• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Pope Saint Paul VI (3 April 1969): “Although the text of the Roman Gradual—at least that which concerns the singing—has not been changed, the Entrance antiphons and Communions antiphons have been revised for Masses without singing.”

  • Donate
  • Our Team
    • Our Editorial Policy
    • Who We Are
    • How To Contact Us
    • Sainte Marie Bulletin Articles
    • Jeff’s Mom Joins Fundraiser
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • KYRIALE • Saint Antoine Daniel
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Repository • “Spanish Music”
    • Ordinary Form Feasts (Sainte-Marie)
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Catechism of Gregorian Rhythm
    • Father Enemond Massé Manuscripts
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Secrets of the Conscientious Choirmaster
    • “Wedding March” for lazy organists
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
    • The Eight Gregorian Modes
    • Gradual by Pothier’s Protégé
    • Seven (7) Considerations
Views from the Choir Loft

Adding Joseph to the Eucharistic Prayers

Fr. David Friel · July 7, 2013

F I SAID to the average Mass-goer, “Eucharistic Prayer,” would they likely know to what I was referring? Anyone who goes to Mass regularly is familiar with the Eucharistic Prayer, but I suspect that many Catholics don’t really know what that term means. That makes it difficult to explain what the Congregation for Divine Worship did a few weeks ago through its decree, Paternas vices.

Since 1970, there have been a variety of Eucharistic Prayers from which the priest can choose. There are four main Eucharistic Prayers and a handful of others, which most priests rarely use. Before 1970, things were a bit different. For a very long time before that—from the 7th century—there was only one Eucharistic Prayer. Known from time immemorial as the Roman Canon, it is now formally called Eucharistic Prayer I. This prayer, in its Latin form, was prayed with very few changes to its text for a millennium-and-a-half. That is astonishing! When the priest prays the Roman Canon, even today, he and the congregation are united to millions and millions of Catholics who have gone before us praying nearly the exact same words. That living continuity is something that should stir us as Catholics.

In 1962, Pope John XXIII made the first change to the Roman Canon since Pope Pius V. He added in the name of St. Joseph, who is the universal patron of the Church, so that his patronage would be requested in every celebration of the Mass. It might seem like a small thing to add a saint’s name, but when a prayer has been unchanged for so long, it’s a big deal. Now, just a couple of weeks ago, something similar happened. The Congregation for Divine Worship in Rome has decided that, from now on, the name of St. Joseph must be mentioned not only in the First Eucharistic Prayer, but in all of them. Right after the Blessed Mother is mentioned, the priest will now add in a reference to “Blessed Joseph, her spouse.”

This is an unusual event in the history of the liturgy, so it merits a moment’s reflection on the meaning and purpose of the Eucharistic Prayer. When I was a really little kid, I thought I knew the meaning and purpose of the Eucharistic Prayer. I thought it was specially designed to bore kids to death (!). Talking to my parents, I used to call the Eucharistic Prayer “the long kneel.” That was all it meant to me at the time. My understanding has evolved a bit since then. For many Catholics, though, I’m not sure their understanding is much deeper than that.

What is the meaning and purpose of the Eucharistic Prayer? It’s not just a long bunch of words we have to get through before everyone can receive Holy Communion. It is a very intimate prayer spoken by the priest directly to God the Father. This is clear from the first words of each of the four main Eucharistic Prayers:

I — “To you, therefore, most merciful Father, we make humble prayer and petition”

II — “You are indeed Holy, O Lord, the fount of all holiness”

III — “You are indeed Holy, O Lord, and all you have created rightly gives you praise”

IV — “We give you praise, Father most holy”

Each of these prayers is oriented directly toward God the Father. This is essential to understanding what the Eucharistic Prayer is; it is a very intimate prayer spoken by the priest directly to God the Father. This is why eye contact is not important during the Canon of the Mass. The priest shouldn’t be looking at the people then, since he’s not speaking to them; he should be looking toward the Lord. Nor is it important that the priest shout the words of the Canon so as to be heard even back in the crying room. The most pressing need during the Canon of the Mass is not that the congregation should see or hear what is transpiring, but rather that the priest and people (musicians, included) might together enter the sacrifice by offering their humble, contrite hearts.

And what is it that the priest is saying to the Father? He is asking God to accept the people’s gift of bread and wine (which, strangely enough, was first God’s gift to us). Then the priest asks God to transform the sacrifice into the Body & Blood of His Son. Finally, the priest asks God to accept from his own human hands the gift of God’s own Son (Who, interestingly enough, was first God’s gift to us).

The Eucharistic Prayer is the Church’s way of offering Jesus to the Father. This is the essence of the Mass: the re-presentation of the one, eternal sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. What happens during the Eucharistic Prayer is no different than what happened on that dusty, bloodstained Cross on Calvary. What happens is exactly the same thing. What a privilege it is to be a priest—to stand in the Person of Christ as all of this happens!

I’m excited that the name of St. Joseph has been added to all the Eucharistic Prayers. I would be even more excited, though, if every person in the church joined in the Eucharistic Prayer. I do not mean, of course, that they should say anything. Rather, in silence, by focusing & praying along with the priest, the people can offer themselves to God the Father much like Jesus offers Himself. That is what actual (“active”) participation in the Mass really means.

Imagine that there are only two people sitting in the pews of a country church. One of them is sitting in the front pew. She sings every hymn and speaks aloud every response. Maybe she even reads one of the readings. During the Eucharistic Prayer, though, her mind wanders and she starts making a mental to-do list for when she gets home. The second person, on the other hand, sits all the way in the back pew. She doesn’t sing along and doesn’t say a word. But she listens intently to the readings, and, during the Eucharistic Prayer, she offers the joys and struggles of the past week to God and asks Him to make her more like Him in the week to come. Which of these two women has really participated in the Mass? Clearly, the second.

With the prayers of St. Joseph to help us, may we all follow her example!

Opinions by blog authors do not necessarily represent the views of Corpus Christi Watershed.

Filed Under: Articles Last Updated: January 1, 2020

Subscribe

It greatly helps us if you subscribe to our mailing list!

* indicates required

About Fr. David Friel

Ordained in 2011, Father Friel is a priest of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and serves as Director of Liturgy at Saint Charles Borromeo Seminary. —(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

President’s Corner

    PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
    EARS BEFORE truly revolutionary changes were introduced by the post-conciliar reformers, Evelyn Waugh wrote (on 16 August 1964) to John Cardinal Heenan: “I think that a vociferous minority has imposed itself on the hierarchy and made them believe that a popular demand existed where there was in fact not even a preference.” We ask the kind reader— indeed, we beg you—to realize that those of us born in the 1940s and 1950s had no cognizance of Roman activities during the 1960s and 1970s. We were concerned with making sure we had the day’s bus fare, graduating from high school, taking care of our siblings, learning a trade, getting a job, courting a spouse. We questioned neither the nuns nor the Church.1 Do not believe for one instant any of us were following the liturgical machinations of Cardinal Lercaro or Father Bugnini in real time. Setting The Stage • To never question or resist Church authorities is praiseworthy. On the other hand, when a scandalous situation persists for decades, it must be brought into focus. Our series will do precisely that as we discuss the Lectionary Scandal from a variety of angles. We don’t do this to attack the Catholic Church. Our goal is bringing to light what’s been going on, so it can be fixed once and for all. Our subject is extremely knotty and difficult to navigate. Its complexity helps explain why the situation has persisted for such a long time.2 But if we immediately get “into the weeds” we’ll lose our audience. Therefore, it seems better to jump right in. So today, we’ll explore the legality of selling these texts. A Word On Copyright • Suppose Susie modifies a paragraph by Edgar Allan Poe. That doesn’t mean ipso facto she can assert copyright on it. If Susie takes a picture of a Corvette and uses Photoshop to color the tires blue, that doesn’t mean she henceforth “owns” all Corvettes in America. But when it comes to Responsorial Psalm translations, certain parties have been asserting copyright over them, selling them for a profit, and bullying publishers vis-à-vis hymnals and missals. Increasingly, Catholics are asking whether these translations are truly under copyright—because they are identical (or substantially identical) to other translations.3 Example After Example • Our series will provide copious examples supporting our claims. Sometimes we’ll rely on the readership for assistance, because—as we’ve stressed—our subject’s history couldn’t be more convoluted. There are countless manuscripts (in Greek, Hebrew, and Latin) we don’t have access to, so it would be foolish for us to claim that our observations are somehow the ‘final word’ on anything. Nevertheless, we demand accountability. Catholics in the pews are the ones who paid for all this. We demand to know who specifically made these decisions (which impact every English-speaking Catholic) and why specifically certain decisions were made. The Responsorial Psalms used in America are—broadly speaking—stolen from the hard work of others. In particular, they borrowed heavily from Father Cuthbert Lattey’s 1939 PSALTER TRANSLATION:
    *  PDF Download • COMPARISON CHART —We thank the CCW staff for technical assistance with this graph.
    Analysis • Although certain parties have been selling (!!!) that translation for decades, the chart demonstrates it’s not a candidate for copyright since it “borrows” or “steals” or “rearranges” so much material from other translations, especially the 1939 translation by Father Cuthbert Lattey. What this means in layman’s terms is that individuals have been selling a translation under false pretenses, a translation they don’t own (although they claim to). To make RESTITUTION, all that money will have to be returned. A few years ago, the head of ICEL gave a public speech in which he said they give some of “their” profits to the poor. While almsgiving is a good thing, it cannot justify theft. Our Constant Theme • Our series will be held together by one thread, which will be repeated constantly: “Who was responsible?” Since 1970, the conduct of those who made a profit by selling these sacred texts has been repugnant. Favoritism was shown toward certain entities—and we will document that with written proof. It is absolutely essential going forward that the faithful be told who is making these decisions. Moreover, vague justifications can no longer be accepted. If we’re told they are “making the translations better,” we must demand to know what specifically they’re doing and what specific criteria they’re following. Stay Tuned • If you’re wondering whether we’ll address the forthcoming (allegedly) Lectionary and the so-called ABBEY PSALMS AND CANTICLES, have no fear. We’ll have much to say about both. Please stay tuned. We believe this will end up being the longest series of articles ever submitted to Corpus Christi Watershed. To be continued. ROBERT O’NEILL Former associate of Monsignor Francis “Frank” P. Schmitt at Boys Town in Nebraska JAMES ARNOLD Formerly associated w/ King’s College, Cambridge A convert to the Catholic Church, and distant relative of J. H. Arnold MARIA B. Currently serves as a musician in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Charlotte. Those aware of the situation in her diocese won’t be surprised she chose to withhold her last name.
    1 Even if we’d been able to obtain Roman journals such as NOTITIAE, none of them contained English translations. But such an idea would never have occurred to a high school student or a college student growing up in the 1960s. 2 A number of shell corporations claim to own the various biblical translations mandated for Roman Catholics. They’ve made millions of dollars selling (!) these indulgenced texts. If time permits, we hope to enumerate these various shell corporations and explain: which texts they claim to own; how much they bring in each year; who runs them; and so forth. It would also be good to explore the morality of selling these indulgenced texts for a profit. Furthermore, for the last fifty years these organizations have employed several tactics to manipulate and bully others. If time permits, we will expose those tactics (including written examples). Some of us—who have been working on this problem for three decades—have amassed written documentation we’ll be sharing that demonstrates behavior at best “shady” and at worst criminal. 3 Again, we are not yet examining the morality of selling (!) indulgenced texts to Catholics mandated to use those same translations.
    —Guest Author
    “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
    Some have expressed interest in perusing the ORDER OF MUSIC I prepared for the 17th Sunday in Ordinary Time (27 July 2025). If such a thing interests you, feel free to download it as a PDF file. As always, the Responsorial Psalm, Gospel Acclamation, and Mass Propers for this Sunday are conveniently stored at the the feasts website.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
    All of the chants for 27 July 2025 have been added to the feasts website, as usual under a convenient “drop down” menu. The COMMUNION ANTIPHON (both text and melody) are exceedingly beautiful and ancient.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Quick Thoughts

    Pope Pius XII Hymnal?
    Have you ever heard of the Pope Pius XII Hymnal? It’s a real book, published in the United States in 1959. Here’s a sample page so you can verify with your own eyes it existed.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    “Hybrid” Chant Notation?
    Over the years, many have tried to ‘simplify’ plainsong notation. The O’Fallon Propers attempted to simplify the notation—but ended up making matters worse. Dr. Karl Weinmann tried to do the same in the time of Pope Saint Pius X by replacing each porrectus. You can examine a specimen from his edition and see whether you agree he complicated matters. In particular, look at what he did with éxsules fílii Hévae.
    —Corpus Christi Watershed
    Antiphons Don’t Match?
    A reader wants to know why the Entrance and Communion antiphons in certain publications deviate from what’s prescribed by the GRADUALE ROMANUM published after Vatican II. Click here to read our answer. The short answer is: the Adalbert Propers were never intended to be sung. They were intended for private Masses only (or Masses without music). The “Graduale Parvum,” published by the John Henry Newman Institute of Liturgical Music in 2023, mostly uses the Adalbert Propers—but sometimes uses the GRADUALE text: e.g. Solemnity of Saints Peter and Paul (29 June).
    —Corpus Christi Watershed

Random Quote

“The only really effective apologia for Christianity comes down to two arguments: namely, the _saints_ the Church has produced and the _art_ which has grown in her womb.”

— Josef Cardinal Ratzinger (Interview, 1985)

Recent Posts

  • PDF Comparison Chart • “Serious Problems with the Lectionary Translation”
  • “Music List” • 17th in Ordinary Time (Year C)
  • Flor Peeters In A Weird Mood?
  • Communion • “Ask & You Shall Receive”
  • Jeff’s Mother Joins Our Fundraiser

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2025 Corpus Christi Watershed · Isaac Jogues on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Corpus Christi Watershed is a 501(c)3 public charity dedicated to exploring and embodying as our calling the relationship of religion, culture, and the arts. This non-profit organization employs the creative media in service of theology, the Church, and Christian culture for the enrichment and enjoyment of the public.

The election of Pope Leo XIV has been exciting, and we’re filled with hope for our apostolate’s future!

But we’re under pressure to transfer our website to a “subscription model.”

We don’t want to do that. We believe our website should remain free to all.

Our president has written the following letter:

President’s Message (dated 30 May 2025)

Are you able to support us?

clock.png

Time's up