MR3’s EP3

I prayed with Eucharistic Prayer III last night for the first time in the New Age. It was admittedly very cool. Our parish priests have been using II and I exclusively. I’m finding the insistence on “chalice” to be a fussy obstacle. If “cup” is good enough for the laity to sing, it’s certainly good enough for us to hear. This insistence on the linguistic virtues of the Norman Conquest is pretty infantile.

That said, our archdiocese’s vocations awareness director is a fine liturgical presider. Fr David Schatz used Prayer III, and it was very moving. He prayed the words at a careful and stately pace. I didn’t get hung up on about three or four mis-speaks/stumbles because the rest of the proclamation was so elegant. If it were possible to make a good case for the English MR3, at least in the Eucharistic Prayers, I heard it last night.

As I reflect more on MR3, and I compare the language to my daily Lord’s Prayer, I think a good case might be made for this level of language–accurately translated and well-adapted of course–for the Eucharistic Prayers. The presidential prayers are still a jumbled mess, kind of like throwing fruit and a glass of wine into a blender to make a sangria–and including the glass.

Another word on last night’s presider. My wife and I have known him since his seminary days. It is so edifying to see a talented guy come into his own as a priest. It reminded me why I love campus ministry so much, and why I’m going to enjoy it even more in the years to come.

About these ads

About catholicsensibility

Todd and his family live in Ames, Iowa. He serves a Catholic parish of both Iowa State students and town residents.
This entry was posted in Liturgy, Parish Life. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to MR3’s EP3

  1. Liam says:

    I have more problems with the proper orations than the Ordo Missae; at least with the Ordo, there is a fair chance of repetition that allows comprehension to be built. Not so with the orations. Hence, I would have translation principles that recognizes the difference between those categories of texts.

    Chalice is a clunker. I can’t credibly say it’s an unreasonable choice (and wailing and whining that is is unreasonable doesn’t persuade me it’s unreasonable), but I am not persuaded that it is the *more* reasonable choice in this context, shall we say.

  2. Hi Todd and Liam,
    I’m happy for your experience, T. We’ve happily also had predominantly seamless recitations/cantillations from our guys, and the extraordinary joy of our 78 year old retired resident Msgr. orate with alacrity and cadence that illumines the “elevated” linguistics rather than obscures.
    T, since you mentioned “chalice” (celebrant) v. “cup” (faithful), is it out of bounds to re-iterated that the former illustrates the vessel while the latter names the substance of its contents? Please correct me if this is theologically unsound.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s