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

Corpus Christi Watershed

“What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too…” Pope Benedict XVI (7 July 2007)

  • Our Team
  • Pew Resources
    • Brébeuf Catholic Hymnal
    • Jogues Illuminated Missal
    • Campion Missal, 3rd Edition
  • MUSICAL WEBSITES
    • René Goupil Gregorian Chant
    • Noël Chabanel Psalms
    • Nova Organi Harmonia (2,279 pages)
    • Lalemant Polyphonic
    • Saint Antoine Daniel KYRIALE
    • Roman Missal, 3rd Edition
    • Emporium Kevin Allen
  • Miscellaneous
    • Site Map
    • Saint Jean de Lalande Library
    • Sacred Music Symposium 2023
  • Donate
Views from the Choir Loft

Comparing Canons

Fr. David Friel · January 26, 2014

HERE CAN BE a tendency (especially among those of us in the Roman Rite) to obsess over the amount of time we spend in church. This syndrome is probably truer of priests than anyone else. Like many public speakers, they may not know how long they preach, but the majority of priests I believe are thoroughly conscious of how long they take to celebrate Mass.

When the fear of going too long arises and visions of a congested parking lot come to mind, what is the priest to do? For many, the first solution is to use Eucharistic Prayer II. While that is certainly a common tendency, is the canon of the Mass really the best place to “make up time”? Moreover, does that solution take into account the appropriate usage of the various approved canons? The entire liturgy of the Church moves in the direction of the Eucharist, and the consecratory prayers are the most important words of Holy Mass. Would it not make more sense to preach shorter and use the Roman Canon?

The Roman Canon, by virtue of its universal & nearly unaltered usage over nearly 1500 years, holds a unique & venerable place among the canons and, as such, is not just one among several equal options. It is the only canon that liturgical directives say “may always be used” (GIRM 365a). Eucharistic Prayer IV has limitations for when it can be used, on account of its proper preface. Eucharistic Prayer III is most apt for memorials of saints, and Eucharistic Prayer II is specifically not recommended for use on Sundays and other solemnities & feasts. These are not my personal categorizations of the four major canons, but rather the norms given in Chapter VII of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal (available here).

In the celebration of the Mass, there ought to be a balance. Our Holy Father, Pope Francis, recently made this point beautifully:

The homily . . . should be brief and avoid taking on the semblance of a speech or a lecture. A preacher may be able to hold the attention of his listeners for a whole hour, but in this case his words become more important than the celebration of faith. If the homily goes on too long, it will affect two characteristic elements of the liturgical celebration: its balance and its rhythm. . . . The words of the preacher must be measured, so that the Lord, more than his minister, will be the centre of attention. (Evangelii Gaudium, 138)

This means, furthermore, that the lesser parts of the Mass ought never to dominate those which are greater. When we offer 14 prayers of intercession and spend only 10 seconds in silence after Communion, there is an imbalance; when we sing four hymns and recite all the dialogues and acclamations, there is an imbalance; when we preach for 25 minutes and offer Eucharistic Prayer II, there is an imbalance.

HE ARGUMENT AGAINST defaulting to Eucharistic Prayer II to “save time” is not only theoretical; it can also be based on practical evidence. The pagination of altar missals can make it seem as though the Roman Canon is inordinately longer than the other prayers, but I have often thought that a closer study would show the actual lengths to be not so wildly disparate. So I decided to undertake this closer study for myself by counting the words of the four major canons and comparing the length of time it takes to recite them.

Below are the results of the word counts, which unsurprisingly show that Eucharistic Prayer II is, in fact, the shortest canon. It is shorter than the Roman Canon by a margin of 453 words. Not included in these word counts are the Preface, the Sanctus, the Mysterium fidei, the Per ipsum, the special forms of the Communicantes & the Hanc igitur, and the special commemorations for Masses of the Dead.

Into what amount of speaking time does the disparity of the word counts translate? I considered timing myself while reading each text sitting at my desk, but I feared subconsciously rushing one or more of the texts so as to skew the data to suit my purposes.

Instead, I found here recordings of each prayer that were made by Fr. James Lyons of the Archdiocese of Wellington, New Zealand to assist priests in learning the new translations. Below is a graph showing the length of those four recordings. Interestingly, the longest prayer is not the Roman Canon, but Eucharistic Prayer IV; although the fourth prayer contains approximately 100 fewer words than the Roman Canon, its phrasing must demand more pauses. (Please note: the original lengths of the audio files are longer than the times presented here, because I have excised the introductions given by Fr. Lyons for more precise measurement.)

While recordings from just one priest admittedly constitute a small sample size, I suspect that the data I took from Fr. Lyons’ recordings are fairly representative of what would be the average of a larger study. Furthermore, what is at issue here is not so much the actual time it takes a particular priest to pray the anaphora, but rather the comparative length of the various prayers. And what do these data show? Just how much longer is the Roman Canon than Eucharistic Prayer II? Less than two minutes.

HE SUPPOSITION that using Eucharistic Prayer II saves time is deeply imbedded in many priests and Mass-goers. Yet, by both theoretical and practical considerations, it would appear that this supposition is founded upon two false assumptions: first, that the canon is the best (or easiest) place to “save time,” and, second, that offering Eucharistic Prayer II saves significant time. From my perspective, however, there are better parts of the Mass to shorten than the canon, and the time saved by Eucharistic Prayer II is rather negligible.

I am as guilty as any Catholic I know, but I still long for a world in which we weren’t so concerned about the length of Mass. While we wait for the arrival of that world, let’s at least keep things in perspective. The next time your priest offers Eucharistic Prayer II on Sunday, ask yourself if you could spare two extra minutes.

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

Filed Under: Articles, Featured Tagged With: History of the Roman Canon, Pope Francis, Roman Missal Third Edition Last Updated: November 30, 2020

Subscribe

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

* indicates required

About Fr. David Friel

Ordained in 2011, Father Friel served as Parochial Vicar at Saint Anselm Church in Northeast Philly before earning a doctorate in liturgical theology at The Catholic University of America. He presently serves as Vocation Director for the Archdiocese of Philadelphia and teaches liturgy at St. Charles Borromeo Seminary.—(Read full biography).

Primary Sidebar

Corpus Christi Watershed

Quick Thoughts

    Good Friday Polyphony by L. Senfl
    The editor of the Sacred Music Magazine recently made available to the public this splendid article by our own Charles Weaver. It includes an edition of polyphony for the GOOD FRIDAY “Reproaches.” Renaissance composers often set the various offices of Holy Week; e.g. readers will probably be familiar with the beautiful TENEBRAE setting by Father Tomás Luis de Victoria (d. 1611). From what I can tell, Ludwig Senfl (d. 1543) was originally a Catholic priest, but eventually was seduced by Luther and ended up abandoning the sacred priesthood.
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    Coming Soon! • Symposium 2023
    A few weeks ago, dates were announced for Sacred Music Symposium 2023. The rehearsal videos are beginning to appear! For example, the KYRIE ELEYSON contains sections by Lassus, Victoria, and Palestrina. You can see and hear Part 1 at this link. Much more information about this wonderful conference will be released soon!
    —Jeff Ostrowski
    “Have We Gone Mainstream?”
    A choir member alerted my wife to this video by Scott Hahn. You perhaps recognize a piece that's been highly promoted by Corpus Christi Watershed: viz. Father Guerrero's “Sanctus” from Missa Iste Sanctus. I would be interested to learn which choir made the recording (which heavily abbreviates the piece) and whether they used our rehearsal videos, which are #5454.
    —Jeff Ostrowski

Random Quote

What earlier generations held as sacred, remains sacred and great for us too, and it cannot be all of a sudden entirely forbidden or even considered harmful.

— ‘His Holiness, Pope Benedict XVI (7 July 2007)’

Recent Posts

  • What is the Tonic Accent?
  • Good Friday Polyphony by L. Senfl
  • PDF Download • 1909 “Modern Notation” Gradual (Extremely Rare) — 712 Pages
  • Folk Mass Clip • Priest Facing “Ad Orientem”
  • Coming Soon! • Symposium 2023

Subscribe

Subscribe

* indicates required

Copyright © 2023 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.