from one eucharistic prayer to many

8/10/2019 From One Eucharistic Prayer to Many

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/from-one-eucharistic-prayer-to-many 1/21

1

From One Eucharistic Prayer to Many: How itHappened and Why

Online Edition - Vol. II, Nos. 4 - 6 : September - November 1996

http://www.adoremus.org/9-11-96-FolsomEuch.html

by Father Cassian Folsom, O.S.B.

Part I

The history of the multiplication of alternatives to the Roman Canon -- now known as

Eucharistic Prayer I -- in the years following Vatican II takes on new significance inthe present massive revision of the Roman Missal. This illuminating account will bepresented in three parts.

In the 1970 and 1975 Latin editions of the Roman Missal, there are four EucharisticPrayers (these may be augmented in the third editio typica which is due out this fall).In more recent American editions of the Roman Missal, in addition to the four alreadymentioned, there are five others included in the appendix: two for Reconciliation and

three for Masses with children. Thus for the last twenty-five years, the Roman rite hashad the experience of many Eucharistic Prayers.

This was not always so, however. For some 1600 years previously, the Roman riteknew only one Eucharistic Prayer: the Roman canon.

In the average parish today, Eucharistic Prayer II is the one most frequently used,even on Sunday. Eucharistic Prayer III is also used quite often, especially onSundays and feast days. The fourth Eucharistic prayer is hardly ever used; in partbecause it is long, in part because in some places in the U.S. it has been unofficiallybanned because of its frequent use of the word "man". The first Eucharistic Prayer,

the Roman canon, which had been used exclusively in the Roman rite for well over amillennium and a half, nowadays is used almost never. As an Italian liturgical scholarputs it: "its use today is so minimal as to be statistically irrelevant".1

This is a radical change in the Roman liturgy. Why aren't more people aware of theenormity of this change? Perhaps since the canon used to be said silently, itscontents and merits were known to priests, to be sure, but not to most of the laity.Hence when the Eucharistic Prayer began to be said aloud in the vernacular, withfour to choose from -- and the Roman canon chosen rarely, if ever -- the averagelayman did not realize that 1600 years of tradition had suddenly vanished like a lost

civilization, leaving few traces behind, and those of interest only to archaeologistsand tourists.



2

What happened? Why did it happen? How should we respond to the new situation?These questions are the subject matter of this essay.

I. WHAT HAPPENED?

What happened is long in the telling, because the period of liturgical history inquestion is involved and complex. It is necessary to follow closely the various twistsand turns in the path of this development, however, in order to be in a position tounderstand why things happened the way they did.

1. Sacrosanctum Concilium (December 4, 1963)

Article 37 of the Schema on the Liturgy (in the final document it would be numbered article 50), treatsof the Ordo Missae . In the discussions on thistext, only one of the Council Fathers, Bishop Wilhelm Duschak, S.V.D. requested a new EucharisticPrayer either to replace the Roman Canon or to use as an

alternate.2

On the other hand, several Fathers in commenting on article 37/50, stressed that theCanon should not be touched. In the voting itself, a number of votes placet iuxta

modum expressed the same reservations. The relator responded saying that theseconcerns were already reflected in the phrase "due care being taken to preserve thesubstance of the rites" ( probe servata eorum substantia ), although in fact, the post-conciliar commission would abandon this position. According to Jungmann, it was therelator's mind that a free hand should be given to the post-conciliar work of reform.3

In any case, neither the Schema nor the final text of Sacrosanctum Concilium makeany mention of new Eucharistic Prayers.

2. Private initiatives to revise the Roman Canon or compose new EucharisticPrayers (1963-1968)

Private initiatives, however, to revise the Roman canon were already being made. Two such initiativeswere published in scholarly journals: that of HansKüng4 in 1963 and Karl Amon5 in 1965.6 Many other newly-composed Eucharistic Prayers followed,some of them published, some of them not. One of the most important elements in this story is thepolitical pressure put on the Holy See by the Church in the Netherlands. Between 1965 and 1966,before the vernacular was permitted for the canon, translations of the canon and texts of new

Eucharistic Prayers were already circulating in Holland.7

The Dutch Episcopal conference, in the person of Bishop Jean Bluyssen of Hertogenbosch, presidentof the national liturgical commission and himself a member of the post-conciliar commission for thecarrying out of the liturgical reforms (hereafter referred to as the Consilium), made an official request tothe Holy See for permission to use these texts. (Note the pattern: unauthorized experimentation first,pressure for permission later). In the Fall of 1966, there was much coming and going ofmessages and emissaries between the Netherlands and Rome in order to resolve the problem.Annibale Bugnini, the chairman of the Consilium, reports what happened:

As a result of Father Bugnini's visit to the Netherlands, a special committee was setup to examine some anaphoras sent by the [Dutch] liturgical commission. Severalmeetings made it clear that it would be difficult to obtain approval for these; theConsilium therefore suggested that the Dutch wait for the new Eucharistic Prayersthen being composed (Bugnini, p.461, n.7).6



3

In January of 1967, those in authority agreed that some of the requests of the DutchConference had to be granted: among those requests, the translation of the Canonand the study and eventual approval of three new anaphoras. Pope Paul VIappointed a special curial commission to consider whether "it is not appropriate toextend the concessions foreseen for the Netherlands to other countries or even to the

entire Church" (Bugnini, p.106).

Not willing to wait for the word from Rome, however, many individuals and groupssimply went ahead on their own. The Dutch bishops chose eleven EucharisticPrayers out of the many in circulation and published them for official use (November11, 1969). The Flemish-speaking bishops of Belgium did the same, but limited theselection to five (November 1, 1969). A year earlier, the Indonesian bishops hadgiven approval to ten Eucharistic Prayers (October 24, 1968). The Dutch prayerswere translated into German8 (1968) and went through many printings (cf. Bugnini,p.465). In France, there were some one hundred Eucharistic Prayers in circulation.9

Bernard Botte complains, in 1968, about the utter anarchy that reigned in French-speaking areas because of the use of unauthorized Eucharistic Prayers.10

While all of these private initiatives were taking place, what was happening at theofficial level?

3. Study Group 10 of the Consilium and its work on the Ordo Missae (1965)

The Eucharistic Prayer itself was not originally a concern of the Consilium , but ratherthe revision of the Ordo Missae . This was assigned to Study Group 10. In theprocess of the work, the question of the Roman canon inevitably arose. Bugninidescribes the situation for us:

The Roman Canon was the most sensitive and complex problem of all. On the onehand, respect for this prayer made the group hesitate to touch it; on the other, therewere suggestions from experts and requests from pastors for a different and morelogical organization of the Eucharistic Prayer. In order to achieve a resolution of thedifficulties, it was proposed to experiment with three revised forms of the RomanCanon (Bugnini, p.343).

News of these experiments soon got out, and various people complained to the Holy

See. What became evident was that the right hand did not know what the left handwas doing. Bugnini reports that the Secretary of State, Cardinal Cicognani, wrote tothe president of the Consilium , Cardinal Lercaro, on October 25, 1965 and again onDecember 10, 1965, urging extreme caution (Bugnini, p.152, n.30). On March 7,1966, the Secretary of State communicated this message from Pope Paul VI to theConsilium :

I hasten to tell you of His Holiness' desire that the Canon itself not be altered, at leastfor the time being; any possible change must therefore be submitted for explicitapproval of the Holy Father, who, for his part, believes he must not introduce any

changes into the Canon itself without previous documented and rigorous studies andthen, should the occasion arise, only after consulting with the bishops. I am to tell youthat, all things considered, it is perhaps better to leave the traditional text unchanged;



4

this, however, does not mean that study of the subject is not to continue (Bugnini,p.152, n.30).

The Holy Father was putting the brakes on, but not discouraging further study. TheConsilium , therefore returned to the subject of the Eucharistic Prayer a couple of

months later, presenting a new request to Paul VI on May 25, 1966:

If the time comes to reopen the question of composing a new Eucharistic Prayer (inview of the difficulties that mark the present Roman Canon from a pastoralstandpoint), study group 10 would be honored to be allowed to work up somemodels. In that case it would also feel obliged to see to it that any new prayer stilldisplayed the Roman genius, so that the Roman Mass would continue to be faithful tothe spirit of the Roman liturgy (Bugnini, p.449).

One month later, on June 20, 1966, Cardinal Lercaro submitted the following request

to the Holy Father:

Any projected revision of the text of the Eucharistic Prayer faces numerous andsensitive problems; but then so does the retention of the prayer in its present formpresent difficulties. Especially if said aloud, the Roman Canon would becomeburdensome due to its very changelessness and to some elements that are toonarrowly local, such as the lists of the saints....

The Canons suggested by various sources tend to be revisions of the text with a viewto curtailing the elements just mentioned and relocating other intercessory prayers(Memento, Communicantes, Nobis quoque ) so as to make the Eucharistic Prayermore of a single unit that includes the Preface, Sanctus and anamnesis . But revisionsare always dangerous, especially when they mean tampering with texts that have sovenerable a tradition behind them.

It seems more expedient to leave the traditional text of the Canon untouched and tocompose from scratch one or more Eucharistic Prayers that would be added to thetraditional Canon and used as alternatives to it, even if only for the purpose of havinga greater variety of texts (Bugnini, pp. 449-450).

It is interesting to single out the motives for the proposed change:

1) The Roman Canon would be burdensome if recited out loud, because it is alwaysthe same.

2) The lists of saints are too local.

3) The Canon is unsatisfactory from a stylistic viewpoint, and would requireconsiderable reworking in order to appear as a single literary unit.

In spite of these objections to the Roman canon, however, the Consilium made the

prudential judgment that it was too dangerous to tamper with the text, and that it wasbetter therefore to provide a few alternatives in order to respond to the defectsmentioned, and to provide some variety. As Bugnini reports, "the Pope's decision



5

was brief and to the point: 'The present anaphora is to be left unchanged; two orthree anaphoras for use at particular specified times are to be composed or lookedfor.'" (Bugnini, p.450).

If taken at face value, this decision would leave the Roman canon primacy of place,

while adding several other Eucharistic prayers to the repertoire in a subsidiary role.(In fact, this is not what happened). The "particular times" are not specified, and theHoly Father left open the possibility of borrowing the new anaphoras from thetradition or composing entirely new prayers.

With this green light from the Holy Father, the Consilium set to work immediately.

Part II

Part I of this three part essay, which appeared in the September issue, began the

history of the multiplication of alternatives to the Roman Canon (now known asEucharistic Prayer I). Noting that during its first 1600 years, the Roman rite knew onlyone Eucharistic Prayer, Father Cassian observes that the multiplication of "options"since the early to mid-1970s has resulted in the virtual disappearance of the RomanCanon. "The average layman did not realize that 1600 years of tradition hadsuddenly vanished like a lost civilization, leaving few traces behind, and those ofinterest only to archaeologists and tourists."

Although the documents of the Second Vatican Council did not mention new

Eucharistic prayers, private initiatives to revise the Roman Canon and/or to composenew Eucharistic Prayers were being made as early as 1963 by theologian HansKüng. Agitation for creating new alternatives to the Roman Canon was intensifyingespecially in Holland, and new prayers were published by Dutch and Flemish bishops

and used without authorization from Rome.

Meanwhile, at the official level, the Consilium (the group responsible forimplementing the Council's decree on the liturgy, Sacrosanctum Concilium ) and"Study Group 10" (concerned with revision of the Roman Missal) were also

considering alternatives to the traditional Canon. Their rationale: 1. The RomanCanon would be burdensome if recited aloud, because it is always the same; 2. Thelists of saints are too local; 3. The Canon is unsatisfactory from a stylistic viewpoint."

Despite pressure from advocates of alternative prayers, Pope Paul VI objected to

changing the Canon. Eventually, however, he was persuaded to permit "two or three"alternatives "for use at particular specified times", although he insisted that theRoman Canon be left intact. But the pope did not elaborate on "specified times". So"[w]ith this green light from the Holy Father, the Consilium set to work immediately."

The accout of what happened to the Roman Canon continues in Part II following.

4. Vagaggini and the summer of 1966

Study group 10, which worked on the Ordo Missae , was now enlarged to respond tothe new task at hand. Father Vagaggini, a Benedictine monk and professor at the



6

Pontifical Athenaeum of Sant'Anselmo in Rome, spent the summer of 1966 at thelibrary of Mont-César in Belgium, doing an intense study of the Roman canon, andcomposing two new Eucharistic Prayers (which are the basis for the present prayersIII and IV). The work of Vagaggini was published in book form that same year;11 thusthe discussion moved from the restricted circle of the Consilium to the wider public

forum, raising the expectations of some and the hackles of others.12

Vagaggini's proposals were then examined by the entire study group, various periti ,and the Fathers of the Consilium . It was decided to act upon Pope Paul's instructionsby adopting two already-existing anaphoras , that of Hippolytus (the inspiration forEucharistic Prayer II) and the Alexandrian anaphora of St. Basil (which in the endwas not accepted because of certain theological difficulties). The new compositionsadopted were the two proposed by Vagaggini.

One of the main reasons given for proposing these new anaphoras was the principle

of variety. According to Archbishop Annibale Bugnini, longtime secretary of theCongregation for Divine Worship, "This kind of variety seems needed if the Romanliturgy is to have the greater spiritual and pastoral riches that cannot find fullexpression in a single type of text" (Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy , p.452).

In the explanations given for these new texts, a certain emphasis was placed upontheir length. Of the three new texts which were eventually approved, one is very short(EP II), one of medium length (EP III) and one is rather long since it includes asummary exposition of the entire economy of salvation EP IV).

5. Steps in the process toward official promulgation

In a very schematic way, these are the steps which the texts of the new EucharisticPrayers went through in order to receive final approval (cf . Bugnini, pp. 460-465):

a. April, 1967: the schema was approved by the presidential council of the Consilium,then by the Fathers. It was sent to the pope on May 3, 1967. (The schema alsoincluded nine new prefaces).

b. The Holy Father ordered the schema to be sent to the Congregation for theDoctrine of the Faith and the Congregation of Rites (June, 1967). CDF did not

approve the Alexandrian anaphora (literally, "offering", another name for theEucharistic prayer) of Saint Basil because of the theological problem of the epiclesis (invocation of the Holy Spirit).

c. July 10, 1967: In view of the forthcoming Synod of Bishops, Pope Paul VI wrote tothe Consilium with these instructions: "You are authorized to prepare a booklet[containing the new anaphoras ] that is to be given to the Fathers of the comingSynod; all things considered, however, it is advisable that the formula of consecrationnot be changed."13

d. The Synod of Bishops was held in October, 1967. Among the liturgical mattersunder discussion was the question of the new Eucharistic Prayers. A number of"papal queries" were placed before the Fathers for a vote on October 14, 1967,



7

among them the question: "Should three other Eucharistic Prayers, in addition to theRoman Canon, be introduced into the Latin liturgy?" Of the 183 Fathers voting, alarge majority said Yes, 22 said No, and 33 said Yes with qualifications (placet iuxta

modum).14 The modi were as follows:

1. The Roman Canon should always have the place of honor and be used onSundays and more solemn feasts.

2. Very precise norms should be set down for the use of each prayer; the choice ofprayer should not be left to the celebrant.

3. The new Eucharistic Prayers should be restricted to special, well-prepared groups.

4. Before use of the prayers is allowed, they should be submitted to the episcopalconferences for study, and the faithful should be carefully instructed in advance.

5. There should not be only three further Eucharistic Prayers, but a good many more:these should be taken from the Eastern liturgies. Furthermore, the episcopalconferences should be granted authority to compose others proper to them.

6. The Roman Canon should itself be revised to facilitate its use.

As can be seen, not all the modi followed the same line of argument. Bugnini remarksthat the value of the vote was "quite relative" because the Fathers were not voting asactual representatives of their episcopal conferences, but as individual bishops(Bugnini, p.351). In any case, the response of the Synod was largely favorable.

e. The publication of the new Eucharistic Prayers was delayed, however. Bugniniattributes the delay to the "usual interferences." In addition, the Secretary of Stateinsisted on January 28, 1968, that a suitable instruction be issued along with the newtexts.

f. The definitive approval was given on April 27, 1968.

g. The three new Eucharistic Prayers were promulgated by a decree of theCongregation of Rites on May 23, 1968,15 which also determined that the prayers

could be used beginning August 15, 1968.

h. On the same day, the document "Norms on the Use of Eucharistic Prayers I-IV"was issued.16 Since these norms are not very well known, it is worthwhile to citethem here.

1) Eucharistic Prayer I, i.e. the Roman Canon, may always be used; its use isparticularly suited to days assigned a proper Communicantes or a proper Hanc igitur ;to feasts of the apostles and saints mentioned in this Prayer; also to Sundays, unlesspastoral reasons call for a different eucharistic prayer.

(This norm, in effect, reduces the use of the Roman canon to a few specialoccasions).



8

2) Because of its distinctive features, Eucharistic Prayer II is better suited toweekdays or to special occasions.

(This norm, in effect, expands the use of this Eucharistic Prayer; the mostoutstanding distinctive feature referred to being its brevity).

3) Eucharistic Prayer III may be used with any of the prefaces; like the RomanCanon, it is to have precedence on Sundays and holydays.(This norm, in effect, replaces the Roman Canon with Eucharistic Prayer III).

4) Eucharistic Prayer IV has an unchangeable preface.... It may be used whenever aMass does not have a proper preface; its use is particularly suited to a congregationof people with a more developed knowledge of Scripture.

(This norm, in effect, limits the use of this Eucharistic Prayer to rare occasions: it

cannot be used during any of the strong seasons when there is a proper preface, i.e.Advent, Lent, Easter. In addition, the somewhat condescending note about a moreeducated congregation, if taken seriously, would limit its use even further).

i. A week or so later, on June 2, 1968, the new president of the Consilium , CardinalBenno Gut, sent a cover letter to the presidents of episcopal conferences17 alongwith guidelines to assist catechesis on the anaphoras of the Mass.18

j. The Apostolic Constitution Missale Romanum was promulgated on Holy Thursday,April 3, 1969, but because of fierce controversy, the editio typica was not issued untilHoly Thursday of the following year, March 26, 1970.

6. Problems after official promulgation of the new Eucharistic Prayers

One might have expected that the official publication of the new Missal with threenew Eucharistic Prayers in addition to the Roman Canon would have put an end tounbridled experimentation. "It was hoped that the publication of the new EucharisticPrayers would eliminate or at least lessen the problem [of the many privatecompositions in circulation]," writes Bugnini. "This did not happen" (Bugnini, p.465).The genie had been let out of the bottle, and would simply not go back in. Certainepiscopal conferences blatantly ignored remonstrances from Rome. Signals were

unclear, however, since the Congregation for Divine Worship gave permission forquite a number of Eucharistic Prayers for special groups and special occasions.19

On May 27, 1971, Divine Worship explained the problem to Pope Paul VI, suggestingthat the issue needed to be more carefully studied:

"We hear that the Liturgical Institute of Paris has collected and studied over twohundred Eucharistic Prayers... If the Holy Father agrees, the Congregation would liketo undertake a systematic collection of all the existing material and study it...so that itmay have a clear grasp of the dimensions of the problem and be able to tackle it with

greater clarity and on a solid basis" (Bugnini, p.467).

On June 22, 1971, a reply came from the Secretary of State:



9

"Given the extent of the indiscriminate use of unapproved Eucharistic Prayers, theHoly Father wishes that a careful study be made of the problem in all its aspects, inorder to find a solution that will remedy this serious situation of undisciplined liturgicalpractice" (Bugnini, p.467).

Thus a special study group was appointed on September 17, 1971 to look into thematter.

7. Work of the special Study Group

From October 1971 to March 1972, this special Study Group met several times,producing a working document of some one hundred pages analyzing the problemand proposing solutions. At the third meeting, January 25-26, 1972, the group,comprised of 17 members, voted on four questions (cf . Bugnini, pp. 467-469):

1) Should the number of Eucharistic Prayers in the Roman Missal be increased?

Yes: 10 No: 3 Yes, iuxta modum: 4

2) Should a larger number of Eucharistic Prayers be allowed in regions in which theepiscopal conferences think it advisable?

Yes: 12; No: 0 Yes, iuxta modum: 5

3) Is the solution proposed in n. 39a of the schema acceptable? (i.e. that theCongregation for Divine Worship should prepare models of its own)


4) Is the solution proposed in n. 29b acceptable? (i.e. that the Congregation forDivine Worship should prepare guidelines for the episcopal conferences to use inmaking their own judgments)


The clear consensus of the group was that more Eucharistic Prayers should be

allowed. There was no clear agreement, however, about the role of the Congregationfor Divine Worship in guiding or directing the composition of these prayers.

Some of the consultors of the Congregation, who had not been polled on thesequestions, but who felt very strongly about them, published their own findings,coming to quite opposite conclusions, namely that it was inopportune to composenew Eucharistic Prayers in addition to the ones already in the Roman Missal. Thispublished report aroused alarm in various quarters, including the Congregation forthe Doctrine of the Faith, and much controversy ensued. The Secretary of State wasobliged to intervene, to diplomatically rebuke the Congregation for Divine Worship,

and to do some damage control. Pope Paul VI, on February 28, 1972, in an audiencewith Bugnini (whom he had ordained a bishop on February 13, 1972) also issued akind of rebuke: "I once again strongly urge the Congregation for Divine Worship to try



10

to control the tendency to multiply Eucharistic Prayers," adding a number ofclarifications:

* Other Congregations competent in the matter were to be consulted in these matters(translation: Divine Worship shouldn't be acting on its own );

* Liturgical uniformity should be stressed;

* Arbitrary experiments should cease;

* Episcopal conferences do not have the authority to introduce new EucharisticPrayers unless they have received permission from the Holy See (Bugnini, pp. 470-471).

At a plenary meeting of the special Study Group, March 7-11, 1972, the Secretariat of

State asked that the members be brought up to date concerning the recentcommunications sent by him to the Congregation for Divine Worship, lest the Fathers"in ignorance of the real thinking of his Holiness, proceed along the path traced outby the periti , although this is not fully in conformity with the directives given to them...(Bugnini, p.471, n.31)"

8. Signals missed or ignored

Thus, negative signals were being sent to the Congregation for Divine Worship andthe Study Group, but apparently these signals were not understood. On the contrary,work proceeded full steam ahead and in a plenary meeting of the entire Congregationfor Divine Worship, the schema for the Eucharistic Prayers was examined and thematter was put to a vote (Bugnini, pp. 471-472):

1) In view of the present situation regarding the development and use of EucharisticPrayers, should competent authority takes some steps to increase the number ofthese prayers?


2) Is it enough that the Holy See should prepare some new Eucharistic Prayers?


3) Is it enough that the Holy See should provide some models to be adapted by theepiscopal conferences?


4) Should the episcopal conferences be able to compose new Eucharistic Prayersthat satisfy criteria set down by the Holy See and are then submitted to the latter?




11

5) Are the guidelines set down in Chapter VI for preparing and evaluating EucharisticPrayers acceptable?


The progressive tendency of the group is clear. More Eucharistic Prayers are calledfor; the Holy See is neither to prepare these prayers nor provide models for them;instead Episcopal conferences should be able to compose new prayers on their ownauthority.

The Cardinal Prefect's report to the Secretariat of State, April 12, 1972, was morebalanced and modest in tone, but still included the suggestion that episcopalconferences "in extraordinary circumstances, and then case by case" should begiven permission to prepare new Eucharistic Prayers. The suggestion was tempered,however, by the proviso that the conference must first request authorization, then

prepare the text, which must be submitted to the competent agencies of the Holy See(Bugnini, p.472). Pope Paul VI granted an audience to the Cardinal Prefect on April20th, issuing a written response a month later, on May 23, 1972, in which he forbadepublicity about the discussion in progress, but gave authorization for a draft text to beprepared of an Instruction on Eucharistic Prayers.

This draft text was prepared during the summer months, and was sent to the studygroup on September 8, 1972. Bugnini reports that "the group held its fourth and finalmeeting on September 25-26, in a somewhat "disheartened" atmosphere" (Bugnini,p.473). Although they were disappointed that their suggestions had not been wellreceived, they persisted in their recommendation that episcopal conferences be givenpermission, under certain conditions, to compose new Eucharistic Prayers. OnNovember 17, 1972, the Secretary of State sent the draft Instruction to theCongregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. The response of CDF was in the negative.Bugnini says why:

In the meantime, others made their voices heard in opposition to approval of newEucharistic Prayers: a group of theologians on the International TheologicalCommission (October 11), a French archbishop, and those consultors of theCongregation for Divine Worship who had cast a negative vote at the study sessions.All these put pressure on the Supreme Pastor... (Bugnini, p.474, n.32).

9. "No" From Pope: "A Cold Shower"

On January 11, 1973, the Secretary of State communicated CDF's response toDivine Worship: "The Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith has given a negativeanswer regarding the timeliness of granting the episcopal conferences permission toredact new anaphoras. Its prohibition must be accepted" (Bugnini, p.474).

The letter of the Secretary of State also included the following directives which wouldlater appear in the Instruction on Eucharistic Prayers put out by the Congregation for

Divine Worship:

* Episcopal Conferences must put an end to experimental Eucharistic Prayers.



14

Bugnini interprets the matter thus: "The intention was that the Congregation shouldadhere strictly to the juridical procedure of the Roman Curia . There were those,however, who saw the action as a way of preventing possible concessions of furtherEucharistic Prayers" (Bugnini, p.484).

Special requests continued to come in from Belgium and the Netherlands in order toobtain official approval for the experimental anaphoras which had been in use since1969 (cf . Bugnini, pp. 484-485). These requests received a decidedly negativereaction at the ordinary joint meeting of the Congregation for Divine Worship and theCongregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments.

Bugnini personally, however, lobbied the Holy Father to make some sort of positivegesture even if the entire request could not be granted: namely, that Belgium beallowed one of the five anaphoras requested, and that the Netherlands be allowedcontinued use of the Eucharistic Prayer that had already been approved for the Dutch

Pastoral Colloquium the year before. Pope Paul VI followed Bugnini's lead, andpermission was granted on July 8, 1975.27

II. WHY DID IT HAPPEN?

The historical description of what happened in order to move from a monolithic andmillennial tradition of a single Eucharistic Prayer to a new situation of many differentprayers, is long and complex in its many stages. Nevertheless, what happened issomething verifiable and concrete. An analysis of why this happened, on the otherhand is, of its very nature, more speculative. I would like to propose six basicreasons.

1. Advances in liturgical studies The first reason is quite straightforward. Decades of scholarly research in the area ofthe anaphora , both eastern and western, had resulted in a considerable corpus ofprimary texts and a corresponding body of secondary literature.

The most notable example of this advancement in liturgical studies is the edition byAnton Hänggi and Irmgard Pahl of Prex Eucharistica , an anthology of anaphoras andanaphora -type prayers from the Jewish liturgy, the New Testament, ancient texts ofthe early patristic period, oriental anaphoras of the various eastern liturgical families

and western anaphoras of both the Roman and non-Roman western rites.28 Thisvolume was published in 1968. The texts, therefore, of ancient anaphoras , werereadily available.

2. Dissatisfaction with the Roman Canon and architectural functionalism A second reason for the change from one Eucharistic Prayer to many wasdissatisfaction, on the part of some liturgical scholars, with the Roman canon. I wouldlike to argue that there is a connection between this dissatisfaction and 20th-centuryarchitectural functionalism.

The man who best illustrates this theory is Cipriano Vagaggini. In Vagaggini's bookon the Roman canon, prepared for Study Group 10 of the Consilium (the groupresponsible for implementing the Council's reform), the basic argument in favor of



15

change is that the Roman canon is marred by serious defects of structure andtheology. (He does treat the merits of the Roman canon as well, but that section ismuch shorter.)

Vagaggini summarizes his argument in these words:

The defects are undeniable and of no small importance. The present Roman canonsins in a number of ways against those requirements of good liturgical compositionand sound liturgical sense that were emphasized by the Second Vatican Council.29

The structural defects show themselves in the disorderliness of the Canon, accordingto Vagaggini. It gives the impression of an agglomeration of features with noapparent unity, there is a lack of logical connection of ideas, and the various prayersof intercession are arranged in an unsatisfactory way.

Official documents published by the Consilium in order to justify the change, repeatthis same line of argument. For example, the guidelines issued on June 2, 1968 toassist catechesis on the anaphoras of the Mass say:

In the existing Roman Canon its unity and the logical sequence of its ideas are notimmediately or readily perceptible. It leaves the impression of a series of discrete,merely juxtaposed prayers; it requires a degree of reflection for a grasp of theirunity.30

The three new anaphoras on the other hand, the guidelines continue, arecharacterized by continuity of thought and clarity of structure. [The guidelines alsostated that all Christian churches "the Roman rite excepted" use "a great variety" ofanaphoras-Ed.]

Not only is the Roman Canon marred by structural defects, according to Vagaggini,but there are a number of theological defects as well. The most grievous of thesetheological problems is the number and disorder of epicletic-type prayers in thecanon and the lack of a theology of the part played by the Holy Spirit in the Eucharist.

Liturgical historian Josef Jungmann counters this critique of Vagaggini's by pointingout that Vagaggini is a systematic theologian who wanted to impose a certain

preconceived theological structure on the Eucharistic Prayer. Since Vagaggini had aparticularly keen interest in the pneumatological dimension of the liturgy, his newEucharistic Prayers (III and IV) give a decided emphasis to the Holy Spirit.

Jungmann refers to Vagaggini's famous book, Il senso teologico della liturgia toreinforce his argument. What we have here, says Jungmann, is the personal theologyof the author (emphasis added), not the universal theology of the Church.31 Inaddition, it must be noted that while Vagaggini's pneumatological preoccupation is initself praiseworthy, it is anachronistic to blame an ancient text for lack of clarity in thisarea, especially when the Roman canon was composed quite outside of the ambit of

fourth-century doctrinal controversies over the nature and role of the Holy Spirit.



16

Whether speaking of structure or of theology, the main argument seems to be thatthe Roman canon is untidy. In the course of its development it spread out from theoriginal core text, the way an old country house develops from the original building:32 a wing is added on here, an extra story is built there, a door is cut in the wall where awindow used to be, other windows are walled up and new stairwells are necessary

because of certain additions, while others are rendered useless. Decorative trim isadded "just because". Fine woodwork and stonework appear in the most hidden andout-of-the-way places. Each part of an old building has its own history, and oldrambling houses like this are truly wonderful: but they are not neat. Furthermore, theywere not originally equipped with modern conveniences like indoor plumbing andelectricity, and so we moderns sometimes find such houses inconvenient.

Modern houses, on the other hand, are usually functional and efficient, but often builtof cheap materials, and very frequently unattractive to the eye. If this applies tohomes, it applies all the more to public buildings, which in this century have achieved

new heights of ugliness.

The liturgical reformers objected to the architectural untidiness of the Roman Canonand wanted to replace it with something more streamlined and functional.

It would take someone versed in the history and theory of architecture to draw out allthe implications of what I am suggesting (or to refute this intuition, as the case maybe). But I wonder if perhaps the reaction against the untidiness of the Roman canonis not perhaps linked with the modern spirit of architectural functionalism.

3. The Zeitgeist of the Late Sixties A third reason for the changes can be found in the secular and theological Zeitgeist --the spirit of the times -- of the late sixties. In the secular order, this time period wasmarked by a massive and sometimes anarchic rejection of structure and authority.

The Second Vatican Council happened to coincide with a period in western historymarked by a profound and revolutionary upheaval in societal thought and mores.When the Council optimistically opened the windows of the Church to the world, thiswas the wind that blew in.

Within the Church, the theological structure existing immediately prior to the Council,

which in its general presentation had perhaps had been overly defensive and overlysynthesized, collapsed very quickly, being replaced by a new wave of theologicalexperimentation and progressivism.

From a political point of view, it seems to be no accident that the enormous numberof unauthorized Eucharistic Prayers in circulation came primarily from France,Germany, Belgium and the Netherlands, the countries which formed the backbone ofthe northern European progressive alliance in the Council. The Consilium clearlyfavored this progressive approach.

The combination of secular and theological forces in the late sixties had no little effecton the liturgy. The liturgical anarchy that ensued left traces which are still in evidence



17

today. How many times have official documents quoted -- to no avail -- the text ofSacrosanctum Concilium 22:

Regulation of the liturgy depends solely on the authority of the Church, that is, on theApostolic See and, accordingly as the law determines, on the bishop... Therefore, no

other person, not even if he is a priest, may on his own add, remove, or changeanything in the liturgy.

The complete disregard of authority is one of the salient characteristics of theZeitgeist of the late 1960s.

4. Theological Shift to the "Horizontal" Part of the post-conciliar theological shift was a new stress on this-worldly realities,which often resulted in a style of prayer which was decidedly horizontal and man-centered. The hieratic, sacral and transcendent emphasis of the Roman canon, in

contrast, was viewed as out of date and theologically incorrect. This is a fourthreason for the change from one Eucharistic Prayer to many.

5. The Vernacular and Variety It was often posited that as long as the Roman canon was said in the original Latin,no one was very much aware of its flaws -- the presupposition being that the averagepriest's knowledge of Latin was not sufficient to discern such things. This is one ofVagaggini's arguments:

For example, suppose the canon were said out loud in the vernacular today, inkeeping with the spirit of the liturgy and as a means of giving full spiritual benefit tothe people.... We would soon realize just how serious are the liturgical and pastoralproblems arising from the text. If only a few priest so far are aware of these issues, itis because many have had their awareness blunted by routine and a more or lessmechanical recitation (even if in a general spirit of devotion) of a text in a deadlanguage. And this routine conceals the problems fairly effectively. But how muchlonger can this state of affairs continue?33

Not only would the saying of the canon in the vernacular reveal its flaws, according tothis school of thought, but it would also become repetitious and monotonous. Thisline of thought is reflected in the proposal that Cardinal Lercaro, the president of the

Consilium , submitted to Pope Paul VI on June 20, 1966:

Especially if said aloud, the Roman Canon would become burdensome due to itsvery changelessness and to some elements that are too narrowly local, such as thelists of the saints.... (Bugnini, p.449).

Alternative prayers were proposed, therefore, for the sake of variety.

The argument about variety is not foolproof, however. While it is true that a certainamount of variety helps to retain the interest of the listener, too much variety can be

destructive of one of the basic norms of any ritual action: its repeatability. Thisanthropological principle -- the role of memory -- is played out in actual practice:



19

1 Enrico Mazza, The Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite (New York: PuebloPublishing Company, 1986), p.xxxi.

2 For a later historical survey which mentions this intervention, cf. Notitiae 8 (1972),p.132. Bishop Duschak proposed this idea first outside the Council hall in a press

conference on November 5, 1962. For more information, cf. G. Caprile, Il ConcilioVaticano II, vol 2: Il primo periodo 1962-1963 (Roma 1968), p.114.

3 Josef Jungmann, "Um die Reform des römischen Kanons: eine kritischeStellungnahme zu C. Vagagginis Entwürfen ", Liturgisches Jahrbuch 17 (1967) 2.

4 Hans Küng, "Das Eucharistiegebet: Konzil und Erneuerung der römischen Liturgie ",Wort und Wahrheit 18 (1963) 102-107.

5 Karl Amon, "Gratias Agere: Zur Reform des Messcanons ", Liturgisches Jahrbuch

15 (1965) 79-98.

6 Both texts are conveniently cited in Cipriano Vagaggini, The Canon of the Massand Liturgical Reform (Staten Island, NY: Alba House, 1967), pp.76-83.

7 I am following the story as given by Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy:1948-1975 (Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1990), pp.105-107. Since I rely heavilyon Bugnini's account of this period and quote him frequently, all citations of his workwill henceforth appear in the body of the text.

8 Cf. A. Schilling, Fürbitten und Kanongebete der Holländischen Kirche , Essen 1968.

9 Philippe Béguerie, "La Prière Eucharistique ", Notitiae 20 (1984) 196.

10 Bernard Botte, "Où en est la réforme du Canon de la Messe? ", Les QuestionsLiturgiques et Paroissiales 49 (1968) 138-141.

11 Il canone della messa e la riforma liturgica , Torino-Leumann: Elle di Ci, 1966. Forthe English translation, cf. note 6.

12 For a measured critique of Vagaggini's proposals, cf. J. Jungmann, "Um die

Reform des römischen Kanons: eine kritische Stellungnahme zu C. VagagginisEntwürfen ", Liturgisches Jahrbuch 17 (1967) 1-17. Jungmann's conclusion: "Thus,when the question of a new canon is posed -- and this should not be sought in thefirst place in a totally new composition, or in the (admittedly not impossible) borrowingof a foreign anaphora, but in a way that the timeless and worthy elements of our owntradition are not abandoned but are purified and further developed -- then, for thereasons given, one will not find in Vagaggini's work the desired solution. We cannotfollow the path to a foreign liturgy without carefully examining and fostering our owninheritance. Vagaggini's book -- in spite of everything -- is an important piece of work.It can make this contribution: the clarification of this or that point, and it is also useful

to strengthen courage for a true reform. But as a concrete suggestion, his twoproposals should not even be considered (p.17).



20

13 The Consilium was not satisfied with the Pope's response, but explained thereasons for the proposed changes and asked that "at least the new EucharisticPrayers have the text that it had approved." Permission was granted on October 12,1967. Later, those changes would be introduced into the Roman canon as well. Cf.Bugnini, p.462.

14 There is an error here in Bugnini's text, as the numbers do not add up. The textsays: "Of the 183 Fathers voting 173 said yes, 22 no, and 33 yes with qualifications."That would make 228 in all.

15 Prece eucharistica: Notitiae 4 (1968) 156. For the English text cf. InternationalCommission on English in the Liturgy, Documents on the Liturgy: 1963-1979(Collegeville: The Liturgical Press, 1982), #241, pp.608-609. (Hereafter cited asDOL).

16 Notitiae 4 (1968) 157-160; DOL #242, pp.609-612.

17 "La publication ", Notitiae 4 (1968) 146-148; DOL #243, pp.612-613.

18 "Au cours des derniers mois ," Notitiae 4 (1968) 148-155; DOL #244, pp.614-619.

19 Cf. Bugnini, p.466 for a list of these concessions.

20 For the complete text, see Bugnini, p.474.

21 "Eucharistiae participationem ", Notitiae 9 (1973) 192-201; cf. DOL #248, pp.623-629.

22 DOL, pp.624-625.

23 DOL, p.625.

24 For information about the composition of these texts, cf. Bugnini, pp.478-479.

25 Decree of the Congregation for Divine Worship approving new Eucharistic Prayersfor Masses with Children and Reconciliation, November 1, 1974: "Postquam de

Precibus ", Notitiae 11 (1975) 4-6; DOL, #249, pp.629-630. The Instruction"Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with Children and for Masses of Reconciliation" waspublished the same day: Notitiae 11 (1975) 7-12; DOL #250, pp.630-634.

26 Cf. Bugnini, p.482, n.50. For the official texts, cf. Notitiae 13 (1977) 555-556 (DOL,#251, pp.634-635) and Notitiae 17 (1981) 23. The Latin text of the two reconciliationanaphoras was not published until 1983, on the occasion of the special Jubilee Yearof the Redemption: Notitiae 19 (1983) 270-279.

27 The very next day, July 9, 1975, the Congregation for Divine Worship was

suppressed and Archbishop Bugnini was relieved of his position. Of course, post hoc does not necessarily mean propter hoc .



28 Anton Hänggi - Irmgard Pahl, Prex Eucharistica: Textus e Variis LiturgiisAntiquioribus Selecti, Fribourg: Éditions Universitaires, 21968. The othercollaborators for the volume were Louis Ligier, Joseph Jungmann, Alphonse Raes,Leo Eizenhöfer and Jordi Pinell.

29 Vagaggini, p.90.

30 "Au cours des derniers mois ," Notitiae 4 (1968) 148-155; DOL #244, pp.614-619.The text cited is on p.617.

31 Es ist nicht nur der ökumenische Zug unserer Zeit, der sich der Denkweise

orientalischer Theologie anzunähern bestrebt ist, sondern darüber hinaus -- man

muss nur Vagagginis Darstellung liturgischer Grundbegriffe vor Augen haben -- auchein gutes Stück persönlicher Theologie des Verfassers ." Josef Jungmann, "Um dieReform des römischen Kanons: eine kritische Stellungnahme zu C. Vagagginis

Entwürfen ", Liturgisches Jahrbuch 17 (1967) 11.

32 Bernard Botte reports a commonplace opinion in circulation in 1968 about theRoman canon: "On le comparait à un vieil édifice qui, au cours des âges, s'étaitsurchargé d'ornement superflus qui en avaient détruit l'harmonie. La comparaison estboiteuse." Bernard Botte, "Où en est la réforme du Canon de la Messe? ", LesQuestions Liturgiques et Paroissiales 49 (1968) 139.

33 Vagaggini, p.22.

- See more at: http://www.adoremus.org/9-11-96-FolsomEuch.html#sthash.InEtuWhk.dpuf