¹ For a short, ecumenical history, see Bradshaw, Paul F., “The Rediscovery of the Holy Spirit in Modern Eucharistic Theology and Practice,” in The Spirit in Worship—Worship in the Spirit, eds. Berger, Teresa and Spinks, Bryan D. (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2009), 79–96Google Scholar. For Sacrosanctum Concilium, see Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium Sacred Constitution on the Liturgy, 1963, §2, 5, 6 (2x), 43, https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19631204_sacrosanctum-concilium_en.html; in fact, only the second reference in no. 6 relates explicitly to liturgy.

² Lamberts, Jozef, “Eucharistie et Esprit Saint,” in Questions liturgiques 67 (1986): 33–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar, esp. 50. Cf. the original French text: “L'introduction d'une épiclèse explicite dans les nouvelles prières eucharistiques est donc un signe évident que l'on a rédécouvert la place et la fonction de l'Esprit Saint dans l'Eglise.” The title of the section that the quote is taken from reads “Le Saint Esprit, artisan de l'eucharistie,” 50.

³ For two seminal studies with an ecumenical breadth, see McGowan, Anne, Eucharistic Epicleses, Ancient and Modern: Speaking of the Spirit in Eucharistic Prayer (London: SPCK, 2014)Google Scholar; John H. McKenna, Eucharist and Holy Spirit: The Eucharistic Epiclesis in Twentieth Century Theology (1900–1966), Alcuin Club Collections, vol. 57 (Great Wakering: Mayhew-MacCrimmon, 1975); a reworked second edition was published in 2009.

⁴ The Missale Romanum, editio typica tertia emendata (2008) contains seven eucharistic prayers: I–IV, two eucharistic prayers “for reconciliation,” and four versions of a eucharistic prayer “for various needs”; the new translation into English is based on the 2008 Roman Missal. I will also consider the three Eucharistic Prayers for Children that were removed from the 2008 Roman Missal and issued separately (in the 2002 Roman Missal, they were in Appendix VI).

⁵ For historical, methodological, and theological nuances, see among others: de Clerck, Paul, “‘Lex orandi, lex credendi,’ sens original et avatars historiques d'un adage equivoque,” Questions liturgiques 59 (1978): 193–212Google Scholar; LaCugna, Catherine M., “Can Liturgy Ever Be a Source for Theology Again?” Studia Liturgica 19 (1989): 1–13CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Marshall, Paul V., “Reconsidering ‘Liturgical Theology’: Is there a Lex Orandi for All Christians?” Studia Liturgica 25 (1995): 129–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Cf. Geldhof, Joris, “Liturgy as Theological Norm: Getting Acquainted with ‘Liturgical Theology,’” Neue Zeitschrift für systematische Theologie und Religionsphilosophie 52 (2010): 155–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁶ See Elizabeth, Margaret, “Lex orandi est lex credendi? The God of Anglican Liturgy,” in New Blackfriars 97 (2016): 52–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Elizabeth uses both the smaller textual scope of a single (Anglican) eucharistic prayer and the wider scope of a full prayer; I will discuss all eucharistic prayers yet focus only on the epiclesis.

⁷ Elizabeth, “Lex orandi est lex credendi? The God of Anglican Liturgy,” 73.

⁸ McGowan, Eucharistic Epicleses, Ancient and Modern, 20–21.

⁹ McKenna's (ecumenical) exploration remains valuable too; see John H. McKenna, “The Epiclesis Revisited: A Look at Modern Eucharistic Prayers,” Ephemerides Liturgicae 99 (1985): 314–36; republished in the second edition of his book Eucharist and the Holy Spirit (see note 3). McKenna's analysis has a broader, less specific focus than mine.

¹⁰ The Traditio Apostolica inspired various eucharistic prayers. See the overview of four different Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican versions in McGowan, Eucharistic Epicleses, Ancient and Modern, 136, cf. 134–37. For an overview of the development of Eucharistic Prayers II–IV, see, for example, McGowan, Eucharistic Epicleses, Ancient and Modern, 146–54, with ample references to Cipriano Vagaggini, The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform (London: Chapman, 1967), originally Italian in 1966, and Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy, 1948–1975 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990). For a (sometimes) detailed historical and textual analysis of all eucharistic prayers discussed in this article, see Enrico Mazza, The Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite (New York: Pueblo, 1986), originally published in Italian in 1984.

¹¹ The translations are my own and aim to be literal yet readable. In this case, for example, the Missal translates vere as “indeed”; this is correct, but “truly” is more literal (for verus means true). Similarly, fons simply means “source” and does not need to be translated solemnly as “fount,” as in the official translation. The first epiclesis illustrates that a purely literal translation does not make sense in English: “These therefore gifts, we ask, with the dew of your Spirit sanctify …”

¹² McGowan, Eucharistic Epicleses, Ancient and Modern, 158. However, she fails to take the next step and specify what role the Spirit does have, namely an instrumental one.

¹³ The official English translation stretches this passive imagination beyond what the Latin text states: the Father is prayed to make holy “by sending down your Spirit upon them like the dewfall.” As I noted in the methodological section, discussing both the authoritative Latin text and the translation would make this article too complex.

¹⁴ On the basis of the function of dew, Mazza speaks of an “efficacious dew” and specifies that it “penetrates” and “transforms” the gifts. This active pneumatological view is based on his interpretation of dew, not on the grammar of the text. See Mazza, The Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite, 109–10.

¹⁵ This time Mazza is correct, cf. his comment: “Two themes of the [second] epiclesis are … utterly clear; the unity of those who receive the sacrament, and the cause of this unity, the Holy Spirit.” See Mazza, The Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite, 99.

¹⁶ For this proposal, see Vagaggini, The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform, 124–29, cf. various notes and comments on 139–82.

¹⁷ Describing “some general aspects of a theological nature in projects B and C,” the very first of the three aspects that Vagaggini mentioned, is the Holy Spirit. Vagaggini wrote, “The emphasis is given to the parts played by the Holy Spirit in the work of salvation and, in particular, in the eucharistic mystery. This part is shown in the conclusion of the Vere sanctus; in the epiclesis; in the Supplices where we pray for a fruitful communion [viz., Epiclesis II, jm/sg].” See Vagaggini, The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform, 145. Vagaggini accounts with some detail for the material he used in each of these cases, see 156–57, 158–60, and 176–78.

¹⁸ Namely, Vere sanctus es, Domine, fons omnis sanctitatis.

¹⁹ Full text: Vere Sanctus es, Domine, et merito te laudat omnis a te condita creatura, quia per Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum Iesum Christum, Spiritus Sancti operante virtute, vivificas et sanctificas universa, et populum tibi congregare non desinis, ut a solis ortu usque ad occasum oblatio munda offeratur nomini tuo. Interestingly, the ablativus absolutus clause situates itself exactly in between the sentence's subject, God the Father (cf. Domine), and the Father's activities (cf. vivificas etc.). This adds further weight to the question: How does the Spirit's operare relate to the Father's vivificare? Interestingly, too, operare is a somewhat vague verb; it means that the Spirit works, but does not specify what that work consists of.

²⁰ Strangely, the French translation of Eucharistic Prayer III continues after Epiclesis II with a prayer that is addressed to the Spirit: “Que l'Esprit fasse de nous une éternelle offrande à ta gloire”; this is a translation of Ipse nos tibi perficiat munus aeternum. As the Latin text had ended with in Christo, the word Ipse should be understood in relation to Christ rather than the Holy Spirit.

²¹ Here, too, McGowan gives an overview of how Basil's anaphora inspired three different Roman Catholic, Episcopalian, and Anglican versions; see McGowan, Eucharistic Epicleses, Ancient and Modern, 138, cf. 137–40.

²² The word is used here for the first time; until that moment, the Post-Sanctus had spoken about Father, creator, and savior; probably, Dominus means the Father, as the Father is the deepest origin of the Spirit, both according to trinitarian theology and—more importantly here—according to the last phrase of the Post-Sanctus. In what follows, however, Dominus also refers to Christ, cf. Mortem tuam annuntiamus, Domine.

²³ For detailed background information, see Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy (1948–1975), trans. Matthew J. O'Connell (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1990), 476–87, and Heinrich Rennings, “Votivhochgebet Versöhnung II,” in Gratias agamus. Studien zum eucharistischen Hochgebet: für Balthasar Fischer, eds. Andreas Heinz and Heinrich Rennings (Freiburg: Herder, 1992), 407–26. (Note that Fischer was the secretary to the international group of experts.) The first of these prayers had a French origin and the second one was written in German. Cf. Irmgard Pahl, “Das erste Versöhnungsgebet,” in Gratias agamus. Studien zum eucharistischen Hochgebet, 355–68.

²⁴ The comma after respice seems to be superfluous (the nominative benignus cannot be linked with the vocative clementissime Pater).

²⁵ Compare … Christo, a quo omnis omnis auferatur divisio … (Reconciliation I, Epiclesis II) with … Spiritum … qui omnia auferat quae nos invicem alienant (Reconciliation II, Epiclesis II). Note that Reconciliation II's preface had spoken about the Holy Spirit's role in instrumental terms: Per Spiritum namque tuum permoves hominum corda, ut inimici iterum in colloquia veniant, adversarii manus coniungant, populi sibi obviam quaerant venire. For a “historical-critical” explanation of this seeming contradiction, note that the drafts of both prayers were developed separately.

²⁶ It was originally prepared in German; the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments approved a French translation. For this and other details, see the article on the genesis of this prayer by Walter von Arx, who was the secretary to the Liturgical Commission of Switzerland, in von Arx, Walter, “Das Hochgebet für die Kirche in der Schweiz. Ein liturgiegeschichtliches Ereignis,” Zeitschrift für schweizerische Kirchengeschichte 71 (1977): 279–93Google Scholar, esp. 286.

²⁷ The prayer's title is in the singular: Prex eucharistica quae in missis pro variis necessitatibus adhiberi potest; cf. also the fact that the introduction to each of the four versions—each with its own title—all start with the following introduction that uses the singular noun forma: Sequens forma huius precis eucharisticae conventienter adhibetur.… The numbers in the Missale Romanum are different from those in Von Arx's overview, “Das Hochgebet für die Kirche in der Schweiz,” 287. Version IV Die Kirche auf dem Weg zur Einheit in Von Arx’ list has become in the Roman Missal Version I, Ecclesia in viam unitatis progrediens.

²⁸ Version I prays immediately after the epiclesis to “renew your Church by the light of the Gospel” and also prays to “confirm the vinculum unititatis between faithful and pastors” so that “your people” may be a “prophetical sign of unity and concord” in our world; Version II prays for unity and that we may share gaudium et fiduciam with the world; Version III specifies among others that the faithful may scrutinize the signs of the times; Version IV prays among others that we may have our eyes open to the needs of our brothers and sisters, that the church may witness to truth, freedom, peace, and justice, and for a new hope for all people. My suggestion that these are pneumatological topics is confirmed by Walter von Arx’ interpretation, “Das Hochgebet für die Kirche in der Schweiz,” 288.

²⁹ See Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy (1948–1975), 478, note 42.

³⁰ Cf. one of the introductory comments in the 2002 Missal: “Natura sua textus latinus non tantum ad usum liturgicum destinatur, sed potius utpote textus typicus seu exemplar praebetur.” For the quote from Mazza, see The Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite, 236, cf. 235–40. Mazza seems to overlook that the Eucharistic Prayer for Various Needs was unique for being a prayer that has been developed locally that was adopted for the universal church. Arguably therefore Von Arx had good reasons to speak in the subtitle of his article of “a liturgy-historical event.” See “Das Hochgebet für die Kirche in der Schweiz. Ein liturgiegeschichtliches Ereignis.”

³¹ To make sense of the sentence, one must change the Latin somewhat, either by removing the commas before and after the phrase Filii tui corpus et sanguinem sumamus (which is what I have done), or, less probably, by adding the word qui between ut and Filii tui (which would translate as “we, who may take …, may be one heart….”).

³² As is commonly known, in an earlier version the first epiclesis missed an explicit reference to the Holy Spirit; consequently, the words “through the power of the Holy Spirit,” added in the Editio typica, are often absent in translations into the vernacular.

³³ Cf. the questions quoted from McGowan, Eucharistic Epicleses, Ancient and Modern: see footnote 8.

³⁴ See footnote 2. Cf. the active tone in his description of the newly introduced epicleses: “Il est ici (in Epiclesis I, jm) très expressément demandé dans l’épiclèse consécratoire que le Saint Esprit veuille sanctifier, transformer les offrandes en le Corps et le Sang du Christ” and “Il y (in Epiclesis II, jm) est très explicitement demandé que le Saint Esprit empreigne la vie de ceux qui se trouvent rassemblés autour du pain et du chalice,” Lamberts, “Eucharistie et Esprit Saint,” 49.

³⁵ See McGowan, Eucharistic Epicleses, Ancient and Modern, 160; italics in the original text. The contrast (cf. does) makes sense in the light of her observation that in Eucharistic Prayer II “the Spirit does not act directly as the agent of sanctification for the gifts; rather, the petition is addressed to the Father,” 158.

³⁶ For the full text of the Post-Sanctus, see footnote 19.

³⁷ See McGowan, Eucharistic Epicleses, Ancient and Modern, 160.

³⁸ McGowan, Eucharistic Epicleses, Ancient and Modern, 161.

³⁹ McGowan, Eucharistic Epicleses, Ancient and Modern, 161; the quote is from Detscher, Alan F., “The Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Catholic Church,” in New Eucharistic Prayers: An Ecumenical Study of their Development and Structure, ed. Senn, Frank C. (Mahwah, NY: Paulist Press, 1987), 15–52Google Scholar, esp. 35. Cf. Detscher's comment on the first epiclesis that he had lauded as an “explicit epiclesis” with a “strong expression of the action of the Holy Spirit,” 35; that praise is not warranted by the text of Eucharistic Prayer III.

⁴⁰ de Cagny, Olivier, Les prières eucharistiques, nouvelle edition (Paris: Parole et Silence, 2012), 98Google Scholar; cf. “Nous sommes entrés par le Baptême et la Confirmation dans la plénitude du salut déjà offert par le sacrifice du Christ, et ces offrandes sanctifiées par l'Esprit nous y rendent réellement présents.” For another example, see Kilmartin, Edward J., “The Active Role of Christ and the Holy Spirit in the Sanctification of the Eucharistic Elements,” Theological Studies 45 (1984): 225–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The article is precious for its courageous ecumenical stance and its useful trinitarian-theological proposal, yet when Kilmartin concludes that Orthodox and Roman Catholic theology agree that Christ “sent the Spirit to transform the bread and wine into his body and blood” (243, cf. 244), he says more than the formulations he has carefully listed earlier in the article allow for. For example, he quoted statements from the International Catholic-Lutheran Commission: “During his life on earth, Jesus Christ did all things in the Holy Spirit.… It is also through the Holy Spirit that Christ is at work in the Eucharist,” 226; in that statement, the Holy Spirit neither has the role to transform nor another explicitly and unambiguously active role. Moreover, my own article demonstrates that unfortunately even that more nuanced statement cannot count as a correct representation of the lex credendi of the epicleses in the Roman-Catholic eucharistic prayers.

⁴¹ Teresa Berger, “Veni Creator Spiritus: The Elusive Real Presence of the Spirit in the Catholic Tradition,” in The Spirit in Worship, 141–54.

⁴² John McKenna, “Eucharistic Epiclesis: Theological Myopia or Microcosm,” Theological Studies 36 (1975): 265–84, esp. 284.

⁴³ See Otto Dilschneider, “Die Geistvergessenheit der Theologie. Epilog zur Diskussion über den historischen Jesus und kerygmatischen Christus,” Theologische Literaturzeitung 88 (1961): 255–66.

⁴⁴ This has been observed by many scholars. See for example Edward Foley, “The Structure of the Mass, Its Elements and Its Parts,” in A Commentary on the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, eds. Edward Foley, N. D. Mitchell, and Joanne M. Pierce (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2007), 175–76, esp. 176. This was amended in the 2002 edition of the Instruction, see General Instruction on the Roman Missal, 2002, http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/ccdds/documents/rc_con_ccdds_doc_20030317_ordinamento-messale_en.html, §79c.

⁴⁵ General Instruction on the Roman Missal, 2002, §77 and 89.

⁴⁶ For example, Teresa Berger spoke in 2009 of a “pneumatological turn”; Anne McGowan elaborated on the examples she gave for that in 2014. See Teresa Berger, “Introduction,” in The Spirit in Worship, xi–xxv, esp. xiii–xv and xx–xxi; McGowan, Eucharistic Epicleses, Ancient and Modern, 3–4.

⁴⁷ Francis Schüssler Fiorenza and John P. Galvin, eds., Systematic Theology: Roman Catholic Perspectives, 2nd ed. (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011). There is a chapter on Christ and one on the Trinity; the Holy Spirit is rarely discussed for more than a few lines.

⁴⁸ Yves Congar, La Parole et le Souffle, nouvelle edition ([1984]; Paris: Mame–Desclée, 2010), 14.

⁴⁹ Kilian McDonnell, The Other Hand of God: The Holy Spirit as the Universal Touch and Goal (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003), 86 and 88–89, cf. 90.

⁵⁰ McDonnell beautifully sketches what a true complementarity of Son and Spirit looks like in the final pages of his book; see McDonnell, The Other Hand of God, 227–29.

⁵¹ Karl Rahner, The Trinity: With an Introduction, Index, and Glossary by Catherine Mowry LaCugna (New York: Crossroad Publishing, 1997), 10–12. This is a translation of Karl Rahner, “Der dreifaltige Gott als transzendenter Urgrund der Heilsgeschichte,” in Mysterium Salutis, vol. II (Einsiedeln: Benzinger, 1967), 317–401, and goes back to (and elaborates on) the essay, “Bemerkungen zum dogmatischen Traktat ‘de Trinitate,’” in Schriften zur Theologie, vol. IV (Einsiedeln: Benzinger, 1960), 103–33, originally published in Ludwig Lenhart, ed., Universitas. Dienst an Wahrheit und Leben. Festschrift für Bischof Dr. Albert Stohr (Mainz: Grünewald, 1960), 130–50.

⁵² Karl Rahner, The Trinity: With an Introduction, Index, and Glossary by Catherine Mowry LaCugna, 13–15, esp. 13. Cf. his earlier, more technical essay based on similar convictions “Zur scholastischen Begrifflichkeit der ungeschaffenen Gnade,” Karl Rahner, Schriften zur Theologie, vol. I (Einsiedeln: Benzinger, 1954), 347–75. Originally published in Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 63 (1939): 137–56. In that essay, he linked pre-Christian monotheism with appropriation too; see 374–75.

⁵³ Heribert Mühlen, Der Heilige Geist als Person. Beitrag zur Frage nach der dem heiligen Geiste eigentümlichen Funktion in der Trinität, bei der Inkarnation und im Gnadenbund, 2nd rev. ed. ([1963]; Münster: Aschendorff, 1966), cf. the opening line, “Das Grundanliegen in der folgenden Untersuchung ist der Versuch, nach der dem Hl. Geist eigentümlichen Funktion in der Trinität, bei der Inkarnation und im Gnadenbund zu fragen, um dadurch vielleicht etwas zur Lehre vom Hl. Geist beizutragen,” 1.

⁵⁴ The chapter was entitled “Das Axiom: ‘In Deo omnia sunt unum, ubi non obviat relationis oppositio’ und die inhabitatio propria des Heiligen Geistes,” see Mühlen, Der Heilige Geist als Person, 306–29. The title of the first section read, “Das Problem der Appropriation,” 306–13. The chapter was added in the second edition. Interestingly, Mühlen refers to Rahner's “Bemerkungen” on page 309.

⁵⁵ Mühlen, Der Heilige Geist als Person, 309–10. The expression “Übermaß an Klarheit” Mühlen took from De Régnon.

⁵⁶ Mühlen, Der Heilige Geist als Person, 306, developed 315–18. The translation is mine.

⁵⁷ LaCugna, Catherine Mowry, God for Us: The Trinity & Christian Life (New York: HarperCollins, 1991), 99Google Scholar. Cf. her reflection on the Spirit's personhood, for example, in the following quote: “The axiom that the works of God ad extra are one, along with the doctrine of the filioque, obscure the proprium of the Spirit by relegating the Spirit to an intradivine realm as the bond between Father and Son,” 298.

⁵⁸ LaCugna, God for Us, 298. This she considers to be the Spirit's proprium.

⁵⁹ Neil Ormerod, The Trinity: Retrieving the Western Tradition (Marquette, WI: Marquette University Press, 2005), chap. 5, 99–123, esp. 99.

⁶⁰ McKenna seems to have had similar intuitions in 1975; cf. what he says about appropriation “in the strong sense” in Eucharist and Holy Spirit, 198–203, here 200.

⁶¹ Berger, “Veni Creator Spiritus.”