17 January 2009

Who says the Pater noster?

During the last CIEL conference, just after the marvellous chapel of Merton College Oxford had hosted a solemn EF High Mass, Professor Eamon Duffy observed as we walked along Merton Street to the Examination Schools that what he really found difficult about the EF Mass was that God's laos didn't get to say the Lord's own Prayer. It set me thinking.

What is the historical basis of this? I venture a suggestion. It was S Gregory the Great who moved the Pater noster to its Roman position immediately after the Canon, and the explanation which he gave to critics of this piece of blatant Byzantinisation seems to suggest that he thought it had a consecratory power, and so was best said 'over the Lord's Body'; i.e. in conjunction with the Canon (I hasten to add that there is quite a number of variant explanations of what the Pontiff meant). And consider the rite by which layfolk in the early centuries received communion extraliturgically from the host which they had brought home with them from the Sunday Mass. Having received the Lord's Body, they received also a cup of wine which was regarded not as the Blood of Christ but as an antitype of the Precious Blood. This chalice had been blessed by the lay communicant himself. We are not told what form of prayer of blessing he used, but Dom Gregory Dix was convinced that it was the Our Father. And that this is why in the Mass of the Presanctified the Lord's Prayer precedes the act of communion in which also, in the classical RomanRite, a cup of unconsecrated wine was drunk after the Lord's Body had been received.

One can see a sort of analogy here which might have inclined S Gregory to think that, just as when used by a layman the Pater noster would bless a symbol of the Precious blood, so, when used by a bishop, it might part of the formula for consecrating the reality of Christ's Blood. And if so, it might be most proper for the bishop alone to say such a prayer.

If this, or something like it, really is the case, I wonder what the grounds are for retaining the practice now.

Any ideas?

5 comments:

William Tighe said...

As you no doubt are aware, Geoffrey Willis has an essay on "St. Gregory the Great and the Lord's Prayer in the Roman Mass" in his *Further Essays in Early Roman Liturgy*. He insists that it was never the custom in the Rite of Rome for anyone other than the celebrant to say the prayer aloud at Mass. He also opines that the reason for the pontiff's altering the prayer's position from following the fraction to immediately following the Canon was so that it would be said at the altar over the Body and Blood, rather than after the Pope had returned to his throne from the altar.

Christian said...

Might also suggest that this may be fore the same reason that almost every time the Pater noster is said in other liturgical events only the first two words are recited allowed. I have always been taught that this was because the PN was a prayer only taught to full members of the faithful and that catechumens and infidels were kept from knowing these sacred words. In a very large Church one barely hears what the priest says anyway so perhaps the solitary recitation of the priest is not really meant to be heard clearly. Just a suggestion.

rev'd up said...

Just so you know, Christian: One is directed, in both Lauds and Vespers, to audibly recite the complete PN. It is said three other times secretly in each office.

rev'd up said...

Was the professor in earnest or does he not believe in praying along silently?

The Pater as presented in the pre-NO missals (historic, organic) is lead by Christ's representative and responsively concluded, "sed libera nos a malo." It is the solemn "Abba" of God's people.

My guess at an historical basis for dissension is Puritanism.

Pastor in Valle said...

Augustine also notes the practice, in passing, in Sermon 256:
Cum enim dixero propter præterita peccata: Dimitte nobis debita nostra, sicut et nos dimittimus debitoribus nostris, continuo propter futura pericula addo et adiungo: Ne nos inferas [sic] in tentationem. Quomodo est autem populus in bono, quando mecum clamat: Libera nos a malo? Et tamen, fratres, in isto adhuc malo cantemus Alleluia Deo bono, qui nos liberat a malo.