Eucharistic Prayer II and the Anaphora of Hippolytus: A Critical Analysis (Part 2)

We continue the publication of Ignacio Gallardo Tampe’s guest article on the history of the so-called Anaphora of Hippolytus and its relationship to the Second Eucharistic Prayer. Part 1 was published on Wednesday.

1. The Text Attributed to Hippolytus

It should be noted that the anaphora contained in the Apostolic Tradition is proposed (not imposed) in the context of an episcopal consecration; so the question arises (assuming this liturgy was indeed ever used) as to whether a similar one would have been used in the ordinary Mass of priests, or even bishops outside of the rite of an episcopal consecration. Whatever the answer may be, there is all the more reason to believe that Eucharistic Prayer II has a problem of origin. [1]

Next, and before proceeding to the specific analysis, the text of the anaphora from “Hippolytus” is presented, based on the Latin translation [2] (the instructions are in italics):

“All should give the kiss of peace [3] to whoever has become a bishop, honouring the dignity [4] he has received. The deacons should give him the offering, and as he and all the priests extend their hands over it, he offers thanks, saying:

[I] The Lord be with you.
All reply: And with your spirit.
Lift up your hearts.
We have raised them up to the Lord. [5]
Let us give thanks to the Lord. [6]
It is right and fitting. [7]

He continues:

[II] We give you thanks, O God, through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, whom in these days you have sent to save and redeem us, and to be an angel of your will. [8] He is your Word, inseparable from you, through whom everything was made. In your goodness, you sent him from heaven to be a virgin’s son. Conceived in her womb, he took flesh and was revealed as your Son, born of the virgin and the Holy Spirit.

[III] In carrying out your will, and forming for you a holy people, he stretched out his hands as he suffered, to free from suffering those who had faith in you. When he allowed himself to be given up to suffer, so that he could conquer death and break the bonds of sin in crushing the power of hell, and so lead the just to the light, establish a limit [9] and manifest the resurrection, he took bread, and giving thanks to you, said: “Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you.” [10] He did the same with the cup, saying: “This is my blood which is poured out for you. When you do this, do it in memory of me.” [11]

[IV] Remembering therefore his death and resurrection, we offer you this bread and cup, thanking you for holding us worthy to stand in your presence and to serve you as priests.

[V] We ask you to send your Holy Spirit down upon the offerings of your holy Church. Gathering together all those who receive these mysteries, grant that they may be filled with the Holy Spirit, and their faith may thus be strengthened in your truth.

[VI] So may we praise and glorify you, through your Son Jesus Christ. Through him be the honour and glory to you, the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and unto the ages of ages. Amen.”

2. The Text of the Second Eucharistic Prayer

Now, we provide the text of Eucharistic Prayer II according to the translation of it given in the version of the Missal used in England [12]:

“Although it is provided with its own Preface, this Eucharistic Prayer may also be used with other Prefaces, especially those that present an overall view of the mystery of salvation, such as the common Prefaces.

[I] The Lord be with you.
And with your spirit.
Lift up your hearts.
We lift them up to the Lord.
Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
It is right and just.

It is truly right and just, our duty and our salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks, Father most holy, through your beloved son, Jesus Christ, your Word through whom you made all things, whom you sent as our saviour and redeemer, incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin. Fulfilling your will and gaining for you a holy people, he stretched out his hands as he endured his Passion, so as to break the bonds of death and manifest the resurrection. And so, with the angels and all the saints we declare your glory, as with one voice we acclaim: [13]

Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Hosts. [14] Heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. [15] Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.

[II] You are indeed holy, O Lord, the fount of all holiness. Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your spirit upon them like the dewfall so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[III] At the time he was betrayed and entered willingly into his Passion, he took bread and, giving thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT, FOR THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took the chalice and, once more giving thanks, he gave it to his disciples, saying:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT, FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

The mystery of Faith.

R/. We proclaim your Death, O Lord, and profess your Resurrection until you come again.
Or: [16] When we eat this Bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your Death, O Lord, until you come again.
Or: Save us, Saviour of the world, for by your Cross and Resurrection you have set us free.

[IV] Therefore, as we celebrate the memorial of his Death and resurrection, we offer you, Lord, the Bread of life and the chalice of salvation, giving thanks that you have held us worthy to be in your presence and minister to you.

[V] Humbly we pray that, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, we may be gathered into one by the Holy Spirit. Remember, Lord, your Church, spread throughout the world, and bring her to the fullness of charity, together with N. our Pope and N. our Bishop and all the clergy. Remember also our brothers and sisters who have fallen asleep in the hope of the resurrection, and all who have died in your mercy: welcome them into the light of your face. have mercy on us all, we pray, that with the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with the blessed apostles, and all the saints who have pleased you throughout the ages, we may merit to be coheirs to eternal life, and may praise and glorify you through your son, Jesus Christ.

[VI] Through him, and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the holy spirit, all glory and honour is yours, for ever and ever. R. Amen.”

Comparative Analysis of the Texts

As can be clearly seen, the two are by no means identical. What accounts for this difference? It is because Eucharistic Prayer II is not a simple translation of the anaphora of “Hippolytus,” as is commonly believed, but rather a new creation of the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia. [17] The de facto head of the Consilium, Fr. Annibale Bugnini, who served as Secretarium and whose authority extended even beyond that of Cardinal Lercaro, the president of the Consilium, wrote the following:

The aim was to produce an anaphora that is short and very simple in its ideas. The anaphora of Hippolytus was therefore taken as a model. But, although many thoughts and expressions are derived from Hippolytus, Eucharistic Prayer II is not, as it were, a new edition of his prayer. It was not possible to retain the structure of his anaphora because it does not have a Sanctus or a consecratory epiclesis before the account of institution or a commemoration of the saints or intercessions. All these developed after Hippolytus and could not now be omitted in a Roman anaphora. In addition, various ideas and expressions in the anaphora of Hippolytus are archaic or difficult to understand and could not be taken over into a contemporary anaphora. [18]

For its part, we know that Eucharistic Prayer II was drafted by two scholars, Dom Bernard Botte and Louis Bouyer, with the latter stating (with the unfiltered honesty that so characterized him) the following regarding the composition of that prayer:

Some idea will be given of the deplorable conditions in which this hasty reform was dispatched when I describe how the second Eucharistic Prayer was strung together. Between the indiscriminately archeologizing fanatics who wanted to banish the Sanctus and the intercessions from the Eucharistic Prayer by taking Hippolytus’ Eucharist as it is and others who did not care at all about his alleged Apostolic Tradition but who wanted only some slipshod Mass, Dom Botte and I were to take charge of piecing together its text so as to work in those elements that were certainly more ancient – for the next day! By chance I discovered in a text, if not by Hippolytus himself then assuredly in his style, a felicitous phrase on the Holy Spirit that could from a transition of the Vere Sanctus type to the brief epiclesis. Botte, for his part, made up an intercession more worthy of Paul Reboux and his “in the manner of” than of his own knowledge. But I cannot reread that improbable composition without thinking again of the terrace of the Trastevere café where we put the finishing touches on our chore in order to be able to present ourselves with it at the Bronze Gate at the hour appointed by our schoolmasters! [19]

Father Bouyer then adds:

After all that, it should not be too surprising if, by its incredible weaknesses, the distorted specimen we produced was to incite ridicule or indignation... to the point of making one forget a number of excellent elements that are nonetheless scattered about in it and that it would be a shame not to salvage like lost pearls in the revision that will sooner or later be inevitable… [20]

From the aforementioned texts, we can infer not only the lack of seriousness with which the Consilium worked (something that Bouyer himself criticizes in his memoir), but also the profound differences between the two texts mentioned by Bugnini, which we will not explain in great detail so as not to lengthen this brief essay even further.

Among these, the inclusion of the Sanctus stands out, a prayer not included in Hippolytus’s anaphora, since the introduction of the Sanctus into the liturgy dates to the early fifth century. [21]

Additionally, there are the commemorations of the saints and intercessions, which clearly imitate the Roman Canon in a simple and poor manner, departing from the Hippolytan model.

Even more striking is the omission of references to themes such as to “conquer death and break the bonds of sin in crushing the power of hell”, because, as Bugnini mentioned, they are apparently “archaic or difficult to understand”, that is, in his view, the Church’s traditional theology is obsolete. But this should come as no surprise to anyone, since he himself had previously stated, referring to the Holy Week reforms, that “it was deemed necessary to undertake this work so that no one would experience spiritual discomfort in the prayer of the Church.” [22] It is precisely this condemnation of traditional theology as being uncomfortable for modern man one of the reasons why the reformed liturgy is facing increasing criticism from scholars.

For example, see the removal of three complete psalms from the Liturgy of the Hours compared to the Breviarium Romanum [23], as well as the removal of verses from another 19 psalms [24], on the grounds that they are “imprecatory” [25], for not “conforming to the spirit of evangelical charity” [26] and for presenting “certain psychological difficulties” [27], or, in the words of Annibale Bugnini, for containing “expressions that are extremely harsh and offensive to modern sensibilities.” [28]

All of this is nonsensical when we consider that one of the purposes of the Liturgy of the Hours is to pray the psalms and become familiar with them; moreover, it is we who must adapt to the liturgy, not the liturgy to us. Something similar occurs in the Lectionary, where the new Lectionary omits numerous versicles contained in the traditional Lectionary For example, on the 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time (Cycle A), the expression “Many are called, but few are chosen” is omitted, whereas it is present in the lectionary of the 1962 Missale Romanum.

APPENDIX

Latin text of the Anaphora of Hippolytus

Quicumque factus fuerit episcopus, omnes ei os offerant pacis, salutantes eum quia dignus effectus est. Ei vero offerant diaconi oblationem, et ipse, imponens manus in eam cum omni presbyterio, dicat gratias agens:

[I] Dominus vobiscum.
Et omnes dicant: Et cum spiritu tuo.
Sursum corda.
Habemus ad Dominum.
Gratias agamus Domino.
Dignum et iustum est.

Et sic iam prosequatur:

[II] Gratias tibi referimus, Deus, per dilectum puerum tuum Iesum Christum, quem in ultimis temporibus misisti nobis salvatorem et redemptorem et angelum voluntatis tuae, qui est Verbum tuum inseparabile, per quem omnia fecisti et quem, in beneplacito tuo, misisti de caelo in matricem virginis, quique in utero conceptus incamatus est et filius tuus ostensus est, ex Spiritu Sancto et virgine natus.

[III] Qui voluntatem tuam complens et populum sanctum tibi adquirens extendit manus cum pateretur ut a passione liberaret eos qui in te crediderunt. Qui cum traderetur voluntariae passioni, ut mortem solveret et vincula diaboli dirumperet et infernum calcaret et iustos ad lucem duceret et terminum figeret et resurrectionem manifestaret, accipiens panem gratias tibi agens dixit: Accipite, manducate, hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis confringitur. Similiter et calicem dicens: Hic est sanguis meus qui pro vobis effunditur. Quando hoc facitis, in meam commemorationem hoc facite.

[IV] Memores igitur mortis et resurrectionis eius, offerimus tibi hunc panem et calicem, gratias tibi agentes quia nos dignos habuisti adstare coram te et tibi ut sacerdotes ministrare.

[V] Et petimus ut mittas Spiritum Sanctum tuum in oblationem Sanctae Ecclesiae. In unum eos congregans des omnibus qui percipiunt ex sanctis (ita ex eis percipere) ut repleantur Spiritu Sancto ad confirmationem eorum fidei in veritate

[VI] ut te laudemus et glorificemus per puerum tuum Iesum Christum, per quem tibi gloria et honor Patri et Filio cum Sancto Spiritu in sancta Ecclesia et nunc et in saecula saeculorum.

NOTES 

[1] In any case, the Apostolic Tradition states that “Let the bishop give thanks, as we said above. It is not at all necessary that he should pronounce the same words as we have given, as if he were making an effort to say them by heart while giving thanks to God; but rather let each one pray according to his ability. If someone is able to pray at solemn length and to say a solemn prayer, it is in order. But if someone, when he is praying, limits the length of his prayer, he should not be prevented, providing his prayer conforms to the faith.”

Continue Reading this Article. . .

The 1570 Missale Romanum and the Devotion to the Dormition in Jerusalem

In a previous post, we described the 1951 changes to the Propers for the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Here, we return to the 1570 Roman Missal and its implicit endorsement of the Eastern tradition that Our Lady “fell asleep in the Lord” before being assumed body and soul into Heaven. We also coordinate this belief with the devotions to Our Lady in the city of Jerusalem.

The 1570 Secret, variations of which can be traced back to the fifteenth and possibly twelfth century, states:

Subveniat, Dómine, plebi tuae Dei Genitrícis oratio: quam etsi pro conditióne carnis migrasse cognóscimus, in caelésti gloria apud te pro nobis intercédere sentiámus. Per Dóminum.

Which I translate as:

May the prayer of the Mother of God assist Thy people, O Lord: although we know that she passed according to the condition of the flesh, may we nevertheless feel her interceding for us in heavenly glory. Through Our Lord.

And for those who think that “passing according to the condition of the flesh” is not explicit enough, we turn to another ancient prayer that appears in the late eighth-century Gregorian Sacramentary, and is still used as the Collect for the feast in the Dominican Rite:

Veneranda nobis, Dómine, hujus diei festívitas opem cónferat salutárem; in qua sancta Dei Génitrix mortem subiit temporálem, nec tamen mortis néxibus deprími pótuit, quae Filium tuum Dóminum nostrum de se genuit incarnátum. Qui tecum vivit et regnat.

Which I translate as:

May the venerable feast on this day, on which the holy Mother of God underwent temporal death (although she, who brought forth Thy incarnate Son Our Lord, could not be shackled by death’s bonds), bring us salvific assistance. Who liveth and reigneth with Thee.

In Jerusalem, Dormition Abbey marks the spot where our Lady fell asleep in the Lord. The abbey is located on Mount Zion, where according to tradition Our Lady and St. John took up lodgings after the first Pentecost. It was built in the early twentieth century and is now staffed by German Benedictines.

The crypt of the Abbey, where Our Lady fell asleep in the Lord

In Jerusalem, it was not permissible for the remains of a deceased person to remain in the city over night, and so it is believed that Our Lady’s body was transferred outside the city to a cemetery near the Mount of Olives, on the other side of town. The church built over her grave, called the Tomb of the Virgin or Church of the Sepulchre of Saint Mary, is one of the nine churches in the Holy City that is part of the Status Quo, a 250-year-old understanding between religious communities brokered by Ottoman sultan Osman III in 1757. Although the Catholic Church is part of that agreement, the church is unmistakably Greek Orthodox in design and decoration. The church is inconspicuous from the outside and involves a series of descents, both exteriorly and interiorly. It is the only church I have been in that goes down rather than up.

To access Our Lady’s final – or almost final  – resting place, one must bow down low through the entrance to the right of the altar. There one will find a rough stone less than six feet long.

Both East and West have versions of a story in which all of the Apostles except Saint Thomas were miraculously transported from all over the world to be present at Mary’s death, and that they remained at her tomb for three days. On the third day, Saint Thomas arrived and asked “to worship the Tabernacle of God,” that is, the body of the Blessed Virgin. When they opened the coffin, they were greeted by only her burial wrappings and an incredible fragrance (some versions of the story describe lilies in the tomb). The Byzantine icon of the Dormition (see the first image of this post) captures most of these details, including a beautiful image of Christ holding in His arms the soul of His mother prior to the reunion of her body and soul and heavenly assumption, the way that she held Him when He was a baby.

Graduate Sacred Music Study in a Rich Liturgical Environment

We’ve just wrapped up a tremendous summer here at the Catholic Institute of Sacred Music and are looking forward to the next!

The rich liturgical environment of the Catholic Institute of Sacred Music immerses students in the Church’s treasury of sacred music – Gregorian chant and sacred polyphony – in the context of the sung celebration of the Roman rite (both usus antiquior and usus recentior). Summer coursework is anchored by sung Mass and Vespers, and features a robust classroom exposition of the theology, history, and practical application of the Church's music. The beautiful campus and world-class teachers invite students to grow deeper in their faith, gain intellectual wisdom, and develop as singers, players, conductors, and teachers of sacred music who build vibrant parish and school programs to hand on sacred music to their communities.

If you are interested in learning more about our 36-credit summer-based MSM degree, our 20-credit Post-Baccalaureate Certificates in Gregorian Chant or Sacred Choral Music, or taking just a class or two, click here to read more, and please join us for an upcoming digital open house:

• Thursday, August 28, 1 p.m. Pacific (4 p.m. Eastern)
• Tuesday, September 1, 1 p.m. Pacific (4 p.m. Eastern)
• Wednesday, September 9, 9 a.m. Pacific (12 noon Eastern)
• Saturday, September 19, 10 a.m. Pacific (1 p.m. Eastern)

Sign up here and we'll send you a link to join.

CISM is open to students not matriculating into the degree program. Students can take 1–19 credits, and courses taken for credit can later be applied to the degree program. A bachelor's degree is required to apply, but the degree need not be in music. 

Summer 2027 Courses

June 28 to July 2, 2027

• History & Principles of Sacred Music
• Fundamental Philosophical Questions about Beauty
• Sacred Music and Canon Law

July 5 to 9, 2027

• Vocal Pedagogy
• Liturgical Theology

July 12 to 16, 2027

• Introduction to Gregorian Chant
• Choral Literature Survey II
• Choral Repertoire Conducting Practicum II

July 19 to 23, 2027

• Choral Institute
• Composition Seminar
• Organ Improvisation

July 26 to 30, 2027

• Choral Preparation: Choral Conducting, Rehearsal Techniques, and Group Vocal Pedagogy
• Teaching Gregorian Chant to Children
• Advanced Seminars in Gregorian Chant (Topics TBA)

August 2 to 6, 2027

• Advanced Seminar in Gregorian Chant (Topic TBA)
• Advanced Seminar in Gregorian Chant: Approaches to Gregorian Rhythm
• Parish Sacred Music Program Management
• Introduction to the Organ for Pianists

Ss Hippolytus and Cassian: One Confusion... and Another

The thirteenth of August is the feast of St Hippolytus, an officer of the guards in the prison where St Lawrence was held, whom the latter converted to Christianity. He is said to have taken the body of Lawrence for burial; reproved for this by the Emperor Decius, and threatened with torture and death, he answered “May I merit to be a likeness of the blessed martyr Lawrence, whom you have dared to name with your polluted mouth.” After torture, he was killed by being torn apart by wild horses.

The Saint Hippolytus triptych by Dietric Bouts the Elder, ca. 1470.

Roman Breviaries printed in the period immediately before the Tridentine reform add to the Matins lessons of his feast the story of St Concordia, an elderly member of his household who had been his nurse. When threatened with punishment alongside Hippolytus for her Christian faith, she replied on behalf of the household, “We much prefer to die virtuously with our Lord than to live without virtue.” At this, the man in charge of arresting them said, “Slaves as a class cannot be corrected without torture”, and had her beaten to death with lead weights.

The story of Hippolytus is normally dismissed as a fabrication by modern scholars on the grounds that his manner of death, reported by the poet Prudentius (348 - 405/13 ca.), is the same as that of the Greek mythological character Hippolytus, the son of Theseus who was dragged to death by the horses of his chariot. It seems not to have occurred to any of the modern skeptics that the persecutors might very well have been inspired by his name to choose this manner of killing him, in imitation of the mythological story.

However, it is certainly true that there is much confusion about his history; when Pope St Damasus I (366-84) placed an epitaph upon his tomb recounting his martyrdom, he stated that he himself “relied on purely oral tradition, which he does not guarantee: ‘Damasus tells these things which he has heard; it is Christ who maketh proof of them.’ ” (Loeb Classical Library, The Poems of Prudentius, p. 304, footnote) The editors of the Tridentine breviary, aware of this difficulty, reduced his feast to a commemoration on the day within the octave of St Lawrence, greatly simplifying the nine lessons given for him and Concordia in earlier editions.

The cathedral of St Cassian in Imola, Italy. Image from Wikimedia Commons by Vanni Lazzari, CC BY-SA 4.0)

At the same time, they joined to his feast another Saint who was not traditionally venerated at Rome, but who, like Lawrence and Hippolytus, is celebrated by Prudentius in his collection of poems about famous martyrs, “On the Crowns.” St Cassian was a school-teacher in the town of Imola in the Emilia Romagna region of Italy, about 175 miles to the north of Rome. He was arrested as a Christian, and on refusing to sacrifice to the pagan gods, was sentenced to be stabbed to death by the pens of his own students. (These would be the sharp metallic instruments called “stylus” by the Romans, commonly used by school-boys to cut lines in tablets of wax.) Prudentius visited his tomb while passing through Imola on the way to Rome, and describes a picture of the martyrdom which was painted over it.

The article on St Cassian in the revised Butler’s Live of the Saints contains the following statement. “The stylus-prodding by schoolboys is probably a reminiscence of an incident in Apuleius (see P. Franchi de’ Cavalieri, Hagiographica, p. 131) and bears a more than suspicious resemblance to the torture of St Mark of Arethusa.” But Fr de’ Cavalieri’s book contains no such reference to Apuleius or his novel The Golden Ass, and explicitly states that there is no meaningful parallel between the martyrdoms of Cassian and Mark of Arethusa. He does, however, consider the story as told to Prudentius untrustworthy, on the grounds that a Roman magistrate would not likely order a death sentence to be carried out by someone other than an official executioner, much less by school-age boys.

More recent scholarship, however, has argued in favor of the truth of Prudentius’ account. A paper by Filippo Briguglio of the University of Bologna finds several things in the poet’s account that argue in favor of its historicity, and forensic analysis of Cassian’s cranium shows that the wounds are consistent with the size of a typical stylus of the era. So we may very well have yet another example of the hagiographical skeptics hoisted by their own petard.

On the other hand, it is true that a Passion of St Cassian written in the ninth century unhistorically makes him the evangelizer and first bishop of Sabiona in the Alto Adige region of northern Italy, exiled to Imola and constrained to work as a school-teacher. This is why this 17th-century statue of him in the diocesan museum of Bressanone, to which the see of Sabiona was transferred ca. 1000 AD, shows him wearing a mitre. (Photo by Nicola de’ Grandi.)

On the calendar of the post-Conciliar Rite, the Hippolytus of the St Lawrence legend has been replaced by another martyr of the same name, celebrated jointly with Pope St Pontian, who reigned from 230-35. This change was made on the basis of a very ancient list (354 AD) of the places where various martyrs are buried, called the “Depositio Martyrum – the laying-to-rest of the martyrs”, which has the following entry for August 13: “Ypoliti in Tiburtina, et Pontiani in Callisti – Hippolytus, on the via Tiburtina, and Pontian in (the cemetery) of Callixtus.”

This Hippolytus is the Roman priest who is said to have rebelled against Pope St Callixtus I for his moral laxity in readmitting to Communion those who had committed serious sins after baptism. After setting himself up as an anti-Pope, he was reconciled with Callixtus’ successor-but-one Pontian, and exiled together with him to Sardinia, where they both died; the manner of their death is uncertain. The entry in the Depositio Martyrum refers to when Pontian’s successor-but-one, Fabian, brought their bodies back from the island and interred them in two different Roman cemeteries.

This is the same Hippolytus to whom the so-called Apostolic Tradition is erroneously attributed, the document which distantly forms the basis of the post-Conciliar Rite’s Second Eucharistic prayer, and the drastic revision of the rites of ordination. When the post-Conciliar rite was created, it was believed (mostly in good faith) that Hippolytus had written the Apostolic Tradition to preserve the older, and to his view, more authentic liturgical traditions of the Roman Church, against the innovations introduced by his theological opponents, especially Callixtus. Of course, it is now known (indeed, it has been known for over fifty years) that this story is completely untrue, and that the so-called Apostolic Tradition has nothing to do with the historical Hippolytus, and is not a record of the earliest liturgical customs of the Church of Rome. (See “Hippolytus and the Apostolic Tradition: Recent Research and Commentary” by Fr John F. Baldovin, SJ, in Theological Studies 64 (2003))

There is more than a little irony here. The creators of the post-Conciliar calendar, eager and over-eager to remove anything that smacks of the legendary from the Church’s prayer, replaced the Hippolytus to whom there was an authentic tradition of devotion, going back to Damasus and Prudentius, with another to whom there was no such tradition. At the same time, they relegated Cassian of Imola to local calendars as a Saint whose “cultus does not belong to the Roman tradition.” Meanwhile, their cohorts on some of the other subcommittees replaced the authentic tradition of some of the Roman Church’s oldest and most important prayers with novelties based on legends, and texts that do not belong to the Roman tradition.

Miracles of St Clare of Assisi

St Clare died on August 11, 1253, at the age of 59. The pope at the time, Innocent IV, had known her personally for many years, and had even come with his court to the church of San Damiano in Assisi, the first Franciscan women’s house, which Clare had ruled over for many years, in order to be present for her funeral. The story is told that he had such a high regard of her sanctity that he wished to canonize her immediately without process, and celebrate the Mass of a Holy Virgin in her honor, rather than a Requiem for her, but was prevented by the admonition of the Franciscan Master General that to do so would be a violation of the Church’s tradition. Pope Innocent himself died the following year, and so it fell to his successor, Alexander IV, to canonize her just over two years after her death, on the feast of the Assumption in 1255. Her feast day is assigned to the day after her death, partly out of respect for the martyrs Ss Tiburtius and Susanna, whose feast occupies August 11, but also so that her order especially could celebrate her feast with First Vespers, which in the Middle Ages was generally treated as the more solemn of the two, and not conflict with those of St Lawrence.

In art, St Clare is often represented holding a monstrance with the Blessed Sacrament in it, an unusual attribute for any Saint who was not a priest. This custom arises from one of the great miracles which she performed. In the year 1234, the army of Frederick II, which counted a great many Saracens from Sicily in its number, were plundering the part of Umbria which includes Assisi. As the invaders sought to enter the convent at San Damiano, Clare took the ciborium from one of the chapels within the complex, and brought it to a window near the place where the soldiers had set a ladder against the walls in order to scale them. When she raised the Blessed Sacrament on high, the soldiers fell off the ladder and away from the wall as if dazzled, and the whole company of them fled.

St Clare Defends the Walls of Assisi, by Giuseppe Cesari, (often called ‘Cavaliere d’Arpino’; 1586-1640), date uncertain.

St Clare was often very ill, and spent many years practically confined to her bed. Another story is told that one year, when she was too ill to attend the Midnight Mass on Christmas, she was able to be present for the ceremony through a vision, for which reason Pope Pius XII declared her the Patron Saint of television in 1958. (This subject seems to have attracted no attention from artists, inexplicably, and I was unable to find a good representation of it. If anyone knows of one, please be so kind as to let me know in the combox.)

The Vision of St Clare (not the Midnight Mass vision), by Guercino, 1615-21.

Eucharistic Prayer II and the Anaphora of Hippolytus: A Critical Analysis (Part 1)

The following guest article by Ignacio Gallardo Tampe will be published in three parts. This study aims to elucidate the differences between the Second Eucharistic Prayer and the so-called Anaphora of Hippolytus, which are often erroneously spoken of as if they were identical. Furthermore, this article intends to provide a critical analysis of current liturgical praxis and the near-exclusive use of Eucharistic Prayer II to the detriment of other related prayers.

Introduction

The liturgical reform that took place as a result of the Second Vatican Council and the spirit of change experienced both within and outside the Church at that time marked one of the most profound paradigm shifts in the history of the Catholic Church. Among its most significant liturgical innovations is the break with the exclusivity of the Roman Canon through the creation of multiple Eucharistic prayers for the new Missale Romanum introduced by Paul VI.

The most used and debated of these additions is, without doubt, Eucharistic Prayer II. It was presented by the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia (“Committee for the implementation of the Constitution on the Sacred Liturgy”) as an organic recovery of a then-celebrated anaphora contained in the Apostolic Tradition (c. 215), a text traditionally attributed to Hippolytus of Rome; through this organic recovery, the intention was to reconcile the Church of the modern world with the sobriety of early Christian liturgy.

A photo of the bishops at Vatican II not imagining for one second that new canons would be added to the Roman Rite. 

However, contrary to popular belief, the composition process was far from a mere archaeological transcription. Instead, it involved extensive editorial intervention that fundamentally altered the structure of the original text, resulting in a prayer that bears only a vague resemblance to the actual anaphora of Hippolytus.

Furthermore, scholarly research over recent decades has cast doubt not only on Hippolytus’ authorship of the Apostolic Tradition, but also on the text’s Roman origins and even its antiquity. This suggests that the 20th-century reform, in this critical area, was based on a flawed understanding of the source material. Indeed, some scholars go so far as to argue that the anaphora of the Apostolic Tradition never existed as a living tradition, but was merely a literary construct with no concrete application in the life of the early Church.

The purpose of this study is to conduct a critical and comparative analysis of Eucharistic Prayer II and the anaphora of Hippolytus. By examining their philological and structural variations, I shall evaluate the extent to which the modern prayer constitutes an authentic ressourcement [1] or, conversely, whether it represents an artificial creation. Finally, this paper will propose potential solutions regarding the de facto near-exclusive use of Eucharistic Prayer II; a practice that, due to the prayer’s extreme brevity, undeniably represents a liturgical and theological impoverishment when compared to the other available alternatives.

The Anaphora of Hippolytus and the Apostolic Tradition

The Apostolic Tradition [2] is a short treatise belonging to the genre of ordines, ancient, systematic manuals containing both disciplinary and liturgical norms that would eventually evolve to form the earliest basis of canon law.

Discovered during the nineteenth century and originally titled the Egyptian Church Order, it was quickly associated with Hippolytus, a peculiar and enigmatic figure. Historical accounts concerning him are contradictory and often confusing: he not only accused Pope St Callixtus I [3] of laxity regarding the reconciliation of sinners [4], but, in his indignation, went so far as to incite a schism, being chosen by his followers as “Bishop of Rome” in opposition to the legitimate pontiff, or, in simpler terms, the first antipope. Curiously, this mysterious figure eventually reconciled with the rightful pontiff, Pontian [5], and died as a martyr in the year 235 AD.

Why, then, was it given the name Apostolic Tradition? The answer is rooted entirely in conjecture. It turns out that in 1551, the architect and antiquarian Pirro Ligorio (1512 ca. – 1583) discovered a statue in the Tiburtine cemetery, near the Castro Pretorio in Rome, which he described as “broken and mistreated” [6]. Today, this figure appears as a man holding a book, seated in a posture that conveys both authority and the status of a philosopher:

source

Yet, this raises a question: has the statue always looked this way? Given the antiquity attributed to it, it appears remarkably well-preserved. The answer is no. When Ligorio discovered the statue, it lacked the upper torso, and it was he who “reconstructed” it. Before addressing why Ligorio decided to provide the bust of a man and attribute the statue to Hippolytus, we must first examine how he reached such a conclusion.

The statue is seated on a highly ornate throne featuring Greek inscriptions; it is these that provide the answer to Ligorio’s decision. Three groups of inscriptions can be identified. First, on the right side of the throne, there is a lunar calendar divided into seven periods of sixteen years each. [7] Second, on the left side, a 112-year paschal table is engraved. [8] Third, and most importantly for our research, is a large group of Greek inscriptions near the upper right corner of the throne’s backrest, in a rather non-central position. This section contains an extensive list of written works, though it is difficult to determine exactly how many there are or to whom they belong; for instance, it is unclear whether each line represents a specific work or merely parts of a longer title.

What can be identified, however, is that several of these inscriptions coincide with those that Eusebius of Caesarea (260 – 339/340) attributes to a certain “Hippolytus, a leader of another church somewhere.” [9] For example, both catalogues mention a paschal calendar divided into sixteen-year periods during the reign of the Caesar Alexander. [10] Furthermore, the statue explicitly includes a mention of the Apostolic Tradition (ἀποστολικὴ παράδοσις).

It is from this point that a narrative about Hippolytus was constructed, based on the contradictory and incomplete accounts of him found in the writings of Eusebius of Caesarea, Saint Jerome, Eustratius of Constantinople, the Liberian Catalogue, and Theophanes, among other sources.

Ligorio’s reconstructed account would go as follows: Hippolytus was a Roman presbyter who, due to irreconcilable doctrinal differences and personal grievances, opposed Pope Zephyrinus and, subsequently, his successor, Callixtus I. When the latter was elevated to the See of Peter, Hippolytus, outraged, led a schism, becoming the first antipope. Eventually, he was exiled to Sardinia to die alongside Pope Pontian, with whom he had reconciled before both perished in exile. Pope Fabian [11] later had Hippolytus’s remains brought to Rome on the 13th of August. It is upon this assumption [12] that Ligorio attributes the statue to Hippolytus, whom he describes as the Bishop of Rome, and “restores” the statue’s torso.

The putative statue of Hippolytus now stands in the entryway of the Vatican Library; to the left is an inscription which states that “Pope John XXIII ordered that the statue of Hippolytus, a most learned churchman, be placed at the entry of the Vatican Library, July 16, 1959, in the first year of his pontificate.” (Image from Wikimedia Commons by Dobroš © Dana Stehlíková, CC BY-SA 4.0) 

This hypothetical reconstruction has faced extensive criticism in modern scholarship. [13]

Pope Pius IV [14] added the following inscription to the base of the statue: “Statua Hippolyti Portuensis episcopi, qui vixit Alexandro Pio im. ex urbis ruinis effossa a Pio IV Medice pont. maximo restituta. – A statue of Hippolytus, bishop of Portus, who lived under the emperor Alexander the Pius, excavated from the ruins of the city (of Rome) and restored by Pope Pius IV de Medici.” [15]

As one may note, Pius IV refers to him as “Bishop of Porto” (Portuensis episcopi) rather than Bishop of Rome, as Ligorio had claimed. This is because it was not until the discovery of unpublished excerpts from the work Refutation of All Heresies (mentioned above) that he was definitively regarded as Bishop of Rome; prior to this, there had been a debate as to whether he was Bishop of Rome or Porto. Thus, “Once considered the Bishop of Porto, Hippolytus was now considered the first and only canonised antipope in history.” [16]

Regrettably, however, it is not merely the history of Hippolytus that rests upon assumptions, but the very identity of the statue itself. In a 1973 presentation at the Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia, Margherita Guarducci (1902-99) discussed the studies she had been conducting on the statue. Of all her observations, the most pertinent to our research is the following:

The upper part of the statue is clad in a toga – or, to be more precise, an ἱμάτιον – while a finely carved tunic (χιτών) covers the ankles. The ankle-length tunic, however, is classically part of women’s attire, and depicting it in this way is a typical feature of female representations in Greek sculpture. [17]

This led Guarducci to state that “the ‘holy doctor’ is actually a female doctor!” [18] In the same vein, John Baldovin maintains that “Recent research has demonstrated, however, that the original figure is not that of a bishop but most probably that of a woman.” [19]

Guarducci questioned not only the statue’s gender but also the antiquity of its inscriptions, arguing (and I quote Ginette Vagenheim), “Regarding the date of the inscriptions, there is no conclusive palaeographic element to date them to the third century A.D.” [20] Guarducci’s views would eventually be accepted (at least regarding the statue’s gender) by other scholars, such as Allen Brent in his book Hippolytus and the Roman Church in the Third Century.

Now, without intending to delve further into the intricacies of the question, [21] having already demonstrated that the statue does not truly represent Hippolytus, and that we cannot rely on the catalogue inscribed upon it, let us return once again to the figure of Hippolytus himself. Was he truly Roman? And, more importantly, what is the provenance of the Apostolic Tradition?

As previously mentioned, if we follow the traditional theory, Hippolytus was a rigorist, a staunch conservative with archaizing tendencies already outdated for his time, who composed an ordo to regulate the communities under his pastoral care during his schism.

The theory of Hippolytan authorship of the Apostolic Tradition has been widely criticised in recent times, in part because

An increasing majority of scholars agree, for instance, that church orders are living literature, consisting of several layers of redaction rather than being the coherent work of a single author. Therefore the Apostolic tradition is most likely not the work of someone named Hippolytus, even if later traditions linked that name to this particular piece of writing. [22]

The document in question no longer exists in its original Greek; we have access to it only through later translations into Coptic (in both the Sahidic and Bohairic dialects), Ge’ez (Ethiopian), and Arabic, as well as a 4th-century Latin translation (contained in the Fragmentum Veronese), each translation has considerable lacunae, yet taken together, they allow for an approximate reconstruction of the contents of the original.

It is for this reason that John Baldovin has concluded:

The title of the document in question is not the Apostolic Tradition. It cannot be attributed to Hippolytus, an author whose corpus of biblical commentaries and anti-heretical treatises is somewhat well known. As a matter of fact it is even doubtful whether the corpus of that writer can actually be attributed to a single writer. Finally, the document does not give us certain information about the liturgical practice of the early-third-century Roman Church. [23]

All of this is important because, as we know (and shall examine in greater detail later), Eucharistic Prayer II, the most widely used Eucharistic Prayer from the 1969 Missale Romanum, is inspired by the Anaphora of Hippolytus contained in the Apostolic Tradition, based on the assumption that it represents a “return” to the practices of the early Roman Church. Therefore, if the anaphora is not by Hippolytus, is not Roman, and is not from the third century, we clearly face a problem: the reform, at least in this regard, would have been based on a falsehood.

We know that the Apostolic Tradition was highly influential in the East, especially in the Apostolic Constitutions, the Canons of Hippolytus, and the Testament of Our Lord Jesus Christ. However, to quote Michael Uwe Lang, “its influence on the development of Western liturgy was minimal until the twentieth-century liturgical reforms.”[24] It is for this reason that the same author concludes: “Because of the uncertainties about its date and place of origin, the Latin version of the Apostolic Tradition can hardly be taken as a source for Roman liturgy in the early third century.” [25]

Some authors consider the work to be the collective product of a theological school operating under the pseudonym of Hippolytus, rather than that of a specific individual (this being the Roman Hippolytan school). [26] On the other hand, Kenneth Stevenson attributes its origins to a presbyter from Syria rather than Rome, noting, “Every liturgical expert on antiquity knows that Hippolytus might, conceivably, have been a sham Syrian archaizer, doing his own thing, out of favor with the Pope.” [27] Moreover, as time passes, the integrity of the document is increasingly called into question; for example, Bradshaw describes it as

an aggregation of material from different sources, quite possibly arising from different geographical regions and probably from different historical periods, from perhaps as early as the mid-second century to as late as the mid-fourth century. [28]

We have already briefly and succinctly addressed the Hippolytfrage (question of Hippolytus) in its three dimensions: 1) the identity of Hippolytus, 2) the identity of the statue attributed to him, and 3) the authenticity and authorship of the Apostolic Tradition.

Regarding the first issue, it has been established that, as of today, the assumptions of the 20th century are being called into question; we do not know if Hippolytus actually existed as traditionally understood, nor do we know whether he was Roman or not.

Regarding the second issue, it has been established that the statue does not correspond to Hippolytus, nor even to a man, but to a woman.

Regarding the third issue, it has been established that the Apostolic Tradition cannot be attributed to a specific person or place, and that, in any case, its authorship lies in the East and not in Rome, having had no influence on Western liturgical development. Some authors suggest Alexandria as its place of origin (Jean Michel Hanssens).

Having mentioned the above, and before proceeding to the analysis of the text itself and of Eucharistic Prayer II, let us recall what Baldovin has stated:

There is a very real possibility that the Apostolic Tradition describes liturgies that never existed. A fortiori, great caution must be employed in appealing to this document to justify contemporary rites. [29]

NOTES

[1] A French term meaning “return to the sources”; a concept widely used during the Conciliar and post-Conciliar periods, particularly by proponents of the Nouvelle théologie.

[2] From the Greek ἀποστολικὴ παράδοσις.

[3] Pontificate from 218 to 222 AD.

[4] In Refutation of All Heresies (original title: Φιλοσοφούμενα ἢ κατὰ πασῶν αἱρέσεων ἔλεγχος), Book IX, Chapter 7.

[5] Pontificate from 230 to 235 AD.

[6] Biblioteca Nazionale di Napoli “Vittorio Emanuele III”, ms. XIII.B.7, fol. 424: “questa imagine che siede rotta et mal trattata.” (“this image that lies broken and mistreated”).

[7] Inscriptiones Christianæ Urbis Romæ septimo sæculo antiquiores, nova series, ed. Antonio Ferrua (Vatican City: Pontificium Institutum Archæologiæ Christianæ, 1980), vol. VII, N°19934:

ἔτους α´ βασιλείας Ἀλεξάνδρου αὐτοκράτορος ἐγέ / νετο ἡ δι’ τοῦ πάσχα εἰδοῖς ἀπρειλίαις σαββάτῳ ἐμ / βολίμου μηνὸς γενομένου ἔσται τοῖς ἑξῆς ἔτεσιν καθ’ / ὡς ὑποτέτακται ἐν τῷ πίνακι ἐγένετο δὲ ἐν τοῖς παρῳ / χηκόσιν καθὼς σεσημείωται ἀπονηστίζεσθαι δὲ / δεῖ οὗ ἂν ἐνπέσῃ κυριακή. “In the first year of the Roman emperor Alexander Severus, the 14th of the Paschal moon fell on Saturday, the Ides of April, during an embolismic month. For the succeeding years it will be as indicated in the table below. Events of the past were as noted. One must break the fast when Sunday comes.” Translation is from Alden A. Mosshammer, The Easter Computus and the Origins of the Christian Era, Oxford Early Christian Studies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 117.

[8] Inscriptiones Christianæ Urbis Romæ septimo sæculo antiquiores, nova series, ed. Antonio Ferrua (Ciudad del Vaticano: Pontificium Institutum Archæologiæ Christianæ, 1980), vol. VII, N°19935:

ἔτει Ἀλεξάνδρου καίσαρος / τῷ α´ ἀρχὴ / αἱ κυριακαὶ τοῦ πάσχα κατὰ ἔτος / αἱ δὲ παρακεντήσεις δηλοῦσι τὴν δὶς πρὸ ἕξ. “First year of Alexander Caesar: the Sundays of the Pascha year by year: points indicate the bissextum.” Translation is from Mosshammer, The Easter Computus, 117.

[9] In Ecclesiastical History (original title: Ἐκκλησιαστικὴ Ἱστορία), Book VI, Chapter 20, point 2. It is noteworthy that Eusebius refers to Hippolytus merely as a “leader” (προεστὼς) and not by an ecclesiastical title such as bishop or presbyter. (The original Greek text reads: ὡσαύτως δὲ καὶ Ἱππόλυτος, ἑτέρας που καὶ αὐτὸς προεστὼς ἐκκλησίας.)

[10] Eusebius of Caesarea notes the following in the aforementioned work: “He (Hippolytus) presents a chronological table and fixes a 16-year paschal canon, defining the time up to the first year of the Emperor Alexander.” In Ecclesiastical History, Book VI, Chapter 22, point 1. (The original Greek text reads: τὸ Περὶ τοῦ πάσχα πεποίηται σύγγραμμα, ἐν ᾧ τῶν χρόνων ἀναγραφὴν ἐκθέμενος καί τινα κανόνα ἑκκαιδεκαετηρίδος περὶ τοῦ πάσχα προθείς, ἐπὶ τὸ πρῶτον ἔτος αὐτοκράτορος Ἀλεξάνδρου τοὺς χρόνους περιγράφει.)

[11] Pontificate from 236 to 250 AD.

[12] Ligorio himself expresses this as follows: “Between the Via Nomentana and the road to Tivoli, outside the walls of Rome and not far from the Castro […], this image was found sitting, broken and mistreated; on both sides of the seat are these examples in Greek; of this bishop, […]; and it is held to be that Saint Hippolytus of whom Eusebius speaks so honorably; but he does not say of which diocese he was. Only Theophanes writes that he was Roman and that he was a bishop.” (From the Italian original: “Tra la via Nomentana e quella di Tivoli fuor delle mura di Roma, e poco discosto dal Castro […], in certe ruine, fu trovata questa imagine che siede, rotta et mal trattata; nelli duoi lati del(l)a sedia sono posto questi esemplari in greco; di questo vescovo, […]; et si tiene esser quel santo Hippolito di cui fa mentione honoratamente Eusebio; ma non dice di cui diogesi fusse. Ma solamente scrive Theophane che egli fu romano et che fu vescovo.”)

[13] See Pierre Nautin, Hippolyte et Josipe: contribution à l'histoire de la littérature chrétienne du troisième siècle (Paris: Éditions du Cerf, 1947).

[14] Pontificate from 1559 to 1565 AD.

[15] Paweł Nowakowski, Cult of Saints, E05385 –

Available at: http://csla.history.ox.ac.uk/record.php?recid=E05385

[16] András Handl, “A Heavily Bearded Philosopher in Women’s Underwear: Deconstructing and Reconstructing the Identity of the So-called Hippolytus Statue,” Louvain Studies 44 (2021): 350, https://doi.org/10.2143/LS.44.4.3290040.

[17] Handl, “A Heavily Bearded Philosopher,” 351-352.

[18] “il ‘santo dottore’ è invece una dottoressa!” Margherita Guarducci, “La statua di ‘Sant’Ippolito’ in Vaticano,” Rendiconti della Pontificia Accademia Romana di Archeologia 47 (1974-1975): 163-190, cited in Handl, “A Heavily Bearded Philosopher,” 353.

[19] John F. Baldovin, “Hippolytus and the Apostolic Tradition: Recent Research and Commentary,” Theological Studies 64, no. 3 (2003): 522.

[20] Ginette Vagenheim. Pirro Ligorio and the restoration of the statue of Saint Hippolytus in the Vatican Library. 2025. ⟨hal-05401992⟩. P. 19. Available at https://hal.science/hal-05401992v1/document

[21] “Hippolytan question” in German.

[22] Handl, “A Heavily Bearded Philosopher,” 360.

[23] Baldovin, “Hippolytus and the Apostolic Tradition,” 521.

[24] Michael Uwe Lang, The Roman Mass: From Early Christian Origins to Tridentine Reform. (Cambridge University Press, 29 September 2022), Chapter 3, Kindle.

[25] Ibid.

[26] In this sense, Brent, cited by Baldovin in “Hippolytus and the Apostolic Tradition,” 525.

[27] Kenneth Stevenson, Eucharist and Offering (New York: Pueblo, 1986), 9.

[28] Johnson Bradshaw, cited by Lang in The Roman Mass, Chapter 3, Kindle.

[29] Baldovin, “Hippolytus and the Apostolic Tradition,” 542, emphasis mine.

Study the Canons of Orthros To Understand the Traditional Symbolism of Christian Art

Years ago, I attended a lecture on the Catechism of the Catholic Church and the fascinating story of its compilation and editing. (Believe me, it was fascinating!) One thing I remember being told, almost in passing, was that the editors insisted every edition include a small number of pictures they deemed essential. I was always puzzled by this painting of the three young men in the fiery furnace from the book of Daniel and by why it was considered so important. Later on I discovered, when I attended a Scripture class, that it was interpreted as an Old Testament type that is Christological, Marian, and of the Holy Spirit.

The painting reproduced in the Catechism is from the 3rd century AD and is in the Catacomb of Priscilla in Rome.

In Daniel 3, three young Jewish men named Hananiah, Mishael and Azariah (often called by their Babylonian names, Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego), refuse to worship the golden image set up by King Nebuchadnezzar, and are therefore thrown into a blazing furnace. The furnace is so hot that it burns those closest to it, but miraculously not the three young men inside. The king, looking in, is shocked, first to see them survive but also to see a mysterious fourth figure:

“But I can see four men walking free in the heart of the fire and quite unharmed.” (Daniel 3, 25, RNJB)

The three emerge, but the fourth figure is no longer visible. Nebuchadnezzar then praises their God for sending “his angel” to rescue them (verse 28). The figure is not named in Scripture, but some early Church Fathers interpreted him as a pre-incarnate appearance of Christ who delivered them.

The song of the three young men, which is also in Daniel 3, is chanted every Sunday in the Liturgy of the Hours. In the Byzantine Liturgy, commentaries are chanted after the Old Testament canticles, which are known as Canons. Each Canon is a set of troparia, beautiful hymns that are drawn from the homilies of the Church Fathers and are extremely rich in theological content, so much so that if anyone wants to understand the Church’s traditional imagery, I recommend they pray them regularly. I began to do so several years ago, and it has been a continual source of inspiration, an education in the images in the Christian artistic tradition - quite apart from all the spiritual benefits that praying the liturgy brings! Some readers might already have noticed several posts inspired by this project. Of course, if I had been aware of these hymns earlier, it would not have been such a mystery to me why the editors of the Catechism thought this image so important.

Ode 8, from Sunday morning Orthros (Morning Prayer), in Tone 1, which is a commentary on the song of the three young men in the fiery furnace. Many generations of Christians, therefore, will have known by hearing and singing this hymn regularly in the liturgy what had been a mystery to me for so long. It begins as follows: 

“The furnace moist with cool dew prefigured a wonder surpassing nature: as it left unharmed the young men that were thrown into its midst, so also the fire of the Godhead descended within the Virgin’s womb, leaving it unscathed. Wherefore let us sing a hymn of praise and say, ‘Let the whole creation bless the Lord and exalt Him forever!’ ”

The beautiful icon above is an illumination by the Armenian artist Toros Roslin, 1210-70, who worked at the scriptorium of Hromkla in the kingdom of Cilicia. This was a state established by Armenian refugees fleeing the Seljuk invasion of their land, on the Mediterranean coast of southern modern-day Turkey.

Complete Video of a Recent Glagolitic Mass Celebrated in Australia

Early last month, we posted photos of a Solemn Mass celebrated on the feast of the Precious Blood for the Croatian Catholic community of Sydney, Australia, according to the traditional Glagolitic Missal, which is the Roman Missal translated into a form of Church Slavonic. A complete video of the Mass was recently made available on an Australia-based YouTube channel called New Ark Films. I am sure our readers will find this precious documentation of such a venerable liturgical tradition extremely interesting, and in no small part because it shows us that the transition from Latin to another language does not have to bring with it the destruction of our rite’s musical patrimony. Feliciter, i blagoslovenno!

The Feast of St Lawrence in Other Western Rites

It was the custom of the earliest Christians to obtain transcripts of the trials of their martyrs whenever they could. These were kept in the archives of local churches not merely for the sake of record keeping, but so that they could be read during the liturgy, a tradition which is attested in the writings of several of the Fathers. The Roman custom of reading the lives of the Saints in the Divine Office derives from this, and in the Ambrosian Mass, it is still to this day permitted to substitute the life of a Saint for the Old Testament reading on his feast day.

The following video was taken in 2014 in the basilica of St Ambrose in Milan, on the feast of the Martyrs Ss Protasius and Gervasius; after the Gloria and Collect, the passion of the two martyrs is read.

Because of this custom, there survive indisputably authentic records of the trials of a number of early martyrs (e.g. Ss Perpetua and Felicity, Ss Fructuosus and Companions, and St Cyprian); however, we have none from the city of Rome. A professor of mine had a theory as to why this is so: he believed that the archives of the church of Rome had been destroyed during the persecution of Diocletian (303-6), and this would explain why we are dependent on documents from later writers (sometimes much later) for information about the martyrdoms of so many prominent Roman Saints, such as Agnes or Pope Clement I.

And thus, the earliest major source for the life of St Lawrence, whose feast we keep today, is St Ambrose, who was born in Trier, where his father was serving as pretorian prefect of Gaul, some eighty years after the great martyr’s death in 257. Ambrose’s family, however, was originally Roman, and when his father died while he was still quite young, his mother took him back to Rome, where he studied law and rhetoric. Many of his writings evince familiarity with the customs and traditions of the Eternal City (for example, he is the first witness to an early recension of the Roman Canon), and so we may take him as a reliable witness to those which concern St Lawrence.

A partial view of the frescoed ceiling of the chapel of St Sixtus within the basilica of St Lawrence in Milan, by the German painter Johann Christoph Storer (1611-71). Behind St Lawrence, holding a knife. is the martyr St Aquilinus, who is buried in a chapel on the opposite side of the same basilica, and next to him, St Sixtus, in whose honor the chapel was built in the late 5th or early 6th century. (Image from Wikimedia Commons by Sailko, CC BY 3.0.)

One of the fourteen hymns considered indisputably his work was written in honor of St Lawrence; it is sung in the Ambrosian Office at Lauds and both Vespers. Unfortunately, it seems that none of the great English translators such as Fr Caswall or John Mason Neale put their hands to it, and so we must be content with my poor prose version.

Apostolorum supparem, Laurentium archidiaconum, Pari corona martyrum Romana sacravit fides.	The faith of Rome sanctified the archdeacon Lawrence, nearly equal to the Apostles, with an equal martyrs’ crown.
Xystum sequens hic martyrem, Responsa vatis retulit: Mœrere, fili, desine: Sequere me post triduum.	He, following the martyr Sixtus, received these words as those of a prophet: “Cease mourning, my son, after three days thou wilt follow me.”
Nec territus pœnæ metu, Hæres futurus sanguinis, Spectavit obtutu pio Quod ipse mox persolveret.	And not frightened by the fear of suffering, soon to be heir of (Sixtus’) blood, he dutifully be- held that which he himself would soon undergo.
Jam tunc in illo martyre Egit triumphum martyris; Successor æquus syngrapham Vocis tenens et sanguinis.	Already then in that martyr he led a martyr’s triumph, holding as his successor the promise of his words and blood.
Post triduum iussus tamen Census sacratos prodere, Spondet pie, nec abnuit Addens dolum victoriæ.	At last, after three days, ordered to hand over the sacred treasures, he dutifully promised and did not refuse, adding guile to victory.
Spectaculum pulcherrimum! Egena cogit agmina, Inopesque monstrans prædicat: Hi sunt opes Ecclesiæ.	A most beautiful sight! He gathers the needy crowds, and showing the poor, he proclaims, “These are the riches of the Church.”
Lucro piorum perpetes Inopes profecto sunt opes; Avarus illusus dolet, Flammas et ultrices parat.	The poor are the everlasting riches gained by the pious; the greedy man deceived, grieves, and prepares the avenging flames.
Fugit perustus carnifex, Suisque cedit ignibus: Versate me, martyr vocat, Vorate coctum, si lubet.	The executioner is burned and flees, and yields to his own flames; “Turn me over”, the martyr cries out,  “and eat what is cooked, if you like.”
Gloria tibi, Domine, gloria Unigenito, una cum sancto Spiritu in sempiterna sæcula. Amen.	Glory to Thee, o Lord, glory to the Only-begotten Son, together with the Holy Spirit unto everlasting ages. Amen.

The Ambrosian preface for St Lawrence beautifully compares his faith to gold refined in the fire.

VD: Qui hodierna die Levitæ tui Laurentii fidem áuream igne ardentissimo comprobasti; ut esset tibi hostia viva, hostia sancta, in odorem suavitatis accensa. O gloriosi certaminis virtus! O inconcussa mentis constantia! Stridunt membra viventis super craticulam imposita, et prunis sævientibus anhelantis; ut et tibi hostia fieret, et ad martyrii triumphum intrepidus perveniret. Per Christum…

Truly it is worthy… who on this day didst make proof of the golden faith of Thy Levite Lawrence with a most ardent fire, that he might be a living and holy victim, burnt unto the odor of sweetness. Oh, the might of his glorious contest! Oh, the unshaken constancy of his mind! His members, laid on the grill, groan, as he still lives and breathes while the fires rage; that he might both become a sacrifice unto Thee, and fearlessly arrive at the triumph of martyrdom. Through Christ…

The Martyrdom of Saint Lawrence, by Titian, 1567, in the Spanish Royal Monastery of the Escorial.

The Spanish poet Prudentius (348 – 405/13 ca.) was a contemporary of Ambrose, and had a similar secular career: training in rhetoric and law, and service as a provincial governor. In later life, he withdrew from public service and became an ascetic, but was never a cleric. One of his most famous works is a collection of fourteen poems “On the crowns (of the martyrs)”, including several Romans, Lawrence among them.

A number of passages from this work are included in the Mozarabic Divine Office, which is often astonishingly prolix. For example, on the feast of the great martyr St Vincent of Saragossa, the hymn at Lauds has 292 lines (73 stanzas) excerpted from the 576 which Prudentius dedicates to him. For St Lawrence, however, a judicious selection of verses was made (and largely rewritten) to create a hymn of classically Roman restraint, with only five stanzas, including the doxology. (I have taken this English version from the website of Mr Matthew Carver, who kindly licenses all his translations as Creative Commons. CC BY-NC 3.0 US)

http://matthaeusglyptes.blogspot.com/2015/05/en-martyris-laurentii.html

En Martyris Laurentii Armata pugnavit fides, Nam morte mortem diruit, Ac semet impendit sibi.	BEHOLD, of Lawrence, martyr famed, What faith, well-armed, hath led the host! By death o’er death the crown he claimed And gave himself to th’ uttermost.
Fore hoc sacerdos dixerat Jam Sixtus affixus cruci, Laurentium flentem videns Crucis sub ipso stipite.	Twas as his bishop Sixtus said As fastened to the cross he hung, When seeing Lawrence weep with dread Beneath his cross whereat he clung:
Desiste discessu meo Fletum dolenter fundere, Praecedo frater, tu quoque Post hoc sequeris triduum.	“Forbear at my departure now To shed thy tears so grievously; Though, brother, I go first, yet thou Shalt three days hence my foll’wer be.”
Extrema vox Episcopi Praenuntiatrix gloriae, Nihil fefellit: nam dies Praedicta palmam praestitit	What lastly did the bishop say Prophetic voice of glorious heav’n In naught deceived, for on the day That he foretold, the palm was giv’n.
Gloria Patri ingenito, Gloria unigenito Una cum sancto Spiritu In sempiterna saecula. Amen..	To th’ unbegotten Father praise, And to the sole begotten Son And Holy Ghost for endless days, One God, for evermore be done.

The outlandish prolixity of the Mozarabic liturgy is frequently displayed in the Mass as well. Its ancient preface for the feast of St Lawrence is over 400 words long, and retells the story not only of Lawrence himself, but also of St Sixtus II, the Pope whom he served as deacon, and of St Hippolytus, the soldier and guard whom he converted, and who was also martyred for the Faith. Here is an excerpt, which is based on the same passage of St Ambrose’s De Officiis (39) that provides the text for several parts of the Roman Office of St Lawrence. (This preface is written in a highly elaborate rhetorical style which does not lend itself easily to literal translation.)

The preface (“illatio” in Mozarabic terminology) of the Mass of St Lawrence in a Mozarabic Missal printed in 1804, starting in the upper part of the 2nd column.

Quique Apostolorum choro donatus, filium generosae mentis Laurentium exspectabat: quia sine eo proprii sanguinis victimam offerre nolebat, cui cuncta mysteriorum ministeria transigenda commiserat. Qui cum de sua remansione patri querulus exstitisset, ab eodem flere prohibitus, quod post tres dies sequeretur audivit: nec debere de sua desertione causari praemonuit, quoniam ei gloriosior diabolo seuiente inrisoque tyranno triumphus maneret. Martyrum tuorum, Christe, infatigabilis fortitudo!

And (Sixtus), having been given as a gift to the choir of the Apostles (i.e. in heaven), awaited his generous-minded son Lawrence, because he did not want to offer the sacrifice of his own blood without him to whom he had entrusted the celebration of all services in the (holy) mysteries. And when the latter complained to his father about remaining behind, he was forbidden by him to weep, since he heard that after three days he would follow; and (Sixtus) foretold that he ought not to complain of his being left, since a more glorious triumph awaited him over the raging devil and the tyrant whom he would mock. Oh, the tireless fortitude of Thy martyrs, o Christ!

The words “to whom he entrusted the celebration of all services in the holy mysteries” refers to the custom by which the administration of the chalice was especially entrusted to deacons. In his account of their martyrdom in the De Officiis, St Ambrose has Lawrence say to Sixtus, “ ‘Whither, holy priest, dost thou hasten without thy deacon? … Dost thou deny a share in thy blood to one to whom thou didst entrust the consecration of the Lord’s blood, and a share in the celebration of the sacraments?’ To this Sixtus replied, ‘I do not leave or abandon thee, son, but greater contests await thee. We, as elder men, receive the way of an easier combat; a more glorious triumph against the tyrant awaiteth thee as a younger man. Soon shalt thou come after, cease weeping; after three days shalt thou follow me, as levite followeth priest.”

St Sixtus Bids St Lawrence Farewell, 1465 ca., by the German (Südtiroler) painter Michael Pacher (1435-98). Public domain image from Wikimedia Commons.