I have really made an effort to understand the purposes of the various movements of the liturgy & how they see flow together into an encounter with God. The Collect & the post-Communion really stand out to me these days. I reflect on them during the week, too (thanks, Magnificat), like today’s post-Communion, “… teach us to judge wisely the things of earth and to love the things of heaven…” I think I will make this my personal mantra.

I fail to see how others can’t be enthused about the liturgy, the privileged meeting place of God with his people. But that’s the me of today talking; at one time, I didn’t get it either & left the Church for years.

I’ve often suggested the use of liturgical bouncers; in this case to bounce them back to their pew!

I am not suggesting it is defective, just different. I love the Roman Canon, but do not reject the other prayers just because I happen to like one more than another. My point is indeed to highlight the whole prayer as I believe that the prayer in its entirety is important. The reason for bringing in another form of prayer in the post is to make this point. There are many who have taken to seeing only certain parts of the liturgy as being important and I feel this as something that should be continually addressed.

One example that comes to mind outside of the Eucharistic Prayer, but within the liturgy as a whole are those who do not see the prayer after communion or the dismissal as important enough to stay to the end of the liturgy.

I suppose in any case, I’m a bit frustrated that theologians & liturgists always want to reject their own patrimony & try to go foraging in others’ fields. Why would the Roman Church desire to import prayers from local churches over its own native worship? I think this infatuation with liturgical archaeology greatly hurts catechesis, devotion to the Church, & people’s faith in general, as fallen human nature is always drawn to the flashy, newest discovery & attendant theory.

The fact that the Roman Canon does not expicitly include the 2nd epiclesis doesn’t mean its defective, as 1,500 years of continual use have testified. It’s extended prayer for the entire Church – militant, suffering, & glorified – is a clear prayer for God to bring his people to unity in himself.

It is good to have you here. Yes, it is indeed not the norm today either East or West, but Fr. Gerry’s pointing to this particular prayer has caused me to pay more attention each time I have prayed the prayer since—whether it be the words of institution or some other part!

With regards to our transubstantiational belief and how difficult that belief is, I’m reminded of two things:

First: it’s really easier for me to believe that the “host” is the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ, than it is to believe that the “host” is a piece of bread.

Second: as a musician, one line of a great Eucharistic hymn text comes to the forefront of my thinking at just about every Mass: “faith believes, nor questions how…” (from “Alleluia! Sing to Jesus!”)

My point is not to go searching into the past, but to say we need not limit ourselves to one section of the prayer to the exclusion of the whole. For example, the Roman Canon itself excludes elements that would be necessary in later prayers down to this day.

And I would trust America Magazine for theology that is more often than not attempting to divest itself from ideological battles. In this case, for instance, they have included an article from a man who is clearly an expert in this area of theology and has been in on the conversation. More than I can say for myself.