Eucharistic Prayers II, III, and IV


#1

What was the exact year(s) that Eucharistic Prayers II, III, and IV made a part of the Roman Catholic Mass?


#2

They were promulgated by Pope S.D. Paul VI in May, 1968.


#3

ewtn.com/expert/answers/eucharistic_prayers.htm
ewtn.com/library/curia/cdwmissa.htm


#4

What was involved to promulgate Eucharistic Prayers II, III, and IV? What does the S.D. stand for in Pope S.D. Paul VI?


#5

Means Servant of God. First step to canonization.


#6

Eucharistic Prayer II is largely based off of the already-existing anaphora of Hippolytus, so technically, it’s the oldest. :stuck_out_tongue:


#7

It was a Papal decree. Essentially it altered the text of the Roman Missal even though the new edition hadn’t yet been promulgation in its entirety. Pope Francis did the same thing when he added St. Joseph’s names to the Eucharistic Prayers.

S.D. is Servus Dei, Servant of God.

This is a myth. Bugnini cited the Canon of Hippolytus as the precedent when he presented EP2 to Pope Paul, though in reality they don’t have that much in common. Here’s a side-by-side comparison: vancouvervtms.com/w/TradLatinMasses/Commentary/Eucharistic%20Prayer%20II%20%26%20Hippolytus.htm

Moreover, recent (i.e. since the 1960s) scholarship has demonstrated that the prayer of Hippolytus probably was never actually used in the liturgy, it was his hypothetical meandering to support his claim to the Papacy (Hippolytus, though canonized, was also the first antipope in history).


#8

The new EPs were the final revision made to the former Roman Missal in the spring of 1968, before the new Roman Missal was promulgated in 1969.


#9

Actually, the comparison shows that they are extremely close. The prayer of Hippolytus has a lot richer language, but if you look at the basic structure, it’s the same, and most of the language in Prayer II is in Hippolytus.

Moreover, recent (i.e. since the 1960s) scholarship has demonstrated that the prayer of Hippolytus probably was never actually used in the liturgy, it was his hypothetical meandering to support his claim to the Papacy (Hippolytus, though canonized, was also the first antipope in history).

What is this scholarship, and how would you demonstrate a negative about liturgical practices so long ago?

The one I’d like to see used a lot more is Prayer IV. By far the best and richest, theologically, of the four.

Edwin


#10

I’m not seeing it. :shrug:

You’re arguing a heavy load, though, since the guy who wrote EP2 (Annibale Bugnini) pretty much admitted that EP2 was only tangentially related to the Canon of Hippolytus:

‘The aim was to produce an anaphora that is short and very simple in its ideas. The anaphora of Hippolytus was therefore taken as a model. But, although many thoughts and expressions are derived from Hippolytus, Eucharistic Prayer II is not, as it were, a new edition of his prayer. It was not possible to retain the structure of his anaphora because it does not have a Sanctus or a consecratory epiclesis before the account of institution or a commemoration of the saints or intercessions. All these developed after Hippolytus and could not now be omitted in a Roman anaphora. In addition, various ideas and expressions in the anaphora of Hippolytus are archaic or difficult to understand and could not be taken over into a contemporary anaphora.’

Source: lmschairman.org/2012/06/bugnini-on-anaphora-of-hippolytus.html

What is this scholarship, and how would you demonstrate a negative about liturgical practices so long ago?

It’s a combination of reasons. This blog talks about it: the-hermeneutic-of-continuity.blogspot.com/2007/10/hippolytus-and-eucharistic-prayer-ii.html

The one I’d like to see used a lot more is Prayer IV. By far the best and richest, theologically, of the four.

IIRC it can only be used in Sundays of Ordinary Time when the day has no fixed preface, which limits its usage to only about 30 days a year.

Nevertheless, I would argue that EP1 is the best and most theologically rich of the four. Plus it’s the oldest by a great margin; most of it comes from the 3rd and 4th centuries and it reached its final form in the 6th*, whereas the other three in the Missal were composed in the 1960s.

*Not counting the addition of St. Joseph’s name by Pope Bl. John XXIII.


#11

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.