The GIRM (Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani) at the beginning of the Missal explains the contents of the Eucharistic Prayer. The First Edition informed us that, in the Epiclesis, "Divine Power" (divinam virtutem) is invoked to change bread and wine into the Lord's Body and Blood. It does not say "the Power of the Holy Spirit", presumably because back in 1969 everybody still remembered that the Roman Canon, Eucharistic Prayer 1, did not contain any reference to the Holy Spirit (until it got to the doxology).
But, in the current Third Edition, the words "Divine Power" are changed to "Power of the Holy Spirit".
All I can think of is that, by 2002, even 'professional' Vatican liturgists had become unfamiliar with the words of the Roman Canon.
There must surely be a better explanation?
Lex orandi, lex credendi - so if the lex orandi be changed (since most priests only say EP II, and only rarely confront the Roman Canon, as for example when concelebrating at a major feast), then the lex credendi changes also.
ReplyDeleteI would say that, de facto, the Eucharistic Prayer of the Ordinary Form is the Second; if the First were dropped (and Bugnini wanted to omit the First, it was only Paul VI who insisted on retaining it, the Roman Canon, in one of his rare moments free of weakness), who would care?
Indeed, all the other modern prayers could well be omitted: the Fourth is unpopular because of its length and fixed Preface (to say nothing of its references to "man" in the English version); those for Reconciliation, plus the "Swiss" one, luckily given an orthodox makeover (and the three for kiddies), are only really popular among the self-consciously progressive; and the Third (the best of the new) is probably the only other one that might be retained.
(Bona venia Patris H): For those who like to read the text, here are the pertinent parts:
ReplyDeleteIGMR 1969:
55. c): Epiclesis: qua per invocationes peculiares Ecclesia virtutem divinam implorat, ut dona ab hominibus oblata consecrentur, seu Corpus et Sanguis Christi fiant ...
IGMR 2002:
70. c): Epiclesis: qua per invocationes peculiares Ecclesia Spiritus Sancti virtutem implorat, ut dona ab hominibus oblata consecrentur, seu Corpus et Sanguis Christi fiant ...
I don't think 4 is limited to the self-consciously progressive. I think it is, rather, limited to those who haven't been reading Fr. Hunwicke. Somewhere out there (is it in the GIRM? the missal itself?) there's a note that 4 should be reserved for (and I paraphrase from memory) "well catechized congregations."
ReplyDeleteI heard 4 said some time back by a very solid priest who, I assume, thought we were all excellently catechized. Truth be told, he must have been the first priest so to think, because I had to look up the missal afterwards to confirm that he hadn't been making it up. I certainly hadn't heard it since the new R.M. came out, if I ever heard it before.
Professional Vatican liturgists have forgotten that such a thing as the Roman Canon exists. An entirely understandable oversight.
ReplyDeletePrideful ignorance typical of the reforming personality. You don't know what you don't know, especially if you think you know more than you do, a common trait of reformers.
ReplyDeleteThis is not unlike the 17th reforms in the Russian Orthodox church, which resulted in the painful weakening of the Church as the traditionalists, aka The Old Believers, who fought tooth and nail against the patriarchal led reforms (these remind me of the SSPX of today's Latin church).
The then Patriarch of the ROC and his 17th century Bugini-types thought that the Russian Church needed to have their prayers and practices (PnP) conform with the then current PnP of Constantinople, thinking that the Greek PnP was more authentic, more relevant, more yadda yadda.
Of course, the 17th century PnP of the Greeks had undergone multiple accretions and changes over the years, so to use their PnP as the target to model, as if it were some eternal, unchanging, best standards practice was a false assumption on the part of the Russian reformers. But they didn't take that into account, on account of their pride and ignorance.
They too forgot that the eternal cause and effect of the maxim "As you pray, SO YOU WILL BELIEVE". It's tied into human nature. The converse (as you believe, so you will pray) is no more than a cheap mental construct of nothingness. What matters is, how you use your mind, your body and your soul DETERMINES what you end up believing, not the other way around.
I hope it may not be signal of creeping modalism? Or an idea that there are things the Spirit does without the Father and the Son?
ReplyDeleteSince they both get the point across, the language isn't important. Don't get caught up in semantic trivia.
ReplyDeleteI don't know who r100s is and don't care; but I can only see two explanations for his comment. (1)He hasn't read the long series of six posts which I have just concluded on Consecration in the Roman Rite. In which case he falls into the category of people who totally ignore page after laborious page of what I have written, and then loftily pontificate. Or (2) He HAS read them and this is his discourteous, rude way of saying that the whole discussion was merely "semantic trivia".
ReplyDeleteIn either case, he is not the sort of person whose comments are welcome on this blog. Go away and play with your own trivia.
I greatly appreciate Fr. Hunwicke's series here, and I think Stephen has put his finger on something very important - the PRIORITY of the lex Orandi to the lex Credendi.
ReplyDeleteJP2's last book is called "Memory and Identity," and it is an urgent plea and warning to remember our Catholic identity. Yet it is easier for a man who knows what came before to remember...
The famous Mel Gibson, in producing the "Passion of the Christ," also promoted the film with a book about the project, and he wrote an introduction, where he stated that what guided the project was "aletheia," which I know these readers know means "unforgetting," derived from the River Lethe of Greek mythology, where to drink the waters from the Lethe erases one's memory and identity.
The effect of the text, and worse, the actual implementation of the Novus Ordo, is, unfortunately, forgetfulness.
Is the GIRM promulgated with the Missal or independently? What some call the third edition may in fact be the fifth.
ReplyDelete