completely unwarranted and unnecessary. I include in this the restoration of the institution narrative in Addi and Mari, carried out I believe in some uniate liturgies.
The Cranmerian revision for whatever its motivation was carried out by a mind that resembled nothing in the Church in its apostolic period. Cranmer was a man, different in race and mentality from those who had formed Scripture and the Church and should have along with those of similar Germanic race been content to follow what had been set down. He chose not to do so along with many of the newer Christian converts including the Bishops of Rome who had submitted to the Carolingian filioque.
There is an entropy in the nature of things and this is bound to affect the anaphoras just as it affects human beings in general. The fact of paradise is a natural symbol for the entropy in human affairs just as the Easter egg. For the egg, once broken cannot be put back into is shell. My point is this.It is not the job of us, who are later to try to restore paradise according to what we imagine it to be but to enter it as it is. Paradise is recapitulated when entering the Church in its rites of initiation. Cf. Father Yarnold's book on Xtian initiatory rites The Eucharist is an integral part of initiation despite Roman practice of separating it from baptism. The overwhelming practice of the ancient Church is against Rome here. So if we cling to paradise as something symbolically fixed and unalterable, why would we alter the attendant gestures of entering paradise?
I have thought about this question since my Oxford undergraduate days and after careful situation including a conversation with the late Dom Botte, who was involved with creating the new eucharistic prayers. He expressed surprise that the Holy Father was ready to implement what had been preparatory and speculative as far as he was concerned. For my part have concluded that revision of the anaphora after a certain point in historical time is highly suspect, completely unwarranted and unnecessary. I include in this the restoration of the institution narrative in Addi and Mari, carried out I believe in some uniate liturgies.
The Cranmerian revision for whatever its motivation was carried out by a mind that resembled nothing in the Church in its apostolic period. Cranmer was a man, different in race and mentality from those who had formed Scripture and the Church and should have along with those of similar Germanic race been content to follow what had been set down. He chose not to do so along with many of the newer Christian converts including the Bishops of Rome who had submitted to the Carolingian filioque.
There is an entropy in the nature of things and this is bound to affect the anaphoras just as it affects human beings in general. The fact of paradise is a natural symbol for the entropy in human affairs just as the Easter egg. For the egg, once broken cannot be put back into is shell. My point is this.It is not the job of us, who are later to try to restore paradise according to what we imagine it to be but to enter it as it is. Paradise is recapitulated when entering the Church in its rites of initiation. Cf. Father Yarnold's book on Xtian initiatory rites The Eucharist is an integral part of initiation despite Roman practice of separating it from baptism. The overwhelming practice of the ancient Church is against Rome here. So if we cling to paradise as something symbolically fixed and unalterable, why would we alter the attendant gestures of entering paradise?
As someone in a position to know wrote to me some years ago about Addai and Mari:
Thanks for your email. The CDF's allowance of the continued use of the Addai-Mari anaphora supposed an untinterrupted usage (the fact of which is disputed) that should be respected. The CDF emphatically did not intend this anaphora to be treated as a model for possible eucharistic prayers that omit the words of institution. Unfortunately, some commentators interpreted the CDF action in this sense.
The volume you refer to was an issue of the journal Divinitas N.S. 47 (2004) devoted to the topic. Though printed by the Vatican Press, the journal is entirely independent and not an official publication of the Holy See.
An excellent collection of essays on the topic is: Uwe Michael Lang, ed., Die Anaphora von Addai und Mari, Nova & Vetera, Bonn, 2007 (ISBN 878-3-936741-39-1).
When I reproduced this above, "The volume you refer to was an issue of the journal Divinitas N.S. 47 (2004) devoted to the topic. Though printed by the Vatican Press, the journal is entirely independent and not an official publication of the Holy See," I should have made clear that the subject of the volume was the question of whether an anaphora without the WoI, such as Addai & Mari, could from a Catholic p.o.v. be regarded as valid. Some of the contributors argued cautiously for an affirmative answer, others strongly for a negative one.
All glory be to thee, Almighty God, our heavenly Father, for that thou of thy tender mercy didst give thine only Son Jesus Christ to take our nature upon him and to suffer death upon the Cross for our redemption; who made there (by his own oblation of himself once offered) a full, perfect, and sufficient sacrifice, satisfaction, and atonement for the sins of the whole world; and did institute, and in his holy Gospel command us to offer that same oblation as a perpetual memory of that his passion and death until his coming again.
Wherefore we most humbly beseech thee, O merciful Father, to hear us; and, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, vouchsafe to hallow, to bless and to transform these our gifts, thy creatures of Bread and Wine, that they may be unto us the Body and Blood of thy dearly beloved Son, our Lord Jesus Christ;
Who in the same night that he was betrayed, took bread, and when he had blessed and given thanks, he brake it, and gave it to his disciples, saying: Take, eat, this is my Body which is given for you.
Do this in remembrance of me.
Likewise after supper, he took the Cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, saying:
Drink ye all of this, for this is my Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins. Do this, as oft as ye shall drink it, in remembrance of me.
Wherefore, O Lord and heavenly Father, according to the institution of thy dearly beloved Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ, we thy humble servants, having in remembrance his bitter passion and precious death, his mighty resurrection and glorious ascension, and looking for his coming again with power and great glory, do offer unto thy Divine Majesty this holy Bread of eternal life and this Cup of everlasting salvation, the one Victim only that attoneth for the sins of the whole world, and do render unto thee most hearty thanks for the innumerable benefits procured unto us by the same.
And we entirely desire thy fatherly goodness, mercifully to accept this our unbloody sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, humbly beseeching thee to grant, that by the merits and death of thy Son Jesus Christ, and through faith in this his blood, we and all thy whole Church (both the quick and the dead) may obtain the remission of our sins and all other benefits of his passion.
[Be mindful, O Lord, of thy servants and maidservants, [N. and N.,] which are gone before us with the sign of faith and do rest in the sleep of peace. We beseech thee that thou give unto them and unto all which rest in Christ, a place of refreshment, of light, and of peace.]
And here we humbly offer and present unto thee, O Lord, ourselves, our souls and bodies, to be a reasonable, holy, and lively sacrifice unto thee, humbly beseeching thee that all we who shall be partakers of this Holy Communion may worthily receive the most precious body and blood of thy Son Jesus Christ, be fulfilled with thy grace and heavenly benediction, and be made one body with him, that he may dwell in us, and we in him.
And although we be unworthy (through our manifold sins) to offer unto thee any Sacrifice, yet we beseech thee to accept this our bounden duty and service, bidding it to be brought up by the ministry of thy holy angels into thy holy tabernacle as pure incense before the sight of thy Divine Majesty, not weighing our merits, but pardoning our offenses, through Jesus Christ our Lord; by whom, with whom, and in whom, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honour and glory be unto thee, O Father Almighty, world without end. Amen.
A distinction must be made between what is created by those seized with a progressive, modernistic mentality and are also sadly in power who feel emboldened to issue liturgical ukases from on high, as it were, in a top-down approach versus the more patristics, organic and Historically Christian bottom-up approach.
And then this is leavened with the great rules of thumb such as the Vincent if Lerins rule and if course lex orandi, lex credendi
Post a Comment