Eucharistic Prayer I Is Not the Roman Canon

And We Need to Stop Saying That It Is

Donald P. Goodman III

Many Catholics continue to insist that Eucharistic Prayer I, from the Novus Ordo, simply is the Roman Canon from the Traditional Latin Mass, and (they imply) therefore nothing of substance is actually lost in the Novus Ordo. Even if true, the fact that the Roman Canon is relegated to one option among many, and indeed one that is rarely chosen, means that something of substance has been lost; however, it is not true.

The Short Answer

Eucharistic Prayer I differs in many respects from the Roman Canon, and therefore is not the Roman Canon.

The Long Answer

See below.

Table of Contents

Defining Two Terms

As always in any substantive discussion, we need to define our terms. First, canon. The word “canon”, as it was applied to our ancient Roman Canon, means a fixed rule; that's why we apply it to “canon law”. We began referring to the Roman “Canon” because it was the rule, the unchanging basis on which the Mass depended.

Next, “Eucharistic prayer”. This refers to that part of the Eucharistic liturgy (what we call “the Mass” in the West, and “the Divine Liturgy” in the East) that culminates in the consecration of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ. It may be long, short, or anything in between.

And for our discussion here, we need no other definitions. So let's move on: is Eucharistic Prayer I the Roman Canon?

Are the Roman Canon and Eucharistic Prayer I Really the Same Thing?

This should be a pretty easy question to answer: are the Roman Canon and Eucharistic Prayer I the same thing, or are they different? If they are the same, then Eucharistic Prayer I is the Roman Canon; if they are not, then Eucharistic Prayer I is not the Roman Canon. Yet, despite the fact that they quite clearly are not the same, many continue to insist that they are. So let's examine the differences.

The Roman Canon Is a Canon

The first distinction we have to draw is that, while the Roman Canon is a canon (a fixed, unchanging rule), Eucharistic Prayer I (which we will call “EPI” from now on for brevity) isn't a canon at all.

The Novus Ordo commits one of its most breathtaking novelties by instituting multiple Eucharistic prayers, which may be selected entirely at the whim of the celebrating priest. The first part of this, while an enormous novelty in the West, is not a novelty in the East, which has done this forever; but the second part is very alien to both East and West.

As noted, the Eastern rites do have multiple Eucharistic prayers. One example is the Byzantine rite, which consists of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the liturgy of St. Basil. The first is used nearly the whole year around; the second is used on certain important feast days. While, again, in the West such a thing is utterly unheard of, and always has been (the West has never had multiple Eucharistic prayers), in the East it is traditional and unquestioned.

The point to be noticed here, though, is that while there are multiple options, the priest has no role whatsoever in selecting one; rather, that selection is made for him by the rite itself.

The Novus Ordo's determination that not only should there be multiple Eucharistic prayers, something that the West has never known even in the earliest days, but that the priest should be solely responsible for selecting which one will be used on any given day entirely at his own whim, is a breathtaking novelty which is completely alien to all Catholic liturgical traditions.

So the fact that EPI is optional, to be selected only when the priest is in the mood for it, all by itself means that EPI is not the Roman Canon.

The Roman Canon Must be Said Silently

Since time immemorial, the Roman Canon has been said almost entirely in a low voice, such that only the priest, and possibly the servers beside him, can hear the actual words. This has been a strong characteristic of the Roman rite for as long as anyone has been keeping track; it has been attacked by Protestants but universally defended by Catholics, and the Council of Trent, among others, vehemently defended the practice (see especially Canon IX of Session 22).

All Catholic liturgies go to great lengths to set apart the liturgy from our normal experience, to separate it from the norm. In the Eastern rites, one of the primary methods of doing this is the iconostasis, a great wall covered in icons which separates the sanctuary, where the priest and his ministers are conducting the sacred mysteries, from the nave, where the people are. In the Eastern rites, the people can't even see the altar; there is a literal wall blocking it off from them. While the priest does sing the liturgy aloud, there is a very clear and obvious separation keeping the people away from the mysteries, bolstering the sense of the profound, ineffable sanctity of the process.

In the West, while we did have a partial wall called in English a “rood-screen” very early on, and in some places until quite recently, we have never had the full-scale wall that the Eastern iconostasis represents. Instead, we had silence: not the whole Mass, but the Eucharistic prayer, the Roman Canon, was said silently. At a solemn Mass, many things are being sung by the choir, so there is rarely a complete silence throughout the church (at the Consecration itself there is and should be), but the actual words of the Canon have always been said quietly by the priest. The faithful do not hear it.

This silence, this “sonic iconostasis” to separate the sacred mysteries from the people, is an ancient and essential characteristic of the Roman Canon.

EPI does not retain this silence; indeed, EPI is specifically required to be said entirely aloud, so that the people can hear it, even when it is said in a language that they cannot understand anyway.

Therefore, EPI is not the Roman Canon.

The Roman Canon is in Latin

We are all aware that the sacraments may be validly offered in any language; this much is absolutely true. But the Roman Canon, by rule, is offered in Latin, and that has been the case since at least the third century, and possibly (at least in Rome and Africa) even earlier. The Latinicity of the Roman rite, including the Canon, is one of the oldest liturgical characteristics of any rite in the Church. If it is not offered in Latin, it is not the Roman Canon.

The original language of the Western Church was Greek; Greek was not the vernacular anywhere in the West, but a sacred language is a useful thing, and thus it was retained. However, by the middle of the third century (that is, the year 250 or so), Latin had taken over, and it remains the official language of the Western Church to this day. The Roman Canon became Latinized at that time, and it remains Latinized. The Roman Church has long defended an exclusively Latin liturgy, including the Canon; and indeed, the Council of Trent, among others, specifically defended the practice. (Once again, see especially Canon IX of Session 22).

It is often objected that the Eastern rites are celebrated in the vernacular, so a short discussion of this will be appropriate. First, what difference does Eastern practice make? While the Eastern rites are often vernacularized, we are discussing the Western rite here, which never has been. If we object to the Latinization of the Eastern rites, which we should, we should object just as strongly to the Easternization of the Western rites. That includes arguments that we should vernacularize the Western rites because the Eastern rites are vernacular.

Second, the vernacularization of the Eastern rites is neither universal nor original. Some Eastern rites continue to use non-vernacular languages for some or all of their liturgies. The Coptic Orthodox Church continues to use Coptic, the descendent of the ancient Egyptian language, in its liturgy, despite Arabic being the vernacular where it is primarily celebrated. The Melkites use Aramaic at times. All Slavic Orthodox churches used Old Church Slavonic, not a vernacular, until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when the vernacular was introduced; but even now, Slavonic is still often used. The Ethiopian churches use Ge'ez; while the Ethiopians have several vernaculars, including Amharic, none of their vernaculars is Ge'ez. Greek Orthodox churches do use Greek, but they use an ancient form of Greek which is sometimes called “liturgical Greek”, not the form of Greek spoken on the streets of Athens today. We could go on, but the point is made.

The bottom line here is that the Roman Canon has been in Latin for nearly as long as it has been in existence at all, consistently and without interruption for nearly two thousand years. If the prayer is not in Latin, it is not the Roman Canon.

Because EPI need not, and almost universally is not, prayed in Latin, it is not the Roman Canon.

The Roman Canon Has Twenty-Six Signs of the Cross

In the Roman Canon as it has been handed down, the priest makes twenty-six signs of the Cross over the offerings; in EPI, the priest makes three.

Yes, you read that right; twenty-six crosses reduced to three. This includes the Qui pridie and Simili modo prayers right before the Consecration, where EPI has zero signs of the Cross. Yes, zero signs of the Cross at the Consecration! The Roman Canon emphasizes the Cross and the Passion in a way that EPI simply does not.

Since EPI completely deemphasizes the Cross by removing the vast majority of the signs of the Cross, it is not the Roman Canon.

The Roman Canon Repeatedly Emphasizes “Through Christ Our Lord”

In the Roman Canon, many of the prayers conclude with the formula, “Through Christ Our Lord”; or, in a prayer that was directed to Christ already, “Through the same Christ Our Lord.” This is directly following the injunction of the Scriptures that when we pray to the Father, we do so in His (that is, Christ's) Holy Name. We see this in John 16:23–24, among other places. This injunction is followed scrupulously in the Roman Canon, which says this formula a total of six times.

In EPI, on the other hand, this phrase is made optional nearly every time. While it appears in all the same places as in the Roman Canon, it need not actually be said, and very frequently is not said, since it is optional. In EPI, in fact, this phrase only needs to be said once, at the close of the prayer Nobis quoque; the other five times that it appears, it is optional and may be omitted.

Since EPI only requires us to pray in Christ's Name one time, while the Roman Canon does so six times, EPI is not the Roman Canon.

The Roman Canon Invokes the Great Roman Saints

The invocation of the saints is an ancient Christian practice, universal across all the Eastern and Western churches; indeed, long lists of saints are very often invoked, and the tombs of the martyrs were very often the altars on which the early Church offered the Sacrifice of the Eucharist to the Father.

The Roman Canon specifically invokes, of course, the Blessed Virgin Mary and St. Joseph; but in addition, before the Consecration it invokes Peter, Paul, Andrew, James, John, Thomas, James, Philip, Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon, Thaddeus, Linus, Cletus, Clement, Sixtus, Cornelius, Cyprian, Lawrence, Chrysogonus, John, Paul, Cosmas, and Damian, all by name; and then, after the Consecration, it invokes John, Stephen, Matthew, Barnabas, Ignatius, Alexander, Marcellinus, Peter, Felicity, Perpetua, Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia, and Anastasia, all by name. There are deep and fascinating reasons that these saints, and not others, were chosen to be named, but for now we may simply note that they are all invoked, by name, and by necessity. The priest has no liberty to add other names or to take any out.

In EPI, on the other hand, the only saints who must be invoked are, before the Consecration, Peter, Paul, and Andrew; and after the Consecration, John, Stephen, Matthew, and Barnabas. The remainder are all optional; the priest may name them all, name some and leave others out, or name none of them, as he wishes; most frequently, he simply names none of them.

Because EPI allows a priest to name all, some, or none of the saints that the rite includes, while the Roman Canon requires the priest to name them all, EPI is not the Roman Canon.

The Roman Canon Shows Extreme Caution with the Sacred Species

The Roman Canon in all its gestures shows extreme caution with the Sacred Species; that is, with the Body and Blood of Christ, concealed under the accidents of bread and wine. While there are many, we will examine only two particular examples of this: the constant covering and uncovering of the Chalice, and the holding of the thumb and forefinger together.

In the Roman Canon, the presence of a pall, a small card covered in white linen which rests on the top of the chalice, is absolutely mandatory. It is designed to ensure the integrity and safety of the Precious Blood in the Chalice; as a result, the priest keeps the pall over the Chalice at all times, unless he is actually doing something with it. Any time the pall is either removed from the Chalice or placed on it, after the Consecration, the priest genuflects in adoration of the Precious Blood contained therein.

In EPI, as in all the EPs of the Novus Ordo, the pall is only present “if appropriate” (according to the General Instruction on the Roman Missal, or “GIRM”). No explanation appears to be given as to when the pall is or is not appropriate. The Chalice is covered with the pall after what remains of the offertory (again, “as appropriate”). The GIRM gives no other notion of the pall being used at all, much less being used routinely to protect the Precious Blood, with genuflections any time the Precious Blood is covered or uncovered. Since it's not mentioned, it can be used or not, as the priest wishes; this is clearly in strong contradiction to the Roman Canon.

Furthermore, in the Roman Canon, the priest is absolutely required, after the Consecration of the Body, to keep his thumbs and forefingers pressed together except when actually taking hold of the Host, which he always does with said thumbs and forefingers. This is because of the distinct possibility that particles of the Sacred Host may become detached from the main Host and attached to his fingers, and then be dropped somewhere, on the floor or anywhere else. So he keeps those fingers together, and uses only those fingers on the Host, to ensure that this does not happen. This is yet another way in which the Roman Canon mandates absolute, strict, and scrupulous respect for the Sacred Species.

In EPI, as in the remainder of the Novus Ordo, there is no such provision, and while the priest may, should he wish, follow the traditional Roman Canon's requirements, he also may not, and the vast majority of priests do not. This is a distinct mark of a lack of respect for the Sacred Species.

There are many other examples of gestures that differ between EPI (and the Novus Ordo in general) and the Roman Canon; these are merely the two most obvious, and arguably the most dangerous.

Because the Roman Canon takes care in all its gestures that the Sacred Species be honored and protected in all respects, and EPI does so in a significantly lesser and always optional degree, EPI is not the Roman Canon.

The Roman Canon Does Not Include a “Memorial Acclamation”

The “Memorial Acclamation” comes from the liturgy of St. James, celebrated primarily by the Syrian, Syro-Malankara, Maronite, and Malankara churches. The Copts also have a version. It has never been a part of the Roman rite. It involves the people acclaiming what has been accomplished in the Consecration. The formulas of the acclamation are fixed, meaning that neither the people nor the priest get to select from options in what either one says.

The Roman Canon does not have a memorial acclamation; the Roman Canon has never had a memorial acclamation.

EPI, however, not only has a memorial acclamation, it doesn't even do it right; that is, it introduces the concept of the memorial acclamation, which is totally alien to the Roman rite, but gives the priest and people many options about how it is accomplished. So not only does it introduce an alien element to the rite, it doesn't even do it correctly.

Because EPI has a memorial acclamation, and the Roman Canon does not, EPI is not the Roman Canon.

The Roman Canon Includes the Phrase “The Mystery of Faith” in the Consecration

This is perhaps the most troubling aspect of the reform that led to EPI, which incorrectly claims itself to be the Roman Canon: the change in the words of Consecration. In the Roman Canon, the ancient formula for the Consecration of the Blood is as follows:

For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal covenant: the Mystery of Faith: which shall be shed for you and for many for the remission of sins.

We have emphasized the phrase “the Mystery of Faith” here, so that it's perfectly clear what we're talking about.

In EPI, however, this phrase has been excised from the words of Consecration. Instead, EPI moves the phrase to the “Memorial Acclamation”, declaring “The Mystery of Faith” prior to having the people acclaim something. We have already seen that the “Memorial Acclamation” is alien to the Roman rite and to the Roman Canon; EPI thus transfers the phrase “The Mystery of Faith” away from the location where the Mystery of Faith (which is, of course, transubstantiation) is actually occurring. It then requires the people to say one of a number of possible options, depending upon what the priest has chosen that day:

• “We proclaim your death, O Lord, and profess your resurrection until you come again.”
• “When we eat this bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your death, O Lord, until you come again.”
• “Save us, Savior of the world, for by your cross and resurrection you have set us free.”

One will note that none of these options refers to the mystery of Faith in question in the Roman Canon (which is, again quite obviously, transubstantiation); one will also note the fact that these options are chosen entirely at the whim of the celebrating priest, and leaving things to the whim of the celebrating priest is quite alien to the Roman Canon, as well.

This phrase has always been part of the Consecration in the Roman Canon; justifying that fact is beyond the scope of this little article (though it's worth noting that the Church has always defended its presence, and St. Thomas Aquinas defended it in the Summa Theologica IIIa Q. 78 A. 3); but its presence here is one of the properties of the Roman Canon, a unique characteristic that helps make the Roman Canon what is is.

In EPI, on the other hand, this phrase “the Mystery of Faith” has been excised; it does not appear in the words of Consecration. Given that the phrase's presence in the words of Consecration is one of the hallmarks of the Roman Canon, we are clearly dealing with something else here.

Because EPI does not include the phrase “mysterium Fidei” in the Consecration of the Chalice, EPI is not the Roman Canon.

Conclusion

Note that this little article does not claim to prove that EPI is a bad idea, much less that the entire liturgical reform was a bad idea. (Though your author believes that both of these things are true.) We are merely addressing the oft-repeated claim, which is included in the new Missal itself, that EPI is the Roman Canon. It clearly isn't.

This is important because those who love the traditional liturgy are constantly being told that, if we do love it, we should just embrace the Novus Ordo with EPI; after all, isn't EPI the Roman Canon? Pope Francis himself made exactly this argument in the ironically-named Traditionis Custodes, saying that if we really love the traditional liturgical forms, we'll find them in EPI.

There is a vast deal more that can be said; but this article is a quick but dispositive demonstration that this assertion is simply wrong; the liturgical traditions of the Roman Canon are not included in EPI, which is a different prayer, similar in some ways but fundamentally different in many.

Eucharistic Prayer I is not the Roman Canon, and we need to stop pretending that it is.

Praise be to Christ the King!