The time has come to have a look at the very heart of the Sacrifice of the Mass, the Canon or, as it is more commonly known since the post-Conciliar reform, the Eucharistic Prayer (though this is an ancient, not a new name for it). It is of course the central part of the three parts of the Mass which together form the Eucharist proper, the Offertory, the Eucharistic Prayer and the Communion. The rule that it is the exclusive prerogative of the celebrant to say it has been invariable from the earliest times; in fact in ancient documents it is often referred to simply as “Prex”, the Prayer par excellence.
The Old Roman Rite contains only one Eucharistic Prayer, the so-called Roman Canon, but in the first few centuries there were many more; indeed at the very beginning of the Church’s history it was not unknown for the celebrant to indulge in a certain amount of extemporisation, subject of course to the requirements of orthodoxy. The Roman Canon seems to have been composed at about the time of the changeover from a Greek to a Latin liturgy, shortly after 360 AD. The fact that its first appearance is in the De Sacramentis of St. Ambrose has led some scholars to believe that it originated in Milan, from where it made its way to Rome, but there is no proof of this and it could just as easily have happened the other way round. However that may be, it soon became the only Eucharistic Prayer used in the West.
The Roman Canon is rather long, and we need therefore to break it up into sections and look at each of them in turn. It is important, however, to remember that it remains one prayer, not a series of prayers. This was sometimes forgotten in the past, with the result that the words “Per Christum Dóminum nostrum” were added at certain points. These additions were removed in the new missal of Paul VI, which otherwise made few changes to the Canon. This was at the personal insistence of the Pope, who refused to let the reformers hack it about in the way that some of them wanted. He told them that if they didn’t like the Roman Canon they had better compose some alternative Eucharistic Prayers instead, which is what they finished up doing.
There are a number of elements which are found in all Eucharistic Prayers, both East and West. First of all there is the dialogue between priest and people, following the Prayer over the Offerings (this is its Roman name; the alternative, Secret Prayer, is Gallican in origin). Then comes the Preface, in which God is thanked for the miracles of creation and redemption, and which varies with the season of the Church’s year or the feast day. The Sanctus is not original to the Eucharistic prayer but was inserted after the Preface in the Roman Rite around the year 500, followed by a brief passage called the Post-Sanctus which forms a link with the next element, the Epiklesis (or more strictly the Consecration Epiklesis), in which the power of God is invoked to transform the bread and wine on the altar into the Body and Blood of Christ (in the Eastern rites the invocation is specifically to the Holy Spirit, and this has now been imported into the Roman Rite in the alternative Eucharistic Prayers contained in the new missal). The narrative of Christ’s institution of the Holy Eucharist, which incorporates the Words of Consecration, follows. His command to “do this in memory of Me” is then observed in the Anamnesis, in which His Passion, Resurrection and Ascension are recalled. This is usually followed by a petition (sometimes called the Communion Epiklesis) that those present will obtain the spiritual benefits of the communion which they are about to make. The Prayer ends with a doxology in praise of the Blessed Trinity, and final “Amen”, which was originally said by all the people present, but later came to be said by the server on their behalf. St. Augustine tells us that the Christians of Hippo in the fourth century said this “Amen” so loudly that the noise they made shook all the pagan temples to their foundations!
The Roman Canon contains all these elements, although (in common with other Eucharistic Prayers) it has been expanded to contain petitions for the Church and for Christians, both living and dead, as well as a commemoration of the saints (actually two such commemorations in the case of the Roman Canon). It was also extensively revised and partly rewritten by St. Gregory the Great. What I want to do is to consider first those elements which are original to the Canon, and then the later elements, rather than simply start at the beginning and go through to the end.
The Epiklesis
Because of the additions made to the Canon over the course of time, this now starts quite a long way after the Sanctus. It is the section beginning “Quam oblatiónem tu Deus...”. The celebrant asks God to bless and approve the offering so that it may become the Body and Blood of Christ. The Latin text is not too difficult. In the previous section the priest has referred to the offering (“Hanc ígitur oblatiónem...”), and the relative pronoun “Quam “ picks up this reference and links it to what follows. “Quáesumus” is the main verb (“we ask”), and what we ask is that God would be pleased to make (“fácere dignéris”) the offering blessed, approved, ratified, worthy and acceptable (“benedíctam, adscríptam, ratam, rationábilem acceptábilemque”), so that it may become (“ut fiat”) for us (“nobis”) the Body and Blood of His most beloved Son our Lord Jesus Christ. “Oblatiónem”, being the object of “fácere”, is of course in the accusative case and so naturally are all the adjectives which qualify it (you will remember that the accusative singular of nouns and adjectives almost always ends in “m”). We have already come across, in the Preface, the use of the suffix “-que” to mean “and” when added to the last noun or adjective in a series. A new point to note, however, is that the superlative (“most beloved”) is usually formed in Latin by adding “-íssimus” to the adjective, so “diléctus” becomes “dilectíssimus” (in the genitive case here, of course).
The Institution Narrative and Words of Consecration
These should be relatively easy to follow, with the help of the vocabulary, since the word order is very similar to that of English. Again you will note the use of the suffix “-que” (I said it was common in Latin!) in “benedíxit, fregit deditque” (“He blessed, broke and gave”), and there is yet another Latin word for “and”, in the phrase “in sanctas ac venerábiles manus suas”, which we have not met with before. Another point to note in this phrase that although Latin has several different words for “and” (“et”, “atque”, “ac” and “-que”) it hasn’t got one at all for “into”, but simply uses “in” with the accusative instead of the ablative case. You will also remember that “enim”, meaning “for” never comes first in a sentence, so we have “Hoc est enim Corpus meum”, not “Enim hoc est Corpus meum”. “Postquam cenátum est” is a peculiar impersonal way of saying “after they had finished supper” (literally, “when it had been supped”). You won’t meet it very often, though, because it is not common (except perhaps in the phrase “factum est”). The “et” in “accípiens et hunc praeclárum cálicem” means “also”.
There is one new grammatical construction which needs briefly explaining (I will go into it in more detail when we come to look at the grammar of the Latin verb). It is “Elevátis óculis in caelum”. This is normally translated as “having lifted up His eyes to heaven” (the word “His” is omitted in the Latin since it is clear whose eyes are meant – Latin doesn’t usually waste words when they are not necessary to the sense!). Literally however it means “His eyes having been lifted up to heaven”. “Having lifted” is grammatically an active past participle. Latin however has no active past participle and must use a passive one instead, hence the rather more awkward “His eyes having been lifted up” instead of the simpler “having lifted up His eyes”. And since “eyes” is neither the subject nor the object of the main verbs (“benedíxit”, “fregit” and “dedit”) it cannot go into either the nominative or the accusative case, so Latin chooses the ablative for it instead (though don’t ask me why the ablative rather than the genitive or dative, or why the Romans never got round to inventing an active past participle!). “Elevátis” then must be ablative also since its case has to agree with that of “óculis”. This type of construction (known as “the ablative absolute”) is extremely common in Latin.
The Anamnesis
This begins with the word “Unde”, which means “therefore”, or more exactly “in consequence of the foregoing” and is an absolutely pivotal word in the syntax (and the theology too). What it indicates is that what the priest is about to do (recall Christ’s Passion, Death and Resurrection) is done in obedience to His command to “do this in memory of Me”, with which the Words of Consecration ended. It is therefore completely destructive of the sense to insert anything in between, as the New Rite has done with its Acclamation of the People, leaving the word “Unde” logically adrift. It is not surprising that ICEL (and other vernacular versions) have simply omitted the word in translation.
The anamnesis in the Roman Canon is one long sentence, which takes some sorting out. There are two subjects, “nos servi tui” and “plebs tua sancta”. The former refers specifically to the ministers, the latter to the laity, thus including everyone present. The verb “offérimus” (“we offer”) is quite a long way down, separated by two sets of genitives. One set depends on “mémores”; we are mindful “tam beátae passiónis, necnon et ab ínferis resurrrectiónis, sed et in caelos gloriósae ascensiónis” (“of the so blessed passion, likewise also the resurrection from infernal regions, but also the glorious ascension into the heavens”). The other set of genitives tells us Whose passion, resurrection and ascension are being commemorated, “eiúsdem Christi Fílii tui, Dómini nostri” (“of the same Christ Thy Son, Our Lord”). The object of the sentence, i.e. what we are offering, is “hóstiam puram, hóstiam sanctam, hóstiam immaculátam, Panem sanctum vitae aetérnae et Cálicem salútis perpétuae” (“a pure victim, a holy victim, an immaculate victim, the holy Bread of eternal life and the Chalice of everlasting salvation”). We also acknowledge that the elements of the sacrifice which is being offered come “de tuis donis ac datis” (“from Thy gifts and presents”) And in between the verb and the object is a dative, indicating to Whom the offering is made, “praeclárae maiestáti tuae” (“to Thy supreme majesty”).
Note that this anamnesis incorporates some of the features of Latin style which we have met elsewhere. The possessive genitives “eiúsdem Christi Fílii tui, Dómini nostri” come not after but before the words to which they relate, i.e. “passiónis”, “resurrectiónis” and “ascensiónis” (you will remember the Christmas preface of St. Gregory, “Incarnáti Verbi mystérium” and “nova mentis nostrae óculis lux”). So in this passage does an ablative (“ab ínferis resurrectiónis”) and a prepositional clause (“in caelos...ascensiónis”, “His heavenwards ascension”, as we might say in English). And most of the adjectives come after the nouns which they qualify (“plebs tua sancta”, hóstiam puram” etc., “panem sanctum”, “vitae aetérnae”), although in this passage we do find a couple in the preceding position viz.“tam beátae passiónis” and “praeclárae maiestáti”. “Passiónis tam beátae” and “maiestáti praeclárae” would have been equally good Latin; the difference is down to the personal preference of the author. Finally, there are other instances of “et” meaning “also”, in “sed et” (which occurs twice in this passage), and in “necnon et”.
The anamnesis is followed by a short petition asking God to approve the present sacrifice, just as He approved the sacrifices which in the Old Testament prefigured the Eucharist. It starts “Supra quae” (“Upon which things” i.e. upon the “hóstia” mentioned at the end of the previous paragraph) “propítio ac seréno vultu” (ablatives, “with a propitious and favourable countenance”) “respícere dignéris” (“Thou wouldst deign to look”, the verb coming in the usual place at the end of the clause), “et accépta habere” (“and to treat as acceptable”) “sícuti accépta habére dignátus es” (“just as Thou didst deign to treat as acceptable”). There follow the examples of Old Testament sacrifices which God treated as acceptable, “the gifts of Thy just servant Abel, the sacrifice of our Patriarch Abraham, and that which Thy high priest (“summus sacérdos tuus”) Melchisedech offered to Thee, a holy sacrifice, an immaculate victim”. The word “accépta” is the accusative neuter plural of the adjective “accéptus”. It is accusative because it is the object of “habére”, and neuter because the nouns to which it relates (“múnera” and “sacrificium”) are neuter.
The Communion Epiklesis
The celebrant prays “Súpplices te rogámus” (literally “suppliants we ask thee”) that God should command (“iube”, the imperative form of “iubére”, meaning to order) that the elements of the sacrifice (the word used is simply “haec”, meaning “these”, i.e. the offerings present on the altar) “perférri per manus sancti ángeli tui in sublíme altáre tuum”, (“be carried by the hands of Thy holy angel to Thy high altar – note “in” with the accusative in the sense of movement towards) “in conspéctu divínae maiestátis tuae” (“in the sight of Thy Divine Majesty” – note “in” with the ablative in the sense of “within”). The purpose of this petition is so that “as many of us as shall receive the sacred Body and Blood of Thy Son from participating in this sacrifice will be filled with every heavenly blessing and grace”. Note that the genitive “altáris” in the phrase “ex hac altáris participatióne” (literally “from this participation of the altar”) comes, as so often in Latin, before the noun to which it relates, as does “Fílii tui”, and that the verbs “sumpsérimus” and “repleámur” come at the end of their respective clauses. Both verbs are in the first person plural, thus including the whole congregation in the petition. “Omni benedictióne caelésti et grátia” is ablative; it could have been “cum omni benedictióne caelésti et grátia”, but the word for “with” is understood (for another instance see “propítio ac seréno vultu” in the preceding paragraph, where “cum” is likewise omitted). “Quotquot” is rather an odd word; it means “as many as”; in this instance, because the verbs are in the first person plural, “as many of us as”. Latin doesn’t need to insert a word for “of us” because the fact that the verbs are in the first person plural makes this perfectly clear.
The Doxology
This begins with “Per ipsum...” and is quite straightforward, “through Him, and with Him, and in Him, there is to Thee God the Father almighty, in the unity of the Holy Spirit, all honour and glory, through all the centuries of centuries. Amen”. Note that the preposition “per” is followed by the accusative case, whereas “cum” and “in” are followed by the ablative, so the ending of the word “ipse” (meaning literally “himself”), changes to “ipsum” and then to “ipso”. “Per ómnia sáecula saeculórum” is usually rendered as “world without end”, which is a fair enough translation, but it is an idiomatic, and rather colloquial, Latin way of expressing this idea. “Sáecula” is of course accusative since it follows “per”, and “saeculórum” is genitive plural (which, you will remember, usually ends in “orum”, “arum” or “ium”).