I am firstly curious as to the use of quotations around “canons,” as it is neither a direct quote nor a reference to a disputed term. The canons really are canons. Further, I wonder if the fixing of the canons did, in fact, prove an “insurmountable barrier”to a corruption of the Mass. The Old Catholics (among others) certainly began to hold incompatible Eucharistic beliefs.
Session XXII of the Council of Trent was held on the Sacrifice of the Mass and covered a variety of things, from its sacrificial nature to the water mixed with the wine prior to the consecration. The part that concerns us most, however, is Chapter IV, On The Canon of the Mass. I will quote it in full.
And whereas it beseemeth, that holy things be administered in a holy manner, and of all holy things this sacrifice is the most holy; to the end that it might be worthily and reverently offered and received, the Catholic Church instituted, many years ago, the sacred Canon, so pure from every error, that nothing is contained therein which does not in the highest degree savor of a certain holiness and piety, and raise up unto God the minds of those that offer. For it is composed, out of the very words of the Lord, the traditions of the apostles, and the pious institutions also of holy pontiffs.
The main point of this chapter is that the sacred Canon contains nothing of error and is pure of holiness. I do not dispute this at all. It is therefore good to not that what is now referred to as the First Eucharistic Prayer is the Roman Canon as laid down by the Council of Trent (albeit, at least currently, poorly translated). Thus we must accept Eucharistic Prayer I as not drifting from Session XXII. But what of the other three main Eucharistic prayers (and numerous additions)?
These further Eucharistic Prayers were added as options in the Mass for a variety of reasons. One of them is an ancient Greek Anaphora, one was selected for it’s brevity, but all were added as an attempt to restrain rampant liturgical abuses. Many priests were experimenting with the words of the liturgy because, for one reason or another, they decided the Roman Canon simply was not sufficient.
It is obvious today that despite the addition of the other Eucharistic Prayers, experimentation is still rampant. It would seem fairly legitimate to suggest that these additional prayers do not curb liturgical abuse, and, in some ways, encourage it. When the four main Eucharistic prayers were set out, it was intended that Prayer I (the Roman Canon) and Prayer III be used for Sundays or Holy Days. What in fact happened was that Eucharistic Prayer II (the brief one) got used almost exclusively, the point of the almost complete disappearance of the Roman Canon (I have heard it only on certain Feast Days, the rare Sunday, and often when a certain priest I knew celebrated daily Mass at the seminary).
To return to the objection, is the New Mass a departure from the theology surrounding the fixed Canon? No, as it was firmly intended that priests would only celebrate the OF using one of the Eucharistic Prayers set out by Rome. Has this in fact happened? Sadly, no.
Personally, I strongly prefer the Roman Canon over the other Eucharistic Prayers because of its rich language and symbolism (there are very few actions belonging to the priest in the other prayers). I believe that, while the New Mass does not actual differ from the Tridentine theology, the decision to include so many Eucharistic Prayers does not edify the Mass and is probably more problematic than it is worth. That being said, it does not in any way decrease the intrinsic value of those Masses. It is rather like an open safe. On its own it is not a crime, but it encourages crime. As such the additional Eucharistic Prayers are not wrong but, in the current climate, they encourage liturgical abuse.
No comments:
Post a Comment