[reworked from the exhortation in Luther's Deutsche Messe and made into a prayer to God the Father that embraces thanksgiving, prayer for the Spirit, anamnesis, intercession, and doxology.]It is truly good, right, and salutary that we should at all times and in all places give thanks to You, O Lord our God, king of all creation, for You have had mercy on us and given Your only-begotten Son that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Grant us Your Spirit, gracious Father, that we may give heed to the testament of Your Son in true faith and, above all, take to heart the words with which Christ gives us His true body and blood for our forgiveness.
By Your grace, lead us to remember and give thanks for the boundless love which He manifested to us when, by pouring our His precious blood, He saved us from Your righteous wrath and from sin, death, and hell.
Grant that we may receive the bread and wine, that is, His body and blood, as a gift, guarantee, and pledge of His salvation. Graciously receive our prayers; deliver and preserve us.
To You alone, O Father, be all glory, honor, and worship, with the Son and the Holy Spirit, one God, now and forever. Amen. [LSB p. 216]
20 comments:
I have a question - and I mean this in all seriousness. Why is there such a desire on the part of some Lutherans to have a fuller Eucharistic prayer as part of the service. I haven't understood why this is viewed as important. Is it mainly didactic, or is it Ecumenical/historical? What is the impetus behind it?
I figured you'd be a good person to ask.
"and when He had given thanks..."
And the entire Church, east and west, confesses that we should "at all times and in all places give thanks" to the Father through Christ our Lord. All times. All places. No when or where that thanksgiving is out of place; most especially as we prepare to receive the Testamental Words and receive the cause of all thanksgiving: the body and blood, given and shed for us, for the forgiveness of sins.
I'm with you, Pastor Brown.
Coming from Rome, the Verba-only thing was rather a jolt at first, but I have come to treasure it.
These Eucharistic Prayers, even granting an original good intention and a venerable history, became a distraction unto themselves at best and the source of un- and anti-Scriptural praying at worst, and we should be happily rid of them.
The Eucharist is itself the Thanksgiving, and it needs no verbal amplification or elaboration from us at all.
Lutherans have never been without eucharistic prayer; other than the extreme pietists and modern church growthers.
What we pray and confess in the Preface (which is already eucharistic prayer) is correct: "It is truly meet, right and salutary at all times and in all places to give thanks."
Is our thanksgiving constitutive of the Sacrament? Of course not. But is it necessary? Yes, because it is part of the "this" that Jesus says to "do" when He institutes His Supper.
In any event, again, Lutherans have never been without eucharistic prayer. It is only ever a question of whether this or that particular eucharistic prayer is in harmony with our confession. Those in the LSB are, as any number of others could be; as those in TLH and LW also are.
To say that eucharistic prayer, "at best," can only be a distraction is rather a remarkable accusation to make. On what basis? Personal experience and opinion? Even in contrast with the practice of the entire Church?
If one takes the Preface to itself be part of the Eucharistic Prayer, then I would agree, at least as far as the Preface goes.
But the question itself demonstrates what an utter distraction this whole business of canons or anaphorae is.
Opinions, speaking of opinions, vary as to when the canon even begins or ends! The canon, I was taught, begins with the words Te igitur, that is why the Preface is a preface, it is a preface to the canon, and further, it is distinguished in that the preface varies whereas the canon does not. But then, another opinion goes, this cannot be, as the word igitur itself expresses a continuity and connexion to what comes before. Enter the "liturgical" "scholars" and a Vatican Council, and we have the pious chatter that is cacaphony of our times, where the canon may not vary but we have various canons, not across time and place as historically but in one time and place.
Can this work of man be excused by the "this" in "Do this"? No. It was not an invitation to begin the composition of anaphorae. To find out what "this" is go get an Haggadah. There's your "this".
Which will also avoid the grosser forms of distraction this whole canon business always leads to -- the practice of the entire Church being a history of both good and bad, therefore not a norm -- the text of the canon rivalling the Bible itself, though of monstrosities, such as the invocation of the Saints, mystical groupings of numbers of prayers and speculations thereon (Benedict XIV's 4x3=12 being the one I was taught and if there's so much as a turd to all of this the best of them all!), speculations on the significance of the number of cross signs (25) made during it, which by such things we are directly delivered FROM the "this" of Christ into magnificent ensemble of un- and anti-Scriptural prayer.
Away with ALL of it, however pious its intention or extensive its history.
And let us stick with the actual "this" of Christ, the Birkat Hamazon -- which settles the whole matter of where the bloody "canon" begins in that the whole Mass of the Faithful, Liturgy of the Eucharist, Service of the Sacrament or whatever one wishes to call it is a Christian Birkat Hamazon -- and the Kos Shlishi.
No argument from me against "canon" in this sense -- Offertory, Sursum corda etc, Praefatio (which I can still kick off chanting from memory nearly 50 years on now, if I can make it through without welling up with tears at the wonder and beauty of it) -- but as to the rest, Pater noster and Verba only!!
See, I guess I have always viewed the Sanctus as the thanks and praise that we speak of in the Preface.
I'm by no means opposed - I think there is a simplistic eligance in announcing our praise, having the proper preface, and then moving to three things that are exactly the same in all places:
The Sanctus: the song of heaven
The Lord's Prayer: Again "Catholic"
The Verba: Again, "Catholic"
Eucharistic prayers tend to be that - prayers - as in there are many of them, so you don't have that. . . same joining in the song and prayer that is universal - but rather a good prayer that is specific to the time and place.
Hmmm. . . if I might make an impious connection - it is as though the Eucharistic Prayer is unlike unto a Meatloaf song - long, flowing, full of building emotion, whereas the straight DS3 move is more like unto a Punk sensibility - 3 chords, quick, to the point (because punk was at first a reaction against the glam rock of the 70s. . . until the anti-intellectuals took over).
I like both types of music. . . I guess I would like both types of Eucharistic service. Although I do listen to the Clash more than Meatloaf (or Pink Floyd - but man, I do like some Brian Eno influenced Bowie though).
Okay, I don't know if the last 2 paragraphs made sense to anyone else, but they made perfect sense to me.
I'm with Pastor Brown and PE.
I had enough of "Vatican II" for Lutherans in the ELCA (and we see where that led) and then my ten years in the Church of Rome.
I, too, have come to treasure the Paternoster and Verba again, as I did as a Lutheran child.
Christine
Odd that these comments arise upon a Preface that leads to an Our Father and Verba followed by a Sanctus...
It's not DSV that opened it up for me but Pastor Brown's more general question -- not to point a finger, it's a very good question -- on Eucharistic Prayers in general.
Likewise - I just figured I'd ask you a question -- and I literally am. . .indifferent on the topic of Eucharistic prayer. I just figured I'd ask here because you would be a good person to ask.
And DSV is fine. . . it's IV that I don't like. The Rhyming Sanctus gives me the willies. . . like heaven is supposed be some sing-songie eternal Barney-esque children's show. I'm shuddering now as I type this.
Good question, Eric. It does seem to set some Lutheran liturgical hearts all a-flutter to think of burying the Lord's consecrating/promising words in a prayer that, in varying degrees, blathers on so.
I think the Lutheran Service Book's "Eucharistic Prayer That Isn't" is about the closest we should come to the full E.P. that some would have us embrace.
And no, I'm not accusing the E.P. people of being whatever it is they think I'm accusing them of being, or doing. They are all wonderful homo sapiens.
Well, here's a hypothetical. Maxwell and I proposed something like this years ago, using the old Swedish approach as our model:
It is truly fitting, right, and salutary that we should at all times and in all places give thanks to You, O Lord, holy Father, almighty and everlasting God, for all the innumerable blessings You so freely bestow upon us and upon all creation. But above all, we give thanks for Your boundless love shown to us when You sent Your only-begotten Son Jesus Christ into our flesh and laid upon Him our sin, giving Him into death that we might not die eternally. Even as He is now risen from the dead and lives and reigns forever, so You have ordained that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have eternal life.
Out of the great love with which our Lord Christ loved us, and that the extent of His great mercy might never be forgotten, He established His holy Testament and gave us His Supper, that in the communion of His true body and blood, we might receive forgiveness of sins, life and salvation. In reverent faith and holy joy, O heavenly Father, we listen now to His certain Word and unfailing promise:
The Verba (chanted)
Send, O Father, Your Spirit upon us, that we may ever rejoice in the manifold mercies bestowed on us in these holy gifts; and join now our voices to those of the angels and archangels and all the company of heaven, to laud and magnify Your glorious name, evermore praising You and saying:
Sanctus
Our Father
It works, but I do love the Pax Domini right after the Consecration. This is the Peace of the Lord right here, and it is with you always. I would rather have the Preface - Sanctus - LP - Eucharistic prayer lead-in - Verba - Pax - Agnus.
"On the night when He was betrayed. . ." functions as a lead in into the Verba - I could see a prayer expanding upon this very easily and beautifully.
Yup, the qui pridie, then the simili modo, all you need right there!
You might note that what we originally proposed did make it in part into LSB under DS 4 - which I really don't find to be the least bit problematic with that Sanctus. It can be played in a stately and majestic manner that keeps it from being sing-songy.
This is a helpful thread for helping me once again realize why I do not "heart" Eucharistic Prayers.
The consecrating/promising words of Christ are being addressed to God, not to the people.
Best to let prayer be prayer and let the Word of Christ be proclamation/promise/consecration.
That's a bit of a false dichotomy, though. If in prayer we are essentially speaking God's words back to Him, then the Verba may also be considered a prayer that these words be true for us in this assembly, even as they are and remain words that consecrate and proclaim to us the gifts of God. I always point to a hymn like Franzmann's "Thy strong word." "Thy strong word bespeaks us righteous, bright with thine own holiness." This is addressed to God in prayer and yet it is clearly also a proclamation of the gospel. I think historically the Lutherans preserved both features of the Verba by the interesting use of the Gospel tone to chant them combined with the near universal prescription that they be chanted facing the altar.
Note how Gerhard speaks of the consecration in this way:
"When the preacher who is administering this holy Sacrament repeats, along with the Lord's Prayer, the words of institution, he is first of all testifying that he does not desire to perform , from his own opinion, a human act and institution; rather, as a householder of the divine mysteries, he is, in accordance with Christ's command, desiring to administer a holy Sacrament. Further, *he prays* that, in accordance with His institution and promise, Christ would be present in this action, and that by means of the consecrated bread and wine he might distribute Christ's body and blood." Comprehensive Explanation, p. 301
Note also Chemnitz describes in Examen, the Lutheran form of consecration as employing certain prayer formulas.
Myself, I would be terribly uncomfortable with any liturgy that lacked an epiclesis - whether it was placed in the Preface, a Post-Sanctus, or as an offertory prayer over the gifts.
If I were to omit the Prayer of Consecration, my preference would be for an epiclesis as a Prayer over the Gifts and an extended Proper Preface (similar to the Ambrosian tradition).
For me the epiclesis is important (and I do not say essential) as a catechetical instruction. If we believe and confess that Christ is present in the Sacrament, we need only to observe the means of his incarnation to find a sold theological foundation for the Eucharist.
Some would argue that the Verba alone focuses on the power of Christ's word, but it forgets the manner in which the Word was incarnate. Given our generation's lack of faith, the lack of anything beyond the Verba after the Sanctus (or, just plain the lack of anything other than the verba) may not be invalid, but it is, in my opinion, unadvised.
When our diocese revised it's Book of Common Prayer, we made provision for a proper preface, sanctus, prayer of consecration, and then the Verba as a stand-alone feature. It is followed by the Agnus Dei, an invitation to Communion, the reception of the Sacrament, and the Lord's Prayer. I am quite comfortable with this. Our brief rite (for use with the sick) is Sursum Corda, prayer of consecration, and verba. This works OK for me; but that's because both prayers of consecration have an epiclesis in them.
Granted, I am not writing from a Lutheran POV, but my thinking has been heavily influenced by Lutheranism of late.
Rob+
Pr. Weedon,
I've been wondering this for a while: What was the role of the Holy Spirit in the "Let there be..." statements at creation? Is it different from His role in the Word in general (in light of the Lutheran view that the Holy Spirit always accompanies the Word)? Is it different from His role in the Word of the Institution at the Consecration?
Our LSB liturgies IV and V emphasize an "epicletic" function of the Holy Spirit only in terms of strengthening the faith of those gathered. Obviously it's wrong to "invoke" the Holy Spirit like we're summoning a spirit with witchcraft, but is the Holy Spirit active with respect to the bread and wine at the consecration?
Post a Comment