CANON OF THE MASS. - The word c., which has entered into ecclesiastical usage, has been employed since the 6th century to denote the most solemn part and the essential formula of the Eucharistic rite.
Summary:
I. Meaning
II. General character and traditional outline
III. The primitive Canon
IV. The Roman Canon and its author
V. The principal reconstructions of the ancient Roman Canon
VI. Secrecy of the Canon
VII. The Preface
VIII. The intercessory prayers
IX. The consecratory prayers
X. The offering of the victim
XI. The second reading of the diptychs
XII. The final doxologies
XIII. The Saints of the Canon.I. Meaning
Rather than a fixed and unchanging group of prayers, the word seems to signify the rule for the consecration of the Eucharist. In this sense it is first found in St. Gregory the Great: "orationem dominicam mox post canonem dixi statuistis" (Epist., IX, 12). However, in 558 Pope Vigilius, in his letter to Profuturo, uses an almost identical expression: "canonicae precis textum." The name Canon is nothing more than the abbreviation, in use in the 5th-6th centuries, of Canon actionis, i.e., rule of action and prayer; the present form Canon Missae derives from the Gregorian Sacramentary and has come to prevail. In liturgical tradition there are other terms to denote the same thing. It is called: prex, oratio oblationis, praecatio, praedicatio, benedictio, actio sacrificii, mysterium, anaphova, etc. The Eastern liturgies have numerous versions of it, but generally use a typical formula. The Roman rite has only one, the Canon, which is also common to the Ambrosian liturgy; only the first part of the prayer, the Preface, and in some circumstances the Communicantes and the Hanc igitur, vary.GIE
The Gallican and Visigothic rites altered various parts of the Mass, except for the narration of the institution of the Eucharist.
II. General Character and Traditional Outline
The Canon of the Mass is nothing other than the liturgical unfolding and dramatic reenactment of what Jesus accomplished at the Last Supper. Essentially, it is Hallel (v.) pronounced by the head of the household during the Jewish Passover meal, preserving the external framework of a blessing hymn; yet upon this framework a new concept has been inserted and developed, namely, the Redemption accomplished by Christ. The fundamental idea of the prayer, in its numerous traditional formulas, is therefore thanksgiving (εὐχαριστία), which gave its name to the entire rite, or rather to the sacrifice of Jesus. This content remained strikingly prominent and immutable amid the progressive differentiation of the various liturgies.
Examined closely, the development of this theme presents itself as distinct in two parts, though coordinated with one another: the laudatory thanksgiving from which the entire Canon begins (the Preface), and the sacrificial thanksgiving that concretizes this concept in the oblation of the Eucharist strictly speaking.
III. The Primitive Canon
In early times, the new hymn of blessing seems to have been left free for the celebrant to improvise if he was able; certainly, it was treated variously in written formulas. Nevertheless, it reproduced a common core of ideas, logically concatenated into an organic plan of the strictest unity. The primitive Canon was in fact a single composition, which unfolded harmoniously from the Sursum corda to the final doxology, before the fraction.
In its grand simplicity, it resounded like a song of praise and gratitude to the Trinity, whose divine Persons and actions in the redemption of the world were glorified. While particularly commemorating the works attributed to the Son, the account of the Last Supper was recited and the words of the Consecration were repeated. Finally, prayer was made to the Lord to look favorably upon the sacrifice and to send down upon it the power of the Holy Spirit, who ratifies the work of Jesus and confirms its completion.
The original outline can thus be summarized in the following points: thanksgiving for creation and redemption, the account of the Supper, anamnesis, epiclesis, and a concluding doxology. Such was the literary rhythm of the primitive Eucharistic hymn, which can be seen, in addition to St. Justin, also in the present-day Eastern anaphoras and in the oldest formulas we possess, such as those from the 4th century. The Canonof Serapion of Thmuis, and the anaphoras of the *Apostolic Constitutions*, the *Testamentum Domini*, and the Deir Balyzeh papyrus, to that preserved in the *Apostolic Statutes* of Hippolytus, according to the Latin version of the Verona palimpsest (218-35). For some time now, liturgists have focused their attention on the latter, especially since Cagin believed he had identified in it a common archetype from which the various *preces* of the liturgies would have derived. Today, these present no slight differences between the two main groups of Eastern and Western liturgies, and even among the families belonging to the same group. Through a careful process of elimination and comparison, the learned monk believed he had succeeded in establishing a formal unity which, if not precisely the original, was at least very close to II. Composed in Greek and inspired by the theme of prayers then in use, the *prex* of the *Apostolic Tradition* of Hippolytus, in addition to its content and author, derives its exceptional importance from being the oldest surviving text of the *hymnus eucharisticus*, predating interpolations or revisions. Stripped of all adventitious elements, the Roman Canon, as well as the Eastern anaphoras, substantially coincide with this venerable schema. Thus, prior to interpolations, one reaches a liturgical epoch in which all churches knew an anaphora consisting of a latreutic and Eucharistic hymn, of which the *prefatio* and the *epiclesis* formed the extremities, and the recollection of the Supper and the subsequent mysteries the center. The documents of this most ancient liturgical epoch, examined and compared by P. Cagin, are: the Verona fragments (ed. E. Hauler, Leipzig 1900, p. 106 ff.) in Latin; the *Statuta Apostolorum* (ed. J. Ludolf, Frankfurt am Main 1691) in Ethiopic; the *Testamentum Domini* (ed. E. Rahmani, Mainz 1899) in Syriac; the *Liturgia Salvatoris* (ed. J. Ludolf, Frankfurt am Main 1691) in Ethiopic; the *Liturgia Apostolorum* (ed. E. Renaudot, Paris 1718) in Ethiopic. These five documents, independent of one another, contain common parts and at times surprising coincidences. Since it is impossible to explain this agreement, one is compelled to trace it back to a primordial Canon, unique in its fundamental schema, from which the subsequent versions would derive. Cagin started from the presupposition that the "liturgical ordinance of the Egyptian Church" presents the oldest testimony of the apostolic tradition on the Canon; but his effort is rather artificial. It is not proven that the anaphora of Hippolytus has truly preserved the pure apostolic tradition, given that no other texts from the same period have come down to us. Even without recognizing in it the apostolic anaphora, contemporaneous with the last years of the apostle GIOVANNI, as the French *heredito* would have it, the Canon of Hippolytus' *Traditio* marks a stage of capital importance in the genesis and formation of the Eucharistic prayer.
IV. The Roman Canon and its author
The notable divergence of the Roman Canon from the anaphoras of the Greek liturgies and from the oldest forms of the Eucharistic hymn has long been noted. In reality, it forms a chapter apart in the history of the Mass. While not deviating from the traditional theme, it develops it with a singularity of
It is distinguished by its literary form from any other prayer. As a whole, it may date back to the 4th century, although for its composition the author drew on local tradition and earlier documents. St Justin, the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, the fragments reported in De Sacramentis—these are all the literary documentation from the first six centuries on the Roman Canon. St Justin, a witness to the liturgical usages of Rome, presents only a trace of the Canon of his time. The anaphora of Hippolytus, fundamentally Roman and perhaps composed to serve as a norm for the celebrant when its development was still of free inspiration, has left only faint traces in the present Canon, which follows a rather different rhythm. The passages from De Sacramentis go back no further than the end of the 4th century and offer developed formulas, though already distant from the primitive core. By that date, the Roman text appears clearly delineated and composed in its principal elements. Between the 2nd and 4th centuries, therefore, our Canon received its substantial redaction. To fill this gap of more than a century and to attribute to a single author the reform and to venture into the prehistory of the liturgy and to confront these almost insoluble questions is perilous. Even in Rome itself, in the 5th–6th centuries—the period of the composition of the Liber Pontificalis—little was known of the origins and author of the Eucharistic prayer. One was content with a “so it is said,” to the point that Pope Vigilius (538), writing to Profuturus of Braga, even considered it received ex traditione apostolica. St Gregory the Great did not hold it in exaggerated esteem and regarded it as precum quam scholasticus composuerat, thus the work of an anonymous scholar (excluding, of course, the essential part of the consecration). Another hypothesis, advanced by Morin, would link this scholasticus to Firmicus Maternus (mid-4th century). Recent scholars have endeavored to dispel such uncertainties by indicating probable authors, but without solid results. Callewaert refers to the work of St Leo the Great (S. Léon le Grand et les textes du Léonien, Bruges 1948, pp. 87–125); characteristic is the opinion of Baumstark, who sees in the Roman Canon a translation from the Greek, based on concepts and grammatical peculiarities proper to the East. The Council of Trent (Session XXII, chap. 4) states that it was composed by the Church, which reverently directs that the sacrifice be offered and received, and that the sacred Canon was instituted by the Church many centuries ago. The disparity of judgments can be harmonized by saying that the substance of the Canon comes from the Apostles (Vigilius); that its arrangement, however, is the work of the Church (Council of Trent); and that in its final redaction, whether total or partial, private individuals or those commissioned by the Roman pontiffs also had a hand (Gregory).
V. THE PRINCIPAL RECONSTRUCTIONS OF THE ANCIENT ROMAN CANON
Careful examination of the various parts of the Canon reveals profound alterations. The very brief conclusions slipped in here and there serve to unbind the different prayers and to emphasize their disjointedness all the more. Thus the Canon is not only no longer the primitive Eucharistic prayer, but it does not even represent exactly the type of Canon from the 4th century, the probable period of its composition. The various touches to the Eucharistic year, the new insertions, and above all the diaconal precisions—which, where there was no deacon, had to be recited by the celebrant himself—have diluted the text of the first anaphora, now dispersed throughout the Mass Canon. Special account must be taken, in particular, of the developments that occurred between the 5th and the end of the 6th century, when the Roman prayer assumed a new character through the suppression of very ancient elements and the addition of new formulas. For example, one would look in vain today in the text we possess for an explicit episcopal reference, to which Pope Gelasius clearly alludes in 496 when writing to Elpidius. The text we now possess can only be established on the basis of manuscripts dating back at most to the 7th–8th century. It is certain only that the final touches, attributed to Gregory the Great, took place around the year 600, and that in Rome the Canon can be considered definitively fixed at the beginning of the 7th century.Among the various hypotheses formulated by liturgists regarding the redaction of the Canon, it will suffice to report the most plausible ones.
1) According to C. Bunsen, the Roman Canon, when compared with the consecratory prayers of Milan, Gaul, and Spain, would represent the product of a more recent period, characterized by greater simplicity and brevity, and thus in contrast to the florid and rhetorical style of the other Western churches. The Leonine and Gelasian Sacramentaries would be documents of this simple Roman style, which asserted itself in the middle of the 4th century, between Sylvester and Damasus, precisely when the last resistance to the Greek language in the liturgy came to an end at Rome. The insertion of the diptychs, whose reading passed from the deacon to the celebrant, and the reworking of the oblation prayers gave the Canon its present appearance, that of a disordered collection of texts. Thus the Memento of the Living would be a kind of parenthesis, a marginal formula recited by the deacon; consequently the Communicantes would logically connect back to the Te igitur, giving to the first word, otherwise almost incomprehensible, a meaning of communion and unity with the Pope and the hierarchy. The addition to the Haec igitur, attributed to St.Gregorio Magno, would not have been limited to the single phrase *disegno nostro in tua pace disponas*, but would include the entire second part of the oration, which would therefore have originally formed a single unit with the subsequent prayer *Quam oblationem*.
A principal merit of Bunsen is that of having distinguished the deacon’s prayer from the strictly sacerdotal formulas, thus opening the way to the solution of the most intricate problem of the intercessory prayers in the Roman Canon.
2) F. Probst, a convinced advocate of the theory of the evolution of the Roman liturgy, seeks the first source of our Canon in Book VIII of the Apostolic Constitutions. There, according to him, must be found the ancient liturgy, *una, sancta, catholica et apostolica*. Later, under the auspices of St. Damasus, it underwent notable revisions in the Urbe; in particular, the various ecclesiastical stations and feasts were linked to the Eucharistic rite, which until then had been extraneous to the development of the liturgical year. From him also originated, along with the collects, the secrets and postcommunion, the prefaces; with the consequence, however, of isolating the first part of the Eucharistic hymn from the consecration. The free space between the *triumphus* and the account of the Last Supper was filled with adventitious pieces, the various intercessory prayers. The theory of Probst remains uncertain and does not appear satisfactory; but he was able to propose it because, in his time, of all the primitive liturgical literature only the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions was known.
3) P. Cagin deserves the bold attempt to push the origins of the Roman text even further back, almost to the threshold of the so-called apostolic liturgy. Through ingenious comparisons between Roman formulas and their counterparts in Gaul and Spain (which, contrary to the opinion of Duchesne and other eminent liturgists, he assigns to an identical original stock, itself linked to the ancient liturgical source of the Egyptian Church), he sought to demonstrate that the texts detrimental to the conceptual continuity of the Roman prayer are found in some documents placed outside their natural position. Restored to their original place, they receive a more exact and logical meaning. Thus the two *Memento* and the *Communicantes* should be placed outright before the Preface, in the offertory zone, where the Gallican Mass has placed from time immemorial the solemn reading of the diptychs. The *Hæc igitur* and the *Quam oblationem* can be considered transitional formulas, corresponding to the Gallican *Post sanctus*; the *Te igitur* would be a kind of substitute *epicletic* or offering prayer, to be recited after the consecration, akin to the *Oration post pridie* of the Gallican liturgy; the *Nobis quoque peccatoribus*, on the contrary, would have been found after the Pater Noster, as a kind of supplement.
The highly personal solution of Cagin has left scholars perplexed and has proven practically unsustainable. In the time of Innocent I (401–17), the intercessory prayers
From it the people’s cry at its close: Amen. Rome could not depart from the general usage. The well-known episode of the death of Melania is an authoritative document of this. The present secrecy of the canon may be regarded as a slow repercussion of the Byzantine rite. Already from the mid-4th century in the East a reverential awe had come to inspire this part of the Mass, which later surrounded the altar with curtains and even a wall (iconostasis) to separate the faithful from the priest. This aspect of Greek piety coincides symptomatically with the affirmation of the theory of the epiclesis. By the 6th century the custom of reciting it in a low voice had become general in the East. A sentiment almost equal, though still very vague, had penetrated to Rome by the 5th century, as is shown by the interesting letter of Pope Innocent to the bishop of Gubbio. In reply to a series of questions touching certain liturgical divergences, the Pontiff employs very measured language, especially when he refers to the canon, whose context he does not wish to discuss: quae aperire non debeo; and he concludes with a general reservation: reliqua quae scribis fasta non erat, cum adfueris, interrogati poterimus edicere; all expressions betraying a strange concern for secrecy that is surprising in a private letter addressed to a bishop, in contrast with the freedom with which the same mysteries are spoken of elsewhere by his contemporaries. By the 7th century the recitation of the canon at Rome was already made in secret (Ordo romanus of John “Archiacant”); J. A. Jungmann, Praefatio und stiller Kanon, in Gewordene Liturgie, Innsbruck 1941, pp. 53-119).
VII. THE PREFACE
The Preface (v.), from the Latin prae-fari, is the introductory part of the Eucharistic prayer. Unlike modern usage, which designates by this term the entire text that solemnly prepares for the singing of the Sanctus, the ancients called Praefatio only the brief initial dialogue between the priest and the people. Restricted in this sense, the word is already used by St. Cyprian in the 3rd century; a proof of the great antiquity of this invitation, which appears in all rites and can be considered one of the cornerstones of primitive liturgy. Its specific function is to prepare souls for the grand theme of sacrificial prayer, while at the same time stirring them to recollection.VIII. INTERCESSORY PRAYERS
Intercession is a form of supplication for particular persons or intentions, which filters into the eucharistic prayer, having split into two parts, before and after the Consecration, yet sharing in the dignity of the sacred rite. Essentially linked to the use of the diptychs, it is ordinarily based on the concept of offering, and can therefore be related to the gifts presented by the faithful.1) The first part of it, the Te igitur, is intended for the “commendation” of the oblates and of the militant Church, gathered around its head and its hierarchy. The mention of the Pope and the bishop has a special significance for ecclesiastical unity, particularly necessary in the celebration of the Eucharist. The commemoration of civil authority is already hinted at in the De Sacramentis, but appears in definitive form only from the 9th–10th century onward, without, however, becoming a constant rule, so much so that in the Missal of Pius V (1570) it no longer appears. By apostolic privilege, this commemoration was preserved in Spain and in the Austro-Hungarian Empire until their recent disappearance. The words omnibus orthodoxis atque... fidei cultoribus, which even literally betray a later addition, can be traced back to the date mentioned above. Although of different origin and content, the Te igitur therefore presents a certain similarity to the solemn litanic prayer or Oratio fidelium, from which it has probably received its fundamental structure.
As it now stands, it can be considered almost a conclusion to the thanksgiving of the Preface, ideally connecting back to the initial protocol. The igitur serves as its logical link, and the same invocative Pater and the incidental phrase per Christum Dominum nostrum recur.
2) The priest then prays for particular intentions. This is the special fruit of the sacrifice commended in the Memento of the living. An ancient custom was to recite publicly the names of the offerers and of the persons for whom prayer was intended. These lists were written on wooden or ivory tablets, folded like a book, and called by the Greek term “Diptychs” (v.). The reading of such names, of very ancient origin, must originally have taken place in the offertory area. It is not possible to know when Rome transferred the diptychs to their present position; certainly at a very early date, since the cited letter of Pope Innocent to the bishop of Gubbio (416) already places the Commendatio nominum within the Canon. Moreover, the insertion of such names is thought to be of non-Roman origin, and the Gelasian Sacramentary prescribes that they be recited only in private Masses. The words: pro quibus tibi offerimus vel qui tibi offerunt are also an innovation of the 9th–10th century, and many see in them a distinction between those present who offer and the faithful for whom the Sacrifice is offered. The reading of the diptychs, done aloud by the deacon, lasted until the 16th century.3) It is now established that the Communicantes, with its list of twelve Apostles and twelve martyrs, headed by the Virgin Mother of God, does not belong at all to the primitive Canon, but was inserted at a later date. Proof of this is the violent break in the ideological line, which does not connect with what precedes or follows, and the list of saints, which cannot be earlier than the 6th century, the period, for many of them, of their liturgical cult in Rome (cf. infra, n. XIII). Rome probably adopted the diptychs of the saints by reflection of the usage elsewhere, where the recitation of the names of the martyrs, in whose honor the sacrifice was offered, had entered into the liturgy for centuries. The names were therefore occasional, at least in their origins. Scholars have endeavored to determine the vague meaning of the word Communicantes, which remains grammatically without a complement. Bishop, in order to make the disconnection with the preceding formula less jarring, proposes a different punctuation of the “Memento”: “... pro spe salutis et incolumitatis suae. Tibi (the suffix que is missing in the best manuscripts) reddunt vota sua aeterno Deo vivo et vero, communicantes et memoriam venerantes...” However, there are manuscripts that link it materially to the last words of the Memento. Schuster, on the other hand, tends to detach it entirely from the list of saints, to refer it to the name of the pope with whom one was in communion: “una cum famulo tuo papa nostro communicantes; sed et memoriam venerantes...”; and while this solution has the advantage of giving the participle the support of a finite verb tibi offerimus, it encounters the major obstacle of skipping over the commendatio nominum. It would seem more logical to link the word Communicantes with the preceding phrase of the Memento, which says “qui tibi offerunt,” to which the memory of the saints has been grafted: “et memoriam venerantes,” a memory which finds its reason for being in the very excellence of the Eucharistic rite. Without leaving the context, the two participles essentially form a single expression. The content of the prayer is therefore obvious: in communion with the saints, divine help is sought for their merits. It is not so much a supplication that is made in the Communicantes, but rather a commemoration. The participle would thus acquire the sense of “commemorantes”; a meaning which allows the brief embolisms, which in some principal solemnities are added to the text, not to be entirely isolated: “... et diem sacratissimum celebrantes...”
4) The conclusion of the intercession is the formula Hanc igitur. Once it admitted many variants, as appears from the sacramentaries. This was indeed the moment when the particular intentions of the faithful for whom the sacrifice was offered were expressed. It was not a fixed formula, but was recited only on precise occasions, as, for example, on the occasion of baptismal scrutinies, ordinations, marriages, for the dead, in short for persons who, in certain circumstances, presented a special offering. From this point of view it assumed a rather private and individual character. Only later (perhaps with Gregory the Great,
which has reduced their number, including in it the phrase *disegue nostros in tua pace disponas*) the prayer receives a general formulation, which, being destined for the universality of the faithful, came to be almost a duplicate of the great intercessory prayer. Today it has preserved its original character of particular recommendation in very rare cases: Holy Thursday, Easter, Pentecost (baptismal feasts), in the Mass of the consecration of the bishop. The references contained in the moment for the particular intentions of the faithful: *qui tibi offerunt hoc sacrificium laudis pro se suisque omnibus, pro redemptione animarum suarum, pro se salutis et incolumitatis suae*, have led some liturgists to suppose that here the concept of individual recommendation, expressed in the *Haec igitur*, was transferred and fused at a later time. The matter is far from proven.
IX. THE CONSECRATORY PRAYERS
Linked to intercession is the formula *Quam oblationem*, which, however, marks the transition from the order of material offering to that of the Sacrament. In it, a request is made that the gifts presented be blessed and accepted so as to become the Body and Blood of the Redeemer. The Roman text diverges somewhat, revising and correcting the archaic text of the *De Sacramentis*, which contains expressions in conformity with ancient tradition, notably the anaphora of Serapion. Recently, some have wished to see in it a kind of epiclesis of the Roman liturgy, forgetting, however, that its content already finds examples in some *Secreta* of the Gregorian Sacramentary and that the conjunction *ut*, intended to give it the appearance of final preparation for the great mystery, is replaced by the more concrete pronouns *quod* in the text of the *De Sacramentis* and by *quae* in the Canon of the Stowe Missal.Up to this point, the liturgies have freely developed the general theme of the anaphora; now a symptomatic uniformity is established among them. The account of the Supper is the only truly immovable element in the history of the Mass. Leclercq has collected no fewer than 85 consecratory formulas from various liturgies, in which the agreement is remarkable despite differences of time and place. The Roman text of the account, *Qui pridie quam pateretur*, substantially reproduces the biblical texts but with verbal modifications and additions intended to frame the consecratory formulas, some derived from tradition. Peculiar is the insertion *mysterium fidei* between the words of the consecration of the chalice. This addition is one of the distinctive features of the Roman Canon, already expanded by the 6th century. Perhaps it is an interpolation of Gallican origin and was originally a ritual acclamation in some church or the deacon’s notice to call the faithful’s attention to the moment of Consecration. The consecratory formula is immediately followed by an exhibition of the Body and Blood of Christ (v. ELEVATIONE). Up to the 12th century, the only elevation of the sacred species in the Mass was the one that still concludes the Canon with the *doxology*. The current elevation is rather recent and seems to have arisen due to a controversy about the precise moment of transubstantiation debated at the University of Paris at the beginning of the 13th century. The elevation of the chalice came much later and may be said to have been introduced for the sake of symmetry; it became general only with the Missal of Pius V. It is well known how the “vision of the Body of Christ” thrilled the faithful and formed one of the most genuine devotions of the last centuries of the Middle Ages. From the 16th century, however, the practice of gazing at the sacred species disappeared. Today it is beginning to return, also thanks to the invocation “My Lord and my God,” granted an indulgence by Pope Pius X.
X. THE OFFERING OF THE VICTIM
The presentation to the Father of the holy victim logically finds its place after the consecration. The Canon may be said to be entirely contained in this offering. Despite the present division into paragraphs, introduced by the rubrics, the three prayers that express its object form a single oration: three aspects of the same oblation. They partake somewhat of the immobility of the central rite; the movement of ideas is almost equal in all liturgies. The consecratory rite ends with the recollection of Christ’s command to repeat the Eucharistic act: *Haec quotiescumque feceritis*... The Canon develops this thought, commemorating the principal mysteries of the life and death of the Redeemer, in the prayer *Unde et memores*, known to liturgists by the name of “anamnesis” (v. ANAMNESI). This may be considered the loftiest expression of thanksgiving to God, since it offers the unique gift of Himself, *de tuis donis ac datis*. In the remembrance of these saving mysteries, the Church presents to the Father “the bread of eternal life and the cup of everlasting salvation.” The text indicates separately the priestly college from the family of the faithful (*servi tui sed et plebs tua*), a precious vestige of the primitive custom of celebrating the Eucharist with the bishop surrounded by his presbyterate. The allusion to the type-sacrifices of the Old Testament (Abel, Abraham, Melchisedech), placed within the formula of offering, is found in almost all the Eastern liturgies of the 5th century. As Baumstark has shown, its symbolism has passed from one anaphora to another, becoming part of the patrimony even of the Roman Canon (Supra quae). St. Leo the Great added the words *sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam*, thus emphasizing the sacrifice of Melchisedech, which more than the others approaches the Eucharistic sacrifice.The concept of offering, expressed at this point of the anaphora, finds affinities and interesting echoes in certain “Secrets” of the Mass, notable for their explicit memory of the oblation of the victim. This has led to the supposition that in these latter formulas and ideas once contained in the anamnesis have been transferred. Such a metamorphosis, however, remains a conjecture.
The third part of the offering prayer (*Supplices te rogamus*) is that which has most opened the field to discussion and research. Even eminent liturgists have wished to see in the mysterious angel, invoked to carry the holy oblation to the altar of heaven, either the Holy Spirit (Missus), or the Divine Word (*magni consilii angelus*), or a particular celestial spirit (the angel of sacrifice). It seems in reality that nothing other should be seen here than the angelic ministry, which presents to God the tribute of adoration and thanksgiving of the Church, so that it may not be only a sacrifice pleasing to Him, but also a fruitful sacrament for souls. The difficulty is due in part to the fact that the formula has undergone successive alterations, made, who knows when or by whom.The comparison with the anaphora of Hippolytus and notably with the *De Sacramentis* is significant. The first sentence is indeed an offering prayer (*iube haec perferri*), while the second is a petition for sanctification for the communicants (*ut quotquot ex hac altaris... sumpserimus*), which in all other prayers is found in the epiclesis. There is no doubt, therefore, that there is an affinity between the epiclesis and the Roman formula *Supplices te rogamus*. The word *epiclesis* (= calling, invocation) originally meant the solemn invocation of the divine name over a person or thing, as if to summon down its omnipotent power. In this sense, the entire Eucharistic canon may be called an epiclesis. This generic meaning appears in Irenaeus in the 2nd century (*Adversus haereses*, IV, 18, 5), and shortly afterward in Firmilian, in his letter to St. Cyprian. Only in the 4th century, at the time of the Macedonian controversies, did the concept of a particular invocation of the Holy Spirit take hold, so that it might transform the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. This is the case in the Eastern liturgies; whereas in the West, the epiclesis was probably limited to the simple invocation of the Paraclete, perhaps for trinitarian purposes. In this sense, the presence of an epiclesis at Rome is explained, clearly documented by the letter of Gelasius I to Elpidius of Volterra. Objectively speaking, however, in the present formula *Supplices te rogamus*, where the ancient epiclesis is thought to be, there is no mention of the Holy Spirit nor any point of similarity with the Eastern conception. This demonstrates that the Roman Church attributed no consecratory power to the epiclesis, but only an impetratory value.
and the Holy Spirit, with His presence, ratified the common offering, making it more pleasing to the Father and more trust-inspiring to the faithful.
XI. THE SECOND READING OF THE DIPTYCHS
The return to intercessory prayers toward the end of the Canon is not original. It is difficult to reconstruct this part of the prayer; probably the two formulas of the diptychs also found a place in the Offertory zone. Only conjectures can be advanced regarding their primitive arrangement and their formulary. The introduction of the commemoration of the dead at this point is certainly late; it is lacking in the oldest codices. Bishop and Andrieu explain its absence by the fact that at Rome until the 9th century no mention was made of the deceased in public Masses celebrated on Sunday or on a feast day. It is not improbable that at first such a commemoration was linked to the Hanc igitur, where the memory of the departed was occasioned by the offering presented in their suffrage. It thus had a private and adventitious character, far removed from that of the memento of the living. Its language still bears the fragrance of venerable antiquity and must be considered a reflection of sepulchral epigraphy (praeceserunt...; signum fidei...; in somno pacis...; refriri...). The Nobis quoque peccatoribus is a kind of most beautiful memento of the dead; the prayer of intercession for the fruits of the sacrifice indeed continues. But the object of this supplication is now the celebrant himself and the offering college of the presbyters, clearly designated by the classical expression of Christian antiquity: famuli. It is therefore a specifically sacerdotal prayer. Nevertheless, one cannot conceal the illegality of a new enumeration of the saints at this point in the Canon. The very stylistic form of the oration, where the names of the martyrs have a wholly accidental placement, betrays something artificial. Such an enumeration does not constitute an orderly continuation of the list in the Communicantes, but is a supplementary addition, inserted here probably by Pope Symmachus at the beginning of the 6th century.XII. LE DOSSOLOGIE FINALI
La grande preghiera eucaristica si conclude con una solenne glorificazione della Trinità, che è uno degli elementi più antichi della Messa ed è composta di due frasi indipendenti. La prima parte riprende il tema iniziale del C., la glorificazione del Padre per mezzo di Gesù Cristo: per quem haec omnia...; ma il suo esatto valore è ancora discusso. Dal diverso legame della frase con i testi precedenti dipende il significato dell'intera formula. Vari autori riallacciano le parole haec omnia al panem sanctum vitae aeternae et calicem salutis perpetua (indicati precisamente con il relativo quae nel supra quae propitio e con il dimostrativo haec nel Supplices te rogamus), riferendo così l'oggetto del la preghiera ai doni stessi del Sacrificio. Senonché la voce omnia appare un po' ridondante per indicare semplicemente gli elementi eucaristici. La frase ha forse subito ampliamenti e l'influenza della benedizione dei frutti della terra, che in alcune circostanze liturgiche aveva luogo a questo punto della Messa. L'omnia si spiegava bene con la varietà dei doni presentati al-l'altare; doni sacrificali e doni di natura. Le formole degli antichi sacramentari precisano chiaramente tale intenzione. Oggi è rimasta, unico residuo, la solenne benedizione dell'Olio degli infermi nel Giovedì santo. La seconda parte è la vera dossologia finale (per Ipsum, et cum Ipso ecc.); lode suprema e concorde di tutta la creazione, che unita a Cristo, in Cristo, e per mezzo di Cristo, eleva alla Triade santa un canto di gloria perenne. L'amen conclusivo rappresenta il solo intervento dei fedeli nella preghiera eucaristica. Esso ha una sua storia; già nel sec. II il martire Giustino ne sottolineava la grande importanza. È il grido del popolo cristiano, che esprime a Dio la pienezza del suo culto e gli dice il grazie di tutta l'umanità redenta. Anche sotto questo punto di vista, oltre che per gli elementi storici, eucologici e dogmatici, il C. della M. è il monumento letterario più importante del culto occidentale.XIII. THE SAINTS OF THE CANON — In the present Roman Canon we find a twofold list of names of saints: the first after the Memento of the living, in the formula Communicantes; the second after the Memento of the dead, in the formula Nobis quoque peccatoribus.
The two Mementos were inserted into the Canon at least by the beginning of the 5th century. It is certain that Innocent I, in the well-known letter to Decentius, Bishop of Gubbio (A.D. 416), inculcates this custom as already in existence (PL 20, 553).
The two Mementos entered the Canon, as the same Innocent affirms in the cited letter, to bring the names of the offerers closer to the central point of the sacrificial liturgy; their original place was immediately after the offering of the faithful, that is, at the reading of the diptychs. To the names of the living and the dead inscribed in the diptychs were soon added the names of the dead venerated as saints: hence the origin of the lists of saints. This usage originated in the East.
1. The saints of the Communicantes
The present form of the list appears as the fruit of an intelligent revision. It consists of 24 names, besides that of the Mother of God which precedes them. The 24 saints are: 12 Apostles (with Paul, without Matthias) and 12 martyrs; of these, 6 bishops (5 of Rome, 1 of Carthage), 2 other ecclesiastics (Lawrence and Chrysogonus, the latter believed to be a priest), and 4 laymen. It is commonly held that the definitive redaction in its present form is due to St. Gregory the Great. The primitive Roman list (between the 4th and 5th centuries) was probably this: Mary, Peter, Paul, Sixtus, Lawrence, Cornelius, Cyprian. The Apostles John and Andrew already had liturgical cult in Rome by the 5th century; during the 6th century also Thomas, Philip and James; in this same century the other martyrs must have entered the Canon, and finally also the remaining Apostles. No confessor entered the Roman Canon. The fact that this list of the 12 Apostles differs sharply from the biblical lists attests, if need be, that it developed independently. The Church of Milan accepted (with the Roman Canon) its own list of saints, in the incomplete state in which it then stood, towards the beginning of the 6th century (cf. F. Savio, I dittici del Canone ambrosiano e del Canone romano, in Miscellanea di storia italiana, Torino 1905, pp. 4-5).Outside Rome, in the reception of the Roman liturgy, the list of saints in the Canon underwent various additions, especially in the ancient Hispanic and Gallican liturgies. Generally, the national saints Hilary and Martin, the Doctors (Augustine, Ambrose, Jerome), and often St. Benedict were added; moreover, names of local saints, so that
These names often made it possible to identify the church for which the corresponding liturgical book was intended. The lists of saints sometimes grew to twenty or more names. Gregory III, referring to the monks of one of the monasteries of St. Peter in the Vatican who venerated many relics of saints, proposed to them a comprehensive formula for the commemoration of many saints; this formula then entered, with variations, into the usage of other churches. The reform of St. Pius V permanently reduced the list of saints in the Communicantes to the definitive number of 24.
2. The saints of the “Nobis quoque peccatoribus.” — This second list also appears, at first glance, as the result of a definitive redaction, the author of which was probably St. Gregory the Great himself. The list indeed opens with the name of John the Baptist, followed by 14 martyrs, 7 men and 7 women.
Without repeating here the very complex history of the final formulas of the Canon, it suffices to note that, with every likelihood, the Nobis quoque originally followed immediately after the Supplices, while the Memento of the dead forms a felicitous subsequent insertion, in accordance with the custom of reading the diptychs of the dead.
In any case, it is well to recall the parallel passages in the ancient Egyptian liturgy of St. Mark and the Coptic liturgy, which, in the corresponding prayer, places at the beginning the names of Mary, John the Baptist, and Stephen the Protomartyr (F. E. Brightman, *Liturgies Eastern and Western*, I, Oxford, 1896, pp. 128, 169). John the Baptist and Stephen certainly also opened the primitive Roman list (early 6th century); they were probably followed by: Peter and Marcellinus; Agnes, Cecilia, and Felicity, three Roman martyrs. Soon other saints venerated in Rome were added, such as Alexander, most likely the one of June 10 (later changed to Pope Alexander I); the two Sicilians Agatha and Lucy, who enjoyed great cult in Rome in the 5th and 6th centuries, and, in the Byzantine era, Anastasia. The name Felicity, through an easy association, brought in the famous African martyr Perpetua, so that Felicity was later believed to be the namesake African martyr. When and why St. Ignatius was inserted—then liturgically little venerated—we do not know; the last to complete the list were Matthias and Barnabas, evidently in order to include all the apostles in the Canon itself. For this second list of saints, too, the observation made regarding the first list in connection with the Ambrosian Canon can be repeated: reception of the Roman list in a still rudimentary state and autonomous refinement.
The second list of saints also underwent the usual additions outside Rome, but to a much lesser degree. St. Pius V admitted into the Missal the complete Roman list from the time of St. Gregory the Great.