Missale Romanum 1962
Per quem haec omnia, Domine, semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis, et praestas nobis. Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti in unitate Spiritus Sancti omnis honor et gloria. Per omnia saecula saeculorum. R. Amen.
Through whom, Lord, Thou dost ever create, hallow, fill with life, bless and bestow upon us all good things. Through Him, and with Him, and in Him, is to Thee, God the Father Almighty, in the union of the Holy Ghost, all honor and glory: world without end. R. Amen. 1
By whom, O Lord, Thou dost always create, sanctify, vivify, bless and bestow upon us all these good things. Through Him, and with Him, and in Him is unto Thee, God the Father Almighty, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honor and glory: world without end. R. Amen. 2
Missale Romanum 1970
Per quem haec omnia, Domine, semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis, et praestas nobis. Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti in unitate Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria per omnia saecula saeculorum. R. Amen.
Through him you give all these gifts. You fill them with life and goodness, you bless them and make them holy. Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever. R. Amen. 3
In the first part of the prayer (Per quem) we confess that the gifts of the sacrifice are made and given by God through Jesus Christ, just as we confess in the Credo: through Him all things were made (per quem omnia facta sunt). We understand from this that not only the bread and wine have their existence through Christ but that being changed to a new mode of existence by virtue of the consecration is done also through Christ. Hence, in the second part (Per ipsum) we acknowledge, since they are the means by which Jesus Christ perpetuates the one Sacrifice of the Cross, that through such the highest honor and glory are given to the Triune God. 4
The phrase "all these good things"5 we should understand to have a twofold meaning. The first concerns the natural goods of bread and wine which for the purpose of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, God, through Christ and in the Holy Spirit creates, sanctifies and vivifies. Secondly, we are to understand the supernatural goods of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ which He bestows upon us in Holy Communion and as a sacrificial gift, which in turn we must and should offer to Him. 6 Fr. Forteque relates that some have thought that the beginning phrase concerning the blessings of other objects is a remnant of what once was originally a Logos-Epiklesis, like that found in the Anaphora of St. Serapion. Others deny that there was ever a Logos Invocation at Rome. The Leonine and Gelasian Sacramentary have similar blessings, “Benedic Domine et has tuas creaturas (vel fruges).” 7
"A still richer and more profound meaning of the above words may be discovered, if we regard the bread and wine, which lie on the altar according to visible appearances, as the representatives of all the other products of nature...such a view becomes natural considering the custom formerly...of performing at this point all kinds of blessings." 8 "At certain times and on special feasts there was a blessing immediately before this prayer by means of a specially inserted formula for various objects, chiefly articles of food, for example, water, milk, honey, grapes, beans, fruit. Even now the bishop, according to a strict ordinance, has annually on Holy Thursday at this place in the Canon to bless the holy oil for the sick. The intimate relation of such blessings with the sacrificial celebration places before our eyes the truth, that every blessing, every grace and consecration (in a certain sense) proceeds from the Eucharistic Sacrifice." 9
In the rearranging that took place in the Roman Canon either shortly before or during the reign of Pope Gelasius I, these prayers came to understood as refering to those things which received blessings, and then later were understood with regards to the Eucharistic Gifts themselves. Later again, with the rearrangement of the Pater Noster and the Pax, the elevation of the gifts was pushed back to coincide with the Per ipsum. In almost all the other rites this elevation coincides with the fraction (Sancta Sanctis) but in the Roman Rite the fraction is separated from the Canon by the Pater Noster, Libera Nos, and Pax. Nevertheless, the Per ipsum accords splendidly with the action of the elevation. The elevation was displaced in importance by the elevation of the sacred species at the words of consecration that began in the Middle Ages. 10
The elevation at this point is not primarily for the showing of the gifts to the people for adoration, though certainly adoration at this point is laudable. This gesture is an oblation gesture, for which reason the celebrant should raise the paten and the chalice but not the host upright as if to show it to the people. 11 It seems then, although Fr. Fortesque and others believe that this elevation comes as a pushing back of the Sancta Sanctis 12 that is found almost invariably in other rites, it is more probable that the Ecce Agnus Dei displaced the formula of the Sancta Sanctis, if ever it was found at Rome at all. In any case considering the formula of spoken words and the action (in the 1962 Missal the paten and chalice are not raised above the head of the celebrant as they are individually at the consecration) the elevation at the Per ipsum, as it now stands, cannot be considered convergent with the Sancta Sanctis of the other Rites. My reason for viewing the case as I have is that there is no other oblation or sacrifical gesture of offering left at the Canon. The elevation at the consecration was a late addition, the final elevation being by far more ancient. There is no oblation gesture during the Unde et memores, Supra quae or Supplices te rogamus which in truth are the words with which the Church makes her offering. This suggests to me then that the comparisons between the elevation at the Sancta Sanctis of other rites and the one here at the Per ispum are both unnecessary and incorrect.
Per quem haec omnia, Domine, semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis, et praestas nobis. Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti in unitate Spiritus Sancti omnis honor et gloria. Per omnia saecula saeculorum. R. Amen.
Through whom, Lord, Thou dost ever create, hallow, fill with life, bless and bestow upon us all good things. Through Him, and with Him, and in Him, is to Thee, God the Father Almighty, in the union of the Holy Ghost, all honor and glory: world without end. R. Amen. 1
By whom, O Lord, Thou dost always create, sanctify, vivify, bless and bestow upon us all these good things. Through Him, and with Him, and in Him is unto Thee, God the Father Almighty, in the unity of the Holy Ghost, all honor and glory: world without end. R. Amen. 2
Missale Romanum 1970
Per quem haec omnia, Domine, semper bona creas, sanctificas, vivificas, benedicis, et praestas nobis. Per ipsum, et cum ipso, et in ipso est tibi Deo Patri omnipotenti in unitate Spiritus Sancti, omnis honor et gloria per omnia saecula saeculorum. R. Amen.
Through him you give all these gifts. You fill them with life and goodness, you bless them and make them holy. Through him, with him, in him, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all glory and honor is yours, almighty Father, for ever and ever. R. Amen. 3
In the first part of the prayer (Per quem) we confess that the gifts of the sacrifice are made and given by God through Jesus Christ, just as we confess in the Credo: through Him all things were made (per quem omnia facta sunt). We understand from this that not only the bread and wine have their existence through Christ but that being changed to a new mode of existence by virtue of the consecration is done also through Christ. Hence, in the second part (Per ipsum) we acknowledge, since they are the means by which Jesus Christ perpetuates the one Sacrifice of the Cross, that through such the highest honor and glory are given to the Triune God. 4
The phrase "all these good things"5 we should understand to have a twofold meaning. The first concerns the natural goods of bread and wine which for the purpose of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, God, through Christ and in the Holy Spirit creates, sanctifies and vivifies. Secondly, we are to understand the supernatural goods of the Body and Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ which He bestows upon us in Holy Communion and as a sacrificial gift, which in turn we must and should offer to Him. 6 Fr. Forteque relates that some have thought that the beginning phrase concerning the blessings of other objects is a remnant of what once was originally a Logos-Epiklesis, like that found in the Anaphora of St. Serapion. Others deny that there was ever a Logos Invocation at Rome. The Leonine and Gelasian Sacramentary have similar blessings, “Benedic Domine et has tuas creaturas (vel fruges).” 7
"A still richer and more profound meaning of the above words may be discovered, if we regard the bread and wine, which lie on the altar according to visible appearances, as the representatives of all the other products of nature...such a view becomes natural considering the custom formerly...of performing at this point all kinds of blessings." 8 "At certain times and on special feasts there was a blessing immediately before this prayer by means of a specially inserted formula for various objects, chiefly articles of food, for example, water, milk, honey, grapes, beans, fruit. Even now the bishop, according to a strict ordinance, has annually on Holy Thursday at this place in the Canon to bless the holy oil for the sick. The intimate relation of such blessings with the sacrificial celebration places before our eyes the truth, that every blessing, every grace and consecration (in a certain sense) proceeds from the Eucharistic Sacrifice." 9
In the rearranging that took place in the Roman Canon either shortly before or during the reign of Pope Gelasius I, these prayers came to understood as refering to those things which received blessings, and then later were understood with regards to the Eucharistic Gifts themselves. Later again, with the rearrangement of the Pater Noster and the Pax, the elevation of the gifts was pushed back to coincide with the Per ipsum. In almost all the other rites this elevation coincides with the fraction (Sancta Sanctis) but in the Roman Rite the fraction is separated from the Canon by the Pater Noster, Libera Nos, and Pax. Nevertheless, the Per ipsum accords splendidly with the action of the elevation. The elevation was displaced in importance by the elevation of the sacred species at the words of consecration that began in the Middle Ages. 10
The elevation at this point is not primarily for the showing of the gifts to the people for adoration, though certainly adoration at this point is laudable. This gesture is an oblation gesture, for which reason the celebrant should raise the paten and the chalice but not the host upright as if to show it to the people. 11 It seems then, although Fr. Fortesque and others believe that this elevation comes as a pushing back of the Sancta Sanctis 12 that is found almost invariably in other rites, it is more probable that the Ecce Agnus Dei displaced the formula of the Sancta Sanctis, if ever it was found at Rome at all. In any case considering the formula of spoken words and the action (in the 1962 Missal the paten and chalice are not raised above the head of the celebrant as they are individually at the consecration) the elevation at the Per ipsum, as it now stands, cannot be considered convergent with the Sancta Sanctis of the other Rites. My reason for viewing the case as I have is that there is no other oblation or sacrifical gesture of offering left at the Canon. The elevation at the consecration was a late addition, the final elevation being by far more ancient. There is no oblation gesture during the Unde et memores, Supra quae or Supplices te rogamus which in truth are the words with which the Church makes her offering. This suggests to me then that the comparisons between the elevation at the Sancta Sanctis of other rites and the one here at the Per ispum are both unnecessary and incorrect.
1 My Sunday Missal, Confraternity of the Precious Blood, Msgr. Joseph F. Stedman, 1962, p. 56.
2 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; Dogmatically, Liturgically and Ascetically Explained, Rev Dr. Nicholas Gihr, 6th edition, B. Herder Book Co, 1924, p. 688.
3 Daily Roman Missal, Rev. James Socias, Midwest Theological Forum, 2003, pp. 762-63.
4 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Rev. Dr. Gihr, p. 689.
5or all these gifts (ICEL)
6 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Rev. Dr. Gihr, p. 689.
7 The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy, Rev. Dr. Adrian Fortescue, Loreto Publications, 2003: original printing 1912, pp. 358-59.
8 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Rev. Dr. Gihr, p. 691.
9 The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, Rev. Dr. Gihr, pp. 691-92.
10 The Mass: A Study of the Roman Liturgy, Rev. Dr. Adrian Fortescue, Loreto Publications, 2003: original printing 1912, pp. 358-59.
11 Ceremonies of the Modern Roman Rite, Rev. Msgr. Peter J. Elliot, Ignatius Press, 1995, p. 117, no. 318.
12 Liturgy, Archbishop J. Raya, Baron Jose De Vinck, Alleluia Press, 2001, p. 73. "Holy things for the holy."
No comments:
Post a Comment