TOPIC The 'Preface' the opening section of the Eucharistic Prayer (Canon).
QUESTION In the Roman Rite, should the Preface be allowed to contain Petitions, or should it be confined to Praises and Thanksgivings?
STATE OF THE QUESTION In the Vatican revisions of the 1960s, a rigid rule was applied: NO PETITIONS.
I ASK: How soundly is this based?
I SUGGEST: Jungmann (The Mass of the Roman Rite Volume 2, pp115sqq.) assumes that Petition, in the Roman Rite, should be considered non-normative. It seems to me that his discussion is evasive ... ... I nearly wrote: "slippery".
I am mainly concerned with the Roman Rite. I am not one of those who consider that the Roman Rite is only respectable if it is supported by Oriental Rites. But I will point out that the early Egyptian rite called Serapion is not shy about petitioning ('... we beseech thee ... Give us .... May ...'). The earlier Western evidence of Justin combines "Prayers and Thanksgivings"; but Jungmann relegates to a footnote his dismissal of "[t]he view advocated by Baumstark among others, that a prayer of petition is already to be assumed within the Eucharistia of Justin ...".
In fact, Jungmann has himself to admit that "Petition, too, is included, along with thanksgiving" although he qualifies this by adding "at first tentatively, later even in a relatively developed form". Nevertheless, he will go on to insist that "it is equally evident from the earliest sources that in principle, and aside from certain more recent marginal developments, the keynote of the eucharistia ... has always been thanksgiving." As far as concerns Adoration, or thanksgiving for the Natural Order, he frankly concedes that "the theme ... is particularly infrequent in the Roman liturgy".
When he comes on to the earliest Roman evidence (the Veronensian codex which was then called the Leonianum), Jungmann even admits that we find such "curiosities" as "a tirade against objectionable adversaries or an exhortation to lead a moral life." And he grants that "even in the Leonianum the preface ... not infrequently takes on the features of a petition." He moves on to the Leofric Missal, "which has a special preface for every Mass-formulary. Similarly several sacramentaries from France." Jungmann dates it to "11th century" and says that it "originated in the Rhineland". But the most recent edition of Leofric (2002) suspects it of being the pontifical of an Archbishop of Canterbury, and of containing material transcribed originally from liturgical material brought by S Augustine to Canterbury. It contains phraseology (I select at random) such as supplices exposcimus; pietatem tuam indefessis precibus implorare; suppliciter exorare ut ...; poscentes; supplices exoramus; cuius meritis nequaquam possumus coaequari, eius precibus mereamur adiuvari. These prefaces seem to move into supplication whenever their natural logic suggests it.
This must put a question mark against the 1960s/1970s assumption that, for the Roman Rite, petitions must always be inherently improper within a preface.
To be concluded.
8 comments:
Ah, the classic liturgist's attitude: This is how I think it should work, therefore I will state it as a firm rule, and any examples to the contrary, however early and numerous, can be dismissed as errors or exceptions. Collects not addressed to the Father spring to mind as another example.
And as you have pointed out, Father, the old preface of the Apostles had a petition for the bishops of today. How's that working out for us?
"A rigid rule was applied"? Tut tut, Father. The 1960s and rigidity could never have co-existed. This must be memory holed.
Well, even though you set aside Oriental liturgies, you did mention that of Serapion. I would suggest a stronger reference might have been to the Liturgy (or Anaphora) of St. Matk (in recent centuries termed by the Copts as "... of St, Cyril") in which almost all of the intercessions are found in the portion before the Sanctus (which is also much longer than the portion which follows the Sanctus); cf.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liturgy_of_Saint_Cyril
Father this topic is far beyond me, but I can't help but lament that if our current age had any Catholic sense at all, you would be in a lofty office somewhere in Rome helping guide the church. We suffer because you are not there. In fact we head for the rocks because you are not there. God bless you and your health, always.
In certain Eastern Rites there are even whole ancient Canons addressed to the Second Person of the Blessed Trinity, yet in 1970 our 1960s liturgists expunged all collects addressed to our Lord Jesus Christ from the Missal and other liturgical books on some or other silly grounds. (The truth is that their (semi-)arian mindset simply wanted to weaken liturgical expression of the Church's confession of the Blessed Trinity and Christ's divinity).
Well, just because it is called "eucharistia" does not mean that thanks-giving is all that happens, and the same thing was true of the todah sacrifices in the Temple.
I mean, sheesh, the animal sacrifices were not giving thanks themselves, and yet they were fairly important parts of the todah.
Even saying Grace Before Meals includes petitionary prayer.
I think my eyes have rolled right out of my head. If you happen to find out where my eyes have rolled, please pick them up and hand them to me.
Albertus: Not all collects addressed to the Son were expunged, but yes, most were. I'm not certain that (semi-)Arian theology was the principal motivation for this (however much I may commend chap. 6 of Peter Kwasniewski's Resurgent in the Midst of Crisis); I rather suspect it has more to do with Chris's observation (above).
Post a Comment