We complete today the publication of Ignacio Gallardo Tampe’s guest article on the history of the so-called Anaphora of Hippolytus and its relationship to the Second Eucharistic Prayer. Part one was published last Wednesday, and part two on Friday.
Observations on Liturgical Practice
First, the Missale Romanum, reformed after the Second Vatican Council, has four core Eucharistic prayers, to which are added those contained in its appendix, some of which are recognized to be quite regrettable, such as the Eucharistic prayers for children’s Masses.
Second, the use of these is regulated poorly in Article 365 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which says that “the choice” between them is merely “guided” by the following norms.
Article 365 letter a) of the GIRM states that “Eucharistic Prayer I, or the Roman Canon, which may always be used, […]; likewise it is especially suited for use on Sundays, unless for pastoral reasons Eucharistic Prayer III is preferred.”
 |
| The Sanctus and the beginning of the Canon in the Gellone Sacramentary, one of the oldest of the Roman Rite, ca. 780 AD. |
In turn, letter c) states that “Eucharistic Prayer III may be said with any Preface. Its use should be preferred on Sundays and festive days.”
Letter d) concludes by stating “Eucharistic Prayer IV has an invariable Preface and gives a fuller summary of salvation history. It may be used when a Mass has no Preface of its own and on Sundays in Ordinary Time.”
The problem with this norm is that it merely makes suggestions (“The choice between the Eucharistic Prayers […] is suitably guided by the following norms”) instead of establishing a clear rule, rendering it useless as such; moreover, this is evident in the fact that many priests use Eucharistic Prayer II almost exclusively, as it is the shortest and takes the least time, seemingly overlooking the fact that the Eucharistic Prayer is precisely the most important part of the Mass, for it is here that the transubstantiation of the elements takes place, transforming the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.
This is disconcerting, considering that the GIRM recommends Eucharistic Prayers I and III, and, with certain limitations, IV, for Sundays and other major days, yet Eucharistic Prayer II, which is recommended for weekdays, is used as the standard.
This must change; it should be clearly established that Eucharistic Prayer I is the one to be recommended. Let us recall the Council of Trent’s description of it as the perfect prayer, free from error: “If any one saith, that the Canon of the Mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.” [1]
Furthermore, it should be established that Eucharistic Prayer II may only be used on weekdays, and its use on Sundays or solemnities should be definitively prohibited. It would also be advisable to prohibit bishops from using it at any Mass with a congregation, even on weekdays, in order to give their Masses a more “pontifical” character, thereby restoring the distinctions that existed between priests and bishops prior to the reform. [2]
The restrictions on Eucharistic Prayers III and IV should be maintained and made stricter.
It is important to regulate this aspect, for never in the history of the Roman Rite has there been more than one Eucharistic Prayer; this anomaly has led to the heritage of the Western Church (the Roman Canon) being replaced by an imitation of a Eucharistic Prayer that not only originates from the East, but (as mentioned earlier) was likely never used in actual practice.
For their part, the Churches of the Eastern rites, which do have the custom of using multiple Eucharistic prayers, do not leave the choice to the discretion of their priests; in all of them, it is expressly regulated. Let us look at some examples, though this list is not exhaustive of all rites:
First, the Churches of the Greek (or “Byzantine”) rite routinely use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. This liturgy is said every Sunday and weekday of the year, unless it is expressly stipulated that another must be used, the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, which is said only ten times throughout the year: on the five Sundays of Great Lent, Holy Thursday, Holy Saturday, on the vigils of Christmas and Theophany (January 6), and the feast of St. Basil (January 1). [3]
 |
| The beginning of the liturgy of St John Chrysostom in a Byzantine euchologion, printed in Venice in 1602. |
For their part, the Copts use three liturgies: that of St. Basil the Great, that of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and that of St. Cyril I of Alexandria. According to this rite, the choice is not free either; the liturgy of St. Basil is the general rule and is used for most of the year, while that of St. Gregory is used at midnight on Christmas, Theophany, and Easter. This liturgy is characterized by being deeply Christ-centered, which is why it is reserved for the so-called “feasts of the Lord.” Finally, the Liturgy of St. Cyril, the longest of the three, is reserved exclusively for Great Lent.
The Churches of the East Syriac rite use three anaphoras: the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which is said to date back to the third century, making it the oldest anaphora still in use [4], the Anaphora of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and finally that of Nestorius. According to this rite, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is the general rule and is used unless it is specified that another is to replace it; as for the Anaphora of Theodore of Mopsuestia, it is used from the first Sunday of the season of the Annunciation (equivalent to Advent) through Palm Sunday; finally, Nestorius’ anaphora is used five days a year: on Epiphany, the feast of St. John the Baptist, the Commemoration of the Greek Fathers, the Wednesday of the Fast of the Ninevites, and on Holy Thursday.
Given the above, it follows that the Church, in its current liturgical maturity [5], establishes strict criteria for determining which Eucharistic prayer is to be used. The freedom of the modern Roman rite is an anomaly in comparison to the Eastern rites.
But, on the other hand, as mentioned earlier, the very existence of multiple Eucharistic Prayers in the Roman Rite is also an anomaly, since we know that this rite has always had only one, the famous Roman Canon, which, due to its exclusivity, came to be simply called the Canon Missæ (the Canon of the Mass) in the liturgical books prior to the post-conciliar reform.
This exclusivity does not indicate “liturgical poverty” in comparison to the Eastern rites, but rather a legitimate difference in them, for, as is well known, the Roman Rite has always been characterized by its simplicity compared to the Eastern rites or the now defunct Gallican rites of the West; therefore, introducing multiple Eucharistic prayers into it is nothing more than a corruption of the rite. [6]
Furthermore, what is the problem with having a single Eucharistic prayer? There are rites other than the Roman one that also have a single anaphora; in the East, for example, we find the Armenian rite, which uses only the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory the Illuminator. [7] For their part, other Western rites, the Ambrosian Rite, native to Milan, and the nearly extinct Visigothic Rite (also known as Mozarabic or Hispanic Rite) [8], native to present-day Spain, also effectively use only a single Eucharistic prayer.
Without going into too much detail, the Ambrosian Rite uses the Roman Canon with slight modifications. The Visigothic rite uses an anaphora in which some parts vary depending on the day of the year, but maintains the same structure, as follows: the illatio, equivalent to the Roman preface, which is variable; the Sanctus, which is invariable; the post-Sanctus, which is variable; the pridie, which is invariable; and the post-pridie, which is variable. These variable parts are not at the priest’s discretion, as the Missal [9] itself dictates which text must be used for each day of the year.
 |
| The fixed part of the canon in a Mozarabic Missal printed in 1804. |
Both Eastern and Western rites establish imperative norms for the use of the anaphora: in the case of the Eastern rites, through strict adherence to the calendar and the liturgical season; and in the case of the Western rites (as well as the Armenian rite, which, despite being Eastern, follows the same logic as the Western rites), through a fixed anaphora, which is invariable in some cases, such as in the Roman or Ambrosian rites, and variable in others, such as in the Visigothic rite. In any case, the Eucharistic prayer consists of a standardized element that takes precedence over individual discretion.
The laxity of Article 365 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, by limiting itself to offering suggestions rather than prescriptions, has led to an undeniable impoverishment of contemporary practice, allowing the abhorrent and widespread practice of using Eucharistic Prayer II as the daily and Sunday standard to the detriment of the others which possess greater merit.
Consequently, a revision of the current liturgical legislation, in the manner already indicated, is urgently needed. The guidelines of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal must be transformed from mere recommendations into binding norms. [11]
Only through restrictive regulation, analogous to that wisely preserved by the Eastern Churches, will the Roman Rite be able to escape the disorder and mediocrity that currently corrode it.
Finally, let us recall that Eucharistic Prayer II is not the Anaphora of Hippolytus, as has been demonstrated; therefore, defending it by virtue of its supposed antiquity is nonsensical. Furthermore, when compared with the other three Eucharistic Prayers of the Missal, it is theologically poor and sparse, little more than an “express” consecration.
Let us not forget that one of its authors, Louis Bouyer, referred to it as a “distorted specimen” containing “incredible weaknesses”, and stated the necessity of a “revision that sooner or later will be inevitable.” [12] Therefore, considering that even one of its creators deemed it in need of reform, the Church would do well to limit its use or even abrogate it. [13]
It could be said that the lesson here is not to undertake liturgical reforms based on incomplete archaeological evidence, for it may happen, as in this case, that in the future it is proven that everything, absolutely everything, was a falsehood. And to think that Duchesne, at the beginning of the twentieth century, asserted with total certainty that “There is nothing to hinder us from assigning it to the time of Hippolytus himself.” [14]
NOTES
[1] Council of Trent, XXII Session, Canon VI.
[2] By this we obviously mean to the distinctions made by the traditional Roman rite between Missa lecta, cantata, solemnis and pontificalis. Today many bishops celebrate Mass in an almost identical manner to priests; in the traditional Roman rite even the Missa lecta (Low Mass) of the bishop has remarkable differences from that of the priest. For instance, the bishop puts on the maniple only after the acolytes have finished praying the Confiteor, whereas the priest is already wearing it before leaving the sacristy. In the new rites, generally, the bishops often do not even bother to wear the dalmatic under the chasuble on solemnities, even though article 56 of the Ceremonial of Bishops clearly stipulates it, saying: “... it is appropriate that, in solemn celebrations, according to ancient custom, the dalmatic be worn beneath the chasuble”.
[3] For obvious reasons, we make no mention of the Divine Liturgy of the Presentified Gifts, as it does not contain an anaphora; in any case, it may only be used on weekdays during Great Lent and the first three days of Holy Week, and not whenever the priest deems it appropriate.
[4] Michael Uwe Lang, The Roman Mass: From Early Christian Origins to Tridentine Reform. (Cambridge University Press, 29 September 2022), Chapter 3, Kindle.
[5] Let us recall that, as centuries pass, rites become solidified; therefore, matters that were once not well regulated are now firmly established.
[6] It would be the inverse of the “Latinisation” that Eastern Christians so heavily despise.
[7] It is interesting to note that the Armenian rite in ancient times had ten anaphoras, but the rite evolved to favour one exclusively over the others; this has also been seen in other rites, albeit to a lesser extent, for example, the Greeks have not used the Divine Liturgy of St. James for centuries.
[8] Today, it survives only in the so-called Mozarabic chapel of the Cathedral of Toledo, thanks to the efforts of Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros.
[9] Missale omnium Offerentium.
[10] Even in the early centuries, when not all prayers were written down and were instead transmitted orally, the priest was not permitted to choose the prayers freely; rather, if he chose to vary them, a practice that was permitted in those times, the priest was required to follow a certain structure and content. See footnote No. 30.
[11] By this we mean that the norm becomes a «norma imperativa propiamente tal», an imperative norm in the strict sense, that is, one that simply commands something.
[12] See Louis Bouyer, Memoirs, 125.
[13] Just as with the Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with children, which must undoubtedly be abolished.
[14] Louis Duchesne, Christian Worship: Its origin and evolution, a study of the Latin Liturgy up to the time of Charlemagne, trad. M. L. McClure (Londres: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1910), 524.
