ROME, 17 FEB. 2009 (ZENIT)
Answered by Legionary of Christ Father
Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum
Q: The first three Eucharistic Prayers each include an opportunity to
mention particular names of either the faithful or the deceased, namely
at the Memento's ("Remember, Lord ..."). When should the priest
exercise these opportunities? Is it permissible for one to omit the
names in the Roman Canon? Also, the Eucharistic Prayers wonderfully
recall the lives of the saints in heaven. Occasionally, a priest would
add the name of the saint whose feast day we might be celebrating and/or
the names of the saints who founded the religious order which the priest
belongs to (if he is religious). While this seems fitting, is this
proper (especially when Eucharistic Prayer III explicitly gives the
option of adding the name of "the saint of the day or the patron saint"
while no other Eucharistic Prayer gives this option)?
J.G., Lewisville, Texas
A: As a general principle the names of the
deceased, along with the specific formulas involved, are remembered in
the Eucharistic Prayers only when there is a specific reason for doing
so. This is, above all, the funeral Mass or a significant anniversary of
On other occasions, if the Mass is being offered up for the soul of a
deceased person, the name is best mentioned at the beginning of Mass or
during the prayer of the faithful. Specific names of the deceased should
not be habitually mentioned during the Eucharistic Prayer.
A similar criterion applies for the living. With the exception of the
pope and bishop, living people are mentioned only on rare occasions. For
example, on the occasion of a baptism the godparents are mentioned at
the Memento ("Remember Lord …") while adult neophytes are
mentioned at the moment of the Hanc Igitur ("Father, accept this
offering …"). Neophytes are usually recalled collectively at this moment
during the Easter octave.
Newlyweds are also named in a special Hanc Igitur and there
are similar formulas for other occasions such as confirmation and
ordination, although not all have the possibility of mentioning
particular names. These formulas are usually found in the ritual for
each sacrament rather than the order of Mass.
Some bishops' conferences have also composed similar interventions
for the other Eucharistic Prayers.
Regarding mentioning the saints, each Eucharistic Prayer has its own
characteristics and these must be respected. Before Pope John XXIII
added St. Joseph, the Roman Canon traditionally listed 24 saints (12
apostles and 12 martyrs) in two separate groups. This list may now be
shortened to seven by omitting the saints following St. Andrew in the
first group and after St. Barnabas in the second.
The full list is:
First: Peter and Paul, Andrew, (James, John, Thomas, James, Philip,
Bartholomew, Matthew, Simon and Jude [apostles], Linus, Cletus, Clement,
Sixtus, Cornelius, [5 Popes] Cyprian [bishop of Carthage], Lawrence
[deacon], Chrysogonus, John and Paul, Cosmas and Damian [5 laymen]).
Second: John the Baptist, Stephen [deacon protomartyr], Matthias,
Barnabas [apostles], (Ignatius [bishop of Antioch], Alexander [Pope],
Marcellinus [priest, Peter [exorcist], Felicity, Perpetua [2 married
laywomen of Carthage], Agatha, Lucy, Agnes, Cecilia [4 virgins],
Anastasia [laywoman of Sirmium]).
These lists thus represent the whole Church united in offering the
most holy sacrifice of the altar insofar as Christians from all strands
have been deemed worthy of martyrdom, the ultimate sacrifice for Christ.
In this way the use of the full list, at least occasionally, can be very
useful, among other messages, in illustrating the universal call to
Of the other prayers, only Eucharistic Prayer III and the Eucharistic
prayers for various needs have the possibility of adding the name of the
patron saint of the church or the saint of the day. In this case it is
probably a legitimate custom for a religious priest to mention the name
of his founder, especially if celebrating in a church administered by
It is not legitimate, however, for any priest to add the names of
saints if this possibility is not foreseen in the prayer itself. This
means that a priest using the Roman Canon may invoke the list of seven
saints or all 24 but may not add any other names not included in this
list. Likewise, he may not insert any saint's names in Eucharistic
Prayers II or IV, or the Eucharistic Prayers for reconciliation.
In short, if he desires to mention a patron saint, then he must
choose the third anaphora, or, if the occasion warrants it, one of the
prayers for various needs.
* * *
Names in Eucharistic Prayers [3-3-2009]
Related to our Feb. 17
answer on the inclusion of individual names in the Eucharistic Prayers,
there were a couple of questions regarding the naming of the local
A Canadian reader asked: "My diocese is currently without a 'proper'
bishop. Our apostolic administrator is a bishop. My question is, what am
I supposed to do during the Eucharistic Prayer? Do I continue as usual
'Benedict our Pope, and N. our bishop,' or do I say, 'N. our apostolic
administrator' or simply, 'administrator'? Similarly, for Eucharistic
Prayer III 'your servant, Pope Benedict, our bishop [apostolic
administrator or simply administrator] N.'?"
Another reader, also from Canada, requested: "My question involves
the prayer in which the priest prays for the Holy Father and the local
bishop following the consecration. Our parish priest has taken to
reversing the order. In other words, instead of mentioning Pope Benedict
first and our local archbishop second, he reverses it by offering
prayers for our local archbishop first, followed by the Holy Father
second. This has annoyed a number of elders in our parish and I'd like
to know what is right. I mentioned it to Father and his response was
that his first loyalty is to his bishop, and all bishops, including the
Pope, are equal, so it doesn't matter in what order he mentions them. I
have attended several churches in our archdiocese and have not come
across this reversal. What is correct?"
Although there is no absolute rule here, older liturgical manuals
recommend simply omitting the mention of the expression "N. our bishop"
when the episcopal see is vacant. The same principle is observed during
the vacancy of the Holy See in which the expression "N. our Pope" is
The apostolic administrator, even if he is a bishop, is usually not
mentioned, although other prelates who are equivalent in law to the
diocesan bishop (such as apostolic vicars, prefects, and the few
remaining territorial abbots) are mentioned at this moment.
A possible exception might be when the local bishop has been
transferred to another see but remains as apostolic administrator of his
former diocese, pending the nomination of a successor. In such cases it
is difficult to make a clear break when the bishop is still in charge.
A few months ago the Holy See published some technical changes to the
General Instruction of the Roman Missal, No. 149, regarding this point.
The changes specify that if a bishop celebrates outside of his diocese,
he is to first mention the name of the local ordinary and then use the
formula "and me, your unworthy servant."
The fact that the Church has recently gone to the trouble of revising
the text so as to invert the order in which the bishop refers to himself
and the local ordinary shows that this order is not indifferent.
This is because the "together with" (una cum) of the Roman
Canon is not merely a prayer "for" the pope and bishop, and much less
does it express some form of political loyalty.
The priest proffers the Eucharistic Prayer not in his own name but as
representative of Christ and the Church. This formula therefore
expresses a deeper theological reality in which the priest and the
assembly manifest their belonging to the Universal Church through
hierarchical communion with pope and bishop. The pope is the
representative of this unity at the universal level; the bishop is this
principle of unity at the local level. Communion with both pope and
bishop are necessary if our Eucharist is to be authentically Catholic.
I have no idea as to the motives for this priest's inverting of the
proper order, but the arguments defending it based on "loyalty," and the
implication that the order is unimportant, suggest a certain lack of
familiarity with some categories of liturgical theology and