Singing The Eucharistic Prayer

A reader writes:

About 6-8 months ago I contacted one of the apologist at Catholic Answers regarding our Priest singing the Eucharistic (presidential) Prayers. The woman apologist (I don’t remember her name) consulted with you and the answer came back that it was acceptable. She even stated that you had researched it and found accompaniment for the prayers. [Actually, I already knew about the accompaniment. What I did was look it up and show it to her–ja] Since that time I have found in the GIRM para. 32 (The prayers and other parts pertaining to the Priest) that in fact this is not allowed. In fact on the Catholic Answers website in Redemptionis Sacramentum para. 53 reiterates the same point as the GIRM. Where did you get your information about singing the Eucharistic Prayers? This is becoming a huge issue in our church and I want to make sure I’m correct before pressing the correction of this problem.

It’s understandable why, but you appear to be misreading RS 53 and GIRM 32. Let’s look at them to see where the difficulty is. First, here’s Redemptionis Sacramentum 53:

While the Priest proclaims the Eucharistic Prayer “there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent”,[GIRM 32] except for the people’s acclamations that have been duly approved, as described below.

You’ll note that the passage states that there is to be no other prayers or singing going on while the priest proclaims the Eucharistic Prayer. It doesn’t say that he isn’t to sing (or that he isn’t to pray). This is a restriction on what other people can do during this time (note that to the general rule that the people say or sing nothing it makes an exception for the acclamations of the people that are prescribed during this time). It is not a limitation on what the priest does (unless he wanted to play a musical instrument while proclaiming the Eucharistic Prayer, God forbid).

You’ll also note that the passage being quoted is the other one you mention, GIRM 32. Here’s the text of that:

The nature of the “presidential” texts demands that they be spoken in a loud and clear voice and that everyone listen with attention. Thus, while the priest is speaking these texts, there should be no other prayers or singing, and the organ or other musical instruments should be silent.

This is just making the point that they want the presidential texts delivered loud enough for everyone to hear, that they don’t want any competing noise so everyone can pay attention. Nothing here excludes the priest singing.

Now, you might think that that something does because this passage refers to the presidential texts being "spoken," which you might conclude excludes singing. Except that it doesn’t. Just a bit further down the road the GIRM clarifies that it’s going to use words like "say" and "proclaim" to be inclusive both of singing and recitation. Here’s GIRM 38:

In texts that are to be spoken in a loud and clear voice, whether by the priest or the deacon, or by the lector, or by all, the tone of voice should correspond to the genre of the text itself, that is, depending upon whether it is a reading, a prayer, a commentary, an acclamation, or a sung text; the tone should also be suited to the form of celebration and to the solemnity of the gathering. Consideration should also be given to the idiom of different languages and the culture of different peoples.

In the rubrics and in the norms that follow, words such as “say” and “proclaim” are to be understood of both singing and reciting, according to the principles just stated above.

Now, you might say "Wait! GIRM 32 didn’t use the word ‘say’ or ‘proclaim.’ It used the word ‘spoken’!" Leaving aside that GIRM 38 says that this applies to words such as "say" and "proclaim" and that "speak" is a word that goes in that category, you would be right. The English translation does use a different word.

Which is why it’s good to look up the Latin.

In the IGMR 38 (IGMR being the Latin GIRM), it says:

In rubricis ergo et in normis quae sequuntur, verba «dicere» vel «proferre» intellegi debent sive de cantu sive de recitatione, servatis principiis supra propositis.

And here’s the relevant bit from IGMR 32:

Natura partium «praesidentialium» exigit ut clara et elata voce proferantur . . .

As you can see, IGMR 32 uses a form of proferre. Specifically, it’s the third person plural present passive subjunctive form: "they are to be proclaimed."

So the speak/proclaim distinction is an artifact of the English translation. The Latin makes it clear that "proclaim" is being used in both cases.

The only other possible scruple I could see someone having here is that GIRM 38 refers to the "norms that follow" and one might interpret this exclusively of GIRM 32 since it is numerically earlier. That, however, would be chopping matters more finely than the authors of the text intended. They simply do not write law with that level of rigor over there. This is being written for liturgical professionals, and they expect the reader to have a sense of how things are done in the liturgy. Singing the Eucharistic Prayer has a looooong history, and so they expect the intended reader (a liturgical professioal) to recognize that the use of proferre in GIRM 32 doesn’t exclude it–particularly when people sing the Eucharistic Prayer all the time and GIRM 38 says proferre includes singing AND one other important fact . . .

. . . the Missal contains sheet music for singing the Eucharistic Prayer.

In fact, it contains a lot of sheet music. Enough to sing all four Eucharistic Prayers (plus other texts). Since seeing is believing, I thought I’d scan the first page of Eucharistic Prayer I so you can see for yourself.

So here it is  (click to enlarge), freshly scanned from the pages of my copy of the Sacramentary. You’ll note from the image that it even includes singing the words of consecration (just like in the Eastern churches).

In view of all this, it sounds as if what your priest is doing is just fine and well within the tradition and law of the Church.

Hope this helps and that it reassures folks!

Eucharisticprayeri_1

While We're At It . . .

I thought, while we were talking about the Aramaic underlying Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ") that I’d show you this verse  in the standard Armaic translation of the New Testament.

Many Catholics have heard that "kepha" is used in both places in this verse ("You are Peter \[kepha] and on this rock [kepha] I will build my Church . . . "), but few have seen it with their own eyes.

So I scanned it and here ’tis:

The standard Aramaic translation of the New Testament is known as the Pshitta or Peshitta (pronounce it the former way, not the latter). It is not generally regarded as an Aramaic original to the New Testament, but it is based on very early Aramaic versions that were utilized to produce a standard edition and, indeed, it uses kepha in both slots in this verse.

Because of the unfamiliarity of the scrip for most folks (NOTE: It’s read right-to-left instead of left-to-right), I’ve circled the word kepha both times it appears in the text so folks can tell that it does appear twice.

While We’re At It . . .

I thought, while we were talking about the Aramaic underlying Matthew 16:18 ("You are Peter . . . ") that I’d show you this verse  in the standard Armaic translation of the New Testament.

Many Catholics have heard that "kepha" is used in both places in this verse ("You are Peter \[kepha] and on this rock [kepha] I will build my Church . . . "), but few have seen it with their own eyes.

So I scanned it and here ’tis:

Matt1618b

The standard Aramaic translation of the New Testament is known as the Pshitta or Peshitta (pronounce it the former way, not the latter). It is not generally regarded as an Aramaic original to the New Testament, but it is based on very early Aramaic versions that were utilized to produce a standard edition and, indeed, it uses kepha in both slots in this verse.

Because of the unfamiliarity of the scrip for most folks (NOTE: It’s read right-to-left instead of left-to-right), I’ve circled the word kepha both times it appears in the text so folks can tell that it does appear twice.

Hollow Peter???

A reader writes:

Do you know of a place I can go to get an authoritative definition of the Aramaic word Kepha (Or however you would transliterate Simon Peter’s Aramaic name meaning rock). I am in an online dialogue with some folks who say that Kepha in Aramaic means hollow rock and therefore would not be a suitable foundation for a Church. Therefore, Jesus could not have said, "You are Kepha and upon this Kepha I build my Church."

This website seems to agree with the "hollow rock" definition.

http://www.htmlbible.com/sacrednamebiblecom/kjvstrongs/FRMSTRHEB37.htm

Okay, two problems:

  1. The page you reference is an online version of Strong’s Hebrew Dictionary. Now the thing about Strong’s is, it’s not a scholarly dictionary. It gives brief glosses on words and is based, frankly, on outdated scholarship and has a lot of flaws. I really wish people would stop trying to appealing to it in apologetic controversies, because it’s simply too unreliable to try to get precise nuances out of. Unfortunately, it’s old enough (outdated scholarship, remember?) that it’s a public domain text and so it’s all over the Internet and people cite it constantly.
  2. You’ll note that the word in question (#3710) does not have "(Aramaic)" at the front of the definition (compare it, for example, to #3706). That tells you that the dictionary is attempting to offer a definition for the Hebrew word keph. Now the thing is: You can’t rely on a definition of a Hebrew word to tell you what an Aramaic word means. Hebrew and Aramaic may be cognate language, like English and German are, but you can’t use words in one language as a sure guide to the meaning of similar-sounding words in the other. The German word bitte sounds like the English word bitter (especially in a non-rhotic English accent that drops the final /r/), but they mean very different things. (Bitte means "please," not "acrid tasting.") In the same way, you can’t appeal to the definition of a Hebrew word as a reliable method of determining the meaning of an Aramaic term. So even assuming Strong’s is right on the meaning of the Hebrew keph, that can’t be used to settle arguments about the meaning of the Aramaic kepha.

The reader continues:

I have seen a translation of the bible into Aramaic where they used Kepha for Simon’s new name AND for the rock that Jesus builds His Church, but I was hoping to find some sort of Aramaic Dictionary that I can easily obtain that has a definition closer to "big rock".

I can help you here, but I have a caution: I’d drop the "big rock"/"small rock" thing. While this distinction existed in at least one dialect of classical Greek several centuries before the time of Christ, the distinction was gone by the first century. It is also exceedingly hard to recover something like size distinctions at this remote date in history since we can’t survey a swath of native speakers to ask them to clarify their usage. From what we can tell now, petros, petra, and kepha all just meant "rock" in the first century, and it isn’t productive to try to argue size differences one way or the other.

That being said, the most exhaustive Aramaic-English dictionary that is commonly in use today is A Compendious Syriac Dictionary (Syriac is a major Aramaic dialect) by R. Payne Smith, which was edited down from a longer work (Thesaurus Syriacus) by his daughter, J. Payne Smith.

So. . . . Here’s the definition for kepha in Smith:

KephadictNow, you may not be familiar with the Aramaic script that the dictionary uses, but you should be able to see that the basic meanings of the term are "a stone, rock."

It is also used elliptically (i.e., as shorthand) for "a stone vessel, column, idol, a precious stone." This means, for example, that speakers might be referring to a stone cup (a kind of vessel) and say, "Hand me that stone."

From there the entry starts to give examples of the term used in phrases ("he was stoned") and compound constructions ("a millstone").

As you can see, though, in no case is a definition anywhere close to "hollow rock" given, either for the term itself or for anything else the entry covers.

The idea that kepha means "hollow rock" is simply bogus.

Mr. Peter?

A reader writes:

I thought I had seen it all regarding arguments against Petrine Primacy until a day or so ago. In arguing the case that Peter’s name change was not significant, a Protestant gent asserted that since his text says that Simon ‘was surnamed’ Peter, that Jesus did not give the Apostle a new name but rather just decided to call him by his already given surname.

Is there evidence that first century Jews used surnames in the sense we do today? I find it difficult to fathom that Jesus would decide that he would do something as petty as calling someone by a different name for the mere reason that He did not like the original name. Thanks.

The guy doesn’t know what he’s talking about. First century Palestinan Jewish nomenclature didn’t work that way. They didn’t have family names the way we do, they had patronyms–which is to say, they were distinguished from others of the same personal name by an appellation designating them as the son (or daughter) of their father.

Thus Peter’s birth name was Simon bar-Jonah, or "Simon the son of John," and Jesus bestowed the name Peter on him, as we see in John 1:42:

He [Andrew] brought him [Simon] to Jesus. Jesus looked at him, and said, "So you are Simon the son of John? You shall be called Cephas" (which means Peter).

There also is no history of anybody prior to Peter having kepha (the original Aramaic form of the name) as a name, either as a personal name or as a surname (since they didn’t have surnames in first century Palestinian Jewish culture).

This custom of using patronyms to distinguish indiviuals with the same personal name is still used in many places in the world today, including other Middle Eastern cultures.

MORE INFO ON JEWISH NOMENCLATURE.

MORE INFO ON PATRONYMS.

Off The Road Again

Okay, I had already thought of my post title for this story before I read it in the article, so I’m going to use it anyway.

"Singer Willie Nelson’s name is off the road again.

"A state legislator had proposed naming a 49-mile stretch of Texas Highway 130 being built around Austin in Nelson’s honor.

"But two Republican senators, Steve Odgen of Bryan and Jeff Wentworth of San Antonio, said they didn’t want Nelson’s name on the road that crosses their districts, citing the musician’s fondness for drinking and smoking, and active campaigning for Democratic candidates."

GET THE STORY.

Call me cynical, but I doubt Willie Nelson’s personal habits would have mattered enough to State Senators Ogden and Wentworth to go to the trouble of blocking the proposal if Nelson had had a record of "active campaigning" for Republican candidates.  Of course, it’s also true that State Sen. Gonzalo Barrientos (D-Austin) might not have introduced the bill in the first place if it weren’t for that "active campaigning" for Democratic candidates.

Like I said, call me cynical.

The "Act Of The Devil" Clause

I really hope that Benedict XVI issues a new apostolic constitution governing conclaves.

It’s not a certainty that he will. He might rely on John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis. But popes tend to revise the rules governing what happens after their deaths. Some have revised them more than once.

But there’s a specific reason I want Benedict XVI to issue such a document.

There’s something that has been missing from such documents heretofore: an "act of the devil" clause.

Now, you may be asking: "What’s that?"

Well, you know how some contracts have "acts of God" clauses to cover unforeseen circumstances like floods, fires, and other unlikely but possible events not caused by human agency?

Suppose that al-Qa’eda detonated a suitcase nuke near the Sistine Chapel and killed every single one of the cardinal electors during a conclave.

They’d do it! They’re fantatics! Of course they’d love to wipe out the leaders of the "crusaders" while in the process of electing a new "crusader leader"! It’d convulse a billion Catholics plus (to some extent) another billion Christians. They’d love to do that. Indeed, we already know that al-Qa’eda has wanted to kill the pope more than once. Wiping out a conclave is well within their field of consideration.

Now, this wouldn’t be an "act of God" for, although it would be permitted by God’s providence (if he permitted it to happen, that is), it wouldn’t be something produced by natural forces rather than human agency. (I.e., it was terrorists rather than a hurricane or an earthquake.)

Therefore, let’s call it an "act of the devil" since (even under the providence of God) it would likely be the devil motivating the terrorists.

What would happen with respect to the election of a new pontiff in that case?

Nobody knows.

Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG) doesn’t say. Neither does any other Church document.

That we know of.

It’s always possible that John Paul II prepared a secret document that might be brought forward in such an event (assuming it and those who had knowledge of it weren’t also wiped out by the suitcase nuke), but I doubt it. UDG covers elaborate contingencies.

But not this one.

If John Paul II made specific provision for such a circumstance, it should have been in UDG (which was released in 1996–five years before World War IV even started).

UDG also has clauses in it that prohibit the cardinal electors from making new arrangements for the election of a pontiff. So what would happen if they were all wiped out? UDG doesn’t seem to leave the Church any avenues for electing a new pontiff.

Given that, what would realistically happen in this circumstance?

Assuming that there was no secret "act of the devil" document, probably the following:

  1. There would be a huge convulsion of unbelievable intensity, both in the Catholic world and in the world in general.
  2. The surviving cardinals, who would be those over the age of 80 or otherwise sick and not at the conclave, would issue a statement decrying the tragedy and saying that, despite its unforeseen nature, it is the will of God for the Church to go on and for the Petrine ministry not to be extinguished.
  3. They would then hold a new conclave, either by gathering in one place (probably not Rome, but somewhere the terrorists wouldn’t have anticipated) or by telecommunications.
  4. They would elect a new pope.
  5. Most Catholics (and others) would accept the new pope (and his successors).
  6. But innumerable individuals for centuries to come would be tormented by doubts about whether the election of the new pope and his successor was valid since it was done in a way completely unprovided for by Church law.

To avoid this situation (and assuring the faithful’s reception of the new papal election as valid is one of this kind of document’s chief purposes), it makes all the sense in the world for the new pontiff to include in his document a provision for the surviving cardinals to elect a new pontiff in the wake of a disaster that wipes out a conclave, whether caused by man or nature.

I therefore hope that Benedict XVI issues an apostolic constitution governing the next conclave and that includes an explicit "act of the devil" clause.

The “Act Of The Devil” Clause

I really hope that Benedict XVI issues a new apostolic constitution governing conclaves.

It’s not a certainty that he will. He might rely on John Paul II’s Universi Dominici Gregis. But popes tend to revise the rules governing what happens after their deaths. Some have revised them more than once.

But there’s a specific reason I want Benedict XVI to issue such a document.

There’s something that has been missing from such documents heretofore: an "act of the devil" clause.

Now, you may be asking: "What’s that?"

Well, you know how some contracts have "acts of God" clauses to cover unforeseen circumstances like floods, fires, and other unlikely but possible events not caused by human agency?

Suppose that al-Qa’eda detonated a suitcase nuke near the Sistine Chapel and killed every single one of the cardinal electors during a conclave.

They’d do it! They’re fantatics! Of course they’d love to wipe out the leaders of the "crusaders" while in the process of electing a new "crusader leader"! It’d convulse a billion Catholics plus (to some extent) another billion Christians. They’d love to do that. Indeed, we already know that al-Qa’eda has wanted to kill the pope more than once. Wiping out a conclave is well within their field of consideration.

Now, this wouldn’t be an "act of God" for, although it would be permitted by God’s providence (if he permitted it to happen, that is), it wouldn’t be something produced by natural forces rather than human agency. (I.e., it was terrorists rather than a hurricane or an earthquake.)

Therefore, let’s call it an "act of the devil" since (even under the providence of God) it would likely be the devil motivating the terrorists.

What would happen with respect to the election of a new pontiff in that case?

Nobody knows.

Universi Dominici Gregis (UDG) doesn’t say. Neither does any other Church document.

That we know of.

It’s always possible that John Paul II prepared a secret document that might be brought forward in such an event (assuming it and those who had knowledge of it weren’t also wiped out by the suitcase nuke), but I doubt it. UDG covers elaborate contingencies.

But not this one.

If John Paul II made specific provision for such a circumstance, it should have been in UDG (which was released in 1996–five years before World War IV even started).

UDG also has clauses in it that prohibit the cardinal electors from making new arrangements for the election of a pontiff. So what would happen if they were all wiped out? UDG doesn’t seem to leave the Church any avenues for electing a new pontiff.

Given that, what would realistically happen in this circumstance?

Assuming that there was no secret "act of the devil" document, probably the following:

  1. There would be a huge convulsion of unbelievable intensity, both in the Catholic world and in the world in general.
  2. The surviving cardinals, who would be those over the age of 80 or otherwise sick and not at the conclave, would issue a statement decrying the tragedy and saying that, despite its unforeseen nature, it is the will of God for the Church to go on and for the Petrine ministry not to be extinguished.
  3. They would then hold a new conclave, either by gathering in one place (probably not Rome, but somewhere the terrorists wouldn’t have anticipated) or by telecommunications.
  4. They would elect a new pope.
  5. Most Catholics (and others) would accept the new pope (and his successors).
  6. But innumerable individuals for centuries to come would be tormented by doubts about whether the election of the new pope and his successor was valid since it was done in a way completely unprovided for by Church law.

To avoid this situation (and assuring the faithful’s reception of the new papal election as valid is one of this kind of document’s chief purposes), it makes all the sense in the world for the new pontiff to include in his document a provision for the surviving cardinals to elect a new pontiff in the wake of a disaster that wipes out a conclave, whether caused by man or nature.

I therefore hope that Benedict XVI issues an apostolic constitution governing the next conclave and that includes an explicit "act of the devil" clause.