Te Igitur, Clementissime Pater

The Eucharistic Prayer or in Latin Prex Eucharistica forms the high point of the Mass.  Currently, there are many options included in the 2002 Missale Romanum, 13 if you count the 3 awful Eucharistic Prayers for Children, which have been suppressed by the Vatican (Fr. Z had an interesting disgussion about this years ago).  Now, obviously the multiplicity of the Eucharistic Prayers is intended to provide the priest with options, depending on pastoral need.  I can concede there are times where even I'm greatful that Eucharistic Prayer II is used instead of any of the others, but I will also admit that this is quite possibly one area where the Ordinary Form could use a minor tweaking. 

Back to my theme of the GIRM, Chapter V states the rules concerning the selection of Eucharistic Prayer for Mass.  Based on these norms, Eucharistic Prayer I (the Roman Canon or Canon Missae in the Extraordinary Form) is essentially the preferred prayer that can always be used. This is the original prayer used in the Extraordinary Form, and its beauty lies in its antiquity and lack of "structure" found in the newer prayers.  Can you tell it's my favorite?  Eucharistic Prayer II, based on the Anaphora of the Apostolic Traditions (which may or may not have ever actually been used in Rome) is essentially meant for the weekdays (and is probably my choice for "Masses with children").  Eucharistic Prayer III is quite beautiful, and is basically an alternative to the Roman Canon.  Finally, Eucharistic Prayer IV can ONLY be used on days lacking a proper preface (which aren't all too many, and is a slight shame because this prayer is also spectacular).  These are the core 4 found in the Missal.  The Reconciliation and Special Needs prayers are governed by similar rules.  In the current ICEL translations, the Roman Canon always starts "We come to you Father...", Eucharistic Prayer II as "Lord, you are holy indeed, the fountain of all holiness", and Eucharistic Prayer III as "Father, you are holy indeed, and all creation rightly gives you praise". 

So what's the problem?  I'm going to limit myself to Prayers I-III since IV has very strict rules.  Eucharistic Prayer II is generally abused since it is short.  Along with the Prayers for Children, many of us hear this one too often on Sundays, for which it is not well suited.  With these rules, we should really hear the Roman Canon much more often, and occasionally Eucharistic Prayer III. 
Now what is my proposal for a reform of the reform here?  I actually like prayers I-IV.  All the others, I say get rid of.  Do we really need that much variety?  Beef up the rubrics and educate the laity so that they know what's right and what's wrong.  Why go through all of this?  Sure, you still get the essential Catholic theology out of Prayer II, but the Roman Canon is the prayer that nurtured many of the saints, and uses a level of poetry unmatched by the other 3.  Eucharistic Prayer III is a good alternative, as it makes explicit reference to the sacrificial victim (Hostia).  Finally, by limiting the use of these alternatives, we can regain a sense of uniformity that has gone slightly by the wayside in the past 40 years.

In the Name of the Creator, the Redeemer, and the Sanctifier

In the area that I live in, it isn't uncommon to hear the priest attempt to "neuter" the texts of the Mass by removing explicit references to the Father as a patriarch.  For example, many of the prayers such as the Collectus (opening prayer) generally begin by invoking God the Father, and this is explicitly referenced in the GIRM in Chapter II, part III.  Depending on where the Son is invoked, the GIRM actually gives three different types of endings that these prayers can take.

Now, to recap, as Christians, we believe that God is three persons in one God.  This is a dogma and a mystery.  We actually pray this every Sunday in the Nicene Creed, or even when we say grace before meals by invoking the Sign of the Cross.  As a mystery, we may never fully understand what this means, or how it is possible.  But even in the Gospel from the Fifth Sunday of Easter, we see that the Apostle Philip had trouble with this concept too, asking the Son to show him the Father.  So don't feel too badly if you don't understand it either.

This all comes back to my gripe about neutering the prayers, especially the collects that are usually prayed to the Father, through the Son, in union with the Holy Spirit.  Oftentimes, these are neutered into "Almighty God" or I even recently heard "Creator God", then the prayer, and then "through our Lord Jesus Christ, your Son, who lives and reigns with you in the unity of the Holy Spirit, one God forever and ever."  Do you see what's wrong here?

If the Son and the Holy Spirit are God, then all three persons are the Creator, not simply the Father.  Yet if the Father alone is the Creator, then what does that make the Son and the Holy Spirit?  Does that mean that the Son and the Holy Spirit did not create man?  You see how that's a loaded question?  If the Son only redeems and He didn't create, then does that even still make Him God?  And if He's not God, then what is He?  Arianism attempted to give varying definitions of the Son, sometimes even considering Him a separate entity.  So, if He didn't create us, if He's a separate entity, or if He's simply not involved until the New Testament, why should He bother redeeming us?  If the answer is simply "because His Father told Him so," then I don't buy it.  I'm not going to give my life for something that I don't have any reason to be interested in other than that my Dad told me to.

All of this goes easily back to the idea of Lex Orandi, Lex Credendi, which means essentially that we pray what we believe.  Jesus gave His life because He created us and cared to redeem His creations.  He is the Word, or Logos, and I can't think of a single time in the Old Testament that God didn't communicate to man without words.  So, if we believe in all of this, we have to pray it.  The prayers of the Mass say it without any confusion, but if we alter those words and change the prayer, then what does that say about our belief?

The GIRM: Not Just for Priests!

Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani; a mouthful of Latin, known in English generally as the "General Instruction of the Roman Missal."  In a nutshell, it's that beginning section of the Roman Missal that outlines how Mass is supposed to be said, not just on Sundays, but all days of the week.  In a generalization I can only back up with personal experience, it's the document that quite a few parishes seem to either neglect altogether, or may not even be aware exists.  Here, you'll find the rules that govern the choice of music in the Mass, who reads what and when, the choice of Eucharistic Prayer (yes, there are rules for that), and even what form Mass takes when the deacon is present.  Keep in mind that this discussion is restricted to the Mass of Pope Paul VI, the Novus Ordo, the Ordinary Form, or whatever you'd like to call it.

Why even bring up the GIRM now?  It's an easy read, and to tell you the truth, it's quite possibly one of those documents that we need to take a second look at now more than ever.  This Advent, 2011, those of us in the English-speaking world will be required to learn a new Mass translation.  This is GOOD NEWS!!!  It means that anyone with a slight knowledge of Latin, Italian, Spanish, or any Romance Language won't have to strain themselves trying to figure out how we arrived at the English translations we have now (for example, where did the other two mea culpa's go?).  What I suggest is simple: learn the GIRM also.  I hope to make two points for doing so...NOW.

1.  The Mass is universal.  The Mass of the Roman Rite, no matter what form, is a universal expression of    the Latin Church.  It's a unifying agent.  It's like the Force or something!  The Mass is where we offer to the Father the Body and Blood of the Son for our salvation and the salvation of all people living and dead.  And the same goes for all forms of the Eucharistic Liturgy, Byzantine, Ambrosian, Mozarabic, Alexandrian, Antiochene, etc.  In fact, this argument goes with anyone practicing these rites too.  If we want to show our unity as Christians, it is important to show a uniformity in our worship, meaning that it is not up to individual parishes to alter the Liturgy according to their individual whims.  Plus, made-up on the spot rituals are often times long and dull.

2.  The Mass is of the people.  The Mass has 2000+ years of history behind it.  It unites us across time and space.  The Mass is something that has taken shape due to popular devotions.  The word Mass itself was given to the Roman Liturgy by the people, from the dismissal formula: Ite, Missa est.  The names of Masses (yes Masses have names) were also given by the people: Laetare and Gaudete for example.  It is not something that one group, out of unity with the rest of mankind can simply change at will.

So, how do these two points apply?  Well, by studying and learning the GIRM, I am suggesting that we can understand what the legitimate choices are at the Mass, what the appropriate forms of the various parts of the Mass are, and avoid banality and idiocy.  I'll be beating this dead horse many more times to come.  For now, I think I'll leave things here for the night.