Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/448

 PREFACE

384

PREFACE

eternal intention and of execution in time, but makes glory depend on merit in eternity as well as in the order of time. This hypothetical decree reads as follows: Just as in time eternal happiness depends on merit as a condition, so I intended heaven from all eternity only for foreseen merit. — It is only by reason of the infallible foreknowledge of these merits that the hypothetical decree is changed into an absolute: These and no others shall be saved.

This \'iew not only safeguards the universality and sincerity of God's salvific will, but coincides admirably with the teachings of St. Paul (cf. II Tim., iv, S), who knows that there "is laid up" (reposita fs/, dir6«iTai) in heaven "a crown of justice", which "tlie ju.st judge will render" {reddel, diroSiio-ci) to him on the day of judgment. Clearer still is the inference drawn from the sentence of the universal Judge (Matt., xxv, 34 sq.): "Come, ye blessed of my Father, possess you the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I was hungry, and you gave me to eat" etc. As the "possessing" of the Kingdom of Heaven in time is here linked to the works of mercy as a condition, so the "preparation" of the Kingdom of Heaven in eternity, that is, predestination to glory is conceived as dependent on the foreknowledge that good works will be performed. The same conclusion follows from the parallel sentence of condemnation (Matt., xxv, 41 sq.): "Depart, from me, you cursed, into everlasting fire which was prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry, and you gave me not to eat" etc. For it is evident that the "everlast- ing fire of hell" can only have been intended from all eternity for sin and demerit, that is, for neglect of Christian charity, in the same sense in which it is in- flicted in time. Concluding a pari, we must say the same of eternal bliss. This explanation is splendidly confirmed by the Greek Fathers. Generally speaking, the Greeks are the chief authorities for conditional predestination dependent on foreseen merits. The Latins, too, are so unanimous on this question that St. Augustine is practically the only adversarj' in the Occident. St. Hilary (In Ps. Ixiv, n. 5) expressly describes eternal election as proceeding from "the choice of merit" (ex meriii deled a), and St. Ambrose teaches in his paraphrase of Rom., viii, 29 (De fide, V, vi, 83): "Non enim ante priedestinavit quam prsesci\-it, sed quorum merita prffscivit, eorum pra^mia praedestinavit" (He did not predestine before He fore- knew, but for those whose merits He foresaw. He pre- destined the reward). To conclude: no one can accuse us of boldness if we assert that the theorv- here pre- sented has a firmer basis in Scripture and Tradition than the opposite opinion.

Besides the works quoted, cf. Peter Lombard, Sent., I, dist. 40-41: St. Thomas, I. Q. xxiii; Ruiz, De prtrdest. el reprobatione (Lyons, 1628); RamIrez, De prced. el reprob. (2 vols., Alcald, 1702); PETAVins. De Deo, IX-X; Idem, De incamatione, XIII; Lessius, De perfeclionibus moribusque divinis, XIV, 2; Idem, De prad. et reprob., Opusc. II (Paris. 187S); Tournelt, De Deo, qq. 22-23; Schrader, CommerUarii de proedeslinatione (Vienna, 1865); Hosse, De notionibus proridentiw pradestina- tioninque in ipsa Sacra Scriptura exhibitis (Bonn, 1S6S); Baltzer, Des hi. Augustinus Lehre uber Prddestination und Reprobation (Vienna. 1871); Mannens, De voluntaie Dei salrificn et prtrdeS' tinalione (Louvain, 1883); Weber, Kriiisrhe a.srii ,l,r Pr,.i,..se des 9 Kap. des Romerbriefes (WiirzbnrL- 1^- ' ^ .^e

monographs cf. Franzelin, De Deo;/', l:: n.

Die Lehre ton der Gnade, d. i. Gnade, /. ./.;

(Paderborn, 1885); Simar, Dogmalik, II, .U-'- ,i „. --:'.');

Tepe, Instilut. Iheol., Ill (Paris, 1890); ScHEEBtN-ATzBEKt;ER. Doomatik, IV (Freiburg, 1903); Pesch, Proel. Dogmat., II (Frei- burg. 1906); VAN Noort. De gratia Christi (Amsterdam, 1908); POHLE, Dogmaiik, II (Paderborn, 1909).

J. POHLE.

Preface (Lat. Prcefatio), the first part of the Eu- charistic prayers (.Anaphora or Canon) in all rites, now separated from the rest by the singing of the "Sanctus".

I. History. — According to the idea of thanksgiving which, after the example of the Last Supper (Matt., xxvi, 27; Mark, xiv, 23; Luke, xxii, 17, 19; I Cor., xi,

24), forms a fundamental element of the Eucharistio ser\dce, all liturgies begin the Anaphora, the consecra- tion-prayer, by thanking God for His benefits. Al- most every account we have of the early liturgy mentions this (Didache ix, 2-3; x, 2-4; xiv, 1; Justin, "I Apol.", LXV, iii, 5; LXVH, v). Clement of Rome quotes a long e.xample of such a thanksgiving-prayer (I Cor., Ix-lxi). So prominent was this idea that it has supplied the usual name for the whole service (Eucharist, ei)xop«fr/a). The thanksgiving-prayer enumerated the benefits for which we thank God, beginning generally with the creation, continuing through the orders of nature and grace, mentioning much of Old Testament historj^, and so coming to the culminating benefit of Christ's Incarnation, His life and Passion, in which the story of the Last Supper brings us naturally to the words of institution. In most of the earliest liturgies this enumeration is of considerable length (e.g. Apost. Const., VIII; XII, iv-xxx-ix; Alexandria, see Brightman, infra, 125-33; Antioch, ibid., 50-2). It is invariably preceded by an invitation to the people: "Lift up your hearts", and then: "Let us give thanks to the Lord", or some such formula. The people ha\-ing answered: "It is right and just", the celebrant continues, taking up their word: "It is truly right and just first of all to praise [or to thank] thee"; and so the thanksgiving begins.

Such is the scheme everywhere. It is also universal that at some moment before the recital of the words of institution there should be a mention of the angels who, as Isaias said, praise God and say: "Holy, holy, holy " etc., and the celebrant stops to allow the people to take up the angels' words (so already Clem., "I Cor.", xxxiv, 6-7, and all liturgies). He then con- tinues his thanksgiving-prayer. But the effect of this interruption is to cut off the part before it from the rest. In the Eastern rites the separation is less marked; the whole prayer is still counted as one thing — the Anaphora. In the West the Sanctus has cut the old Canon completely in two; the part before it, once counted part of the Canon (see Caxon of the RIass), is now, since about the seventh century (Ord. Rom., I, 16), considered a separate prayer, the Preface. The dislocation of the rest of the Canon which no longer continues the note of thanksgiving, but has part of its Intercession (Te igilur) imme- diately after the Sanctus, and its silent recital, whereas the Preface is sung aloud, have still more accentuated this separation. Xcvertheless, historically the Preface belongs to the Canon; it is the first part of the Eu- charistic prayer, the onlj- part that has kept clearly the idea of "giving thanks. The name "Praefatio" (from prafari) means introduction, preface (in the usual sense) to the Canon. In the Leonine an(i Gela- sian books this part of the Canon has no special title. It is recognized by its first words: "Veredig- num" (Leonine) or the initials "V. D." (Gelasian). In the Gregorian Sacrament arj- it is already consid- ered a separate prayer and is headed "Prrfatio". Walafrid Strabo calls" it "prsfatio actionis" ("actio" for Canon; "De eccl. rerum exord. et increm." in P. L., CXIV, 948). Sicardus of Cremona say.s it is "sequentis canonis pnelocutio et pra>paratio" (Mitrale in P. L., CCXIII, 122). Durandus writes a whole chapter about the Preface (De div. off., IV, xxxiii). He explains its name as meaning that it "precedes the principal sacrifice".

The first Roman Prefaces extant are those in the Leonine Sacramentary. They already show the two characteristic qualities that distinguish the Roman Preface from the corresponding jiart of other rites, its shortness and changeableness. The old thanksgi^^ng (before the Sanctus) contained a long enumeration of God's benefits, as in Clement of Rome and the Apos- tolic Con.stitutions. It is so still in the Exstem rites. At Rome, before the Leonine book was written, this