Wednesday Liturgy: Follow-up: Adding Names in Eucharistic Prayers
ROME, MARCH 3, 2009 (Zenit.org).- Answered by Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum university.
Related to our Feb. 17 answer on the inclusion of individual names in the Eucharistic Prayers, there were a couple of questions regarding the naming of the local bishop.
A Canadian reader asked: "My diocese is currently without a 'proper' bishop. Our apostolic administrator is a bishop. My question is, what am I supposed to do during the Eucharistic Prayer? Do I continue as usual -- 'Benedict our Pope, and N. our bishop,' or do I say, 'N. our apostolic administrator' or simply, 'administrator'? Similarly, for Eucharistic Prayer III 'your servant, Pope Benedict, our bishop [apostolic administrator or simply administrator] N.'?"
Another reader, also from Canada, requested: "My question involves the prayer in which the priest prays for the Holy Father and the local bishop following the consecration. Our parish priest has taken to reversing the order. In other words, instead of mentioning Pope Benedict first and our local archbishop second, he reverses it by offering prayers for our local archbishop first, followed by the Holy Father second. This has annoyed a number of elders in our parish and I'd like to know what is right. I mentioned it to Father and his response was that his first loyalty is to his bishop, and all bishops, including the Pope, are equal, so it doesn't matter in what order he mentions them. I have attended several churches in our archdiocese and have not come across this reversal. What is correct?"
Although there is no absolute rule here, older liturgical manuals recommend simply omitting the mention of the expression "N. our bishop" when the episcopal see is vacant. The same principle is observed during the vacancy of the Holy See in which the expression "N. our Pope" is also omitted.
The apostolic administrator, even if he is a bishop, is usually not mentioned, although other prelates who are equivalent in law to the diocesan bishop (such as apostolic vicars, prefects, and the few remaining territorial abbots) are mentioned at this moment.
A possible exception might be when the local bishop has been transferred to another see but remains as apostolic administrator of his former diocese, pending the nomination of a successor. In such cases it is difficult to make a clear break when the bishop is still in charge.
A few months ago the Holy See published some technical changes to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 149, regarding this point. The changes specify that if a bishop celebrates outside of his diocese, he is to first mention the name of the local ordinary and then use the formula "and me, your unworthy servant."
The fact that the Church has recently gone to the trouble of revising the text so as to invert the order in which the bishop refers to himself and the local ordinary shows that this order is not indifferent.
This is because the "together with" (una cum) of the Roman Canon is not merely a prayer "for" the pope and bishop, and much less does it express some form of political loyalty.
The priest proffers the Eucharistic Prayer not in his own name but as representative of Christ and the Church. This formula therefore expresses a deeper theological reality in which the priest and the assembly manifest their belonging to the Universal Church through hierarchical communion with pope and bishop. The pope is the representative of this unity at the universal level; the bishop is this principle of unity at the local level. Communion with both pope and bishop are necessary if our Eucharist is to be authentically Catholic.
I have no idea as to the motives for this priest's inverting of the proper order, but the arguments defending it based on "loyalty," and the implication that the order is unimportant, suggest a certain lack of familiarity with some categories of liturgical theology and ecclesiology.
Related to our Feb. 17 answer on the inclusion of individual names in the Eucharistic Prayers, there were a couple of questions regarding the naming of the local bishop.
A Canadian reader asked: "My diocese is currently without a 'proper' bishop. Our apostolic administrator is a bishop. My question is, what am I supposed to do during the Eucharistic Prayer? Do I continue as usual -- 'Benedict our Pope, and N. our bishop,' or do I say, 'N. our apostolic administrator' or simply, 'administrator'? Similarly, for Eucharistic Prayer III 'your servant, Pope Benedict, our bishop [apostolic administrator or simply administrator] N.'?"
Another reader, also from Canada, requested: "My question involves the prayer in which the priest prays for the Holy Father and the local bishop following the consecration. Our parish priest has taken to reversing the order. In other words, instead of mentioning Pope Benedict first and our local archbishop second, he reverses it by offering prayers for our local archbishop first, followed by the Holy Father second. This has annoyed a number of elders in our parish and I'd like to know what is right. I mentioned it to Father and his response was that his first loyalty is to his bishop, and all bishops, including the Pope, are equal, so it doesn't matter in what order he mentions them. I have attended several churches in our archdiocese and have not come across this reversal. What is correct?"
Although there is no absolute rule here, older liturgical manuals recommend simply omitting the mention of the expression "N. our bishop" when the episcopal see is vacant. The same principle is observed during the vacancy of the Holy See in which the expression "N. our Pope" is also omitted.
The apostolic administrator, even if he is a bishop, is usually not mentioned, although other prelates who are equivalent in law to the diocesan bishop (such as apostolic vicars, prefects, and the few remaining territorial abbots) are mentioned at this moment.
A possible exception might be when the local bishop has been transferred to another see but remains as apostolic administrator of his former diocese, pending the nomination of a successor. In such cases it is difficult to make a clear break when the bishop is still in charge.
A few months ago the Holy See published some technical changes to the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 149, regarding this point. The changes specify that if a bishop celebrates outside of his diocese, he is to first mention the name of the local ordinary and then use the formula "and me, your unworthy servant."
The fact that the Church has recently gone to the trouble of revising the text so as to invert the order in which the bishop refers to himself and the local ordinary shows that this order is not indifferent.
This is because the "together with" (una cum) of the Roman Canon is not merely a prayer "for" the pope and bishop, and much less does it express some form of political loyalty.
The priest proffers the Eucharistic Prayer not in his own name but as representative of Christ and the Church. This formula therefore expresses a deeper theological reality in which the priest and the assembly manifest their belonging to the Universal Church through hierarchical communion with pope and bishop. The pope is the representative of this unity at the universal level; the bishop is this principle of unity at the local level. Communion with both pope and bishop are necessary if our Eucharist is to be authentically Catholic.
I have no idea as to the motives for this priest's inverting of the proper order, but the arguments defending it based on "loyalty," and the implication that the order is unimportant, suggest a certain lack of familiarity with some categories of liturgical theology and ecclesiology.
posted by Chipi Buenafe at
1:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home