w^^mmimmm^^^ms^^^^^^^^^^^ Tr3f,Ti;SWrt" ■ BOUGHT WITH THE INCOME FROM THE SAGE ENDOWMENT FUND THE GIFT OF 1891 (l,aaiQ6a i^'i 3777 Cornell University Library BX2230 .F73 1912 Mass: a study of the roman litur by A olin 3 1924 029 398 553 \<^\ <\ x^ The original of this book is in the Cornell University Library. There are no known copyright restrictions in the United States on the use of the text. http://archive.org/details/cu31924029398553 THE WESTMINSTER LIBRARY A SERIES OF MANUALS FOR CATHOLIC PRIESTS AND STUDENTS EDITED BY The Right Rev. Mgr. BERNARD WARD PRESIDENT OF ST. EDMUND'S COLLEGE AND The Rev. HERBERT THURSTON, S.J. THE MASS A STUDY OF THE ROMAN UTURGY BY ADRIAN FORTESCUE LONGMANS, GREEN AND CO 39 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON NEW YORK, BOMBAY AND CALCUTTA 1912 S ^tkil 0b0tat: JEmptimatur : U ' Ar? /\.K^\c>S?- F. THOS. BERGH, O.S.B,, Censor deputatus. Edm. Can. Surmont, Vic. gen. WistmonasUrii, die a8 Martih 1912, -V EDITORS^ PREFACE. This series of Handbooks is designed to meet a need, which, the Editors believe, has been widely felt, and which results in great measure from the predominant importance attached to Dogmatic and Moral Theology in the studies preliminary to the Priesthood. That the first place must of necessity be given to these subjects will not be disputed. But there re- mains a large outlying field of professional knowledge which is always in danger of being crowded out in the years before ordination, and the practical utility of which may not be fully realised until some experience of the ministry has been gained. It will be the aim of the present series to offer the sort of help which is dictated by such experience, and its develop- ments will be largely guided by the suggestions, past and future, of the Clergy themselves. To provide Textbooks for Dogmatic Treatises is not contemplated — at any rate not at the outset- On the other hand, the pastoral work of the missionary priests will be kept constantly in view, and the series will also deal with those historical and liturgical aspects of Catholic belief and practice which are every day being brought more into prominence. vi EDITORS' PREFACE That the needs of English-speaking countries are, in these respects, exceptional, must be manifest to all. In point of treatment it seems desirable that the volumes should be popular rather than scholastic, but the Editors hope that by the selection of writers, fully competent in their special subjects, the information given may always be accurate and abreast of modern research. The kind approval of this scheme by His Grace the Archbishop of Westminster, in whose Diocese these manuals are edited, has suggested that the series should be introduced to the public under the general title of The West- minster Library. It is hoped, however, that contributors may also be found among the distinguished Clergy of Ireland and America, and that the Westminster Library will be repre- sentative of Catholic scholarship in all English- speaking countries. PREFACE. This book is intended to supply information about the history of the Roman liturgy. The dogmatic side of the Mass is discussed by the Bishop of Newport in the same series.^ The title shows that it is a study of the Roman rite. It is only in the Roman (or Gallican) rite that the Eucharistic service can correctly be called Mass. The chapter about other liturgies and the frequent references to them throughout are meant only to put our Roman Mass in its proper perspective and to illustrate its elements by com- parison. In spite of the risk of repetition, the clearest plan seemed to be to discuss first the origin and development of the Mass in general ; and then to go through the service as it stands now, adding notes to each prayer and ceremony. The present time is perhaps hardly the most convenient for attempting a history of the Mass. For never before have there been so many or so various theories as to its origin, as to the develop- ment of the Canon, the Epiklesis and so on. Where the best authorities differ so widely it ^The Holy Eucharist^ Longmans, Green & Co., 1907. vu viii PREFACE would be absurd to pretend to offer a final solu- tion. I have no pretence of supplying a new answer to any of these questions, or even of taking a side finally among theories already pro- posed. The only reasonable course seems to be to state the chief systems now defended and to leave the reader to make up his own mind. I have however shewn some preference for the main ideas of Dr. Drews and Dr. Baumstark and for certain points advanced by Dr. Buch- wald. And I have added a few general remarks on the points which seem to me to be fairly established. But this has not, I think, prevented a fair statement of other theories ; nor should it make it more difficult for the reader to see the present state of the difficult questions. I doubt if it be possible to think of a solution of the main question (the order of the Canon) which has not yet been proposed, or of one that has not some difficulties. At any rate I have thought of none such. The list of books at the end represents the chief sources used in writing this one. Though ob- viously exceedingly incomplete (a bibliography of the Mass would be a gigantic undertaking), it will perhaps be of some use as a first guide to further study. If a reference in the notes is not complete it will be found complete there. Throughout the book I have aimed at giving my reference for every statement. Nothing is more useless or irritating than a vague allusion to early use or mediaeval practice, without a reference to control it. I have repeated the references con- PREFACE ix tinually. I have spent too much weary time, turning back the pages of books to find what op, cit. means, not to wish to spare other people such trouble. And I think we owe it to the people who do us the honour of reading what we write to make it as easy as possible for them to control our statements. P. L. and P.G. mean Migne : Patrologia latina and grceca. I have to thank Father Herbert Thurston, S.J. for reading the manuscript and making valuable suggestions. But I have, of course, no claim to his authority for any of my views. Mgr. George Wallis and Dr. Edwin Burton have also given me valuable information. I have constantly used and quoted Cardinal Bona. He supplies very well what I would say here too : Ssepe enim volenti et conanti vel ingenii vires vel rerum antiquarum notitia vel alia subsidia defuerunt ; nee fieri potuit quin per loca sale- brosa in tenebris ambulans interdum offenderim. Cumque aliquid incautius et negligentius a me scriptum offenderit, ignoscat primum lector, deinde amica manu corrigat et emendet, et quae omisi suppleat {^Rerum liturgicarum II, xx, 6). A. F. Letchworth, Easter^ 191 2. CONTENTS. PAGE Part I. The History of the Mass, . . . . i Chap, I. The Eucharist in thejirst three Centuries, . , , i § I. Liturgical Fragments in the New Testament, . . i § 2. The Liturgy in the Apostolic Fathers, .... 8 §3. The Liturgy in the Second Century, .... 16 §4. The Fathers of the Third Century, .... 28 § 5. Liturgical Uniformity in the first three Centuries, . 51 §6. The Liturgy in Apostolic Constitutions VIII, . . 57 § 7. Apostolic Constitutions and the present Roman Mass, . 68 §8. Influence of Jewish Ritual, 70 Chap, II, The Parent Rites and their Descendants, ... 76 §1. The Development of the Parent Rites, ... 76 § 2. The Antiochene Rite, ....... 80 § 3. Liturgies derived fi-om Antioch, 84 § 4. The Alexandrine Rite, ....... 93 § 5. The Gallican Rite, 97 § 6. Table of Liturgies, 107 Chap, III, The Origin of the Roman Rite, .... no § I. State of the Question, no § 2. Earliest Liturgical Books, 113 § 3. Latin as the Liturgical Language, .... 126 § 4. First Traces of the Roman Mass, . . . . 128 § 5. Conjectured Reconstructions of the Mass, . . . 138 § 6. Bunsen's theory, 140 § 7. Probst and Bickell, . 141 § 8. Dom Cagin, 144 § 9. Mr. W. C. Bishop, 146 § 10. Dr. Baumstark, ........ 148 § II. Dr. Buchwald, 151 § 12. Dr. Drews, 156 § 13. Dom Cabrol, 166 § 14. Concluding Remarks, 169 Chap, IV. The Mass since Gregory /,.... 172 §1. From Gregory I to Adrian I (590-795), . . . 172 § 2. The Spread of the Roman Rite, i77 § 3. Gallican Influence, 182 § 4. Difi"erent kinds of Mass. Low Mass, .... 184 § 5. Mediaeval and later Commentators, .... 193 § 6. Mediaeval Derived Rites, 199 § 7. The Reform of Pius V (1570), 205 § 8. Later Revisions and Modern Times, .... 208 xi Xll CONTENTS Part II. The Order of the Mass, Chap, V, The Mass of the Catechumens ^ to the Lessons^ § I. Arrangements of the Parts of the Mass, §2. The Introit, § 3. The Celebrant's Preparation, § 4. First Incensing of the Altar, §5. Kyrie Eleison, . ... § 6. Gloria in Excelsis, .... §7. Collects, Chap, VI. To the End of the Catechumens* MasSj § I. The Lessons, ..... § 2. Epistle, § 3. Gradual, Alleluia, Tract and Sequence, § 4. Gospel, §5. Homily and Creed, .... Chap. VII. The Mass of the Faithful^ to the Eucharistic Prayei § I. The Prayers of the Faithful, . § 2. The Offertory Act, .... § 3. Azyme Bread, .... § 4. The Offertory Chant, .... §5. Offertory Prayers, .... § 6. The Incensing and Washing of Hands, §7. Secrets, Chap. VIII. The Canon, ..... § I. The Preface, §2. Sanctus, § 3. Name, Extent and general Character of the Canon §4. Te Igitur to the Words of Institution, . § 5. The Elevation, §6. To the End of the Canon, . Chap. IX. The Communion, .... § I. The Lord's Prayer, .... § 2. Fraction, Commixture, Fermentum, § 3. Kiss of Peace, § 4. The Communion Act, .... § 5. Communion under one kind, §6. Communion Prayers, .... § 7. Agnus Dei and Communion Antiphon, . Chap. X. After the Communion, §1. Postcommunion and Oratio super Populum, §2. Dismissal, § 3. After the Dismissal, .... Appendix I. The Names of the Mass, Appendix II. The Epiklesis, .... List of Books J Ti'Cvlf^ • * • • • • • 4 PAGE 214 214 214 216 225 228 230 239 244 254 254 262 265 280 284 293 293 296 300 303 304 308 311 315 315 320 323 328 337 345 361 361 364 370 372 376 381 385 389 389 391 392 397 402 408 413 PART 1. THE HISTORY OF THE MASS. CHAPTER I. THE EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES. § I. Liturgical Fragments in the New Testament. The first source for the history of the Mass is ob- viously the New Testament. In the New Testament we find the root of the whole matter in the account of the Last Supper. It was because our Lord told us to do what he had done, in memory of him, that liturgies exist. So, obviously, whatever else may vary, in every rite the first thing is to obey that com- mand, to do this^ namely, what Christ himself had done. By putting together the four accounts of the Last Supper (Mt xxvi, 26-28; Mk. xiv, 22-24; Lk. xxii, 19-20; I Cor. xi, 23-25) we have the essential nucleus of the holy liturgy in any rite. This at least, we may be sure, was constant from the beginning. It would not have been a Eucharist at all if the celebrant had not done at least this. Our Lord took bread, gave thanks, blessed and broke it, said over it the words of Institution and gave it to his apostles to eat ; then he took a cup of wine, again gave thanks (Luke and Paul do not add this second thanksgiving), said the words of Institution over I 2 THE MASS it and gave it to them to drink. An unimportant dis- placement of the order postponed the Communion till after both bread and wine were consecrated; the merely verbal discrepancy in the words of Institution between Matthew and Mark on the one hand and Luke and Paul on the other produced a slight variety in the Eucharistic form. Otherwise we have from the New Testament at least this essential rite: i. Bread and wine are brought to the altar. 2. The celebrant gives thanks. 3. He takes the bread, blesses it and says the words of Institution. 4. He does the same over the wine. 5. The bread is broken, it and the consecrated wine are given to the people in Com- munion. But we can find more than this about the earliest Hturgy in the New Testament. A number of allusions, though in no fixed order, enables us to add other elements to this nucleus. None of these allusions gives a full description of the way the apostles cele- brated the Eucharist. It is only by putting them together that we can to some extent represent the whole rite. Nor is it safe to insist too much on the order in which the functions are mentioned. We see, for instance, in the accounts of the Last Supper that there are slight misplacements of the order (Mt. xxvi, 26; Lk. xxii, 19), even in the words, (Mt. xxvi, 28; I Cor. xi, 25, etc.). The most we can say with cer- tainty is that already in the New Testament we find the elements which make up the liturgy according to the earliest complete account of it (in Justin Martyr), and that in many cases these elements are named in the order they follow in such later accounts. The Jewish Christians at first continued to attend the services of the Temple with their neighbours (Acts iii, I ; Lk. xxiv, 52, 53). Following the example of our Lord (Lk. iv, 15, 16; vi, 6; John xviii, 20) EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 3 they also went to the Synagogues (Acts ix, 20, etc.). But even before the final breach with Judaism Chris- tians had their own meetings too, where they could worship God according to their belief in Christ. These assemblies are occasionally called Synagogues (James ii, 2 ; Heb. x, 25). As distinct from the Sabbath they were made chiefly on Sunday (Acts xx, 7 ; i Cor. xvi, 2). At these exclusively Christian meetings naturally they followed the normal order of the Jewish Syna- gogue service, but with Christian ideas : the services were those of the Synagogue Christianized. There were readings from the holy books, as among the Jews (Actsxiii, 15). St. Paul tells Timothy to read as well as to preach (i Tim. iv, 13); his own letters are to be read out to all the brethren (i Thess. v, 27 ; Col. iv, 16). Evidently Christians read their own books as well as the Old Testament. After the readings came sermons, expositions of what had been read (i Cor. xiv, 26 ; Acts XX, 7). They sang psalms (i Cor. xiv, 26) and hymns (Eph. v, 19; Col. iii, 16). The two are ob- viously distinct in these texts. There are fragments of rhymed prose in St. Paul, which are supposed to be examples of the first Christian hymns (Rom. xiii, 11, 12; Eph. V, 14; I Tim. iii, 16; 2 Tim. ii, 11-13V There were prayers said publicly for all kinds of people (i Tim. ii, 1-2 ; Acts ii, 42). At the meetings collections of alms were made for the poor (Rom. xv, 26 ; I Cor. xvi, 1-2 ; 2 Cor. ix, 10-13). These elements, readings, sermons, psalms, hymns, prayers and the collection of alms, we know to have been those of the Synagogue services.^ Together they formed what was called the ** Communion " {jcoivoavia) ^ as in Acts ^ Warren : Liturgy and Ritual of the Ante-Nicene Church, 34-35. 2 Conjecturally we can suggest a much more exact reproduction of the Jewish service in the first Christian assemblies than merely the continuation of these elements. See pp. 70-75. 4 THE MASS ii, 42.^ To this picture of the Christian service we can add details. The people prayed standing, with uplifted hands (Phil, i, 27 ; Eph. vi, 14 ; i Tim. ii, 8). This was the Jewish position (Ps. cxxxiii, I ; cxxxiv, 2 ; Lk. xviii, II, 13 ; Mt. v, 5 ; Ps. cxl, 2 ; Ixii, 5 ; cxxxiii, 2). The men were bareheaded, the women veiled (i Cor. xi, 6-yy Women were not allowed to speak in Church (l Cor. xiv, 34-35). There was a kiss of peace (i Thess. V, 26 ; Rom. xvi, 16 ; i Cor. xvi, 20 ; i Pet. v, 14), a public profession of faith (i Tim. vi, 12). The people continued the use of the old Hebrew formula Amen ("jiOb^ as an adverb, '' certainly," '' truly " ; so con- stantly in the Old Testament, Deut. xxvi, 15-26; Ps. xl, 14 etc.) as the sign of their assent after a prayer (i Cor. xiv, 16); it occurs in the archetype of all prayers, the Our Father (Mt. vi, 13). We may sup- pose other formulas that occur constantly in St. Paul to be well-known liturgical ones in the Church, as they had been in the Synagogue. Such formulas are ** for ever and ever " (again a Hebraism, Rom. xvi, 27 ; Gal. i, 5 ; cfr. Heb. xiii, 21 ; i Pet. iv, 1 1 ; v. 1 1 ; Apoc. i, 6 etc.). "- God blessed for ever" (Rom. ix, 5 ; i. 25 ; 2 Cor. xi, 31). Such doxologies and blessings as 2 Cor. xiii, 14; Rom. xi, 36, and the form ''Through our Lord Jesus Christ " (Rom. v, 1 1, 2 1 ; cfr. vi, 12 etc.) have the look of liturgical formulas. There were two other functions of the first Chris- tian assemblies which disappeared after the first century. These were the Love Feast {Agape, i Cor. xi, 20-22; Jud. 12)^ and the effusion of the ^ The Greek text distinguishes the '* Communion " from the Breaking of bread: ''They were persevering in the teaching of the Apostles and in the Communion, the Breaking of the bread and the prayers." -There is a large Hterature on the Agape. Of late works E. Baumgartner, O.M. Cap : Eucharistie und Agape (Solothurn, 1909) may be recommended. J. F. Keating: The Agape and the Eucharist (London, 1901) has some good things. H. Leclercq, O.S.B. : Agape E UCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES S Holy Ghost among the people, producing prophecies, ecstasies, speaking in strange tongues, exorcisms and miracles (i Cor. xiv, i-4oy We meet both again in the Didache ;'^ soon after they disappear. Both were obviously open to abuses. St. Paul is not pleased with the way the Agape was held in his time (i Cor. xi, 22); the effusion of the Holy Ghost dis- appeared naturally when the first fire of the new movement cooled and enthusiasm gave place to ordered regulations. We may then leave aside these two features and consider only the normal elements that remained, that still exist in all liturgies. There was not a Eucharist at every Christian assembly; but when it was celebrated it was joined to the Chris- tianized Synagogue service described above. In I Cor. xi, 20-34 we see it connected with the Agape ; it^ may be conjectured that it followed that feast.^ The Eucharist was a well-known service among St. Paul's converts (i Cor. x, 16); it was a recognized standard by which Christians were known (Acts ii, 42, 46) ; it took place especially on Sunday (Acts XX, 7). From the order of Acts ii, 42 (the teaching of the Apostles, ''Communion," breaking of bread, prayers), still more from the invariable order we find in later documents, we may conclude that the Eucharist came at the end of the other service. The people met together, read their books, heard sermons, in the Dictionnaire d'archeologie chretienne et de liturgie (i. 775-848) amounts to a long treatise and gives copious bibliography. ^ Duchesne : Histoire ancienne, i. 47-49 ; OrigineSy 47-48. 2 See below, p. 9. 3 There are many difficulties about this text. It is difficult to see when St. Paul is speaking of the feast and when of the Eucharist. The two rites are still woven in one another. But his account of the Last Supper and the expressions " guilty of the body and blood of the Lord " (v. 27), '* to show forth the death of the Lord " (v. 26) ; *' dis- cerning the body of the Lord " (v. 29), make the interpretation that he means only an ordinary love-feast impossible. 6 THE MASS sang and prayed ; then the bread and wine were brought up and the Eucharist was celebrated. The texts show, as we should in any case have foreseen, that this celebration followed exactly the lines of our Lord's action at the Last Supper. His command was to do this — what he had just done. The repeti- tion of the whole story of the institution, including the words, in i Cor. xi, 23-26 argues that the cele- brant repeated those actions and said those words. We notice especially the idea of a thanksgiving prayer as part of the rite. In i Cor. xiv, 16 the Amen said by the people is an answer to *'thy thanksgiving"; among the kinds of prayer demanded in I Tim. ii, I are thanksgivings. After the Consecration came '' prayers " (Acts ii, 42). Since both our Lord and St. Paul insist on the idea that the Eucharist is a memory of Christ (Lk. xxii, 19), a shewing forth of the Lord's death (i Cor. xi, 24-26), we may conclude that the prayers contained a reference to this. On one occasion at least, at Troas when the young man fell out of a window, a sermon followed the Commun- ion (Acts XX, 11). Putting together what we know or may deduce with reasonable certainty from the texts of the New Testa- ment, we have this picture of the liturgy : — I . The Syitaxis based on a Synagogue Service : Readings from the Bible (i Tim. iv, 13 ; i Thess. V, 27 ; Col. iv, 16). Sermons on what has been read (i Cor. xiv, 26 ; Acts xx, 7). Psalms (i Cor. xiv, 26). Hymns (Eph. v, 19 ; Col. iii, 16).' Prayers (Acts ii, 42 ; i Tim. W, 1-2). Almsgiving (Rom. xv, 26 ; i Cor. xvi, 1-2 ; 2 Cor. ix, 10-13). Profession of Faith (i Tim. vi, 12). E UCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 7 Kiss of Peace (Rom. xvi, 16 ; i Cor. xvi, 20; i Thess. V, 26; I Pet. v, 14). 2. Tke Eucharist Proper : A prayer of thanksgiving (Lk. xxii, 19 ; i Cor. xi, 23 ; xiv, 16 ; i Tim. ii, i). The blessing of bread and wine by the words of Institution (i Cor. x, 16 ; Mt xxvi, 26-28 ; Mk. xiv, 22-24; Lk. xxii, 19-20; i Cor. xi, 23). Prayers, remembering Christ's death (Acts ii, 42 ; Lk. xxii, 19 ; I Cor. xi, 23, 25, 26). The people eat and drink the consecrated bread and wine (Mt. xxvi, 26, 27 ; Mk. xiv, 22, 23 ; i Cor. xi, 26-29). We shall notice especially that the distinction be- tween these two services, the ordinary Synaxis and the Eucharist proper, remains in all liturgies. It can still be seen, a perceptible joining together of two functions in every rite, including our Roman Mass. For the rest, our knowledge of the details of the whole composite service increases from the earliest fathers, and so on each century. The details developed naturally, the prayers and formulas, eventually the ceremonial actions crystallized into set forms. But the service is always the same. Different arrangements of subsidiary parts, greater insistence on certain elements in various places produce different liturgies ; but all go back eventually to this outline. The Roman Mass is one form of a service that we find first, not in the laws of some mediaeval Pope, but in the Epistles, the Acts of the Apostles, and the Gospels.^ 1 The liturgical texts in the N.T. are collected in Cabrol and Leclercq : Monumenta Eccl, Liturgica, I, i, 1-51. See Probst : Liturgie der 3 ersten christl. yahrhdie^ 17-391 Liturgie des 4 yahrhdts, 17-31. Warren : The Liturgy and Ritual of the Ante-Nicene Churchy 9-49. 8 THE MASS § 2. The Liturg^^ in the Apostolic Fathers. The little book that is apparently the earliest extant Christian work after the New Testament, the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles {Didache)^ contains two allusions to the holy Eucharist. Chap. xiv. i says : '' Every Sun- day of the Lord {tcara icvpiaKrjv he fcvplov)^ having assem- bled together, break bread and gwo: thanks {ev')(api(jTr)- a-aTe)y having confessed your sins, that your sacrifice be pure ". From this we have two conclusions of dogmatic importance, confession before Communion (it is a real confession made "in church" ; see iv. 14) and that the Eucharist is a sacrifice. For its ritual we have that it was celebrated every Sunday and that already its name is " Thanksgiving " (eu^j^apio-rta, Eucharist). The other text is curious and has many difficulties: (ix, i), ** Concerning the Thanksgiving {ev^apiaTiay one might already use the word Eucharist), give thanks thus, (2) First for the cup : We give thanks to thee, our Father, for the holy vine of thy servant David which thou hast shown us through thy servant^ Jesus. Glory to thee for ever. (3) But for the broken (bread) : We g\Y^ thanks to thee, our Father, for the life and wisdom which thou hast shewn us through thy servant Jesus. Glory to thee for ever. (4) As this broken bread was scattered over the mountains, and has been gathered together and made one, so may thy Church be gathered from the ends of the earth into thy kingdom ; for thine is the glory and the power, through Jesus Christ for ever. (5) But no one is to eat or drink of your Thanksgiving except those who are baptized in the name of Jesus ; for 1 About the years 80-100. It is now generally recognized as a Christian redaction of a Jewish book. Cfr. A. Harnack : Die Lehre der zwolf Apostel (Texte u. Untersuchungen, II, 1-2, Leipzig, 1884), etc. ^nals, the same word has just been used for David. At this time it commonly means servant (Lk. vii, 7, etc.). E UCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 9 because of this the Lord said : Do not give the holy thing to dogs. (x, i) After you are filled give thanks thus : (2) We give thanks to thee, holy Father, for thy holy name which thou hast made to dwell in our hearts and for the knowledge and faith and im- mortality which thou hast shewn us through thy servant Jesus. Glory to thee for ever. (3), Thou, almighty Lord, hast created all things for thy name's sake and thou hast given food and drink to men to enjoy that they may give thanks to thee ; and to us thou hast given spiritual food and drink and life everlasting through thy servant. (4) Above all we thank thee because thou art mighty. Glory to thee for ever. (5) Remember, O Lord, thy Church to free her from all evil and make her perfect in thy love ; gather her from the four winds and make her holy in thy kingdom which thou hast prepared for her ; for thine is the power and the glory for ever. (6) Let grace come and let * this world perish. Hosanna to the God of David. If anyone be holy let him draw nigh, if anyone be not, let him repent. Maran atha. Amen. (7) But let the prophets give thanks as much as they will." There are difficulties about this account, so that some people think that it is not about the holy Eucharist at all but only about an Agape. Others think it con- cerns a private Eucharist celebrated at home, not the official one in public. ^ On the other hand the allusions to the Eucharist seem too obvious to allow any doubt ; as for the private Eucharist, its existence in the early Church remains to be proved. The reasonable inter- pretation of the passage in the Didache seems to be that it is an incomplete description of an abnormal ^ A good short account of this discussion with references will be found in Rauschen : Eucharistie und Busssakrament (2nd ed., Freiburg, 1910), pp. 95-98. See also Batiffol : Etudes d'histoire et de theologie positive i 2 s^rie (2nd ed., Paris, 1905, 108- 117). 10 THE MASS type of Eucharistic service. Supposing this, we notice in the first place that the prayers are modelled on the Jewish prayers for blessing bread and wine on the eve of the Sabbath.^ In this case too the book shews it- self to be a Christian remodelling of Jewish texts. The abnormal points are that the wine is blessed before the bread— this is unique in all Christian literature — that there is no mention of the Last Supper, no reference to the words of Institution, only the vaguest allusion to the Real Presence.^ We have however in this account certain elements that we shall find constant in the normal liturgy. There is first the Thanksgiving- prayer. God is thanked for the benefit of creation and for his gifts in nature (x, 3), then for his grace given to us through Christ (ib. x, 2 ; ix, 2, 3).^ This is quite the usual form of that prayer. There is a thanks- giving before and another after Communion. There is also a double Intercession-prayer for the Church (ix, 4 and X, 5). The Thanksgiving and Intercession ends with the formula : " Hosanna to the God of David ". This resembles part of the Sanctus, in its usual place. We see the restriction of Communion to those who are baptized (ix, 5), the breaking of the bread (ix, 3), the word Eucharist (thanksgiving) almost, but not quite, the technical name for the rite of the Lord's Supper."^ The Lord's Prayer is not mentioned at the breaking of bread, but it is quoted in full just before ^ The original Jewish forms are in the treatise Berakhoth (=•' Blessings," the first treatise in the Mishna, chap. 6) in the Talmud. Cfr. Sabatier : La Didache (Paris, 1885) pp. gg seq. Some parallel Jewish prayers will be found in Cabrol-Leclercq : Monum. Eccl. Lit.y I, i, xvii-xxiii. 2 In x,3 the " spiritual food and drink," though it might mean only Christ*s teaching, may yet well refer to the Eucharistic food, in dis- tinction to the ordinary food and drink given to all men (above, p. g). ^ Compare especially here the Jewish thanksgiving-prayers, e. gr. : Cabrol-Leclercq, op. cit. p. xviii, Shemone-Esre i. ^ " To eat and drink of your Eucharist " (ix, 5) ; but the prophesy- ing in X, 7 is also a " Eucharist". EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 1 1 (viii, 2) with a doxology ( " for thine is the power and the glory for ever"); people are told to '^ pray thus thrice in the day" (viii, 3). There are also a number of liturgical forms: ** Glory be to thee for ever" {croX r) So^a 6i9 tov<; aloyva^, ix, 2, 3 ; x, 2, 4), " Thine is the power and the glory for ever" (x, 5), '* Through thy servant Jesus (Sta ^Irjcrov rov vratSo? aov, x, 2). The form : " We give thee thanks because thou art mighty" (x, 4) recalls : ''We give thee thanks for thy great glory" in the Gloria in excelsis. For the rest the tone of this document is that of an excited, eager Jewish Christianity, unlike the calmer atmosphere we shall see in the more normal development. The Chiliast expectation is very pronounced (x, 6 ; cfr. i Thess. iii, 13 ; iv, 17 ; v, 23 ; Apoc. xxii, 20) ; the form Maran atha (x, 6, Aramaic: TlD^ ^Tyt2 ''our Lord comes"; cfr. i Cor. xvi, 22) and the "Kingdom" into which the scattered Church is to be collected (x, 5) be- long to the same idea. The Prophets may still "give thanks " as much as they like (x, 7). The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians^ con- tains little direct reference to the liturgy. On the other hand, there are prayers in it that everyone admits to be full of liturgical forms. Indeed the chief prayer in this letter is the basis of a theory which, if true, throws a flood of light on the liturgy of the first cen- tury.2 Meanwhile, on the principle of distinguishing between the actual remains and conjectural theories, we here quote only what the letter itself tells us. Chapters xl and xli show that there was a regulated order for the worship of God: xl, I, "We must do all things that the Lord told us to do at stated times, 1 Written about the years 96-98 to pacify a schism in the Church of Corinth. It is the only authentic work of St. Clement of Rome (92- loi ?) and perhaps the most important document of the Apostolic Fathers. 2 See below, pp. 65-66. 12 THE MASS in proper order. 2. For he commanded that the offerings and services ^ should be performed, not rashly nor in disorder, but at fixed times and hours. 3. And he himself by his most high will arranged where and by whom they should be celebrated, so that every- thing should be done piously according to his command and should be agreeable to his will. 4. Therefore those who make their offerings ^ at the appointed times are well pleasing and blessed ; they follow the command of the Lord and do not err. 5. To the high priest^ his own services {XeiTovpr^iai) are appointed ; a special place is given to the priests, and levites ^ have their offices (Btafcovcat). The layman is commanded by lay laws, xli, I. Each of us, brothers, should please God honourably in his own place with a good conscience, not transgressing the appointed order of his services (XeiTovpyiaL) " etc. (a comparison with the order of the temple follows). From this text we have some points of dogmatic im- portance. There is a graduated hierarchy, of which each order has its own duties,^' the clergy are clearly distinguished from the laity. We have also for our purpose the fact that already in the first century the services of the Church are performed in a fixed order, which was believed to come from our Lord. So even in the very earliest period these services are not merely prayer-meetings arranged according to the caprice of the people. This point is important since it forms the necessary supposition for any attempt to reconstruct ^ Xeirovpyiai, ' liturgies '- '^ Both here and above irpoa-cpopal^ * oblations ' which soon became the technical name for the offering of the holy Eucharist. Here it may still include the offerings for the poor. ^ dLpXi(p€vs, the bishop. It is the word always used in the Bible for the Jewish high priest and in Hebr. v, 5 etc. lor Christ. ■* Deacons. ^ The hierarchy of bishops, priests and deacons occurs several times in this letter, xlii, 4, 5 ; i, 3 etc. E UCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 1 3 the order of these earliest services. Whether our attempts are successful or not, we know that there certainly was an order fixed, at least in its main out- line. The letter contains a number of formulas that are clearly liturgical, for instance : ** Since we have all these things from him, we must give thanks for all things to him, to whom be glory for ever and ever. Amen".^ It also gives us the first reference to the Sanctus, an important element of all liturgies : xxxiv, 6. '* The Scripture says : Ten thousand times ten thousand waited on hirn, and a thousand thousand served him and cried : Holy, holy, holy, Lord of hosts, every creature is full of thy glory.^ (7) And we, guided by our conscience, gathered together in one place, cry to him constantly as with one voice, that we become sharers in his great and glorious promises." And then especially, besides other prayers and formulas, there is the long prayer of chap, lix-lxi, in which everyone recognizes a magnificent example of an early Christian thanksgiving,^ The prayer is full of quotations from the Bible. It thanks God for creation, for his various benefits in nature and especi- ally for his grace in Jesus Christ, his beloved Son. It prays for all kinds of men, for kings and governors, for the conversion of pagans and sinners, for the Chris- tians themselves, for peace and grace, and ends with a doxology : " We confess thee, who alone canst give us these and more good things, by Jesus Christ the high priest and protector of our souls, through whom be glory and majesty to thee now, for ever and ever and for ages and ages. Amen " (Ixi, 3). In short this prayer contains just the ideas of the Eucharistic prayer (our preface) and the Intercession that we find in the liturgies written later. ^xxxviii, 4; cfr. xliii, 6; I, 7 ; Iviii, 2 etc. 2 Dan. vii, 10; Is. vi, 3, ? Duchesne: Origines, 49-51. 14 THE MASS The Epistle of Barnabas ^ has a reference to Sunday : ** We celebrate the eighth day in joy, on which Jesus rose from the dead " (xv, 9), and one or two liturgical formulas.2 The letters of St Ignatius^ contain a number of liturgical formulas and prayers.^ He insists most of all always on the hierarchy,^ the necessity of doing all things in union with the bishop,^ the wicked- ness of schism and dissension."^ The holy Eucharist is to him, as to St. Paul (i Cor. x, 17), the bond of union between Christians ; hence his insistence on the unity of the Eucharist : Magn. vii, i : *' As the Lord did nothing without the Father, being always united to him, neither himself nor by the apostles, so do you do nothing without the bishop and the presbyters, nor allow anything to seem decent to you if it be done separately ; but when you come together let there be one prayer, one supplication, one mind, one hope in love and in holy joy, and this is Jesus Christ, than whom nothing is better. 2. Come together all of you as to one temple of God, to one altar, to one Jesus Christ who came forth from one Father, was with one (Father) and went back to him." Phil, iv: ''Be careful to use one Eucharist ^ ; for there is one body of our Lord Jesus Christ and one chalice in the unity of his blood ; one altar ^ as there is one bishop with the priesthood and deacons." To separate oneself from this common service under the bishop ^^ is a 1 Probably ^vritten about the time of Nerva (96-98) ; the attribution to the apostle St. Barnabas is false. 2 vi, 10 ; xvi, 8 ; xxi, 9. 3 Bishop of Antioch (f 107) ; seven letters are authentic. ^ E. gr. Phil, vi, 3 ; Smyrn. i, and ii ; x, i. ; xii, 2. ^ E. gr. Magn. vi, i. ; xiii, i ; Trail, ii, 2-3 ; iii, i, etc. '^ Eph. iv, 1-2 ; Trail, ii, i ; Smyrn. viii, i ; etc. ■^ Eph. V, 1-3 ; vii, 1-2; xvi, 1-2 ; Trail, vii, 1-2; etc. s Alv/ays used by Ignatius in the special technical sense. ® dvo'iacTT'fipiov, the sacrificial word. ^^ " That Eucharist is valid {fiefiaia, certain, safe) which is celebrated by the bishop or by whom he has appointed" (Smyrn, viii, i). EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 1 5 grievous sin of schism. ^ The crime of the schismatical Docetes is that ''they abstain from Eucharist and prayer, because they do not confess that the Eucharist is the body of our Saviour Jesus Christ '' (Smyrn. vii, i). "Eucharist and prayer" means the whole complex of the liturgical senace. Ignatius does not mean that the Docetes say no prayers. Indeed from the text below (viii, i) we see that they had their own Eucharist too. The sin is that they abstain from the Catholic liturgy held in communion with the bishop.^ Ignatius speaks of Sunday as the Christian holy day too.^ These texts are of great importance dogmatically ; for the student of liturgy they contain little beyond the evident importance of an official liturgy as the sign of union, and the mention of Sunday ; unless indeed we may deduce a certain uni- formity of rite from the insistence on the one Eucharist. St, Polycarp ^ in his letter speaks again of the same hierarchy, quotes the Lord's prayer as a liturgical text ^ and gives a specimen of a prayer that has a liturgical look.^ The curious little work known as the Shepherd of Hennas'^ contains a number of formulas, ceremonies, and other liturgical matter mixed up in its strange visions and allegories, but it has little or nothing new for our purpose. Nor shall we find more in the anonymous letter to Diognetus.^ We have then from the Apostolic Fathers the fact that there was at any rate a certain amount of uniformity in the Liturgy of the first century, a few allusions that seem certainly liturgical, such as the Sanctus and Our Father, references to Sunday as supplanting the Sabbath, 1 Eph. V, 2-3. 2 Funk : Patres apost. i, 281 note. 3 Magn. ix, i. ^ Bishop of Smyrna, martyred in 155. 5 ad Phil, vi, 2 ; vii, 2. ** xii, 2-3. "^ Probably about the middle of the second century. s Second century. 1 6 THE MASS a long liturgical prayer in Clement of Rome, and the description of a somewhat abnormal rite in the Didache. Our knowledge increases enormously in the next period, chiefly through Justin Martyr's classical de- scription. § 3. The Liturg^y in the Second Century. Our first witness in the second century is a Pagan Roman, the younger Pliny (C. Plinius Caecilius), at that time Governor of Bithynia. About the years 1 1 i-i 13 he writes to his master, the Emperor Trajan, to ask how he is to treat Christians. He describes what he has learned about this sect from Christians who had apostatized under torture : *' All (his informers) have worshipped your image and the statues of the gods and have cursed Christ". Then they told him about the Christian meetings : '' They assert that this is the whole of their fault or error, that they were accustomed on a certain day (stato die) to meet together before daybreak (ante lucem), and to sing a hymn alternately (secum invicem) to Christ as a god,^ and that they bound themselves by an oath (sacramento) not to do any crime, but only not to commit theft nor robbery nor adultery, not to break their word nor to refuse to give up a deposit. When they had done this it was their custom to depart, but to meet again to eat food — ordinary and harmless food however. They say that they (the apostate informers) have stopped doing this after my edict in which I forbade private assemblies (hetaerias) as you commanded. "^ 1 So Ignatius, Eph. iv, i : '* Therefore you sing to Jesus Christ in unity and loving concord " 2 The whole letter (no. g6 or 97) in Teubner's Bihl. Script, Gr. et Rom. . C. Plin. Ccbc. Secundi epist. lihri novem (ed. Keil, Leipzig, 1896), p. 231 ; also in E. Preuschen's Analecta (Samml. ausgew. kitchen- u. dogmengesch. Quellenschriften, 8), Freiburg i. Br. Mohr, 1893, pp. 14-16 ; or in Kirch : Enchiridion fontium histories ecclesi- asticcB antiques, Freiburg im B., Herder, 1910, pp. 18-19. EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 1 7 The " status dies " is certainly Sunday. There are two meetings, the early one in which they sing their hymn and a later one (in the evening ?) when they eat food — the Agape or Eucharist.^ It seems that the oath to do no wrong is a confusion of Pliny's mind, who took it for granted that these secret meetings must involve some kind of conspirator's oath, whereas the only obligation of which his informers could tell him was not 1 to do wrong. ^ This slight allusion does not perhaps add much to our knowledge of the early liturgy, but it seems worth while to quote that picture (one of the first mentions of Christianity by a pagan) of the Christians meeting before daybreak and singing their hymn to Christ as God. St Justin Martyr is the chief of the early apologists. He was a pagan convert martyred about the year 167. Not the least of the benefits we owe to him is his detailed account of how the Christians of Rome in his time celebrated the holy Liturgy. In the Fir st Apology ^ addressed to Antoninus Pius (13 8- 161) and to his adopted sons, the Senate and Roman people, he is con- cerned to show the harmlessness of Christianity, especi- ally of the mysterious Christian meetings, which were illegal, about which pagans believed horrible things. In reading his description we must remember that he writes for this purpose, not to supply future archaeolo- gists with a complete picture of liturgical practices. Nevertheless his defence takes the form of an outline of the service which to the liturgist is the most precious document of the first three centuries. In the chapters Ixi-lxiv he writes of baptism ; chapters Ixv-lxvii describe the Eucharist. The passage is too important not to be quoted in full. ^For this much discussed question see E. Baumgartner : Euch. u. Agape, pp. 247-270. 2 See G. Rietschel : Lehrhuch der Liturgik, pp. 244-246. 2 i8 THE MASS Ixv, I. *'But we, after we have thus cleansed him who believes and is joined to us, lead him to those who are called the brethren,^ where they are gathered together, in order to say common prayers intently for ourselves, for him who has been enlightened ^ and for all others everywhere ; that we, having learned true things, may be worthy to be found good workers in deeds and keepers of the commands, and so may be saved with eternal salvation. 2. When we have finished the prayers we greet each other with a kiss. 3. Then bread and a cup of wine^ are brought to the president * of the brethren and he, taking them, sends up praise and glory to the Father of all through the name of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and makes thanksgiving at length ^ because we are granted these favours ^ by him (the Father). When he has ended the prayers and thanksgiving all the people present cry out, saying Amen. 4. But the word Amen in the Hebrew language means so be it. 5. And after the president has given thanks (made the Eucharist) "^ and all the people have cried out, those who are called by us deacons give to each one present to share the Eucharistic^ bread and wine^ and water, and carry them to those not present. ^ Those who are baptized, the faithful. 2 (pwriaOeis, the man just baptized. ^ KpcLfxa^ hterally ' mixture,' but very commonly used for wine. * irpoetTTcos^ the bishop. ^ iirl irokv, namely, it is a long prayer. ** virep Tov Karrj^iwadai tovtccu Trap' avrov, ' cvxcipio'T'f)(TavTOs 5e tov irpoeffTcoTOS. The word €vxo.pt(J''ria may now generally be translated Eucharist. We shall see below (Ixvi, i) that it is already the technical name. ^ d evxo-piO'Trjdels &pTOs. ^ oivos here, the regular word for wine. Harnack thinks that the elements in Justin are bread and water (Tcxte utid Untersuchiingen^ i8gi, vii, z, pp. 115-144). He has been refuted by many people, both Catholic and Protestant. See especially Funk: Die Abendmahlsele- mente hei jfustin in his KirchengeschichtlicheAbhandlungen und Unter- suchungen, i, (Paderborn, 1897), 278-292, and A. W. F. Blunt in his edition of The Apologies of Justin Martyr, Cambridge, 191 1, Intro- duction, pp. xlii.-xliv. EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 19 Ixvi, I. And this food is called by us Eucharist, of which no one else may have a share, except he who believes that our teaching is true and has been cleansed by the washing for the forgiveness of sins and regeneration, and so lives as Christ taught. 2. For we do not receive these things as common bread or common drink ; but as Jesus Christ our Saviour having been made flesh by a word of God ^ had flesh and blood for our salvation, so we have learned that the food, made a Eucharist by a word of prayer that comes from him,^ from which our blood and flesh are nourished, by change are the flesh and blood of the incarnate Jesus. 3. For the apostles in the commen- taries made by them, which are called Gospels, have handed down that it was taught to them so : that Jesus having taken bread and having given thanks said ^ : Do this in memory of me : this is my body ; and in the same way having taken the cup and having given thanks he said : This is my blood, and gave only to them. 4. The wicked demons, imitating this, have taught that it should be done in the mysteries of Mithra. You know or may learn that bread and a cup of water are placed there with certain hymns in the rites of initiation. Ixvii, I. But we after this^ always remind each 1 Justin always attributes the Incarnation not to the work of the Holy Ghost but to that of the Logos. He understands ' holy Spirit and power of the most High ' in Luke i, 35 of the Logos (i Apol, xlvi, 5). '^T^v St' evx')^ \6'yov Tovnxap avrov ivxo-pf-O'T(]0^'^o'oi.v Tpocp-fjif, a famous clause constantly misquoted and mistranslated. ^rhu ^Irjcrovu \afi6vTa Ikprov €vx<''pt-0'Ti\(ravTa elircTi/. This may be translated: "Jesus, having taken bread and made it a Eucharist, said . . . ". It is impossible to say when Justin has in his mind the technical sense of evxapicrreco. In any case the pagans for whom he wrote would always read it as ' to give thanks ' and would probably be puzzled when he uses it as an active or passive verb. ^That is: after baptism and the first Eucharist that followed it immediately. 2 * 20 THE MASS other of these things ; those who can, help the desti- tute, and we are always united amongst ourselves. 2. And we bless the naaker of all things for all we receive, through his son Jesus Christ and through the Holy Ghost. 3. And on the day called of the Sun an as- sembly in one place is made of all who live in the towns and in the country ; and the commentaries of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read as long as time allows. 4. Then, when the reader has stopped, the president makes a warning and an exhortation about the memory of these admirable things in a speech. 5. Then we all stand up together and send up prayers and, as I have said, when we have finished the prayer, bread is brought up and wine and water, and the president sends up prayers in the same way and a thanksgiving, as far as he has the power, and all the people cry out saying : Amen, and each one receives a distribution and share of the Euchar- ist ^ and it is taken to those not present by the deacons. 6. But the wealthy people who wish to do so give what they please, each one as he likes, and what has been collected is handed over to the President and he supports orphans and widows and those who are in difficulties through sickness or any other cause, and prisoners and strangers on their travels ; and in general he is the protector of all who are in want. 7. We all make our reunion on the day of the sun, since that is the first day on which God, changing the darkness and matter, made the world ; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For they cruci- fied him on the eve of the day of Kronos ^ and on the day after that of Kronos, which is the day of the sun, ^ aTrb Twt/ €vxapto'T7]64vTQ}Vj of the things made Eucharistic. 2 The day of Kronos (Saturn) is Saturday. Justin uses these pagan names (day of the sun etc.) — unusual among Christians in his time — to be understood by his pagan readers. EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 21 appearing to his apostles and disciples he taught them these things which I offer to your consideration." That is a literal translation of this famous passage. Its length, redundance and awkwardness of expression are characteristic of Justin's style. We notice first that he describes the service of the Holy Eucharist twice over. It occurs first as the rite that immediately follows baptism (Ixv, i-S) ; then after an explanation of what it means (Ixvi) he goes on to describe the normal life of a Christian and so explains that on Sunday Christians meet together and celebrate the Eucharist, which he describes over again (Ixvii, 3- 7). Both accounts refer to the same service,^ as he says (Ixvii, 5 : *^as I have mentioned"). We may therefore combine them to form a complete picture. The word " Eucharist " is now clearly the technical name for the consecrated bread and wine (Ixvi, i : '* this food is called by us Eucharist"). We need in future have no scruple in understanding it so and need no longer translate it *^ Thanksgiving". Justin's open and complete account of the whole service and of its meaning argues that there is as yet no disciplina arcani. He attributes the rite to our Lord's institution as con- tained in the gospels (Ixvi, 3), though his account is not an exact quotation from any one evangelist. He insists on Sunday as the day of its celebration (Ixvii, 3, 7).^ Only the baptized who lead good lives may attend and receive Communion (Ixvi, i). This implies the possibility of excommunication of wicked people. The Eucharist is the sign and bond of union between Christians (Ixvii, i), the memory of Christ's life and ^ Except that in the baptismal Eucharist the first part (lessons etc. which form the liturgy of the catechumens) is left out. The newly baptized man is led at once to what he has never yet seen, the liturgy of the faithful, beginning with their prayers. 2 But it is also celebrated on other days, as for example immediately after a baptism. 2 2 THE MASS passion (ib.),^ an act of thanksgiving to God for all his benefits (Ixvii, 2) and ''the flesh and blood of the in- carnate Jesus " (Ixvi, 2). Certain passages of Justin's Dialogue with Trypho ^ confirm these points : bread with wine and water are the species consecrated (Dial. 41, 70, 117), Sunday is mentioned in c. 41. We can add from the Dialogue that the Eucharist is a real sacrifice offered only by priests (ii6) and that it con- tained a prayer explicitly naming our Lord's passion and death (the Anamnesis: 41, 117). We come then to the question whether Justin implies that the words of Institution were recited in the Eucharist. This is connected with that of the inter- pretation of the clause : t'y]v hC evxv^ \6(otl^6/jl€voc), that is those who are just about to be baptized (viii, 1-6). 8. The same for the public penitents (ix, i-i i). ^ The text will be found in Funk : Didascalia, i, 476-520. It is also set out conveniently in Brightman : Eastern Liturgies, 3-27. The numbers in brackets above give chapter and verse in Funk's edition. A table showing the parallel passages in the other works of the same class (Canons of Hippolytus, Egyptian Church Order, etc.) in Brightman, xxx. An English version will be found in Warren : Liturgy of Ante-Nicene Church, 273-306. 62 THE MASS 11. Liturgy of the Faithful : 1. Prayers of the Faithful, a long litany by the deacon, the people kneeling. Presumably they answer Kyrie eleison to each clause, as before. Every kind of person and cause is remembered, the Church, clergy, laity of all classes, benefactors, the newly baptized, the sick, sailors, travellers, people in the mines, in exile, in prison for the name of the Lord, enemies, the heathen, in- fants.^ The last clause is: " For every Christian soul let us pray ". R. '* Save us and raise us up, O God, in thy mercy" (x, 1-21). 2. All stand up and the bishop sums up the petitions in a prayer (xi, 1-6). 3. Kiss of peace (xi, 7-9). 4. The deacons watch the people to prevent any disorder, a subdeacon gives the priests (there are con- celebrants) water to wash their hands, a deacon cries out again a warning that no catechumens, nor compe- tents, nor pagans, nor heretics, nor hypocrites may be present ; the mothers must look after their children, all ** stand before the Lord \n fear and trembling to offer, (7rpoa-(j)€p€iv)" (xi, lO-xii, 2). 5. Offertory. The gifts (ra Scopa) are brought by the deacons to the bishop at the altar (tt/oo? to 0v(Tta(TT7]pLov) ; two deacons wave fans over them lest insects fall into the chalice, the pontiff stands *' robed in a splendid garment " before the altar with the priests ; the Euchari$tic prayer is about to begin (xii, 3-4). 6. Eucharistic prayer, the first part (our Preface). ^A number of these petitions (x, 4-15) correspond very closely to those said in the Ambrosian rite on Sundays in Lent and in the Roman rite on Good Friday. The reference to the persecution (the mines etc*) is evidence of antiquity. The bishops named are James (of Jerusalem), Clement (of Rome), Evodius (of Antioch), Annianus (of Alexandria). This is probably an ornament by the forger. EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 63 The pontiff makes the sign of the cross and greets the people : " The grace of almighty God ... '' (2 Cor. xiii, 13). R. And with thy spirit. V. Lift up the mind. R. We have it to the Lord. V. Let us give thanks to the Lord {ev'x^apia'Trjacofxev Tc3 KVpiCp), R. Right and just. The pontiff: *' Truly right and just before all things to praise thee, the true God . . . ." So the prayer begins. It is a long thanksgiving for all God's benefits. First the divine nature is mentioned and the Son of God ; then the creation of the angels, of the sky, day and night, sun and stars, water and air, heat and light. Then the earth and sea, rivers, plants, beasts and man. There follows an outline of the history of the Old Testament; the garden of Eden, Cain and Abel, Seth, Enos, Enoch, Noe, Lot, Abraham, Melkisedek, Job, Isaac, Jacob, Joseph, Moses, Aaron, Josue are named. **For all glory to thee, almighty Lord. Thee the countless number of angels adore. . . . '' All the choirs of angels are mentioned, who "without ceasing cry '' (xii, 4-27). 7. ** And all the people say together : Holy, holy, holy. Lord of Sabaoth. The heaven and earth are full of his glory. Blessed for ever. Amen " {^\i, 47). 8. The bishop goes on with the Eucharistic prayer : " Truly holy art thou and most holy, highest and mightiest for ever. Holy too is thine only-begotten son, our Lord and God, Jesus Christ. ..." So follows an outline of our Lord's life and passion, ending with the Last Supper and repeating the words of institution (xii, 28-37). 9. Anamnesis : ** Wherefore we, remembering his passion and death and resurrection from the dead and 64 THE MASS return to heaven and his future second coming . . . , ofifer to thee, king and God, according to his command, this bread and this cup, giving thanks to thee through him " (xii, 38). 10. Epiklesis, Invocation of the Holy Ghost, ''the witness of the passion of the Lord Jesus " to '' show this bread the body of thy Christ and this cup the blood of thy Christ *' (xii, 39). 11. The great Intercession prayer (still said by the celebrant) repeating very closely the ideas of the Prayers of the Faithful (no. i above). The people answer Amen and so end the Eucharistic prayer (xii, 40-50). 12. After a greeting by the bishop ('' The peace of God be with all of you ") the deacon prays again for the same causes in a litany and a prayer by the celebrant follows (xiii, I -10). 13. Elevation of the holy Eucharist with the form : ** Holy things for the holy," to which the people answer : '* One is holy, one Lord Jesus Christ in the glory of God the Father," etc., the beginning of the Gloria in excelsis (Lc. ii, 14) and other verses (xiii, 11-13). 14. Communion. The bishop distributes the con- secrated bread with the words : '' Body of Christ," the deacons ^\v^ the chalice saying : " Blood of Christ, cup of life ". To both the communicant answers Amen. Meanwhile Psalm xxxiii (see especially v. 9) is sung. The deacons put what is left in the tabernacles {iraaro- (f)6pia) (xiii, 14-17). 15. The people stand ; the bishop gives thanks for Communion and prays for the priests and people (xiv, I -XV, 5). 16. Blessing (a prayer by the bishop, the people kneeling) and dismissal by the deacon (''Be dismissed in peace ") (xv, 7-10). EUCHARIST IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES 65 Perhaps the most remarkable thing about this liturgy- is the absence of the Our Father. But in Ap. Const. VII, xxiv, I it occurs and in VII, xliv, i it is to be said after baptism. It would take too long to set out all the parallel passages between the prayers of this liturgy and the Fathers of the first three centuries. One or two of the most striking examples will show the position ; many more may be seen in Probst and Drews.^ The parallels in Clement of Rome have long been noticed. Lightfoot said they cannot be accidental.^ It might seem more natural to suppose that the later document (Ap. Const.) quotes the earlier one (Clement). But this would not account for the same passages again in Justin, Novatian and others. Nor have the prayers in the liturgy the appearance of being mosaics of quotations from the Fathers ; rather the passages in Clement, Justin etc. look like quotations. Is it not more likely that they are echoing ideas familiar to them in the liturgy they knew and used, which liturgy is preserved to us in the later compilation of the Ap. Constitutions ? The long prayer in Clement, lix-lxi is admitted to be liturgical.^ Many of its clauses recur exactly in the Prayers of the Faithful (and the bishop's prayer that follows it) in the liturgy (x, 22-xi, 5).^ Clement XX, I -1 2 and xxxiii, 2-6 recapitulates the benefits of creation. The same description, in the same order, with constantly the same words, forms the first part of the Eucharistic prayer in the liturgy (xii, 6-16).^ Both end by quoting the same verse of Scripture, Gen. i, ^ In the works quoted above p. 59, n. 6, and p. 60, n. z. 2 The Apostolic Fathers (London, 1890) i, vol. II, p. 71. Cfr. Funk : Patres Apostolici (Tubingen, 1901) i, 126, 142. ^ So Duchesne : Origines, 49-51. * See the two in parallel columns in Drews : Untersuchungen^ 41-42. ^See also Const. Ap. vii^ xxxiv, 1-6; Drews, op. cit, 15-16. 5 66 THE MASS 26. Clement xxxiv, 5-7 says he refers to the liturgy when he speaks of the angels and the Sanctus (above p. 13). Just so, with almost the same words, does the Sanctus appear in Const. Apost. VIII, xii, 27. Clement ix-xii writes at length about the Fathers of the Old Law. He names Enoch, Noe, Lot, Abraham, Isaac, Jo^ue. These names, generally with the same epithets, occur in the Eucharistic prayer of the liturgy (xii, 21-26)} In short a great part of the liturgy is found more or less textually in Clement. So also in Justin Martyr. He also enumerates the details of creation and redemption in the same order, often in the same words as the liturgy (I Apol. xiii, 2; Ixv, 3; II Apol. V, 2; Dial. 41, 70, 1 17). His history of the Old Testament repeats again the same names and epithets (I Apol. xxxii, 14; Dial. 43), his account of the institution of the Holy Euchar- ist is that of the liturgy (I Apol. Ixvi, 3 — Const. Apost. VIII, xii, 36-37). He uses the formulas of the liturgy in just the same way, in connection with the same ideas. In the Ap. Const, the deacon prays for the catechumens : " that they may commend them- selves to the only unbegotten God through his Christ " (VIII, vi, 8), the same phrase recurs in x, 22 ; xiii, 9 ; xiv, 3. Justin says that pagans when they are con- verted *' recommend themselves to the unbegotten God through Christ " (I Apol. xlix, 5). He repeats this again in Ixi, I and xiv, i. In his Dialogue (30) he quotes the formulas of Const. Ap. VIII, vii, 2 for the energumens. In Dial. 128 God has "given birth to the Son by will and power (yewrjaa^ j3ov\rjaei kol hvvdfjLei) " ; in the Eucharistic prayer of the liturgy God has " given birth to him (Christ) before all ages by will and power and goodness (y€vvrjacL. omnia, Rome, 1751, vol.vi), repub- lished by Mabillon in his Liturgia gallicana (Paris, 1685) and by Muratori Liturgia romana, Venice, 1748, 2 vols, and in Migne, P.L. Ixxii, 225-318. ^ First published by Mabillon (Museum italicum, Paris, 1687, i, 2) ; in Muratori, op. cit, and P.L. Ixxii, 447-580. 102 THE MASS century, Galilean in the pro-anaphoral part with a Roman Canon, the Missale Gallicanum vetus^ of about the same date and related to the Missale Gothi- cum. Franz Josef Mone published eleven very early pure Gallican Masses in his Lateinische und griechische Messen aus dem zweiten bis sechsten Jkrhdt? He at- tributes them to the Vth century, Duchesne ^ to the seventh. A* peculiarity of these Masses is that they make no difference for the calendar, no doubt a sign of great antiquity.* The scheme of the Gallican liturgy as we see it in these documents (St. Germanus especially) is in outline this : The clergy enter as an antiphon (like the Roman Introit) is sung. The deacon commands silence and the celebrant greets the people: '^Dominus sit semper vobiscum ". R. " Et cum spiritu tuo '\ The Trisagion ^ is sung in Greek and Latin, three boys sing Kyrie eleison thrice, the choir sings the Benedictus (Lk. i, 68-79). A collect follows referring to the Benedictus. There are three lessons, a prophecy from the Old Testament, an Epistle^ and a Gospel. After the Epistle they sing the Benedicite (Dan. iii, 57-88) and the Trisagion again before and after the gospel. A sermon follows, then an Intercession, as in the Antiochene rite ; namely the deacon chants the clauses of a litany, the people (or choir) answer each time : '' Precamur te Domine, miserere " and the cele- brant finishes with a collect. The catechumens are ^ Tomasi, op. cit.^ Mabillon and Muratori, op. cit. P.L. Ixxii, 339- 382. 2 Frankfort, 1850, reproduced in Migne P.L. cxxxviii, 863-8S2. ^ Origines, p. 145. ^ For other Gallican documents see Duchesne, op. cit. pp. 143-152, Rietschel : Lehrbuch der Liturgiky i, 301-310. ^ Agios Tkeos etc., as at Rome on Good Friday. ® On a Saint's day his life is read instead of the Epistle. PARENT RITES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS 103 prayed for and dismissed. Here begins the Mass of the Faithful. The Offertory is made while a chant called Sonus (our offertory-chant) is sung, ending with Alleluia. But the bread and wine have been prepared at a credence-table beforehand and are brought solemnly to the altar. This too is the Antiochene form ; the Sonus corresponds rather to the Eastern Cherubikon than to the Roman Offertorium. The offerings are veiled while the celebrant says a prayer. This prayer (our Secret) is called Oratio super sindonem at Milan. The Diptychs of the living and dead are read and a prayer is said for them. Then comes the Kiss of Peace with a prayer ; the Anaphora follows, beginning as everywhere with the dialogue : Sursum corda etc. and the Preface (called Contestatio or Immolatio in Gaul). The people sing the Sanctus ; and a short prayer (the Post Sanctus) introduces the account of the Last Supper and the words of institution. The next prayer {Post pridie or Post mysteriuin) contains the Anamnesis and Epiklesis of the Holy Ghost^ The fraction is a complicated rite in which the particles are arranged in the form of a cross ; meanwhile an antiphon is sung. A prayer leads to the Our Father which is sung, as in the East, by the people as well as by the celebrant. The people are blessed and the Communion follows. A last prayer (Postcommunid) ends the service.^ Such is the general outline of the old Gallican rite. But there was much variety in detail everywhere. A Capitularium of the Frankish bishops in 742 ^ allows 1 The Anamnesis and Epiklesis are in some documents very vague or even altogether absent. No doubt the same influence that led to the disappearance of the Roman Epiklesis (see pp. 406-407) was at work in Gaul. 2 For a more detailed description see Duchesne, op. cit. chap, vii and Rietschel, op. cit. pp. 311-316. 3 Stephanus Baluze : Capitularia reguyn francorum (Paris, 1730) p. 824. I04 THE MASS every priest to arrange his own **Libellus ordinis '* (service-book), as long as he submits it to his bishop for approval ; and Charles the Great when he made laws for uniformity in the Roman rite (c. 784)^ gave as his reason the confusion of liturgical use that had hitherto prevailed. These various Gallican rites then began to be in- fluenced by Rome. The process lasts through the Vlth, Vllth and Vlllth centuries. Most documents that remain date from this time and represent local liturgies already interpolated with Roman additions. The feeling was growing throughout Western Europe that the safest model in liturgical matters was the prac- tice of the Pope's cathedral — the '' usus romanae curiae ". But there were occasional waves of reaction. An in- teresting case of this happened in Spain. In 538 Pro- futurus, Bishop of Braga, wrote to Pope Vigilius (537- 555) asking him about certain liturgical matters. The Pope in answer^ sent him a specimen of the Roman Mass for Easter day. Profuturus and his colleagues adopted this scheme and completed it for other days from their own Spanish books. Hence the '' mixed '' rite used in parts of Spain. ^ Then after 588 Councils command uniformity \n the pure Spanish (Gallican) rite and the extirpation of Roman elements. But in the Xlth century the Roman rite in its pure form began to conquer Spain, so that eventually the old *' mixed " liturgy was reduced to one or two cities only. We shall come back to the spread of the Roman rite by which the Gallican family of liturgies eventually disappeared.* But there are two corners of Western Europe where ^ See below, pp. 121, 178. ^ Mansi, ix, 34. ' Missale mixtum remained the name for the Spanish (Mozarabic) book, * Pp. 177-182. PARENT RITES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS 105 the old local rites are still used instead of the Roman, Milan and Toledo. The liturgies of both these places are generally believed to be Romanized survivals of the Gallican rite. In the case of Toledo there seems to be no doubt as to the origin. In a chapel of the Cathedral a college of chaplains keep what is called the Mozarabic liturgy. The meaning of the name has been much discussed.^ It is the last remnant of the old Spanish rite, but mixed with Roman elements. From the Xlth century this Mozarabic rite was more and more driven back by that of Rome. At times it seemed about to disappear en- tirely. At last Cardinal Francis Ximenes (1500) re- vised the books and founded chapters at Toledo, Salamanca and Valladolid^ to keep its use.^ It is Romanized chiefly by the insertion of the Roman form of the words of institution.* The Mozarabic rite then is in essence the old Spanish liturgy. That this was closely related to the Gallican rite is admitted by everyone. The only discussion is as to which influenced ^ Mozarabica from Mozarabes. It has been explained as corrupted from mixti arabes, meaning the mixed Christian Arab-speaking popu- lation of Spain, as distinct from the pure Moslem Arabs. The favour- ite explanation now seems to be that it is an Arabic word musta'rab. This would be a not impossible form (part. pass, of the Xth form of ^arabaj meaning "one who is considered an Arab"); but there are difficulties about this interpretation too. In any case Mozarabes was a common name for the Christian Arab-speaking subjects of the Khalifa of Cordova. They evolved a literature of their own (H. Goussen : Die christlich-arabische Literatur der Mozaraber^ Leipzig, 1909). The title of the Mozarabic missal is : Missale mixtum secundum regulam beati Isidori dictum Mozarabes ; the breviary is Breviarium gothicumy from ithe old Visigothic Kingdom. ^ These last two foundations have since disappeared. ^ Ximenes' Missal and Breviary form vols. Ixxxv and Ixxxvi of Migne P.L. ; edited by A. Lesleus (first edition, Rome, 1755). ^This was not done till Ximenes' edition appeared in 1500. The Roman Kyrie eleison was inserted in Masses for the dead much earlier and there are Roman elements that go back as far as we can trace, justifying the old name: missale mixtum. These may come from the time of Pope Vigilius' letter to Profuturus of Braga (above p. 104). to6 THE MASS the other ^ and then as to the origin of all these Western non-Roman uses.^ The city oi Milan also has its own rite, commonly called Ambrosian.^ As it is now used it is much more Romanized than that of Toledo. It has the whole Roman Canon. But it is not difficult to eliminate these Roman elements and find behind them the old Milanese rite. The origin of this rite seems less clear than that of the Spanish liturgy. A number of scholars believe it to be simply an older form of the Roman.* Then there are those who admit that it is Gallican, but believe all Galilean liturgies to be Roman in origin.^ Mgr. Duchesne, as we have seen, considers the rite of Milan to be the starting-point of all the Gallican family and to be derived from that of Antioch. That it is related to the Gallican liturgies and not to that of Rome (as the Roman rite is now) seems ob- vious. It has nearly all the Gallican features ; even with regard to the Canon there are forms used on rare occasions^ which represent the older local Anaphora, and they are quite Gallican. An Epiklesis used only on Maundy Thursday preserves the invocation of God the Son — certainly a very archaic note (see below p. 1 Lesleus (op. cit.) thinks that Spain evolved its rite from Asia first and then influenced Gaul. Others (Mabillon, Bickell, etc. think the opposite happened. 2 See above pp. 98-101. A description of the Mozarabic rite will be found in Rietschel, op. cit. pp. 316-327. Duchesne uses it to complete his description of the Gallican Mass, {Origines, chap. vii). 2 This merely shows how large the figure of St. Ambrose (f 397) looms in the history of Milan. There is no reason to suppose that he influenced the liturgy of his city more than any other bishop. In the same way St. Isidore of Seville (t636) was long considered the author of the Mozarabic rite. Really liturgies are never composed by any one person. They are always the result of a gradual evolu- tion. Pamelius: Litiirgica Latinorum (Koln, 1571, i, pp. 266-292) has collected the liturgical allusions in St. Ambrose's works. '^Ceriani: Notitia liturgicB ambrosiance (Milan, 1895), Magistretti in all his works and others. ^ Above p. 99. 6 On Maundy Thursday and Easter eve. PARENT RITES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS 107 404). The most notable (Gallican and Antiochene) peculiarities of the Ambrosian Mass are the litany chanted by the deacon, with the answer: Domine miserere to each clause, on Sundays in Lent after the Ingressa (Introit), the triple Kyrie eleison sung after the Gospel (fragment of the old Prayers of the faithful), the remnant of a procession of the oblation before the Offertory,^ the Creed said after the Offertory (as in the Antiochene and Byzantine rites), the Gallican Post Sanctus used on Holy Saturday, the prayer Mandans quoque following the words of institution and based on I Cor. xi, 26. This last corresponds to the Mozarabic, Antiochene, Byzantine and Coptic rites. We notice also the triple Kyrie eleison at the dismissal, remnant of a litany at the end, as at Antioch and in the Byzantine liturgy,^ Our conclusion then is that the Milanese and Moza- rabic rites are Romanized fragments of the old Gallican rite once used throughout a great part of Western Europe. § 6. Table of Liturgies. We have therefore this concept of all the old Christian liturgies : First there was a practically universal, but ^The Antiphona post evangelium at Milan corresponds to the Gallican Sonus, Mozarabic Laudes, Antiochene (TLyTja-drco, Byzantine X^pov^ikSv that accompany the entrance of the oblation. But at Milan this ceremony is now crossed, and spoiled, by a Roman Offertory. 2 Descriptions of the Ambrosian Mass will be found in Duchesne : Origines, chap, vii, Rietschel, op. cit. pp. 303-308, P. Rotta : La Messa ambrosiana (Milan, Agnelli, 1896) and : Note Storiche esplicative sidla liturgia, specie V ambrosiana (ib. 1895). There is a translation into English with a good introduction by E. G. C. Atchley : The Ambrosian Liturgy (London, Cope & Fenwick, 1909). See also the article by Paul Lejay (with bibHography) in the Dictionnaire (T archeologie i, 1373-1442. The liturgical books are published at Milan by Giacomo Agnelli (Tipografia arcivescovile) ; the latest edition of the missal is 1902 (editio typica by Card. Ferrari). io8 THE MASS still vague, rite used at least in all the chief centres during the first three centuries. This rite is best pre- served by Antioch, a specimen of it is that of the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions. From the fourth century this older fluid rite is crystallized into four parent liturgies, those of Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Gaul. All others are develop- ments of one of these types. I. Antioch. 1. Pure in the Apostolic Constitutions (Greek). 2. In the form of Jerusalem in the liturgy of St. James. a. St. James in Greek, now almost supplanted by the Byzantine rite, but still used once a year by the Orthodox at Zakynthos and Jerusalem. b. St. James in Syriac, used with many variable anaphoras by the Syrian Jacobites and Uniates. c. In a Romanized form as the Maronite liturgy. Derived from Antioch-Jerusalem. 3. The Chaldean rite with three anaphoras, used by Nestorians and Chaldean Uniates. Syriac. a. The Malabar rite used by the schismatics is either the Nestorian or the Jacobite liturgy. Syriac. b. The Uniate Malabar rite is the Chaldean rite considerably Romanized. Syriac. 4. The great Byzantine rite, used by all the Ortho- dox and by Melkites and other Byzantine Uniates in Greek, Old Slavonic, Arabic, Rumanian and other languages. The second most wide-spread rite in Christendom. 5. The Armenian rite, used by Gregorian (= schis- matical) and Uniate Armenians in the classical form of their language. PARENT RITES AND THEIR DESCENDANTS 1 09 II. Alexandria. 1. a. The Liturgy of St. Mark in Greek, now no longer used by anyone. b. St. Mark in Coptic with two additional Ana- phoras, used by the Copts, both Monophysite and Uniate. 2. The Ethiopic liturgy with 1 5 or more Anaphoras, used by the Monophysite Church of Abyssinia. III. Rome. 1. The original pure Roman rite, no longer used. 2. The African rite, no longer used. 3. The present Roman rite (with Gallican additions) used in Latin by nearly the whole Roman Patriarchate, in a Slav dialect in parts of Dalmatia, occasionally in Greek at Rome. Immeasurably the most wide-spread rite of all. 4. Various later medicEval modifications of this rite used by religious orders (Dominicans, Carthusians, Carmelites) and in many dioceses (Lyons, Paris, Trier, Salisbury, York etc.) of which most are now abolished.-^ IV. The Gallican Rite. 1. A family of liturgies once used in Gaul, Spain, North Italy, Britain, and with modifications over all North-Western Europe. In Latin. It disappeared gradually since about the Vlllth century, except for two remnants, namely 2. The Ambrosian rite, still used at Milan. 3. The Mozarabic rite at Toledo. ^This part of our table necessarily anticipates what follows in the next chapters. CHAPTER III. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE. § I. State of the Question. When we turn to our own Roman rite we come to what is perhaps the most difficult question in the whole field of liturgical study, namely how it arose. The Roman Mass has (especially in the Canon) certain peculiarities that separate it from all Eastern liturgies, indeed we may say from the Gallican rite too, and so from every other use in Christendom. These peculiari- ties are chiefly the absence of all litanies of intercession said by the deacon and the comparative eclipse of his function in the liturgy (except for the Gospel) ; then the place of the kiss of peace just before the Communion, instead of at the beginning of the Mass of the Faithful as in all other rites. But the chief peculiarities and the greatest difficulties are the absence of any invocation of the Holy Ghost to consecrate the oblation and the order of the various elements of the Canon. This last is the great question of all. It seems clear to anyone who examines our Canon that its order has been somehow dislocated. There is an absence of logical sequence in the elements of this prayer that can hardly fail to strike one, especially if we compare it with the Antiochene and Alexandrine Anaphoras. The Canon is indeed full of difficulties. There is the prayer : Supplices te rogamus that both no THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 1 1 1 by its place and its form so plainly suggests the ghost of an Invocation with all the essential part left out. And there is the tangle of the great Intercession. Namely, every rite has as part of the Eucharistic prayer a long Intercession in which the celebrant remembers the Saints, and prays for all sorts and con- ditions of men, the bishop, the faithful, the country and so on, names and prays for the living and dead. In the Alexandrine rite this Intercession comes in logical and clear order before the Sanctus, part of what we should call the Preface,^ in nearly all the Antiochene family it follows, equally clearly, after the Consecration.^ Now in the Roman Mass we find this Intercession scattered throughout the Canon. Part of it comes immediately after the Sanctus, when the celebrant prays for the Pope, the local bishop and " all the orthodox and professors of the Catholic and Apostolic faith ". Then follows the Commemoration of the living and a first list of Saints. The rest comes after the Consecration when he remembers the dead and adds another list of Saints. It seems impossible that this dislocated Intercession can be the original form. The problem then is when and why these peculi- arities of the Roman Mass arose. We find them already in the first complete text we have, that of the Gelasian Sacramentary.^ From that time forward the history of the Mass is comparatively clear. There remains indeed the question of certain additions to it from non-Roman (Gallican) sources ^ ; but it is less difficult 1 Brightman : Eastern Liturgies, pp. 126- 131. ^Ib. Apost. Const, pp. 21-23; St. James, 54-58; Byzantine, 331- 337 ; Armenian, 439-444 ; the Nestorian rite has it before the Ana- phora begins, 275-281 ; so also the Gallican rite, Duchesne : Origines, 199-201. » 3 Its date is doubtful, see below pp. 119-121. Provisionally we may place it at about the Vllth century. 4 See below, pp. 182-184. 112 THE MASS to explain these. Then we come to the middle ages, from which we have an abundance of documents, and so to the reform of Pius V (i 566-1 572) and to modern times. From the Gelasian Sacramentary till to-day our history is fairly clear. It is when we go back from the Vllth century or so that we come to diffi- culties. There are some fragments, allusions in letters that give us incidentally phrases of the Mass as we know it now, one {de Sacramentis, see pp. 1 28-1 32)gives us a large fragment of the Canon ; but they leave many vital questions unanswered. Ascending from them we come to the thick veil that hangs over the Roman rite in the IVth and Ilird centuries. If only Pope Da- masus or Cornelius had thought of writing out an exact account of how they said Mass ! At last in the llnd century we come again to firm ground. We know how the holy mysteries were then celebrated at Rome from Justin Martyr's famous account (pp. 18-21). But meanwhile we have crossed the great change. Justin's account shows us the liturgy as it was before the change took place that was to constitute the special Roman rite. What he describes is the old common rite represented in the Apostolic Constitutions, used then (with no doubt local modifications) at Rome as everywhere else. These then are the two ends of the chain whose intermediate links are hidden. In the second century Rome used much the same liturgy as Antioch and the other Eastern Churches ; by the Vllth she had evolved from that her own particular rite, differing in important points from any other. Justin Martyr and the Gelasian Sacramentary represent the extreme ends on either side of this development. What happened between ? Who made the changes ? It is in answer to this question that all manner of conjectures are made, never more than at the present time. The documents are so few and in some cases THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 113 so doubtful that there is plenty of room for conjecture ; it must always be remembered that all theories are only conjecture. The very variety of the opinions defended by students, who all know and use the same handful of documents, shows how little absolute cer- tainty there is about the whole matter. All that one can say for certain is that the change was not made in the time of Justin, it was when the Gelasian book was composed. But before we examine the various theories, since we shall have to allude constantly to the earliest Sacramentaries and other documents, it will be well first to describe what they are. § 2. Earliest liturgical books. Before we come to the books of the Roman rite a word should be said about liturgical books in general. When were the prayers and ceremonies of the holy offices written down at all? During the first period (roughly the first three centuries) the only book used in church was the Bible. Nothing else was written down because nothing else was fixed. The celebrant and his deacons said their prayers extempore, the people an- swered short exclamations, such as Amen, Alleluia, Kyrie eleison, "And with thy spirit," more or less spontaneously. There was practically no ceremonial. Things were done in the simplest way as they were wanted.^ Habit and memory caused the same order to be observed and to a great extent the same expres- sions to be used long before anything was written down.^ Renaudot thought that even by the IVth ^ Ornamental ceremonial evolved sooner in the East than in the West. The Homilies of Narsai (in East Syria, Vth cent.) show already an elaborate ritual development. See Dom R. H. Connolly's translation, (Cambridge, 1909) and Mr. E. Bishop's first Appendix (Ritual Splen- dour). 2 Above pp. 51-57- 8 114 THE MASS century there were still no liturgical books.^ He argues this from a passage in which St. Basil, distinguishing be- tween Scripture and tradition, quotes liturgical prayers as belonging to tradition : '' Who," he says, '' of the Saints has written down for us the words of the sacred invocation in the consecration of the bread and chalice?"^ However this only means that the Epiklesis is not in the Bible ; the " Saints " in question are the inspired writers, as is clear from the whole context. Probst on the other hand tries to establish that there were written books as early as the time of the Apostolic Fathers.^ He thinks that the exact quotations made by these Fathers ^ could only be made from written texts — cer- tainly a weak argument, since prayers and formulas may easily become more or less stereotyped, be con- stantly heard, well known, and so just what would occur to an ascetic writer (as implicit quotations), before they are otherwise written down. A better argument of Probst is that the Liturgy in the VHIth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, though now incorporated in a work of about the Vth century, must have been written down before it was superseded, first by St. James' liturgy and then by St. Basil's reform in the IVth century ; no one would have troubled to draw up the older dis- carded form after that. We have, as a matter of fact, the first references to liturgical books at the time of the Donatist schism in the IVth century. Optatus of Mileve, writing about the year 370, asks the Donatists : " You have no doubt cleaned the palls, ^ tell us what you I ^ Liturgiarum Orientalium Collectio (ed. 2, Frankfurt, 1847, i, pp. ix, xi). 2 de Spir. Scto^ xxvii (P.L. xxxii, 187). ^ Die dltesten romischen Sakramentarien u. Ordines (Miinster, 1892) 1-19. 4 We have seen such quotations in Clement and Justin etc., above pp. 11-13, 18-21. ^ All the linen cloths used for Mass. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 115 have done with the books (indicate quid de codicibus feceritis)'*.^ What were these codices? Evidently books used liturgically and not the Bible, because the Donatists thought them polluted. They had taken both palls and codices from the Catholics ; Optatus tells them ironically that since they wash the palls from Catholic pollution, they ought to wash the books too. So also St. Augustine reproaches the Donatists with being in schism with the very Churches whose names they read in the " holy books," ^ evidently the Diptychs on which the names of persons and Churches for whom they pray are written. A Synod at Hippo in 393 in- cidentally shows us the beginning of written liturgies. Its 25 th canon forbids anyone to use written out prayers of other Churches till he has shown his copy to the more learned brethren.^ By about the middle of the IVth century then there were certainly some liturgical books. How long before that anything was written one cannot say. One con- ceives portions of the liturgy written down as occasion required. The first thing written appears to have been the Diptychs. The Diptychs {hlirTvya from St? and TTTvx^ • ' twice-folded ') were two tablets (covered with wax at the beginning) hinged and folded together like a book. On one the names of the living for whom prayers were to be said were written, on the other the names of the dead. These names were then read out by a deacon at the appointed place in the liturgy. Their use, in the East at any rate, went on till far into the middle ages.^ Then the lessons were noted in ^ de Schism. Donat, v. (Corpus script, eccl. latin, vol. xxvi, Vienna, 1893, p. 153)- 2 Ep. Hi, 3 (P.L. xxxiii, 195) ; Ep. liii, 3 {ib. 197). 3 Hefele-Leclercq : Histoire des Conciles ii (Paris, 1908) 88, cfr. Probst, op, cit. 13-14. ^ Such Diptychs, often with very beautiful carved and inlaid exteriors, may be seen in museums. The Eastern rites still contain 8* ii6 THE MASS a book. The old custom of reading from the Bible straight on till the bishop made a sign to stop,^ soon gave way to a more orderly plan of reading a certain fixed amount at each liturgy. Marginal notes were added to the Bible showing this. Then an Index giving the first and last words of the amount {irepiKoirr)) to be read is drawn up {awa^dptov, capitulare). Other books were read besides the Bible (lives of Saints and homilies m the divine office) ; a complete Index giving references for these too is the '' Companion (to the books) " — conies^ liber comitis or coinicus. Lastly, to save trouble, the whole texts are written out as they are wanted, so we come to the (liturgical) Gospel-book, Epistle-book and complete Lectionary {evayyeXcov^ aTToaroXo^^ evangelarium^ epistolariuni^ ledionarimn). Meanwhile the prayers said by the celebrant and deacon are written out too. Here we must notice an important difference between the older arrangement and the one we have now in the West. Our present books are arranged according to the service at which they are used ; thus the missal contains all that is wanted for Mass, the breviary contains all the divine office, and so on. The older system, still kept in all Eastern churches, considers not the service, but the person who uses the book. One book contained all the bishop (or priest) says at any service, the deacon has his book, the choir theirs, and so on. The bishop's book (of which the priest also used whatever he needed) is the Sacramentary (sacramentarium^ liber saa^a- the rubrics: *' He (the deacon) reads the diptychs of the living,'' " the diptychs of the departed," or some such words, at the appointed place in the Intercession. But there are not now any material tablets. Instead the celebrant and deacon pause and make a silent commemor- ation of people for whom they wish to pray, as we do in the Roman rite. The regular form of excommunication or schism was to erase the name of a bishop or patriarch from one's diptychs. *So in Justin Martyr's time, above, p. 20. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE ir; mentorum} in Greek ev')(p\o^iov) , It contained only the celebrant's part of the liturgy ; but it also contained his part of many other services, ordination, bap- tism, blessings and exorcisms — in short all sacerdotal functions. The deacon had his book too (the hiaKoviKov) ; but as his function in the West was re- duced to singing the Gospel this book is rather an Eastern speciality. And then, later, the choir had the psalms and responses arranged together in the liber antiphonarius or gradualism the liber responsalis^ psalterium^ later still the hymnariutn^ liber sequenti- alis, troponarius and so on, of which in the early middle ages there was a great variety,^ The earliest Roman Sacramentaries then are our first complete sources for our rite. Of these three stand out as the earliest, the most complete, the most important \\\ every way. These are the so-called Leonine, Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries. The names imply an authorship which in each case is probably fictitious. The origin and date of each is much discussed. The oldest of the three is the Sacramentarium Leonianum, Only one manuscript of it is extant, written in the Vllth century. It was found by Joseph Bianchini in the library of the cathedral chapter of Verona and published by him in the fourth volume of his edition of the Liber Pontificalis (Rome, 1735). Bianchini is responsible for the quite arbitrary attri- ^ Sdcramenfa in this case means, at any rate primarily, the Mass. ^ The fact that all Eastern rites still keep the older arrangement is important and should be remembered by people who quote their books. They do not correspond to ours and cannot be spoken of in terms of our books. An ivxo\6yiou, for instance, is by no means the same thing as a missal. It contains only the celebrant's part of the liturgy, but also contains all other Sacraments and innumerable Sacramentals and prayers for other occasions, which we put in the Pontifical and Ritual. We shall come back to the reason of our different arrangement later (p. 189). ii8 THE MASS bution to St. Leo I (440-461). On the strength ot this the Sacramentary was included by the Ballerini brothers in their edition of St. Leo's works (Venice, I7S3'I757) and has ever since borne the name Leonine, though no one now thinks that St. Leo had anything to do with it.^ This Sacramentary represents a pure Roman use with none of the later Gallican additions. But it is only a fragment ; it has no Ordinary of the Mass nor Canon. It is a collection of Propria (Collects, Secrets, Prefaces, Postcommunions, Orationes super populum) beginning in the middle of the sixth Mass for April and ending with a blessing for the font *' In ieiunio mensis decimi "(the winter Ember days). In each month groups of Masses are given, often large groups, for each feast or other occasion. Thus in June there are 28 Masses for St. Peter and St. Paul, each headed : '' Item alia,''^ there are 14 Masses for St. Lawrence,^ twenty-three for the anniversary of a bishop's ordination ^ and so on. It is not a book drawn up for liturgical use, but a private collection of as many alternative Masses as the compiler could find.^ He is very careless ; he in- serts Masses in the wrong place continually.^ The collection is clearly Roman ; it is full of local allusions to Rome. '^ Mgr. Duchesne thinks it was composed about the year 538, chiefly because he understands ^ Reprinted by Muratori in his Litiirgia romana vetus (Venice, 1748). By far the best edition is that of C. L. Feltoe {Sacramentariutn Leonianiim^ Cambridge, i8g6). ^Feltoe's edition, 36-50. ^Ib. 94-99.' ^Ib. 123-139. ^ ** I am incHned to think that in spite of its title ' Sacramentary ' ... it has never been a liturgical book in the strict sense, used for Mass, but rather a collection, a kind of anthology from which people took what they wanted according to the need of the moment." Cabrol : Les Origijies liturgiques, p. 109. This is what every one says now. . <* Examples of this will be found in The Catholic Encyclopcedia, vol. viii : Liturgical books. 7Cfr, i6. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 1 1 9 one allusion ^ to refer to the raising of the siege of Rome by Vitiges in that year. 2 Probst refers the same allusion to Alaric's invasion in 402 and dates the book between 366 and 461.^ Muratori thought it was composed under Felix III (483-492).^ The latest theory is that of Buchwald, who thinks it was composed in the VI th or Vllth century by people who were trying to introduce the Roman rite into Gaul, and suggests Gregory of Tours (f 594) as the author.^ His idea does not seem to have found much favour.^ When- ever it may have been compiled, there is no doubt that the Leonine book contains much very old matter and is invaluable as being our oldest source of the Roman rite. The fatal misfortune is that it has lost the Ordinary and Canon. There is still more doubt about the Gelasian Sacra- mentary. This is a Roman book already Gallicanized. It exists in several manuscripts ; the oldest version is that of a book written in the Vllth or early Vlllth century for use in the abbey of St. Denis at Paris. This is now in the Vatican library.''' It was first published by Tomasi in his Codices sacramentorufn nongentis annis vetustiores (Rome, 1680), then in vol. i of Muratori's Liturgia romana vetus. There are other versions of the same book in the codexes of St. Gallen and Rheinau.^ These three versions, collated . with others, form the basis of the standard edition of 1 The Secret of Mass XVIII for June (Feltoe, p. 73). 2 Origines du Culte^ 129-137. ^ j^i^ dltesten rom. Sakram, 56-61. ^ Liturgia rom. vetus, diss. 27. ^ Buchwald : Das Sogen. Sacramentarium Leonianum (Vienna, igo8) ; but see also his earlier view in the Weidenauer Studien (Weidenau, 1906) p. 50. 6 Except with Adolf Struckmann in the Theologische Revue for June 20, 1909. ' MS. Reginae, 316. ^ Edited by Dom Martin Gerbert : Monumenta veteris liturgies alemmaniccEy vol. i (St. Blaise, 1777). I20 THE MASS Wilson.^ In no codex does the book bear the name of Pope Gelasius I (492-496) ; it is simply : '' Liber Sacramentorum Romanae Ecclesiae". It consists of three parts, each bearing a not very accurate title. Book I (Liber Sacramentorum Romanae ecclesiae ordinis anni circuli) contains Masses for Sundays, feasts and fast-days (i.e. for all liturgical days) from Christmas eve to the eve of Pentecost. There are no special Masses for the season after Pentecost. This part also has the Ordination services, prayers for all the various rites of the Catechumenate, the blessing of the font and of the holy oils, the dedication of churches and reception of nuns.^ Book II (Orationes et preces de natalitia sanctorum) contains the Propers of Saints (Collects, Secret, Preface, Postcommunion, Super po- pulum) from St. Felix (Jan. 15) to St. Thomas (21 Dec), the Commons of Saints and, at the end, five Masses : de Adventum Domini (sic), evidently not yet considered part of the Proprium temporis, and then Masses for the three winter Ember days.^ Book III (Orationes et preces cum canone per dominicis diebus) * contains a great number of Masses headed simply : Item alia missa (for any Sunday), the Canon of the Mass, many votive Masses (the nuptial Mass, for travellers, for kings, in time of trouble and so on), Masses for the dead, blessings (of holy water, fruits, trees, etc.) and prayers for various special occasions.^ The question then arises, who composed this book and what use does it represent? It is clearly Roman with Gallican additions. For instance one of the prayers on Good Friday reads : ** respice propitius ad romanum sive francorum benignus imperium".^ Duchesne notes ^ H. A. Wilson: The Gelasian Sacramentary , Oxford, 1894. 2 Wilson, op. cit. pp. 1-160. 3 The other Ember days come in this part too, ih. pp. 161-223. ^ The book is full of such ungrammatical forms. ^ lb, pp. 224-315. ^ Ih. p. 76, cfr. the preceding prayer. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 1 2 1 other Galilean passages.^ The book as it stands was put together for use in Gaul. The local Roman allusions (for instance the Stations) have been left out. This shows that at any rate, as we have it, it cannot be exactly the Sacramentary of Pope Gelasius. His name has been attached to it because of a Y^y old tradition that ascribes to him the composition of a Sacramentary. 2 As this is the one that represents the use of the Roman Church before Adrian I, it is natural that it should have been supposed to be Gelasius' book. Indeed, it is not impossible that its core may be his. Meanwhile there are many other theories as to its origin. Duchesne thinks that it represents the Roman service books of the Vllth or Vlllth centuries (between the years 628 and 731), retouched in the Prankish Kingdom.^ Dom S. Baumer * and Mr. Bishop ^ maintain that it is much earlier and ascribe it to the VI century. Buchwald ^ agrees with Duchesne as to its date and thinks that its compiler used the " Leonine" collection. The third of these Sacramentaries, the Gregorian^ is the one about whose origin most is known. Charles the Great wanted to introduce the Roman rite into his kingdom. So he wrote to Pope Adrian I (between 781 and 791) asking for a copy of the Roman service book. The iDook sent in answer is the nucleus of the " Gregorian " Sacramentary. It was then copied in Gaul many times with various additions, so that there are many versions of it."^ The first printed edition is ^ Origines du Culte, 125-128. 2 W^alafrid Strabo in the IX cent. : De rebus eccl. xx ; Joannes Diaconus: Vita S. Gregorii ii, 17; Gennadius : de vir. ill. xcvi. ^ Op. cit. 121-125. 4 Ueber das sogen. Sacramentarium Gelasianum (Histor. Jahrbuch der Gorres-Gesellschaft, 1893, 241-301). 6 Dublin Review, 1894: The earliest Roman Massbook, 245-278. 6 Das sogen. Sacramentarium Leonianum^ 66. '^ These are described by Probst : Die dltesten Sacram., 303-313. 122 THE MASS that of Pamelius.^ The standard edition at present is that of Muratori.2 This is based on two manuscripts in the Vatican library, both written before 800.^ Migne (P.L. Ixxviii, 25-602) reprints the edition of Nicholas M6nard (Paris, 1642). Probst thinks that this version is rather a Gelasian book, reformed accord- ing to the Gregorian one.^ In any case the original book sent by Adrian is here completely fused with the Gallican and Gelasian supplements. Pope Adrian's book may, in the earlier versions, easily be distinguished from the additions made to it in Gaul. The first ^ who began to supplement it from other sources carefully noted where his supplement began. At the end of the Sacramentary sent by the Pope he puts a note, a '' Praefatiuncula " : " Hucusque praecedens sacramentorum libellus a B. Papa Gregorio constat esse editus, etc.".^ There follow (in Pamelius' edition) two supplements, one by Abbot Grimoald (so Pamelius), the other by Alcuin (t8o4). The supple- ments vary considerably in the different codexes ; eventually (as in M6nard's edition) they became in- corporated in the original book. We may take it that the first part, down to the Praefatiuncula, is the book sent by Adrian to Charles the Great. It has three divisions: I. The Ordinary of the Mass, II, The Pro- pers for the year, beginning with Christmas eve. They follow the order of the ecclesiastical year ; the Saints' days are incorporated in their approximate place in the seasons. There are still no Masses for the Sundays after Epiphany or Pentecost ; the Roman ^ Rituale SS Patrum Latinovum (Koln, 1571) ii. 2 Liturgia romana vetus, ii. 3 Cod. Ottobonianus and Cod. Vaticanus. ^ Die dltesten Sacr., 165-169. ^ Pamelius says it was a Frankish Abbot, Grimoald ; Liturgica Latinoncm (Koln, 1571) ii, 388. 6/6. p. 388. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 123 stations are noted. Part III contains the Ordination services. There are no votive Masses nor Requiems. For these reasons Duchesne thinks it was the ** Pope's book/' that is the book for the Pope's own use in public services. 1 It is a question how far it deserves the name Gregorian. That St. Gregory I (590-604) did much to reform the Roman liturgy seems certain. His bio- grapher, John the deacon, says : " He collected the book of Gelasius for the solemnities of Mass into one volume, leaving out much, changing little, adding something for the exposition of the lessons of the gospel". 2 Such a description would agree very well with the transition from the Gelasian book to this one. The first and second parts of Gelasius are fused into one, many of its prefaces and elaborations of ritual are left out, some parts are changed, some added. A still more important witness for the authorship of St. Gregory is given by Pope Adrian himself. In the accompanying letter that he sent with this book to Charles he says that it was composed " by our holy predecessor, the divinely speaking Pope Gregory ".^ That the essential part of the Gregorian Sacramen- tary goes back to St. Gregory's time, indeed to a much earlier period, is certain. Nor need we doubt what his biographer says about his revision of the old Roman Sacramentary. On the other hand the book as Adrian sent it to Charles is not St. Gregory's work untouched. There are additions certainly made since his time, for instance that of his own feast, March 12^ and other feasts ^ Origines du Culte, 117. 2 Vita Greg. M. ii, 17 (P. L. Ixxv, 94). It is not clear what he means by "the exposition of the lessons of the gospel," perhaps the addition of suitable antiphons, offertory-chants, etc, for Saints' days. See Probst: Die dltesten rom. Sakram. pp. 319-320. ^ W. Gundlach : Codex Carolinus (Monumenta GermanicB historical Berlin, 1892) Epistolarum torn, iii, p. 626, n. 89. "* P.L. Ixxviii, 51, 124 THE MASS not kept at Rome till the Vllth century.^ Evidently the book sent by Adrian has gone through the inevit- able development. It represents the Roman use of the time at which it was sent, the Vlllth century. For this reason Duchesne prefers to call it the Sacrament- ary of Adrian.^ The supplements were made in the Prankish kingdom for practical purposes. In spite of Charles the Great's desire to introduce the pure Roman rite, the clergy and people were attached to their old services, Galilean and older Roman infiltrations as represented by the Gelasian book. So in copying the book sent by Pope Adrian they added to it supple- ments containing some of the most popular of these services.^ The next stage, represented by Menard's edition, was the fusion of these supplements with the original book. So combined, the Gregorian Sacramen- tary became the foundation of our present Roman Missal.'^ These three Sacramentaries, the Leonine, Gelasian and Gregorian, are the most important documents for the origin of the Roman rite. There are, however, also a number of others, in some cases fragments, that add something to our knowledge. The so-called Missale Francorum contains fragments of the ordina- tion service, the blessing of nuns and widows, the consecration of altars and eleven Roman Masses. It was written in the Prankish kingdom about the end of the seventh century and represents the earlier Roman influence, before Charles the Great, like the Gelasian book. The manuscript is now in the Vatican library.^ 1 For examples see Duchesne, op. cit. ii8. ^ Ih. iig. 3 Dom S. Baumer thinks that the first supplement and the Prsefa- tiuncula were added by Alcuin (f 804) : op. cit. 295-301. ^ See below p. 182. ^ Edited by Tomasi in his Codices Sacramentorum (Rome, 1680), - Mabillon : Liturgia gallicana (Paris, 1685 ; reprinted in P.L. Ixxii, 317-340)- THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 125 The Ravenna roll^ is a fragment containing forty prayers in preparation for Christmas, all of a Roman type. It was drawn up for use at Ravenna at an uncertain date (Vlth to Xlth century). One of these prayers recurs in the Leonine and Gregorian Sacra- mentaries.2 Abbot Cabrol thinks that the prayers may have been collected by St. Peter Chrysologus (tc.4So).3 Among the sources for the early Roman rite the Ordines Romani have an important place. These are directories telling the various people who took part in the Mass their respective functions, books of rubrics only, like the modern CcBrimoniale Episcoporum. Ma- billon collected and published sixteen of these ordines in his Musaeum Italicum (Paris, 1689) vol. ii.^ They are of various dates, from the Vlllth to the XVth century, each giving the complete ritual of a Pontifical or Papal High Mass at the time it was written. The first, which is the most important, was probably drawn up in the reign of Pope Stephen III {J^'^-TJ2\ but is founded on a similar document of the time of Gregory I (590-604).^ Since Mabillon's time other ordines have been found. Of these Mgr. Duchesne has pub- lished one found in a MS. of the Church of St. Amandus at Pev^le or Puelle in the old diocese of Tournai.^ It was written in the Vlllth or IXth century. There are choir-books (antiphonaries, graduals, etc.) and lectionaries of the Roman rite since about the Vllth or Vlllth century. These are less important ^ Published by Ceriani : // rotolo opistografo del principe A, P. di Savoia (Milan, 1883). 2 Cfr. Duchesne, op, cit. 137-138. ^ Revue Benedictine, Oct. 1906. ^ Reprinted in P.L. Ixxviii, 937-1372. ^ Edited, with a useful introduction and notes, by E. G. C. Atch- ley in the Library of Liturgiology and Ecclesiology , vol. vi : Ordo romanus primus (London, Moring, 1905). ^ Origines du Culte (pp. 440-465). 126 THE MASS than the sacramentaries.^ Then during the middle ages, other books were added to these (hymnaries, Hbri troponarii and so on), and finally they were rearranged in the missals and breviaries that we know.^ § 3. Latin as the liturgical language. In the first period the liturgical language at Rome was Greek. Greek was spoken by the Roman Chris- tians (as by those of all centres — Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, etc.) for at least the first two centuries. Clement of Rome writes in Greek ; the earliest Cata- comb inscriptions are Greek. There was no idea of a special liturgical language at that time ; people said their prayers in the vulgar tongue. Latin was apparently first used by Christians in Africa. Pope Victor I (190- 202), who was an African, is generally quoted as the first Roman to use it ^ Novatian (c. 251) writes in Latin ; since about the third century this becomes the usual and then the only language spoken by Christians at Rome. When it replaced Greek in Church is dis- puted. Kattenbusch dates it as the liturgical language from the second half of the third century,* Watterich,^ Probst ^ and Rietschel ^ think that Greek was used till the end of the fourth century. In any case the process was a gradual one. Both languages must have been used side by side during a fairly long period of transi- ^ See Liturgical Books in the Catholic Ejicyclopcedia. 2 For the compilation of the Missale plenarium see below pp. 189-igo. ^ Supposing that he is the author of the treatise de Aleaforibus, other- wise attributed to St. Cyprian. Cfr. Harnack in Texte u. Untersuch- ungen v. i ; against him Bardenhewer : Gesch. der altkirchlichen Litteratur (Freiburg, 1903) ii, 446-447. '^ Das apostolische Symbol (Leipzig, 1900) ii, 331, n. 108. ^ Konsekrationsmoment, 131, seq. ^ Abendldndische Messe^ 5, seq. '^ Lehrbuch der Liturgikj i, 337-338. C. P. Caspari produces evi- dence of liturgical Greek at Rome as late as the end of the third century (Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols^ Christiania, 1879, iii, 267-466). THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 1 2 7 tion. A certain Marius Victorinus Africanus, writing about 360 in Latin, still quotes a liturgical prayer in Greek.^ The Bible existed only in the Greek Septua- gint for some time^. The lessons were read in Greek at Rome, at any rate on some days, till the Vlllth cen- tury ; ^ some psalms were sung in Greek at the same time.** Indeed we still have Greek fragments in the Mass.^ Amalarius of Metz ^ (f c. 857) and Pseudo- Alcuin^ still mention Greek forms. The creed at baptism may be said in either Greek or Latin, at the convert*s discretion, according to the Gelasian Sacra- mentary.® But a change of language does not involve a change of rite ; though it may be the occasion for modifications. Novatian's references to the liturgy in Latin agree very well with the Greek Apostolic Constitutions ; the Africans (Tertullian, St. Cyprian etc.) describe in Latin the same rite as the Greek Justin. It is quite possible merely to translate the same forms into another lan- guage, as the Byzantine rite has been translated into a great number without change. On the other hand, no doubt the genius of the Latin language eventually affected the Roman rite. Latin is naturally terse, austere compared with the rhetorical abundance of Greek. It would be a natural tendency of Latin to curtail redundant phrases. And this terseness and austere simplicity are a noticeable mark of the Roman Mass. We shall see that some writers think that the 1 Probst, loc. cit. p. 5. 2 The Itala does not appear for certain till the IVth century ; though there were many Latin versions in Africa since the II or III centuries. 3 The first Roman Ordo says the lessons on Holy Saturday are read first in Greek, then in Latin (M.P.L. Ixxviii, 955). 4 Ih, 966, 967, 968. 5 Agios o Theos etc. Kyrie eleison is not a case in point; see pp. 230-231. ^ P.L. cv, 1073. "^ Caspari, op, cit. 466 seq. 8 Ed. Wilson, 53-55. 128 THE MASS change of language was the actual occasion at which the Canon was recast.^ § 4. First traces of the Roman Mass. As we shall see,^ the difficulties of this question concern the Canon. In the Gelasian Sacramentary we have our Canon complete, as it is in the present Missal. Before that we find some fragments and allusions to it. These are the documents on which every attempted reconstruction of its history is based. The earliest allusion appears to be that of the author of a work : Qucestzones veteris et novi testamenti,^ He is a Roman, contemporary of St. Damasus (366-384). He defends the astonishing theory that Melkisedek was the Holy Ghost. While explaining that never- theless Melkisedek's priesthood is less exalted than that of Christ he writes : " Similiter et Spiritus sanctus quasi antistes sacerdos appellatus est excelsi Dei, non summus, sicut nostri in oblatione praesumunt ''.^ We have then evidence that at Rome in the second half of the IVth century the celebrant at Mass spoke of Melkisedek as '' summus sacerdos ". It seems clearly an allusion to the words " summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech " in the Canon. But the allusion tells us nothing about the order, nor the moment at which these words occurred. The earliest fragment of any length is also probably of the fourth century. It is the famous quotation in the treatise de Sacramentis? This is the most important early witness for our Canon ; it is quoted and discussed by everyone who writes on the subject. The little work de Sacramentis^ consists of six books ^ See p. 170. 2 p. 139. ^ P.L. XXXV, 2213-2416. ^Ih. 2329. ^ P.L. xvi, 417-462. •^ Also printed in Rauschen : Florilegitwi patristicum, vii (Monu- menta Eucharistica), Bonn, 1909, pp. 94-131. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 129 (i.e. sermons) about Baptism, Confirmation and the Holy Eucharist^ addressed to the neophytes in Easter week. It is modelled on St. Ambrose : de Mysteriis. The author, date and place of this work are much discussed. It used to be attributed to St. Ambrose himself (f 397), an opinion which still has distinguished defenders. 2 The Benedictines of St. Maur in their edition of St. Ambrose thought this attribution doubt- ful. Tillemont,^ Schanz ^ and Schermann ^ think it was written by St. Maximus of Turin (c. 451-465); Bardenhewer leaves the author uncertain and dates it as Vth or Vlth century.^ There seems a good case for attributing it to an Italian city, not Rome, at about the end of the IVth or beginning of the Vth century. The author implies that he is not Roman by announcing that his church in all things follows the Roman example : " cuius (sc. ecclesiae romanae) typum in omnibus sequimur et formam^"^ If we maintain the view that Milan used the Gallican rite this argues that he was not Milanese either. But his own statement seems sufficient reason to treat his quotation as corresponding to the Roman use of his time.^ The importance of the text justifies our printing it again. In iv, 4, speaking of the Eucharist, the author gives us incidentally most valuable information about 1 The last part (v, 4-vi, 5) is chiefly about the Pater noster and prayer in general. 2 So Probst (Liturg. des iv Jahrh. 232-239), Morin (Revue Bene- dictine, 1894, 339 ^^^') who think it consists of notes taken from his sermons. ^ Memoir es pour servir a Vhist. eccl. (Paris, 1712) xvi, 34. ^DieLehre von den h. Sakramenten (Freiburg i. Br. 1893), I93* ^ Romische Quartalschrift 1903, 254 seq, ^ Patrologie (Freiburg, 1894) 407. '^ de Sacr. iii, 5. Duchesne thinks the work was written about the year 400 at a city (perhaps Ravenna) where the Roman and Milanese rites were combined (Origines du Culte, 169). 8 Buchwald is not clear about this ; see below p. 151. 9 I30 THE MASS the prayers said at Mass. We have first an allusion to the Intercession : *'Nam reliqua omnia quae dicuntur, in superioribus a sacerdote dicuntur, laudes Deo deferuntur, oratio petitur pro populo, pro regibus, pro ceteris ; ubi venitur ut conficiatur venerabile sacramentum iam non suis sermonibus utitur sacerdos sed utitur sermonibus Christi. Ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit sacramentum " (iv, 4, § 1 4).^ From this we see that there was at that time an Intercession prayer before the consecra- tion but following a prayer of praise (" laudes Deo deferuntur " — the beginning of the preface ?). We also see the idea that our Lord's own words (of Institu- tion) consecrate, an important point with regard to the Roman Epiklesis.^ Later our author quotes a great part of the Eucharistic prayer (Canon) : (iv, 5, § 21.) ''Vis scire quia verbis caelestibus consecratur? Accipe quae sunt verba. Dicit sacerdos : fac nobis, inquit, hanc oblationem adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod figura est corporis et sanguinis lesu Christi. Qui pridie quam pateretur in Sanctis manibus suis accepit panem, respexit in caelum ad te, sancte pater omnipotens aeterne Deus, gratias agens benedixit, fregit fractumque apostolis suis et discipulis suis tradidit dicens : Accipite et edite ex hoc omnes ; hoc est enim corpus meum quod pro multis confringetur. § 22. Similiter etiam calicem postquam cenatum est, pridie quam pateretur, accepit, respexit in caelum ad te, sancte pater omni- potens aeterne Deus ; gratias agens benedixit, apos- tolis suis et discipulis suis tradidit dicens : Accipite et bibite ex hoc omnes ; hie est enim sanguis meus.'^ Then follows an explanation of these words, in which 1 This text is familiar because it forms part of the lessons of the second nocturn on Wed. in the octave of Corpus Christi, 2 Below pp. 406-407. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 131 we need only notice the formula for Communion : " Dicit tibi sacerdos : Corpus Christi et tu dicis Amen, hoc est, verum'* (§ 25). Another fragment of the Canon follows in Chap. 6. (iv, 6, § 27.) " Et sacerdos dicit : Ergo memores gloriosissimae eius passionis et ab inferis resurrectionis et in caelum adscensionis offerimus tibi banc imma- culatam hostiam, rationabilem hostiam, incruentam hostiam, hunc panem sanctum et calicem vitae aeternae ; et petimus et precamur ut banc oblationem suscipias in sublimi altari tuo per manus angelorum tuorum, sicut suscipere dignatus es munera pueri tui iusti Abel et sacrificium patriarchae nostri Abrahae et quod tibi obtulit summus sacerdos Melchisedech." In this text we note for the present that it obviously consists of part of our Canon with slight verbal differ- ences ; but that the order of the parts is not the same as ours. In the first part we have our Quam oblationem prayer, but not in a relative form (" fac nobis banc oblationem"). The epithet '' benedictam '' is wanting before '* adscriptam ". We note also the form ^'quod figura est corporis et sanguinis," which certainly sug- gests an Egyptian form. So Sarapion in his prayer has : " we have offered to thee this bread the likeness (ofMoicofjua) of the body of the Only-begotten. This bread is the likeness of the holy body "(12) and again : " We have offered to thee the cup, the likeness of the blood" etc (14).^ The form : *' pridie quam pateretur " is the typical Western expression, as opposed to the universal Eastern **in the night in which he was betrayed". It is evidently considered important ; it occurs again, awkwardly, in the consecration of the wine. The second part (iv, 6, § 27) consists of our Anamnesis 1 Ed. Funk, Didascalia, ii, 175 ; cfr. also Tertullian : adv. Marc. iv, 40 (above, p. 42). 9 * 132 THE MASS {Unde et memores) with several differences. To this is joined ("et petimus et precamur") most of the next prayer {Supra quce), but with the clause about the high altar and the angels (in the plural here), that now forms the beginning of Supplices te rogmnus, inserted before the mention of Abel, Abraham and Melkisedek. In the fifth century St. Innocent Z' (401-417) wrote a letter to Decentius, Bishop of Eugubium (Gubbio) in Umbria, which throws some light on the Roman Mass in his time.-^ Decentius had written to consult the Pope about certain observances at Eugubium which dif- fered from Roman use.^ In this answer (416) Innocent insists on the necessity of conforming to Rome through- out the West ; ^ then tells Decentius the Roman custom in the cases he has mentioned. First about the Kiss of Peace : " You say therefore that some priests ^w^ the Peace to the people or to each other before the mysteries are consecrated (" ante confecta mysteria/' i.e. apparently before the consecration), whereas the Peace is certainly to be given after all those things which I may not describe (the disciplina arcani forbids his describing the consecration) ; for by it the people show that they consent to all that has been celebrated in the mysteries " etc.^ This is the first mention we know of the present place of the Roman Pax after the consecration ; whereas vcv all other rites it occurs at the beginning of the Liturgy of the Faithful. It was perhaps not long before the time of Innocent that its place at Rome was altered.^ ^ Innoc. I. Ep. 25, ad Decentium ; P.L. xx, 551-561. ^§3»^'^- 552-553- ^ § 1-2, ib. 551. The point is remarkable since certainly at that time most Western Churches did not use the Roman rite. Innocent desired what was not accomplished for many centuries. ^§4.^^- 553- ^ Justin Martyr's Kiss of Peace came before the Eucharistic prayer (T Apol. Ixv, 2 ; see above p. 18). THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 133 Then follows an important statement about the read- ing of the diptychs, and so of the place of the Inter- cession. Decentius was accustomed to place this before the Consecration prayer, as does de Sacramentis} But Innocent says it should follow the Consecration : *' Con- cerning the recital of the names before the priest makes the Prayer ^ and presents the offerings of those whose names are said, your own wisdom will show you how superfluous this is, namely that you should mention the name of him whose offering you have not yet made to God, whereas to him nothing is unknown. So first the offerings should be made and then those whose offerings they are should be named ; they should be named during the holy mysteries, not in the part that comes before, so that we may open the way for the prayers that follow by the mysteries themselves. " ^ As the present involved state of the Roman Intercession is one of the chief problems of the Mass this statement is of great importance. We conclude that, whereas de Sacramentis places the Intercession before the Con- secration, Innocent places it afterwards.^ Bonifice I (418-422) and Celestine I (422-432) both refer to the Intercession, in which they prayed for the Emperor. Boniface says that it occurs ** inter ipsa mysteria,"^ Celestine that it comes " oblatis sacri- ficiis".^ In the Vth century Arnobius the younger (c. 460) mentions the Birth of our Lord as named in the Anam- 1 Above p. 130. ^ Prex^ very commonly used for the Preface or Canon. ^§5. ^6. 553-554- ^ See however Funk's opinion, below p. 165. The other points Innocent mentions, though of great interest, concern matters that do not affect our enquiry — -baptism, confirmation, the fast on Saturday and so on. ^Ep, ad Honoriumj Hardouin, i, 1237. ^ Ep. ad Theodoshim, ii ; P.L. 1, 544. 134 THE MASS nesis.-^ He lived in Gaul, so that his witness for Rome is doubtful ; however the Nativity was often included in the Roman Anamnesis. As late as the X Ith century Micrologus (Bernard of Constance) refers to this practice and condemns it.^ The Breviarium in Psalnios attri- buted to St, Jerome quotes part of our Nobis quoque peccatoribus prayer : " Ad capescendam futuram beati- tudinem cum electis eius, in quorum nos consortium, non meritorum inspector sed veniae largitor, admittat Christus Dominus noster. Amen." ^ But the work is full of later additions, of which this is probably one.* St. Leo I (440-461) mentions the reading of the diptychs at Rome,^ as do many Popes ; but his allusion tells us nothing special about them. Pope Vigilius (537-555), writing to Profuturus Bishop of Braga, in 538, speaks of the Roman Canon as unchangeable: '' We make no difference in the order of prayers at the celebration of Mass for any time or feast, but we always consecrate the gifts offered to God in the same way ("semper eodem tenore"). But when we keep the feasts of Easter, or the Ascension of the Lord and Pente- cost and the Epiphany, or of the Saints of God, we add special clauses suitable to the day (" singula capitula diebus apta"), by which we make commemoration of the holy feast or of those whose anniversaries we keep ; and we continue the rest in the usual order. Where- fore we say the text of the Canon itself ("ipsius canonicae precis textum ") according to the form which by God's mercy we have received from apostolic tradition '\^ This describes very well the unchanging Roman Canon, as we know it, and certain modifications in ^ Comment, in PsalmoSj P. L. liii, 497. See G. Morin, O.S.B., L^anamnese de la messe romaine dans la premiere moitie du V^. siecle in the Revue Benedictine, xxiv (1907), pp. 404-407. 2 P.L. cli, 985. 2 P.L. xxvi, 1094. ^ Cfr. Morin in the Anecdota Maredsolana i, 3 and iii, 2. 5 Ep. 70. P.L. liv, 914. ^ Ep. ad Profuturum ; P.L. Ixix, 18. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 135 other parts of the Mass with perhaps the slight additions to the Communicantes for various occasions. The Pope opposes this to the complete variability according to the Calendar of the Spanish and Gallican Eucharistic prayers. There is an old and constant tradition that St, Gregory I (590-604) modified the Canon and was the last to touch it.^ A letter by him to John, Bishop of Syracuse,^ defends the Roman Church from having copied Constantinople in certain points of ritual. They are that Alleluia is sung outside of Paschal time, that subdeacons "go unclad " (" spoliatos procedere," in albs without tunicles),^ that Kyrie eleison is sung, that the Lord's prayer is sung immediately after the " prex ^' (Canon), before the Communion. Gregory explains the differences between Rome and Constantinople in these points and says that he has himself put the Lord's prayer in that place. His biographer, John the Deacon, ascribes the Roman custom in all four points to him.^ John also wrote the passage about Gregory's modifi- cation of the Gelasian book quoted above (p. 123). This, the alteration of the place of the Pater noster and the addition of the final clause to the Hanc igitur mentioned in the Liber Pontificalis (below, p. 137) and also by John the Deacon ^ are the chief changes that we can trace to St. Gregory with certainty.^ We may notice here certain statements about the Mass in the Liber Pontificalis, although the historical 1 See above p. 123 and below p. 172. 2 Greg. I Epist. ix (Ind. 11) 12, P.L. Ixxvii, 955-958- 3 See J. Braun, S.J. : Die liturgiscke Gewandung hi Occident u. Orient (Freiburg i. Br. 1907) p. 283. 4 loh. Diac : Vita S. Greg. M. ii, 20. P.L. Ixxv, 94. Probst defends the authenticity of this statement in Die dltesten rbm. Sacram. pp. 301-303. s lb. ii, 17. 6 For the Alleluia see below p. 268, Kyrie eleison, p. 234, Pater noster p. 362, Hanc igitur pp. 137. 136 THE MASS value of the earlier ones is not to be taken very seriously. We are told that Pope Alexander I (c. 109-1 19) added the mention of our Lord's passion to the Mass/ pre- sumably in the Unde et memores. Buchwald thinks this means the form '^qui pridie quam pateretur," introduced at Rome, and through Rome in all Western rites, instead of the universal Eastern : " in the night in which he was betrayed".^ The Eastern form has the basis of Scripture (i Cor. xi, 23), why the Roman expression ? He answers that it was in order to include the passion among the things for which we thank God in the Eucharist prayer. At first (as in i Clem, ad Cor. 33, 34) only the benefits of creation were named, but Justin Martyr already uses what seems to be a liturgical formula about the passion when he speaks of the Eucharist (Dialogue 41 : hia rov TraOrjTov yevo/jLepov 75* ^i^' oif<; fcatTraOrjTo^; yeyove). The form became so important that in the Canon of ^^ Sacramentis it is inserted, most awkwardly, in the consecration of the wine (above p. 130). Whether really Alexander I made this addition or change is another matter. Buchwald commits himself only to '' one of the Popes of the second century ".^ The Liber Pontijicalis further informs us that Xystus (Sixtus) I (c. 1 19-128) ordered that " intra actionem " the people should sing *' the hymn Sanctus sanctus, sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth, and the rest ".* This is interesting, as showing that when that notice was written the Preface was still considered part of the Canon ; but Clement I had already spoken of the people singing the Sanctus (i Cor. xxxiv, 6-7). The next notice about St. Leo I (440-461) probably has more basis : " He ordered that 1 " Hie passionem Domini miscuit in praedictione sacerdotum quando missae celebrantur." Lib. Pont, ed. Duchesne, Paris, 1886, i, 127. "^ See above p. 99. 3 Buchwald : die Epiklese^ pp. 34, 35, note i. ^Ed. Duchesne, i, 128. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 137 in the Canon (' intra actionem sacrificii ') should be said : sanctum sacrificium and the rest ''} This means the words ''sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam '* at the end of the prayer Supra qucB, Mgr. Duchesne thinks they were directed against the Manichees.^ Two more details in the Lib. Pont, are contemporary evidence and of great importance. St. Gregory I (540-604) '' added to the text of the Canon : diesque nostros in tua pace dispone and the rest," ^ that is the second half of the much-discussed Hanc igitur prayer.^ We may accept the last statement unreservedly, namely that Pope Sergius I (687-701) " ordered that at the time of the breaking of the Lord's body Agnus Dei qui tollis peccata mundi miserere nobis should be sung by clergy and people ".^ But the notice about Sergius I brings us to a period later than the one we now consider. Lastly we have a quotation of the words '' pro ec- clesia quam adunare, regere, custodire digneris '' (in the Te igitur) by Pope Vigilius (537-555).^ In the time before the Leonine Sacramentary, then, we have only these scattered notices and allusions (besides the fragment of the de Sacramentis) from which to build up theories about the formation of our Canon. The Leonine book, although its Canon is lost, supposes our text, though apparently not in the order in which we have it. Several of its masses contain the special forms of the Communicantes prayer,^ a great number have proper Prefaces formed on the 1 Ed. Duchesne, i, 239. ^ /^^ ^Ih. 312, St. Bede says the same thing, Hht, Eccl. ii, x. P.L. xcv, 80. ^ See pp. 155, 160-161. s Ed. Duchesne, i, 376. These judgments as to the value of the statements are those of M. Lejay {Revue d^hist. et de litt. relig, ii, 183) and Abbot Cabrol (Dictionnaire d'archeologie^ ii, 1853). ^ Ep. ad lustinianunij P.L. Ixix, 22. '' Ed. Feltoe, pp. 21, 22, 25, 27. 138 THE MASS model we know ; there are ten special Hanc oblationem prayers^ and one special Quam oblationem} All these are to be inserted in their places in the Canon, instead of the normal forms, which are presumably ours. Buchwald, who dates the book as fourth century, therefore supposes that at that time our Canon was used at Rome.^ But he has not noticed that its order was not the same as ours. In a Mass for Pentecost for the newly baptized (In Pentecosten ascendentibus a fonte) the Hanc igitur comes before the Commum- cantes} This is an important point that certainly helps Drews' theory (below pp. 1 59-163). The Leonine book then does not yet bring us to sure ground on which we find our Canon as we have it. That sure ground is found in the Gelasian Sacramentary, where we have all our Canon complete.^ From the Gelasian book on, the history of the Roman Mass is compara- tively easy. It is for the earlier history, its origin, that there are many conjectures and, so far, no absolute certainty. § 5. Conjectured reconstructions of the old Mass. Supposing then that our present Mass, and especially its Canon, have been recast from an older arrangement, we have to consider the various theories that have been suggested as to what the older order was, why and when it was changed. We may accept as admitted on all sides that there has been such a recasting. It is in the proposed reconstructions and as to the date of the recasting that theories differ. These theories are based partly on internal reasons, 1 Ih. 24, 36, 119, 123, 130, 141, 145, 147, 148. 2 p^ 123. 3 Die Epiklese, 50. ^ Ed. Feltoe, 24, 25. ^ Ed. Wilson, 234-236. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 139 the greater fitness of certain elements of the Canon when they are rearranged in what seems a more natural order, partly on external reasons, comparison with other rites in which parallel passages, often correspond- ing exactly, are found in a different order. Neither argument can effect more than greater or less proba- bility. Internal reasons, greater suitability and so on, are to a great extent subjective. Not everyone will be convinced by what seems more suitable to one person. And as for the parallel phrases in other liturgies we are embarrassed by their abundance. Parallels can be found almost everywhere. One author will draw up a list of most striking parallels between Rome and Jerusalem and on the strength of them will reconstruct our Canon on the lines of the liturgy of St. James. It seems convincing, till one finds that another produces no less obvious resemblances with Alexandria, Gaul, Spain and makes an equally ingenious rearrangement according to their order. It is the Canon that is the great question. The Mass of the Catechumens offers less difficulty. The disappearance of the old litanies (now represented by the Kyrie eleison)\ the Collects,^ the always uncertain number of lessons,^ the absence of a dismissal of the Catechumens ^ and then the typical Roman Offertory ^ — -all these can be fairly easily accounted for. It seems certain that one reason, perhaps the chief, for the rearrangement of our Canon was the omission (apparently for dogmatic reasons) of the Invocation of the Holy Ghost (Epiklesis). Its absence in the Roman Mass is unique. All Eastern rites have an Epiklesis, the Gallican Mass had one.^ The origin of our Canon 1 See below pp. 230-239. '^ Pp. 244-253. ^ pp, 254-257. 4 P. 291. ^P. 297. 6 Milan lost its Epiklesis when it adopted the Roman Canon. The Mozarabic rite still has an Epiklesis of Christ, now displaced, and many traces of others. For the question of the Epiklesis in general see pp. 402-407. 140 THE ^M ASS is still the burning question among liturgical students. Leaving aside antiquated and exploded theories, we notice the systems of Bunsen, Probst, Bickell, Cagin, W. C. Bishop, Baumstark, Buchwald, Drews, Cabrol. § 6. Bunsen's theory, Bunsen^ was one of the first of the moderns to suggest a reconstruction of the Canon. The mediaeval liturgists did not discuss the question ; they accepted the sacred text as they knew it, generally ascribed it as it stands to St. Peter, and interpreted it mystically and theologically. So also Gihr, Thalhofer and the older school were content to explain additions or changes here and there, chiefly according to the notices of the Liber Pontificalis ; they did not enquire into the origin of the whole Canon. Bunsen's theory is ingenious and may contain ele- ments of truth. His chief point is that our Canon is a fusion of two sets of prayers, those of the celebrant and those originally said by the deacon. In the Eastern rites constantly the celebrant says one set of prayers while the deacon chants aloud other prayers with the people.^ He thought that this was once the case at Rome too. Further our Canon is the result of a period of selection and abbreviation (at the time of Gregory I), in which only parts of much longer prayers were kept and rearranged without much order. The Supplices te rogamus is an attenuated Epiklesis probably added by Leo I. Gregory I composed the second part of the Hanc igitur and separated that prayer from the Quam oblationem. He also wrote the preface and 1 Baron Christian Bunsen, Prussian Ambassador at London from 1841-1854 (t i860). 2 Originally the celebrant paused between his prayers while the deacon said his part. The simultaneous recital is a later development for the sake of shortening the service, as in many cases in our Mass. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE ^i embolism of the Lord's Prayer when he added it to the Canon. So the Canon of St. Gregory was thus : The celebrant began Te igitur as now. When he came to the Pope's name he paused while the deacon read the diptychs of the living {Memento Domine), The celebrant continued : Communicantes^ Hanc igitur^ Quain oblationem^ Qui pridie^ Unde et memores^ Supra qucE, Supplices. The deacon read the diptychs of the dead {Memento), Nobis quoque, Per quein hcec omnia. The celebrant finished with the Pater noster^ its em- bolism {Libera nos) and the Pax.^ Bunsen's idea of restoring diakonika is interesting ; their absence at Rome is certainly anomalous. Also one can understand that the fusion of two separate sets of prayers would produce a want of logical order, such as we see in our Canon. But for the rest later studies have gone far beyond his general suggestions and in many cases have shown them to be mistaken. His attribution to the deacon of the Per quem hcEc omnia prayer especially is abandoned by everyone. Nor is there any evidence for selecting the particular diako- nika he proposes. § 7. Probst and Bickell. The ideas of both these writers have already been in great part explained.^ To Probst belongs the credit of having first established what is now admitted to some extent by most liturgists, what has become the basis of several further theories, namely that the first source of the Roman rite must be sought by comparing the liturgy of the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions. He maintains that till the middle of the fourth century there was substantially one liturgy, uniform in arrangement and outline every- ^ Bunsen : Analecta anteniccena (1854), Vol. III. 2 Probst, pp. 59-60; Bickell, pp. 70-72. 142 THE MASS where ; this he calls " una, sancta, catholica et apos- tolica liturgia/' it was practically the one still extant in the Apost. Const.^ In the fourth century this liturgy was reformed differently in different places. The various reforms produced the liturgies we know. The reason of the reform was partly the conversion of many pagans who, less zealous than the earlier Christians, demanded shorter services, and partly the Arian troubles which made a clearer emphasis of faith in the Trinity (according to the Nicene creed) desir- able. Other causes were the gradual disappearance of the Catechumenate and the system of Penance, and in the West the influence of the changing Calendar.^ It was St. Damasus (366-384) who radically changed the Roman liturgy. Till then at Rome, as in the East, the Eucharistic service had been unaffected by the season or feast on which it was celebrated. Damasus introduced variable collects, secrets, prefaces, postcommunions, even modifications of the Canon itself {Comntunicantes^ Hanc igitur\ so as to express the ideas of the various days in these. This reform separated the Preface from the rest of the Canon. The preface was no longer merely the beginning of the great Eucharistic prayer; it became a separate prayer in which the Eucharistic idea was lost in the other idea of commemorating the feast So it no longer led straight on to the memory of the last supper and the words of institution. The vacant space between the Preface (with its Sanctus) and the account of the Last Supper was then filled by the diptychs of the living; these naturally brought with them the prayers for the gifts of the faithful {Te igitur^ Hanc igitur^ Quani oblationem)? ^ Liturgie des vierten jfahrhnndertSy Part 3, Chap i, pp. 319-354. 2/6. pp. 354-377- ^ This is in outline the system defended at great length in his works ; Liturgie des vierten jfahrhunderts n. deren Reform, Die THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 143 Later writers have studied the question further and have made further suggestions ; the idea that Damasus made the change is disputed, but among what one may perhaps call the German School of liturgists Probst's main ideas have now again come very much to the fore, so much so that Mr. Edmund Bishop, who disapproves of this School, describes it as '' developing perfecting, and applying the ideas of the late Prelate Probst ''} Dr. Bickell's ^ view we have seen to be that the Canon is based on the Jewish Passover ritual.^ He too con- siders the liturgy of Apost. Const, to be the connecting link ; so that his system concerns rather the derivation of that rite than of ours. He adds to Probst's position the further idea that Apost. Const, (that is the original primitive use) is based on the Passover service, and does not discuss how the Roman Mass evolved out of the primitive use. There is then nothing to add here to what has been said above, except that in comparing the Christian and Jewish services the Christian side must be represented not by our present Roman Mass but by the Apost. Const. Our Mass is a later form, derived apparently from that, or from a parallel rite of the same construction. In this further derivation there is no new Jewish influence. If our Mass retains any elements of the Passover service it can be only in what it retains of the older rite ; that question, however one may decide it, does not affect what we now are con- sidering, the derivation of the Roman rite from earlier Christian elements.* ahenldndische Messe, Die dltesten romischen Sacramentarien u. Ordines. 1 In Connolly : Homilies of Narsai, p. 132, n. i. 2 Gustav Bickell, Prof, of Semitic Languages at Vienna from 1892- 1908 (t 15 Jan. 1908). 3 Above pp. 71-72. ^ Bickell does however compare Rome and Apost. Const. The two arranged in parallel columns according to his view will be found drawn 144 THE MASS % 8. Dom Ca^in. Dom Paul Cagin, O.S.B.^ in the fifth volume of the Solesmes PaUographie 7nusicale has defended a view that reverses our idea of the relation between the Roman and Gallican rites. He admits that the various non-Ro- man Western rites (Spanish, Milanese, British, Gallican etc.) are variants of one type,^ but he considers that this rite is nothing but the old Roman rite before it was modi- fied.^ On this basis, using Gallican documents for com- parison, Dom Cagin proposes this reconstruction of the Roman Canon before Innocent I: The Memento vivorum and Coinmunicantes^ the Memento defunctoruw. and Nobis quoque originally came before the Preface. They cor- respond to the Gallican diptychs at that place, after the procession that brought the oblata to the altar. ^ The kiss of peace followed, then came the Secrets, Preface, Sanctus. The Te igitur was once either a ^* Collectio post nomina," following the diptychs before the pre- face, or more probably, one form of the Epiklesis ^ cor- responding to the Gallican Postpridie and so following the words of Institution. The group Hanc igitur^ Quam oblationem, Qui pridie followed the Sanctus ; it corresponds to the Gallican Post Sa?tctus.^ The next group of prayers consists of the Unde et vie^nores , Supra qu(B, Supplices te rogamus. Following the * Per eumdem Christum Dominum nostrum ' at the end of the Sup- plices comes at once '' Per quem haec omnia ". All this group corresponds to the Gallican Post pridie or Post up in Cabrol : Les Origines Liturgiques^ pp. 343-347. There is little to notice specially here. 1 At Quarr Abbey, Isle of Wight. He was to a great extent antici- pated by Fr. H. Lucas, S.J. in the Dublm Review, 1893, pp. 564-588 and 1894, pp. 112-131. 2 This point may now be considered established. ^ This has been discussed above p. 99. Probst and others already defended this view, see p. 99, n. 2. ^ Cfr. e. gr. Duchesne : Origines du Ciilte, pp. 199-201. ^ This agrees with Buchwald, see p. 152. ^ Duchesne ; op cit. 205. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 14S secreta} The Per quem hcec omnia prayer was origi- nally the prayer of the fraction, made at that point, which closed the Canon. Abbot Cabrol, defending this view, points out that every other rite has a special prayer for the fraction. There is now none in the Roman Mass, an anomaly he explains by suggesting that it has been separated from its accompanyingjprayer by the Pater noster which St. Gregory I inserted before it. He also points out the resemblance between the doxology of the Per quem hcec omnia prayer and the prayer of the fraction in the Didache (ix, 4).^ Lastly, before St. Gregory, the Pater noster and its embolism (Libera nos qucesutnus) followed, outside the Canon. ^ In this way, Dom Cagin maintains, the prayers of our Canon follow one another in a logical order, which corresponds not only to that of the Gallican rite, but also to the various Eastern liturgies. Only the Post pridie group contains ideas that are peculiar to the Wes- tern rites. He brings forward the Missal of Bobbio to confirm his thesis. In this there are two documents of which the older one contains masses of the Vth cen- tury, all of which have the diptychs and kiss of peace before the Preface. Dom Cagin's theory has found favour especially among his brethren of Farnborough. Abbot Cabrol has resumed and defended it in his Origines liturgiques} On the other hand Mgr. Duchesne criticized it effect- ively in the Revue dhistoire et de litt^rature religieuses. ^ In conclusion one may perhaps say that the resem- blance between the Roman prayers and those of the Gallican rite to which (according to this theory) they correspond is not very apparent and that in spite of Dom Cagin's ingenious comparison there still remain 1 Duchesne, ih. 207-208. ^ hes Origines liturgiques, 362, n. 3. 3 So the Gallican rite, Duchesne, op. cit. 211. 4 Appendix I, pp. 352-372. ^ 1900, pp. 31 seq. 10 14^ THE MASS more powerful arguments against the Roman origin of the Gallican Mass, which is the basis of his whole position. § 9. W. C. Bishop. Mr. W. C. Bishop in the Church Quarterly Review^ has suggested a new and in many ways ingenious solution of the problem. He thinks that, down to the Vth century at least, the Roman rite stood alone and was used only in the immediate neighbourhood of Rome. There were then two great classes of liturgies, an Eastern class unaffected by the Calendar and $0 unchangeable, and a Western class (the Galli- can, Mozarabic, Keltic, even African rites) in which the service was variable according to the feast or season. The Roman Mass was a compromise be- tween these ; its unchanging Canon is Eastern, its Prefaces, Collects and other variable parts Western. Further he thinks that in the view of the early Church the essence of the Consecration was in the blessing which in the accounts of the Last Supper comes before the words of Institution. ^ Later, developed from this idea, the Epiklesis was considered the essential form. It was only in a still later period that the Roman dogma of the words of Institution as being the Con- secrating form expelled, or at least modified, the Epiklesis and changed its place.' His theory then is that originally the Roman Canon corresponded in its arrangement to that of the Eastern and Gallican Anaphoras, namely that its order was 1 July, 1908, pp. 385-403 : The primitive form of consecration of the Holy Eucharist. I take this account of his theory from Abbot Cabrol in the Dictionaire d^Archeologie, ii, 1895-1898. 2 This is also the view of Buchwald and others. It is described below pp. 404-405. 3 This too is an idea common to several writers ; see pp. 406-407. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 147 (i) a thanksgiving-prayer, especially for the Creation and Incarnation, (2) History of the Institution, (3) Anamnesis, (4) Epiklesis. The Roman Epiklesis is not the Supplices te rogamus prayer, but the Quam oblationem^ which originally followed the Anamnesis (Unde et memores). Mr. W. C. Bishop proposes as a model for his reconstruction of the Canon the prayer of the blessing of the font on Holy Saturday. It is well-known that liturgical or quasi-liturgical prayers are frequently modelled on others, older ones whose solemnity or popularity made them obvious examples.^ Is not the Benedictio fontis obviously an imitation of the older Canon ? It has the allusions to the Old Testament, the history of the institution (in this case of baptism), an anamnesis ^ followed by a clear invocation of the Holy Ghost. Following this order then, Mr. W. C. Bishop proposes this reconstruc- tion of the original Roman Canon : The Preface and Sanctus (not a Vera sanctus prayer, which supposes the later Benedictus) ; then the Te igitur. The two Mementos came earlier, at the Offertory, as Dom Cagin thinks. After the Te igitur followed Hanc oblationem ; then Supplices te rogamus^ Qui pridie with the words of Institution, Anamnesis and following it the Quam oblationem^ which is the Roman Epiklesis and so the end of the Canon. Mgr. Batiffol has criticized this system, rejecting it altogether.* He denies that the Epiklesis of the Holy 1 Mr. Edmund Bishop holds this idea in his Appendix to Dom R. H. Connolly's Liturgical Homilies of Narsai (Cambridge Texts and Studies, viii, i ; 1909), p. 136. 2 Thus the Preface of the Mass is the model of many other not Eucharistic prefaces, and so on. 3 Presumably : *' Haec nobis praecepta servantibus tu Deus omni- potens Clemens adesto, tu benignus aspira " ; not, I think, a very clear anamnesis. ^ In the Revue du Clerge Frangais, 15 Dec. 1908, pp. 641-662, cfr. ib, I Sept. 1908. 10 * 148 THE MASS Ghost is either primitive or universal or that there was originally such a prayer at Rome.-^ Abbot Cabrol further disputes the analogy between the bless- ing of the font and the Canon. ^ The point that we may chiefly notice in Mr. W. C. Bishop's theory is the Quarn oblationem as the Roman Epiklesis. He thinks it is a later form, modified because of the Roman belief in the efficacy of the words of institu- tion. Mr. Edmund Bishop, on the other hand, thinks it is an archaic form, relic of the time before the Holy Ghost was invoked.^ It is certainly the prayer in our Canon, as we now have it, that best answers to the idea of an Epiklesis. If it is the Roman Invocation, there is something to be said for its place having been moved ; all other such Invocations follow the Anam- nesis. § 10. Dr. Baumstark. Dr. Antony Baumstark ^ has exposed his theory in a work : Liturgia roniana e liturgia dell' Esarcato} He agrees in the main with Drews, whose system will be exposed below ; ^ so much so that Drews writes unkindly : " Baumstark has assented to it in a long exposition, but without bringing new proofs ''? This is not quite exact. Baumstark has his own ideas, though they do not seem tenable. Like Drews he admits a complete rearrangement of the Canon, whose earlier order may be found by comparing Eastern, especially the Jerusalem-Antioch- ene liturgies. Much of Drews* argument reappears here. He agrees too that the change was made under ^ For this question see below, pp. 405-406. ^ Dictionnaire d'archeologie, ii, 1898. ^Loc. cit. supra. 4 Director of the Campo Santo at Rome and some time editor of the halt-yearly Roman periodical Oriens Christiamis. 5 Rome, Pustet, 1904. ^ Pp. 156 165. ■^ U?itersnchungeny u.s.w. p. 123. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 149 the influence of Alexandria. But he differs from Drews as to the time and reason of the rearrangement. Baumstark thinks that there was a liturgy of Ravenna, of the Exarchate, derived from Alexandria. It was the influence of Ravenna, politically the chief city of Italy at the time,^ that made Rome under Leo I (440- 461) adopt its (Alexandrine) liturgy, combining it with the older Roman (Antiochene) rite. In our present Canon the prayers Te igitur. Memento vivorum, Communicantes and Memento defunctorum. are Antioch- ene ; the Hanc igitur^ Quam> oblationem^ Supra quce^ Supplices te and part of the Memento defunctorum. are from Alexandria through Ravenna. The combination of these two Canons has produced the present dis- location. St. Gregory I (590-604) finally worked over the composite prayer, left out certain repetitions and so gave the finishing touch to our Canon. For the rest Baumstark's suggested restoration of the original Canon ^ does not differ materially from that of Drews. Funk rejects it,^ though he says it is attractive;^ Dom G. Morin admits some of Baum- stark's ideas.^ Buchwald attacks especially the date and place of the Alexandrine influence. He thinks it very unlikely that the Roman Church should have adopted another Canon on the top of her own. In any case the real importance of Ravenna was under the Exarchs in the sixth and seventh centuries. This is too late. The Leonine book and de Sacramentis show that Rome had our Canon much earlier — by the ^ The Emperor Honorius (395-423) established himself at Ravenna in 402 ; but the Exarchs at Ravenna only began in the Vlth century. 2 Drawn up in his appendix, op. cit. pp. .183-186. ^ Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen, iii (Paderborn, 1907) : Ueber den Kanon der rom. Messe, pp. 11 7- 133. 4 76. 121. 5 Revue Benedictine, 1904, pp. 375-380. Drews criticizes Baum- stark's book, rejecting his view about Ravenna, in the Gottinger Gelehrten — Anzeigen^ igo6, pp. 781-886, I50 THE MASS end of the IVth century.^ However in one point Baumstark seems to have made a really important discovery, namely that the Hanc igitur prayer (with- out the later addition : " diesque nostros in tua pace disponas," etc.) is the fragment of an Intercession. He quotes a form of this prayer from two early Roman Sacramentaries in Gaul.^ It begins : " Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostrae, sed et cunctse familiae tuae, quaesumus Domine, placatus accipias, quam tibi devoto offerimus corde pro pace et caritate et unitate sanctae ecclesiae, pro fide catholica ..." and goes on with a series of well-ordered petitions, each beginning with the word pro^ just as the Greek intercessions begin each clause virep} Drews admits this readily and thinks that the Hanc igitur was once the deacon's prayer of Inclination which, as in the Eastern rites (e. gr. Apost. Const, viiiy xiii, 2-9), followed the celebrant's In- tercession prayer {Te igitur, Memento , Communicantes),^ When the deacon's part of the Mass was absorbed by the celebrant this prayer became useless. Baumstark thinks that the deacon's Inclination-prayer is a foreign addition to the Roman rite — part of his Alexandrine- Ravennatese liturgy.^ Drews maintains that it is part of the genuine Roman inheritance from the primitive rite, and says with some reason : ** At any rate my conjecture deserves more consideration than that of Baumstark." ^ 1 So Buchwald: Die Epiklese (see below p. 151) pp. 48-49. 2 One from the abbey of Vauclair, published by Martene in his Voyage litteraire de deux Benedictins (Paris, 1724) and one at Rouen published by Delisle and then by Ebner : Iter italicum (Freiburg, i8g6), 417. They represent apparently the time of the early use of the Roman rite in Gaul (VIII-IX cent. ?). 3 Liturgta romana, pp. 103-104. Baumstark draws up parallel forms from various Eastern rites (104-106). Drews finds, as one would expect, parallels from Apost. Const. VIII (Untersuchungejt^ 137-139). * lb. 139-140. See below pp. 162, 333. ^Liturgta romana, pp. 107-109. ^ UntersuchungeHy 140. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 1 5 1 § II. Dr. Buchwald. Dr. Rudolf Buchwald ^ in the first number of the Weidenauer Studien'^ writes an article on the Epiklesis in the Roman Mass ^ in which he proposes yet another theory about the origin of the Canon. Starting from the text of de Sacramentis^ he considers this to be neither Roman nor taken from Rome.^ That the work was not written at Rome is clear (above p. 129) ; I do not see on what ground he can deny that the prayers are taken from Rome in the face of the author's plain assertion that he follows in all things the model of the Roman Church (p. 129, above). But this detail matters little, as Buchwald admits that the prayers are the same as those of Rome. The Canon of de Sacramentis^ he says, is unchangeable, therefore Eastern. Further it is taken from Alexandria. This he maintains from the two prayers *' Fac nobis hanc oblationem " and: ^'et petimus et precamur*'. Of these he finds ingenious and striking parallels in the Alexandrine rite.^ His argument will repay careful study as an example of the way such parallels may be traced ; it is too long to repeat here. A Western Church then borrowed these prayers from Alexandria and recast them to suit its own rite.^ It did so in order to form an unchanging Canon instead of the former variable one used in all Western Churches. This happened in the fourth century, when there was a tendency in the West to adopt an unchanging form for the Canon. "^ The recital of the words of Institution {Qui pridie) and the Anamnesis (Ergo me7nores) were not taken from Alexandria, because these were already unchanging in ^ Professor at Breslau. 2 Edited by the Professors of the new theological seminary at Weidenau in Austrian Silesia (Weidenau and Vienna, 1906). 3 Pp. 21-56. 4 Ih. 34. 5 Pp. 36.41. 6 p. 42. ' So also Probst : Liturgie des iv Jhrhdts, 354-357- 152 THE MASS the West. The Church that borrowed these prayers in de Sacramentis was Milan in the IVth century.^ It took them from Aquileia, under whose influence Milan at that time stood. It was Aquileia that first got the prayers from Alexandria.^ And Rome too took its Canon from Aquileia^ at about the same time, as the allusion to Melkisedek in the Qucestiones vet, et novi test, shows. ^ The Leonianum confirms this.^ So the text of de Sacramentis represents also the Canon adopted by Rome. Our present Canon is the work of St Gregory I, who transformed the older one when he (because of the ever growing Western insistence on consecration by the words of institution) took away the Epiklesis of the Holy Ghost^ Buchwald reconstructs the Roman Epiklesis (from Leo I to Gregory I) thus : ^' Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per lesum Christum filium tuum supplices rogamus ac petimus uti accepta habeas et benedicas haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata, supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere et mittere digneris Spiritum sanctum tuum, ut fiat panis corpus et vinum sanguis unigeniti tui, et quotquot sacrosanctum Christi corpus et sanguinem sumpserimus omni benedictione caelesti et gratia re- pleamur "7 This Epiklesis came in the usual place after 1 Buchwald thinks that the author of de Sacr. was St. Ambrose {op. cit. 43). 2 P. 46 he gives reasons for his belief that Aquileia was then much influenced by Alexandria. E. gr. a Synod of Aquileia in 381 says : " in all things we always hold the order and arrangement of the Church of Alexandria " (p. 47). 3 Aquileia was a very important centre in the IVth century. In 337 the Bishop of Aquileia had the second place after the Pope in a Synod (p. 48). ^ Quoted above, p. 128. ^ For Buchwald's views about the Leonine book see above p. iig. ^ For Buchwald's ideas about the Roman Epiklesis see below p. 407. 7 op, cit. 55. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 153 the Anamnesis {Ergo memores, or Unde et mentor es). Apart from the mere fact that Rome once had an Epiklesis of the Holy Ghost ^ Buchwald arrives at this conjectural restoration in this way : Several phrases in our present Canon are difficult to explain logically, so that it may be deduced that they were not origin- ally composed in the order in which they now stand, but have been patched together at a later reconstruc- tion. For instance in Supra qu<2 we have an accusa- tive (quae) governed by a preposition, then an adjective directly governed by a verb (accepta habere) in apposition to it. This construction he describes, with reason, as '* harsh ".^ In Supplices the second half of the prayer (''ut quotquot," etc., a prayer for the communicants) does not follow naturally the first half (that God may receive the sacrifice at his heavenly altar) ; the clause " ex hac altaris partici- patione/* is "quite obviously'' introduced into the second half, to join it on to the former part. Early texts of the Canon still show uncertainty about this clause.^ The first part of our Te igitur prayer has all the appearance of the beginning of an Epiklesis ; ^ its second half ("in primis quae tibi offerimus,'* etc.) again did not originally belong to it. Imprifnis always connects a particular petition with a general one. This second part ought to follow a general prayer for all people^; we should then say naturally ^*and first for the Church, Pope (king) and bishop '\ The form then would be originally "imprimis tibi offerimus'\ ^ He proves this by the text of Gelasius I (below pp. 406-407) and, as will be shown (pp. 162, 167, etc.), in this point at least he agrees with most writers now. 2 P. 54. 3 The Stowe missal and Biasca Sacramentary have variants ; Buch- wald op. cit. 54. ^ Baumstark agrees about this ; Liturgia romana, pp. 128-138. ^ Such as, for instance, the Mozarabic form: "offerunt pro se et universa fraternitate " (P.L. Ixxxv. 5^3). 154 THE MASS The word qucB is an addition to join this to the Te igitur. "Supra quae'' would follow ''Sacrificia illi- bata*' admirably. We must add a clear Epiklesis, such as (after *'sereno vultu respicere ") **et mittere Spiritum sanctum, ut panis fiat corpus et vinum sanguis Christi." The second part of the Supplices prayer (''ut quotquot "), leaving out the clause ''ex hac altaris participatione " makes the usual end of an Epiklesis, namely a prayer for the communicants. So Buchwald arrives at his suggested old Roman Epiklesis. Gregory I broke up this prayer and scattered its fragments throughout the Canon. He took away altogether the vital phrase " et mittere Spiritum sanctum, etc." The following clause " ut fiat panis corpus, etc.,*' was conveniently attached to the end of the prayer " Quam oblationem," before the words of institution, and there took the place of the words : " quod est figura corporis et sanguinis Christi " (in de Sacrainentis, above p. 130). The solemn be- ginning of the Epiklesis (" Te igitur") was removed to the beginning of the whole Canon. So the passage "Supra quae propitio, etc." was left alone after the Anamnesis, where it still stands. Quce then referred to panem and calicem at the end of the Unde et tnemores. But its continuation as a prayer for the communicants was no longer suitable. So instead the end of the next prayer (about the heavenly altar, as in <^^ Sacra- mentis) namely " suscipere sicut suscipere dignatus es " and so on (about Abel, Abraham and Melkisedek) made a suitable ending for this Supra qucB prayer. Lastly the next prayer in question was modified by the addition of the clause " iube haec perferri " and kept the old petition for the communicants that ended the Epiklesis.^ A careful comparison of the Canon in de Sacra- 1 Op. cit. 55. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 155 mentis^ where (as we have seen) the phrases of our two prayers Supra qucB and Supplices occur in an inverted order (p. 131) will show that this suggested recon- struction agrees with it very well. Buchwald's other points also deserve attention ; his proposed Epiklesis is certainly ingenious. It reads (as above, p. 152) smoothly and plausibly. On the other hand one need hardly point out that his theory is pure conjecture. There are no documents to warrant it Indeed this way of breaking up the fragments of the Canon and rearranging them in a new mosaic is really a most arbitrary proceeding; his rejection of a word or clause here and there as being added later by St. Gregory is amusingly like the way the Higher Critics treat the Hexateuch. One other point of Buchwald's theory should be mentioned, his idea about the Hanc igitur prayer. Like Baumstark (p. 150) he sees that this was once a longer prayer of Intercession and he notes the tradi- tion that Gregory added to it '* diesque nostros in tua pace disponas" (p. 137). He also notices that the Hanc igitur was once a variable prayer.^ He believes then that St. Gregory, wishing to abolish these changes and to reduce the Canon to an unchanging form, substituted for the variable clauses one that contained their general idea in one fixed formula. This formula is the one we have, in which we pray for the living (diesque nostros), for the dead (ab aeterna damnatione) and remember the Saints (in electorum tuorum grege). The first part mentions the clergy (servitutis nostrae) and the people (cunctae familiae tuae) so the whole prayer became a shortened ^ The Leonianum gives various clauses for it on special occasions (e. gr. ed. Feltoe p. 123). We have still a special clause inserted at Easter and Pentecost. The Gelasianum has many such varying clauses. 156 THE MASS and invariable general intercession. Further the same hand that wrote ''servitutis nostrae sed et cunctae familiae tuae" in this prayer also wrote *^ nos servi tui sed et plebs tua sancta " ^ in the Anamnesis. He attributes both to Gregory.^ The tradition then that attributes to that great Pope the final revision of the Canon is justified. § 12. Dr. Drews. Dr. Paul Drews ^ in 1902 proposed his theory of the reconstruction of the Canon, in the first number of a new series of Studies in Liturgy.^ It was Drews who to a great extent aroused the present interest in this question ; his ideas are those that on the whole have found most favour (except among the people who are sceptical about all such theories). Funk at first rejected Drews' theory altogether.^ In a later article admitting Baumstark's ideas, at least in general,^ he apparently conceded the essence of what Drews had said.*^ Baumstark's theory is only a variant of that of Drews ; Rauschen too considers Drews' position the most probable one.^ Drews points out the want of consistent order, the abrupt transitions, reduplications and harsh construc- ^ Absent in de Sacr. (above p. 131). ^ Buchwald: op. cit. 53. 3 Then Professor of Practical Theology at the (Protestant) University of Giessen, now at Halle. ■^ Studien zur Geschichte des Gottesdienstes u. des gottesdienstlichen Lebens. I. Zur Enstehungsgeschichte des Kanons in der romischen Messe. Tubingen u. Leipzig, Mohr, 1902. 5 In the article quoted p, 165 n. 2. ^ Theologische Quartalschrift (Tiibingen) 1904, pp. 600 seq. '^ Drews quotes him in good faith as converted to his ideas (Unter- suchungen, p. 123) ; so also Rauschen (Eucharistie u. Busssakrament^ 108-iog). But in his Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen, iii, 134 Funk will not admit that he has changed his mind. I agree with Rauschen (op. cit. 109) in not understanding what he means. Unhappily Funk (t 1907) is no longer here to explain. 8/6. III. THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE i S 7 tions of our present Canon. Of these he notes especially the anomalous and unique state of the Intercession prayer, of which half {Memento vivormn, Communicant es) comes before, and half {Memento defunctorum^ Nobis quoque) after the consecration ; and then the mysterious igitur at the beginning {Te igitur) that refers to nothing that has gone before (Preface and Sanctus). He concludes therefore that our present text has been dislocated from an older order, in which the various prayers followed one another more logically. But he does not merely guess what that order was, nor propose an arbitrary rearrangement according to what seems more natural to him. He thinks that a basis for restoring the original Roman Canon may be found in the Greek liturgy of St. James. Namely the Roman Mass, he maintains, belongs to the same family as the rite of Jerusalem-Antioch ; ^ so that the original order of its prayers may be found by arranging them as the corresponding ones are arranged in St. James. To $hew this he draws up in parallel columns the Roman forms and those of Jerusalem. It does not seem possible to deny that there is a very remarkable identity, not only of ideas but even of clauses and words. There is not space here to reproduce all his parallel formulas ; one or two examples will serve as specimens ; references will supply the rest. Thus in our Te igitur prayer we have : 1 In a later work {Untersuchungen u.s.w.), as we have seen (pp. 68-70) Drews connects Rome with the primitive rite represented by Apost. Const. VIII. But he explains there (pp. 125-126) that there is no contra- diction in this. For, in the first place, St. James and Apost. Const, belong to the same family (Antioch-Jerusalem-Constantinople) and, in the second, it may still be maintained that Rome and Jerusalem kept together after both had developed from the primitive rite. It still seems that Jerusalem affected Rome (or vice versa?) in the later stage of evolution ; Baumstark too sees the relationship between these two rites. iS8 THE MASS Rome: In primis quae tibi offerimus pro ecclesia tua sancta catholica, quam pacificare, custodire, adunare et regere digneris toto orbe terrarum, una cum famulo tuo Papa nostro N. et Antistite nostro N. et omnibus orthodoxis atque catholicae et apos- tolicae fidei cultoribus. Jerusalem (Syrian rite) Wherefore we offer unto thee, O Lord, this same . . sacrifice for these thine holy places . . and especially for the Holy Sion . . and for thy holy Church which is in all the world . . . (Deacon) . . for the venerable and most blessed Mar N. our Patriarch, and for Mar N. metropolitan with the residue of the metropolitans and venerable orthodox bishops, let us beseech the Lord.i Older forms of the Latin Canon approach still nearer to the form of Jerusalem. Thus Optatus of Mileve says that the sacrifice is offered ^* for the Church which is one and is spread throughout the whole world ".^ Formerly at Rome there was here a prayer for the celebrant himself Cardinal Bona gives several such forms, e. gr : '' Mihi quoque indignissimo famulo tuo propitius esse digneris et ab omnibus meis delictorum offensionibus me clementer emundare dignare ".^ So also St. James (Brightman, 55, 90).^ The Emperor or King who was always named here in the Roman rite (after the Pope) occurs in the same place at Jerusalem (Brightman, 55). The Roman Memento vivormn has again the same phrases as the introduction to the Diptychs of the Living at Jerusalem (Brightman, 91): ''Remember also O Lord," "those who stand with us '' ( = " omnium circumstantium*'), ''those who have offered the offer- ings . . . and those for whom each has offered ". Our ConiTHunicantes corresponds in many phrases and ex- pressions to the list of Saints in St. James {ib. 56-57, ^ St. James' liturgy ; beginning of the Intercession (Brightman, pp. 89-90 ; cfr. 54-55), Drews quotes Renaudot's text in Latin. '^ de Schism. Donat. ii, 12 (ed. Ziwsa, Vienna, 1893, p, 47). ^ Rerum liturg. libri duo^ II, xi, 5 (Paris edition, 1672, p. 427). *St. Mark has this prayer too (Brightman, 130, 173). THE ORIGIN OF THE ROMAN RITE 159 93) and ends : " ut in omnibus protectionis tuae muni- amur auxilio" like the Jerusalem prayer ('*that we may find grace and mercy before thee, O Lord, for help in good time '' ib, 57). The second hdXf o{ Hanc igitur ("diesque nostros ") resembles the final clauses of St. James' commemoration of the dead (H/jlwv Se ra TiXrj T^9 ^co7] also has a great name as a scholar. His chief liturgi- cal work is the edition of the Leonine, Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries {Liturgia ro^nana vetus)} Dom Claude de Vert, O.S.B. (f 1708) as a reaction against the mystic interpretations of the middle ages explained the origin of all ceremonies as mere practical convenience in his : Explication simple, litt&ale et historic que des cMmonies de tEglise ; ^ he was answered iRome, 1658 ; constantly reprinted, e. gr. in Herder's Bibliotkeca ascetica mystica^ ed. A. Lehmkuhl, S.J. (Freiburg, igo6). 2 Rome, 1671, reprinted Paris 1672, etc. Opera oww/a Antwerp, 1677, Paris, 1678, etc. ^ Paris, i68g. ^ Paris, 1685. '* His life was written by Ruinart : Abrege de la Vie de Dom jfean Mabillon (Paris, 1709). See also E. de Broglie : Mabillon et la societe de r Abbaye de Saint-Germain (Paris, 1888). ^ Rouen, 1700-1702, second edition Antwerp, 1736-1738. ■^ Lyons, 1706. ^ Venice, 1748. ^ Paris, 1706-1713. To a great extent Dom Claude was certainly right. The origin of most of our ceremonies really was some reason of practical utility. But it is, of course, possible to urge this idea too far, as he did ; for instance the candles on the altar were symbolic from THE MASS SINCE GREGORY T 199 angrily by the Archbishop of Sens, John Languet de Gergy (•[• I7S3) • ^^ ^^^<^ ecclesice sensu circa sacrarum ccEremoniarum usu} The Oratorian Peter Lebrun (f 1729) wrote a large and important work : L! Explica- tion litt^rale^ historique et dogmatique des prikres et cMmonies de la messe} Pope Benedict X/F (Prosper Lambertini, 1 740-1758) took a great interest in liturgical matters and himself composed a treatise : De sacrosancto Sacrificio missce^ which is still read. Joseph Bingham in 1708 published a famous work Origines ecclesiasticce ^ on Christian antiquities of all kinds, including the liturgy. The early XlXth century was barren of liturgical studies. Then we have Daniel^^ Bunsen^^ Rock^ Dofn Gu^ranger ^ and so come to our own time and living authors.^ § 6. Mediaeval derived rites. We have seen that by the Xlth or Xllth centuries the Roman rite had expelled all others in the West, except at Milan and Toledo, and had become the one use of the Roman Patriarchate (pp. 177-182). The the beginning and not put there merely to give light by which to see, and so on. 1 Ed. by J. A. Assemani (Rome, 1757). ^ Paris, 1716-1726. 3 Originally in Italian ; translated into Latin by M. A. de Giaco- meUis, Padua, 1745, often reprinted, edited by J. Schneider, S.J. Mainz, 1879. ^ London. ^ Codex liturgicus eccl. universce (Leipzig, 1847). ^ Analecta anteniccEna, vol. iii : Reliquics liturgicce (London, 1854). ■^ Hierurgia (London, 1840) ; The Church of our Fathers (London, 1849-1853 ; new edition by Hart and Frere, 1905). 8 Institutions liturgiques (Paris, 1885), UAnnee Uturgique (Paris, 1841 seq.). 9 A much longer list of liturgical authors will be found in Cabrol : Introduction aux ttudes liturgiques (Paris, 1907). See also Hurter : Nomenclator litterariuSy vols, i-iii (1564-1894), iv (1109-1563) Innsbruck, 1892-1899. I have not mentioned such authors as Leo AUatius, Renau- dot, the Assemani, etc., who wrote of Eastern rites. 200 THE MASS next development is the evolution of the late mediae- val derived rites. In absorbing elements of the other liturgies it dis- placed, the Roman rite was not affected in the same way everywhere. The Gallican influence naturally varied to some extent in different countries. More- over there was no such ideal of exact uniformity in liturgy as we have now. Communication between countries was rarer and more difficult ; most priests never left their own diocese ; nor were laws so centralized as with us. So local bishops admitted local modifications ; certain prayers for instance at the celebrant's Com- munion would become popular in one diocese though unknown in another, local feasts would 'naturally be kept with special pomp in certain places, decorative ceremonies, processions, blessings and such like would become specialities of certain churches. ^ Then the influence of some central churches would affect their neighbours. The clergy of the country round and even of neighbouring dioceses would follow the use of some famous city, that is the Roman rite as used \xv that city. ^ So we have the various mediaeval derived rites. There were very many of them. Almost every diocese had some local peculiarities ; all the mediaeval period is full of continual action and reaction, mutual influence and the grouping of dioceses under the leadership of some centre. Of these almost endless local variations of the Roman rite many became famous and eventually were followed by large areas. There were the rites of Lyons, Paris, Rouen, Trier, Koln, Salisbury, York and so on. But none of them ever ^ Such local ceremonies often arose from the presence of some local shrine or even from the architecture or furniture of the church. 2 All this is only again the working of the natural instincts that produced different rites long ago ; see pp. 76-78. THE MASS SINCE GREGORY I 201 became really new liturgies. There were too many books, the use of Rome was too well known and too venerated to allow of the formation of really different rites, as in the old days when the use of Antioch gave birth to the Byzantine and Armenian liturgies. This mediaeval development represents a middle stage between the old independent rites and the present rigid uniformity. It would be a gross mistake to imagine the uses of Lyons, Paris or Salisbury as really separate rites, essentially different from that of Rome. It confuses the whole issue to represent them as on a level with the old Gallican rite or to compare their position with that of Milan or Toledo. The Gallican, Ambrosian and Mozarabic liturgies are really inde- pendent, with no more connection with Rome than there is always between any Christian services.^ But Lyons, Sarum and so on are merely local varieties of the Roman rite. The whole construction of the Roman Mass is unchanged ; all the really important parts are the same. They are merely the Roman rite with quite unimportant local variations. They can indeed hardly be called derived rites ; if one may take a parallel from philology one may describe them best as dialects of the Roman rite. ^ And all are much later in origin and form than the pure Roman rite to which we have returned. Their differences are merely exuberant additions ; nearly all are highly decorated. They have, of course, local feasts and then curious symbolic ceremonies, copious processions, farced texts, additional and very long prayers and chants, a plethora of extra Sequences, Prefaces, hymns and so on. Often these mediaeval additions are much too ornate, many ^ Supposing, of course, that the origin of these is not Roman, as we have supposed above (pp. 100- loi). 2 This parallel makes the situation clear. To distinguish the Roman, Sarum and Mozarabic liturgies on the same plane is like classifying English, Yorkshire dialect and French as three languages. 50^ THE MASS ruin the meaning of the simpler ceremonies that were no longer understood. -^ There were derived rites, or rather local forms of the Roman rite with various amounts of special ceremonies and prayers, all over Western Europe during the Middle Ages. Some were more important as being the customs of famous cities, some went much further than others in their modifications. But it would be a mistake to suppose that there were a small number of admitted non-Roman uses, each followed in a large area. The examination of mediaeval missals and rituals shows that practically every cathedral had some litur- gical practices of its own.^ Many religious orders too had their own customs. The monastic rite (also a form of the Roman) affects the divine office rather than the Mass ; the Dominican,^ Carmelite and Car- thusian uses that survive are the best known cases. The local rite of Salisbury (usus Sarum)^ which a century or two before the Reformation spread over most of Southern England and did not disappear till the law of Pius V (1570) was enforced in the English seminaries abroad,^ will supply a good example of a 1 For instance, in the Sarum rite on Palm Sunday they uncovered the rood, carried the Blessed Sacrament in the procession and strewed flowers about. They threw unconsecrated hosts, *' singing breads," among the choir-boys. Their Holy Week ceremonies may be studied in H. J. Feasey : Ancient English Holy Week Ceremonial (London, 1897) and H. Thurston : Le7it and Holy Week (London, 1904). It is very curious, rather barbarous, much too ornate, im- measurably less dignified than ours now, anything in the world rather than archaic or primitive. 2 I have, for instance, a XlVth cent, missal of Limoges that has a number of such local peculiarities, all of course imbedded in the Roman Mass. One does not hear much about the Limoges rite, but it is as much one as that of Sarum. 3 The Dominican Mass is a typical example. It has a few more Gallican practices than the usual Roman Mass; for instance the pre- paration of the bread and wine before Mass begins. But it is essenti- ally Roman all through. ^ Dr. Edwin Burton is kind enough to give me details of what happened at Douay, From Dec. 1576 to Apr. 1577 the students studied THE MASS SINCE GREGORY I 203 mediaeval derived rite and will show how little the parent liturgy of Rome was modified in it. First Sarum had feasts of its own (English Saints) ; its pro- pers (Introits, Graduals, etc.) were not always the same as those we now have. The actual texts sung on the various days varied all over Europe ; so also the lessons. An Introit, Epistle and so on came always in the same place ; but whether, for instance, the In- troit of the fourth Sunday of Advent was Rorate c(2li, as in the present missal, or Memento nostri, as at Salis- bury, is a detail of small liturgical importance. There were a vast number of sequences all through the year, as there were everywhere, most of which the reform of Pius V ejected, keeping the five best.^ There were little details of names ; the Introit was generally (not in all Sarum books) called officium. The Creed was said rather oftener than now. Sarum counted Sun- days not after Pentecost, but after Trinity, a late and altogether indefensible practice.^ The colours of the vestments are hardly worth mentioning. All se- quences of colours are late ; ^ in the middle ages there the (to them) unfamiliar Roman rite (according to Pius V's missal) under the direction of Dr. Lawrence Webbe, who had come from Rome to teach it. George Godsalf, ordained on Dec. 20, 1576, must have been the first English priest to say Mass according to the reformed Missal. A notice of Dr. Webbe's instructions is in the Douay diary for 23 Apr. 1577 {Records of the English Catholics ufider the Penal Laws, London, 1878, p. 118). 1 Below pp. 275-276. 2 The feast of the Holy Trinity is itself a late addition to the Calendar, introduced gradually since about the Xth century (approved for Rome by John XXII in 1334 : see Kellner : Heortologie, Freiburg, igoi, pp. 76-77). It is moreover an additional feast, not a Sunday, no part of the organic cycle, but falling on the first Sunday after Pentecost (which still has its own office), as the feast of the Holy Name falls on the second Sunday after Epiphany. The Gregorian Sacramentary counts the Sundays after the three Cardinal feasts, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost, long before there was a Trinity feast. We keep the old and organic division of the year. This example will serve to show how little Sarum was archaic or primitive. 3 Since the end of the XII cent. (J. Braun : Die liturgische Gewand- 204 THE MASS was no kind of uniformity in this matter. Even the English churches that followed Sarum used all manner of combinations ; and there was everywhere the custom of wearing the handsomest vestments, of any colour, for great feasts.-^ Turning to more important matters, we find that the Sarum Mass differed from our present Roman Mass in these points only : Kyrie eleison, Pater, Ave and a versicle were inserted before the Confiteor, which was shorter than ours. A kiss of peace was given to the deacon and subdeacon before going up to the altar. The Kyrie was often farced, as everywhere in the middle ages. The prayers at the Offertory were rather shorter and the offertory of bread and wine was made by one act When the celebrant washed his hands, he said, not the psalm Lavabo, but another prayer : " Munda me Domine" etc. He bowed instead of genuflecting at the elevation and stretched out his arms at Unde et memores. The particle was put in the chalice after Agnus Dei. The prayers at the Communion vary, there is no mention of the blessing at the end of Mass, the celebrant said the last gospel (as bishops still do) on the way back to the sacristy.^ That is all. It will be seen that these slight differ- ences are all connected with the later parts of the Mass, in which there was variety in the Roman rite throughout the middle ages. In everything of any ung, Freiburg, 1907, pp. 729-731). The Eastern Churches have still no idea of liturgical colours. 1 E. G. Atchley : Liturgical Colours in V. Staley: Essays on Cere- monial (London, 1904), 89-176, - Missale ad usum insignis et pr cedar ce ecclesice Sarum, ed. by F. H. Dickinson, Burntisland, 1861-1883 ; Ordinarium Missae, 577-638. Rock: Church of our Fathers^ ed. by G. W. Hart and W^. H. Frere. London, 1905, iv. 135-228. W. H. Frere : The Use of Sarum. I, The Sarum Customs, Cambridge, 1898. T. E. Bridgett : A History of ihe Holy Eucharist in Great Britain, ed. by H. Thurston, London, igo8, 80-93. THE MASS SINCE GREGORY T 205 importance at all Sarum (and all other mediaeval rites) was simply Roman, the rite which we still use. Not only was the whole order and arrangement the same, all the important prayers were the same too. The essential element, the Canon, was word for word the same as ours. No mediaeval bishop dared to touch the sacred Eucharistic prayer. We must remember that the important elements of a rite are not the things that will first be noticed by a casual and ignorant onlooker — the number of candles, colour of the vest- ments and the places where the bell is rung — but just those things he would not notice, the Canon, fraction and so on, the prayers said in a low voice and the characteristic but less obvious rites done by the cele- brant at the altar. It is then quite accurate to say that from the time of the Synod of Cloveshoe in 747 to the Reformation, the Roman rite was used throughout England ; though we may add the further detail that it was used in slightly modified local forms.^ 7. The Reform of Pius V (1570). The Protestant Reformers naturally played havoc with the old liturgy. It was throughout the expres- sion of the very ideas (the Real Presence, Eucharistic 1 Dr. Rock's Anglican editors supply a notable example of the point of view just deprecated. They tell us that *' if the learned author were alive now and wished to find examples of the old English ways which were so dear to him, he would have to go to the Churches of the Establishment rather than to those of the Roman Catholic body" {pp. cit. iv, 300). That is to say, many High Church Anglicans now use an older shape of chasuble, light two candles instead of six and so on. And people think that these Httle details of external ornament make a rite. The Communion Service in the Anglican Prayerbook is essentially a new service made up by the Reformers ; its chief element, the Conse- cration prayer, is adopted from a Lutheran form. It has hardly more in common with the Sarum form of our Roman Mass than have the Lutheran Communion services. You do not turn it into a Sarum Mass by tacking on alien ornaments or by using red on Gogd Friday. 2o6 THE MASS Sacrifice and so on) they rejected. So they substituted for it new Communion services that expressed their principle but, of course, broke away utterly from all historic liturgical evolution. The Council of Trent (1545-1563) in opposition to the anarchy of these new services wished the Roman Mass to be celebrated uni- formly everywhere. The mediaeval local uses had lasted long enough. They had become very florid and exuberant ; and their variety caused confusion. It would be better for all Roman Catholics ^ to go back to an older and simpler form of the Roman rite. In its eighteenth session (16 Febr. 1562) the Council appointed a commission to examine the missal, to revise it and restore its earlier form. At the close of the council (4 Dec. 1563) the commission had not yet finished its work, so further proceedings were left to the Pope (Pius IV, 1559-1565). The commission consisted of Cardinal Bernadine Scotti, Thomas Gold- well, the last Catholic Bishop of St. Asaph (both Thea- tines) and others, including Cardinal William Sirlet and Giulio Poggi. They accomplished their task very well. It was not to make a new missal, but to restore the existing one " according to the custom and rite of the holy Fathers," using for that purpose the best manuscripts and other documents. Pius IV died be- fore the work was finished ; it was ended under Pius V (i 566-1 572). On July 14, 1570, the Pope published the reformed missal by the Bull Quo primzim, still printed 1 Using the name Roman for the rite, as we do other place-names (Byzantine, Armenian, Coptic etc.), we are all Roman Catholics in the West, except the faithful of Milan, Toledo and the Byzantine parishes in Southern Italy, Corsica etc. A man of Toledo, who uses or fre- quents the local liturgy, is not a Roman but a Mozarabic Catholic (certain families have this distinction). Uniates in the East are Catholics but not Roman. "Roman Catholic Greek'' is nearly as absurd as " Roman Catholic Nestorian ". These people are Byzantine and East Syrian Cathohcs. Strictly the Milanese and Toletans are Uniates too. THE MASS SINCE GREGORY I 207 at its beginning. Its title was : Missale Romanum ex decreto ss. Concilii Tridentini restitutum. The Bull commands that this missal alone be used wherever the Roman rite is followed. No one, of whatever rank he be, shall use any other. *' All rites from other missals, however old, hitherto observed, being in future left out and entirely abandoned, Mass shall be sung or said according to the rite, manner and standard which is given in this missal ; nor in celebrating Mass shall anyone dare to add or recite other ceremonies or prayers than those that are contained herein." That made an end of the mediaeval derived rites. But the Pope made one important exception. The Bull allowed any rite to be kept that could show a prescription of at least two centuries. This rule saved some modified uses. A few dioceses, as Lyons, kept and still keep their local forms ; so also some religious orders, notably the Dominicans, Carmelites and Carthusians. What is much more important is that the exception saved what was left of really independent rites at Milan and Toledo.-^ The student of liturgy may regret the expulsion of the old Gallican rite in the Vlllth and IXth cen- turies ; but from what has been said it is clear that we need not waste a sigh over the extinction of the mediaeval uses in the XVIth. Those late exuberant modifications of the old Roman rite only made way for it in its purer form. To contrast ''ancient Sarum " with the " modern Roman " is absurd. The rite re- 1 These are, it will be remembered on quite a different plane from such modifications of Rome as Sarum. They are really separate rites ; it would have been deplorable if they had disappeared. A good many mediaeval uses that might no doubt have claimed a prescription of two centuries did not do so, presumably because bishops preferred to con- form to St. Pius' Missal, England could no doubt have claimed a pre- scription for Sarum (see p. 202, n. 4). I have heard (but cannot verify the statement) that in James IPs reign many priests did restore and use the Sarum rite* 2o8 THE MASS stored by Pius V is the old one, incomparably more archaic and venerable than the mediaeval developments. Uniformity in liturgy throughout the Church has never been a Catholic ideal. No one wants to replace the Eastern liturgies, or even those of Milan and Toledo, by Rome. But it is a reasonable ideal that those who use the Roman rite should use it uniformly in a pure form.^ The missal of Pius V is the one we still use. Later revisions are of slight importance. No doubt in every reform one may find something that one would have preferred not to change. Still, a just and reasonable criticism will admit that Pius V's restoration was on the whole eminently satisfactory. The standard of the commission was antiquity. They abolished later ornate features and made for simplicity, yet without destroying all those picturesque elements that add poetic beauty to the severe Roman Mass. They ex- pelled the host of long sequences that crowded Mass continually, but kept what are undoubtedly the five best (p. 276) ; they reduced processions and elaborate ceremonial, yet kept the really pregnant ceremonies, candles, ashes, palms and the beautiful Holy Week rites. Certainly we in the West may be very glad that we have the Roman rite in the form of Pius V's missal. § 8. Later revisions and modern times. Three times again since Pius V the missal has been revised ; we are now at the eve of a fourth revision. By the time of Clement VIII (1592-1605) printers had corrupted the text in several ways. Pius V had left the biblical chants in the form of the Itala. In many editions these texts had been modified to agree with 1 Pure compared with the mediaeval accretions. We have seen that this pure form already had Gallican and other foreign elements (p. 183). THE MASS SINCE GREGORY t 209 the Vulgate of 1592, and other corruptions had crept in. Clement VIII therefore appointed a commission to revise the missal once more. It consisted of Car- dinals Baronius and Bellarmine, of Gavanto (p. 197) and four others. Their work was only to correct these corruptions. They did not in any way modify the Mass. The Pope published this second revised missal by the Bull Cum Sanctissimum of July 7, 1604.-^ Urban VIII (1623-1644) again appointed a commis- sion, whose chief work was to simplify and make clearer the rubrics. On Sept. 2, 1634 he published his revised missal by the Bull Si quid est. '^ Benedict XIV (i 740-1 758), who did so much for the reform of the liturgy, did not revise the missal.^ Leo XIII (i 878-1 903) found it necessary to make a new revision. The great number of new Saints days and the multi- plication of Masses had produced the result that many were never said at all, being always supplanted by others. The Congregation of Rites then reduced some feasts and did something towards simplifying the Calendar. At the same time the rubrics were cor- rected to accord with various decisions made since Urban VIII. This new edition (the last as far as the text is concerned) was published in 1884. The book we use is therefore : Missale Rontanmn ex decreto ss. concilii Tridentini restitutum, S. Pii V Pont. Max. iussu editum, dementis VIII, Vrbani VIII et Leonis XIII auctoritate recognitum.. But already Pius X has made a further revision, not of the text, but of the music. The Vatican Gradual of 1906 contains new, or rather restored, forms of the chants sung by the celebrant, therefore to be printed 1 The second Bull printed at the beginning of the missal. 2 The third Bull i6. 3 His work affected the Ritual, Pontifical and Cceremoniale Epis- coporum. 14 2IO THE^MASS in the missal. Since then the > authentic editions of the book are those that contain these chants conformed to the Vatican Gradual. It is further to be expected that when the commission now restoring the Vulgate has finished its work, the lessons ^ in the missal will be conformed to the new text. This will mean a new revision. Meanwhile, since Pius V, a number of dio- ceses, chiefly in France and Germany, which at first kept their own missals on the strength of a prescription of two centuries, gradually conformed more and more, at last entirely, to the Roman editions. But towards the end of the XVIIth century a contrary tendency began. A number of French bishops composed or authorized new missals and breviaries for their dioceses. These were in no sense relics of the mediaeval local rites ; they were new compositions, sometimes excel- lent in their sober scholarship,^ but often absurd in their pseudo-classic latinity. It was the age of hymns in classical metres, like a schoolboy's Latin verses, when heaven was '* Olympus" and hell '* Hades" — of which ridiculous time we have still too many traces in our liturgical books. These French ^ offices then represent a new case of the old tendency towards local modi- fication which the Council of Trent had meant to repre5s. They are commonly attributed to Gallican ideas and are supposed to be not free from Jansenist venom. ^ Some of these local French uses survived almost to our own time. They were supplanted by the Roman books in the XlXth century, chiefly by the exertions of Dom Prosper Gu6ranger (fiS/s).^ 1 The chants are not in the Vulgate text, see p. 223. 2 This applies especially to the lessons of these breviaries. 3 There were others too, notably those of Koln (1780), Miinster (1784), Pistoia (1787) etc. ^ Certainly many of the bishops who approved these offices (de Vintimille of Paris, etc.), were appellants. ^ The second volume of his Institutions liturgiques (Paris, 1841) contains a history of these French offices. THE MASS SINCE GREGORY T 211 Now, except for the Ambrosian and Mozarabic rites, the local forms of Lyons and of a few religious orders, the whole Latin West uses, a uniform Roman missal. The only trace of local variety left is the proper Masses of dioceses, provinces and religious orders. These, collected as appendices, affect the Calendar and produce the effect that the same Mass is by no means always said on the same day everywhere. Since the Council of Trent the history of the Mass is hardly anything but that of the composition and approval of new Masses. The scheme and all the fundamental parts remain the same. No one has thought of touching the venerable liturgy of the Roman Mass, except by adding to it new Propers. There has not even been a new preface ^ or a new Communt- cantes prayer. What has happened is an endless addition of Masses for new feasts. The old order of the Missal consists first, of the Masses for the course of the Ecclesiastical year, the Proprium Missarum de tempore^ revolving around Easter,^ which is supposed to be the normal Calendar. Then follows the Proprium Missarum de Sanctis, the feasts (chiefly of Saints) fixed to days of the civil year which occasionally over- lapped the regular order ^^de tempore". Then come the Common Masses, Votive Masses, various addi- tional collects, Requiems and blessings. To this order a constantly growing series of appendices is added. We have Masses to be said "aliquibus in locis" (a large group), new Votive Masses, a further appendix for the province or diocese and sometimes another for the religious order of the celebrant. So ^ Some local and "Regular" missals have special prefaces; but most of these date from before Pius V. The Benedictine preface for St. Benedict's feast is modern. 2 Christmas and its cycle (Advent to Epiphany and then to Septua- gesima), although fixed by the civil Calendar, are part of the Proprium de tempore. It is so already in the Gregorian Sacramentary. 14 * 2 12 THE MASS the Proper of Saints, once an occasional exception, now covers very nearly the whole year and the search for the Mass to be said has become a laborious pro- cess. The old Kalendarium, still printed at the beginning of the Missal, is merely a relic of earlier days. It is no more consulted than the directions for finding Easter. We now need a current ^* Ordo " that tells us which Mass to seek in which appendix, A further complication is caused by the popular modern plan of attaching a feast, not to a day of the month but to some Sunday or Friday. Such feasts are fitted awkwardly among the fixed ones. The liturgical student cannot but regret that we so seldom use the old offices which are the most character- istic, the most Roman in our rite, of which many go back to the Gelasian or even Leonine book. And merely from an aesthetic point of view there can be no doubt that the old propers are more beautiful than modern compositions. It is these old propers that show the austere dignity of our liturgy, that agree in feeling with the Ordinary and Canon, happily still unaltered. It is the old collects that really are collects ^ and not long florid prayers. A tendency to pile up explanatory allusions,^ classical forms that savour of Cicero and not at all of the rude simplicity that is real liturgical style, florid rhetoric that would suit the Byzantine rite in Greek rather than our reticent Roman tradition, these things have left too many traces in the later propers. It is astonishing that the people should have so little sense of congruity, ap- parently never think of following the old tradition, or of harmony with the old ordinary. We obey the ^ See pp. 249-251. 2 E. gr. : *' Deus qui beatam lulianam virginem tuam extreme morbo laborantem pretioso Filii tui corpore mirabiliter recreare dignatus es," etc. (Collect of St. Juliana Falconieri, 19 June). THE MASS SINCE GREGORY I 213 authority of the Church, of course, always. But it is not forbidden to hope for such a Pope again as Benedict XIV who will give us back more of our old Roman Calendar.^ Yet, after all, the new Masses have not absorbed the whole year. There are many days still on which we say the Mass that has been said for centuries, back to the days of the Gelasian and Leonine books. And when they do come, the new Masses only affect the Proper. Our Canon is untouched, and all the scheme of the Mass. Our Missal is still that of Pius V. We may be very thankful that his Commission was so scrupulous to keep or restore the old Roman tradition. Essentially the Missal of Pius V. is the Gregorian Sacramentary ; that again is formed from the Gelasian book, which depends on the Leonine collection. We find the prayers of our Canon in the treatise de Sacramentis and allusions to it in the IVth century. So our Mass goes back, without essential change, to the age when it first developed out of the oldest liturgy of all. It is still redolent of that liturgy, of the days when Caesar ruled the world and thought he could stamp out the faith of Christ, when our fathers met together before dawn and sang a hymn to Christ as to a God.^ The final result of our enquiry is that, in spite of unsolved problems, in spite of later changes, there is not in Christendom another rite so venerable as ours.^ ^ Since this was written the hope has already been in great part fulfilled. The decree Divino afflatu of Nov. i, 191 1 does give us back much of the old Proprium temporis for office and Mass. 2 PHnii iun. Epist. x, 97, a.d. 112 (p. 16). 2 The prejudice that imagines that everything Eastern must be old is a mistake. All Eastern rites have been modified later too ; some of them quite late. No Eastern rite now used is so archaic as the Roman Mass. PART II. THE ORDER OF THE MASS. CHAPTER V. THE MASS OF THE CATECHUMENS TO THE LESSONS. § I . Arrangements of the Parts of the Mass. In this second part we consider the Mass as it now is and add notes to its text. So far we have examined its general development out of the origin of all liturgies in the New Testament. There remain many things to say about each detail. In our scheme we take as the normal rite High Mass celebrated by a priest. We have seen that Low Mass is merely a compendium of that ; no ceremony of Low Mass can be understood except by reference to High Mass ; at Low Mass too the ghosts of the deacon and subdeacon hover around the altar.^ It might be thought still righter to take the Mass of a bishop, the perfect Sacerdos, as the normal rite ; but liturgically, even theologically, it is not so. 1 For instance, why at Low Mass is the book moved across the altar for the Gospel ? Simply because at High Mass the deacon sings the Gospel on the North Side. What is the " lube Domine benedicere " prayer ? It is the blessing of the deacon before the Gospel. Why does the celebrant always turn round by the right side ? Because at High Mass he should not turn his back to the deacon, and so on continually. 214 THE MASS OF THE CATECHUMENS 215 As far as the Eucharistic sacrifice is concerned the presbyter, **sacerdos secundi ordinis," has the same position as his bishop. The priest's Mass is not cur- tailed from that of the bishop, as is Low Mass from High Mass. On the contary, most of the special cere- monies of a Pontifical High Mass are later additions made to enhance the dignity of the celebrant.^ A priest's High Mass is the best basis on which to discuss our liturgy. The essential division of the Mass is between that of the Catechumens and that of the Faithful. This division is now so hidden in the Roman rite that most people hardly think of it There is little to mark the end of one and the beginning of the other ; in fact the later Creed which just overlaps the transition covers it completely. Nevertheless, historically, this is the most important distinction of all. The Mass of the Cate- chumens consists of the processional psalm of the en- trance, while the celebrant says private prayers, then follow the remnant of the old litany, the hymn that follows it, the collects, the lessons interspersed with psalms and the sermon. The Creed comes at the junction between the two services. The Mass of the Faithful begins with the fragment of their prayers ; then follow the Offertory and Secrets, the Eucharistic prayer (beginning with its preface) containing the great Intercession, the account of the Last Supper with the words of institution and a fragmentary Epiklesis. Then come the Lord's Prayer, the fraction accompanied by the Agnus Dei and the Communion. The thanks- giving for Communion, dismissal, the later blessing and last Gospel end the service. We have then this scheme of the Mass : 1 Not all. The bishop keeps some archaic features, which will be noted. 2i6 THE MASS Mass of the Catechumens Introit (The Celebrant's preparation) First incensing of the altar Kyrie eleison, Gloria, Collects, Lessons and Gradual. Sermon (Creed) (End of Mass of the Catechumens). Mass of the Faithful Prayers of the Faithful, Second incensing of the altar, Offertory act and chant. Secrets. Preface, Canon, Pater noster. Fraction and Agnus Dei, Communion and its antiphon, Post-communion, Dismissal, Blessing and Last Gospel. § 2. The Introit, The first element of the Mass is the Introit, although the celebrant at the altar does not himself read it till later. It is, of course, simply the processional psalm sung as those who are about to celebrate and assist come in. We meet with Introits for the first time in the earliest Antiphonaries and Ordines ; ^ but long lit belongs to the choir's part and so is not found in the Sacra- mentaries. THE MASS OF THE CATECHUMENS 217 before their date we may conjecture that the entering procession sang something as it proceeded. Music of some kind is a very old and almost inevitable accompaniment of any procession. Anyone may notice the mournful effect of a body of people march- ing in order in perfect silence. Nor is it doubtful what was sung. The only hymn-book of the early Church was the book of psalms. It was from the psalter that the Church, in East and West, took all her chants. We may then suppose a psalm sung at the entrance as one of the oldest features of the Mass, though the first writers, hardly considering it part of the service (which began at the altar), do not mention it. The Liber Pontificalis ascribes the Introit-psalm to Pope Celestine I (422-432) : '^ Hie multa constituta fecit et constituit ut psalmi David CL ante sacri- ficium psallerentur antiphonatim ab omnibus ; quod ante non fiebat, nisi tantum epistola beati Pauli recitabatur et sanctum evangelium".^ The mediaeval writers repeat this and explain that Celestine intro- duced the psalm, to which Gregory I afterwards added the antiphon.^ Probst thinks that Gelasius I (492-496) first used Introits.^ It is perhaps safest to explain the Introit merely as the psalm which inevitably accom- panied the entering procession as soon as it was looked upon as a procession at all. As soon as the Roman Church adopted her present way of singing psalms she naturally used it for the Introit psalm too. The two Doxology verses {Gloria Patri and Sicut eraf) were added to psalms at Rome, at least in the time of Cassian (f 435).'* The short verse before and after ^ Ed. Duchesne, i, 230. 2E. gr. Honorius of Autun: Gemma animcB i, 87 (P.L. clxxii, 572). ^ Die abendl. Messe § 36. "* Cassian : de Instit. Coenoh. ii, 8 (P.L. xlix, 94). These verses are much less universal at the end of psalms in the East. Some people say that St. Jerome and St. Damasus introduced them in the West 2i8 THE MASS the psalm that we now call the Antiphon ^ came from the East (Antioch). It was originally repeated all through the psalm. One person sang the psalm and the people sang the antiphon after each verse.^ St. Ambrose (f 397) introduced the Antiochene manner of psalm-singing in the West.^ Gradually the Anti- phon was reduced to the beginning and end only.* This so far concerns the manner of singing psalms in general. As soon as we hear of the Introit-psalm at Rome we find it sung in this way — an antiphon, the psalm, Doxology and antiphon repeated. The Gre- gorian Sacramentary begins with the rubric: ''In primis ad introitum antiphona qualis fuerit statutis temporibus, sive diebus festis seu quotidianis" ^ The psalm that follows is understood. The Gregorian antiphonary gives its first verse. ^ But soon a whole psalm was found to be too long. In the first Roman Ordo, when all is ready, the " schola cantorum " begins the ''antiphona ad introitum". As soon as the deacons hear it they go to the sacristy and lead the (cfr. Baumer : Gesck. des Breviers^ Freiburg, 1895, PP- 124, 222). The clause : *' Sicut erat in principio " is a later addition, still unknown in the East, which has only: ** /cal vvv koX ae\ Koi ets rovs alwuas rutv al(t>vu)V' oLfxiiv ". The Synod of Vaison in 529 orders its use, as a protest against the Arians, (Canon 5 ; Hefele-Leclercq: Hist, des Concilcs, Paris, 1908, ii, p. 1115). It seems that the second verse referred originally to God the Son (" as he was in the beginning" etc.). At one time the Greeks made a grievance of our use of the words "sicut erat in principio" ; see Walafrid Strabo : de eccl. rev, 25 (P.L. cxiv, 954). '^Antiphona (auTLcpcou-f} '* answering voice") was used originally of any chant sung alternately by two choirs, then the whole psalm so sung was an ayitiphojia^ or psalmus antiphonus. 2 As we sing the Invitatorium psalm {94) at matins and in the third nocturn of the Epiphany. The antiphon has the practical advantage of determining the tone of the psalm. People knew the Psalter by heart, or had a book of psalms. But they did not know each time to what tone to sing. The Antiphon showed that. ^ Cfr. St. Augustine's Confessions, ix, 7, * A further reduction limits the antiphon frequently to the end, only its first words being sung at the beginning, as is well known. How- ever this never happens at the Introit. 5 In Menard's edition (P.L. Ixxviii, 25). ^Ih, 641-724. THE MASS OF THE CATECHUMENS 219 Pope to the church and altar. But when he arrives there, has prayed and given the kiss of peace to his ministers, he makes a sign to the choirmaster to leave out the rest of the psalm and go on at once to the Gloria.^ By the time of the Xth Roman Ordo (XI th cent. ?) the Introit-psalm is already reduced to its present state, one verse only.^ Durandus explains and justifies this.^ It is only the processional-chant, so there is no reason to go on with it after the celebrant has arrived at the altar. The singing of the antiphon (whose chant became more and more elaborate) twice, and of three verses (including Gloria Patri and Sicut eraf) lasts long enough for the procession. The Introit is the first of the variable parts of the Mass, changing according to the Sunday or feast. The first Roman Introits we know (in the Gregorian Antiphonary) are different for each Mass. Why this is so is part of a larger question : why and when did our Mass begin to be affected so profoundly by the Calendar? We have already noted this influence of the Calendar as a peculiarity of the Western (Roman and Gallican) rites (pp. 99, 146). The Eastern liturgies are the same all the year round. ^ We have also seen that the origin of the Western practice is one of the problems that cannot be solved with any certainty. Probst's theory was that Pope Damasus first began to modify the Mass so as to make its parts variable (p. 142). This will do well enough as a working hypothesis. At any rate some early Pope made this change. The original rite (as in Justin Martyr, the Apostolic Constitutions etc.) was ap- parently unchanging.^ 1 J6. 941-942. So also the II, III, V and VI Ordines. 2P.L. Ixxviii, loio. "^Rationale, iv, 5. ^ Except, of course, the lessons. 5 We are so used to our variable chants, prayers etc. that we are perhaps inclined to assume this state as a matter of course. It is not 220 THE MASS Another question is, supposing the change in these parts of the Mass, who chose the special Introits, Graduals etc. for the various days and why was such an Introit or Gradual chosen for such a day? Neither can this question be answered except by conjecture. As far as the parts of the Antiphonary (Introit, Gradual, Offertory, Communion) are concerned, St. Gregory I is generally supposed to have selected them, or at least to have fixed them \n a final arrange- ment No doubt his liturgical work included an arrangement of these parts. The Gregorian Anti- phonary, as we know it, contains practically all the Propria we use on the older feasts.^ On the other hand many of these chants must be older than his time (back to Damasus ?) and of course a vast number of new ones have been added since. We must leave the question who chose our old propers as one of the many unknown details of the origin of our rite. The new ones are arranged by someone appointed by the Congregation of Rites and approved by it. As for why certain verses were chosen for certain days, that question too is full of difficulty. On many days the reason is obvious. When a feast has a marked char- acter and a verse can be found that suits it, it is chosen, often with great skill. ^ The propers of Christ- so, as the Eastern liturgies show. Or consider the rites of other Sac- raments. Baptism has an elaborate service that may be compared to the Mass. But whatever day one baptizes the service is exactly the same. We do not change the prayers of Baptism so as to re- member the Saint of the day. The difference is, of course, that Mass was always more a public act, the common worship of the community ; so it would more naturally conform to the divine office, which is the origin of the variable idea. ^ P.L. Ixxviii, 641-724. It has been again revised since Gregory ; but its fundamental arrangement goes back to him. 2 A glance through the old propria will be a new revelation of how well our fathers knew their Bibles. The finding of texts, often in remote places, that fit the occasion so perfectly argues that they must almost have known the Bible by heart. THE MASS OF THE CATECHUMENS 221 mas, Easter, Pentecost, Commons of Saints, the Re- quiem and so on are quite obvious. But the ordinary Sunday Masses? Why, for instance, is the Introit for the first Sunday after Pentecost Ps. xii, 6? ^ The question will occur again even more insistently when we come to the lessons (pp. 257-261). In no case does there seem to be any particular reason. One cannot really see any special connection between a Sunday that has no marked character and texts of the psalter that express sentiments equally suitable for any day. Sometimes there seems to be an effort to maintain a sequence of idea throughout the Proper. The Introit, Gradual, Tract, Offertory and Communion of the first Sunday in Lent, for instance, all express trust in God's protection, suiting the Gospel, in which our Lord, having rejected the devil, is served by angels. But I'd most cases not even a sequence of definite idea is apparent. Mystic interpreters who find a logical idea running through every office do so only by em- phasizing the harmony that must exist in any series of Christian prayers. You may say that a Sunday office breathes love of God, sorrow for sin, faith and hope — any collection of prayers does so, of course. So in many cases all one can say candidly is that the unknown early compiler of the proper had to choose some texts ; as a matter of fact he chose these. Each of them is certainly an excellent prayer, its idea is most appropriate for any day, therefore also for this.^ And the Catholic who reverences our past, who values the corporate life of the Church, cannot do better on any given day than join in the sentiments expressed by the Church for so many centuries on this day and 1 The offices for the Sundays after Pentecost are late. They are not in the Gregorian Sacramentary (see p. 122). 2 There are cases in which one proper Mass (except the lessons) is simply repeated for several days. So the Mass Adorate Detim on the Ilird, IVth, Vth and Vlth Sundays after Epiphany. 2 22 THE MASS join the vast number of his fellow Latins who are singing these venerable texts all over the world. So much for the choice of the proper offices in general. We need not repeat this when we come to their other parts. Turning again to the Introit, we notice that its normal and, apparently, oldest form is that the antiphon is taken from a certain psalm. The verse that follows is then the first of the same psalm,^ relic of the days when the whole psalm, or most of it, was sung. Its curtailing would naturally leave the first verse. But when the antiphon itself is the first verse the second verse follows. So, for instance, on the first Sunday of Advent. Durandus calls such Introits regular.^ But often a suitable text from another part of the Bible forms the Antiphon,^ sometimes it is not a biblical text at all. In Masses for the dead we have the Antiphon "Requiem aeternam''. On many feasts of Saints (including the Assumption of our Lady and All Saints) we have an ecclesiastical composition : " Gaudeamus omnes in Domino, diem festum cele- brantes " etc. ; in votive and other Masses of our Lady the antiphon is the beginning of Sedulius* hymn : ** Salve Sancta parens".^ Many of the more modern Introits ignore the old principle of using the first verse of the psalm and choose another one more appropriate.^ In the middle ages the Introit (as almost every sung 1 This is the normal arrangement for all psalms, that the antiphon be itself a verse from the psalm to which it belongs. 2 Rationale^ iv, 5. •^ E.gr. the second and third Christmas Masses, Ascension day, Whitsunday, etc. ^ Caelius Sedulius (V cent.) wrote two well-known hymns, a Carmen paschale of which this is a fragment and " A solis ortu cardine " (sung at Lauds at Christmas). See Dreves: Ein jfahrtausend Lateinischer Hymnendichtung (Leipzig, 1909) i, 29-31. ^ E.gr. the Crown of thorns Mass on Friday after Ash Wednesday, St. Ignatius Loyola (31 July) etc. THE MASS OF THE CATECHUMENS 223 part of the Mass) was often ** farced *' with strange texts added as "Tropi". The Tropus was an additional clause, introduced to fill up the long neums ; it expanded and applied the original text.^ Pius V's reform happily banished all tropi except some sequences. On mournful occasions (Requiems and in Passiontide de tempore) the Gloria verses are left out at the Introit, as everywhere. Holy Saturday and the normal Whitsun- eve Mass have no Introit, because there is no procession of entrance ; the officiating clergy are already at the altar. The first word of the Introit is used as the name of each proper Mass ; a Mass for the Dead is a ^' Requiem," the Mass for the first Sunday of Advent is ** Ad te levavi," the two Masses of the Sacred Heart are '' Miserebitur " and " Egredimini ". Then the Sunday is called after its Mass. The first four Sundays of Lent are: *' Invocabit," ^'Reminiscere," *'Oculi" and *'Laetare" Sundays. The text of the Introit, as of all the chants of the Mass, is taken not from the Vulgate but from the old Itala. It will be remembered that the fact that people were accustomed to sing the Itala text at Mass was the great hindrance to the spread of the Vulgate. Our missal gives headings to the Introits (and other parts of the proper). Generally these are references to the part of Scripture from which they are taken. But these headings were written before our present division into verses was made (by Robert ^^tienne, 1551, IS55); so (for the Gospels especially) they give the chapter (by Stephen Langton, c. 1205) and the older paragraphs of Card. Hugo a S. Caro (c. 1240) by letters of the alphabet. When the text is not biblical, sometimes (rarely) the author's name appears. So the Introit for our Lady '' Salve sancta parens " is marked '' Sedulius". 1 Durandus : Rationale, iv, 5, Bona : Rerum lit., ii, 3, § 3, where some examples will be found (p. 327). 2 24 THE MASS Sometimes the biblical reference only means that the text is based on such a passage of the Bible. So the Introit of the feast of the holy Trinity, marked : Tobiae 12. Lately the rule was not to begin the Introit till the celebrant was at the altar, whereby its meaning as the processional psalm was destroyed. Now the Vatican Gradual has restored the old idea ; the Introit is to be sung while the celebrant goes to the altar.-^ The Gallican rite had a chant " Antiphona ad praelegendum " that corresponded more or less to the Roman Introit.^ In the Romanized Milanese and Mozarabic rites there is a real Introit, called Ingressa at Milan, Officium in Spain. The Ingressa does not repeat the antiphon at the end, except in Requiems.^ The Officium is arranged like our Responsorium breve, namely: a verse, a second verse, part 2 of verse i, '' Gloria et honor Patri et Filio et Spiritui sancto in saecula saeculorum, amen,"* part 2 of verse i. In some mediaeval rites the antiphon was repeated several times at the end.^ The Carmelites still repeat it twice on great feasts. No Eastern rites have an Introit in any form, because they have no procession at the beginning. They all have the other system of preparing the bread and wine and offering it before the liturgy begins (pp. 296- 297). So at the beginning of the liturgy the cele- brant is already in the sanctuary. 1 '* Accedente sacerdote ad altare incipiunt cantores antiphonam ad introitum." Rubric i. 2 Not quite, because the Gallican rite had the Eastern arrangement (p. 103). Mgr. Duchesne compares this chant more correctly to that of the Byzantine " Little Entrance '' (Origines du Ciilte, p. i8i). 3 The Requiem Mass is more Romanized than any other at Toledo (see p. 239). ^ This is always the form of the Mozarabic doxology. ^ Durandus : Rationale, iv, 5. THE MASS OF THE CATECHUMENS 225 § 3. The Celebrant's Preparation. It was also natural, even inevitable, that while the procession moved up the church chanting the Introit, the celebrant should prepare himself for the act he was about to do by saying some prayers. These prayers are those he now says at the foot of the altar before he goes up to it. But for a long time they were simply his own private preparation ; no special prayers were appointed, they were not written in any official book. The fixed form we now have is the latest part of the Mass. No such prayers are mentioned at all before the Xlth century. During the middle ages there was great variety in their use. Micrologus knows them only as a private preparation ; ^ Durandus (and many others) joins them to the washing of hands and the prayers at vesting ; he has no idea of fixed forms.2 Mart^ne gives various alternative prayers.^ The Missal of Paul III (1550) still only ordered that the priest should say Ps. xlii aloud or in silence before he goes to the altar.^ Both elements of our present preparation are obvious and would suggest themselves naturally to the celebrant. Ps. xlii, 4 of course suggests the use of that psalm. A confession of sins is also a preparation common to most rites. It was the missal of Pius V that finally fixed the celebrant's preparatory prayers in the form we know. They had long existed in this or similar combinations, together with alterna- tive sets of prayers. The revisors of the Tridentine commission only adopted uniformity in the use of one of the most wide-spread forms. The sign of the cross is the natural beginning of any prayer. Psalm xlii, with V. 4 as its antiphon, is said alternately by the ^ I (P.L. cH, 979). ^ Rationale^ iv, 3. 3 De antiquis EccL rit. Lib. i, Cap. iv, art. 2 (Antwerp, 1736, i, 360-363). ^ Bona : Rerum liturg. ii, 2. 15 2 26 THE MASS celebrant and ministers, who naturally also say the prayers preparatory to the sacrifice, in which they too have a part to celebrate.^ It is difficult to say why the Psalm is left out on mournful occasions, unless it be its more cheerful character (v. 5),^ or perhaps the natural omission of the Gloria Patri drew the Psalm with it. After the verse " Adiutorium nostrum," etc., which generally introduces it,^ the Confiteor follows. It is now said in the invariable Roman form. The Con- fiteor fundamentally is a very early mediaeval prayer, but it had a great number of variant texts.^ A few versicles (that occur on other occasions too) lead to the two short prayers said as the celebrant goes up to the altar. The first of these ('^Aufer a nobis") occurs with a slight variant in the Gelasian Sacramentary as a Collect to be said between Quinquagesima and Lent,^ also in the Gregorian book at the Dedication of a church, when the relics are taken from their place to be brought in procession.^ In Micrologus it comes before the Confiteor.'^ Arrived at the altar the cele- brant kisses it — an obvious reverence towards the holy place as he approaches it. The first Roman Ordo says that the Pontiff here kisses the altar and Gospel- book.^ At one time and in many mediaeval rites a kiss of peace was given to the ministers at this moment.^ The prayer (" Oramus te Domine") that accompanies the kiss naturally enough remembers the ^ De Sacramentis already quotes Ps. xlii, 4 as expressing the senti- ments of the man who approaches the altar (iv, 2, P.L. xvi, 437). St. Ambrose applies it to baptism (de Mysteriis 8 ; ih. 403). 2 So most mystic writers and Gihr : Das h. MessopfeV) p. 325. 3 As in Prime and Compline. ^ Some of them may be seen in Bona, loc. cit. pp. 318-321. See also the Xlth century English Horce B. M. V., published in facsimile by the Henry Bradshaw Society, col. 27. ^ Ed. Wilson, p. 15. ^ p^L, Ixxviii, 159. ■^ Cap. 23 (P.L. cli, 992). 8 p L^ Ixxviii, 942. ^ lb. cfr. Missale Sarum (ed. cit. p. 580). THE MASS OF THE CATECHUMENS 227 Saints whose relics are buried in the altar. Here too in the middle ages there were many variant forms. That all this is rather preparation than part of the Mass itself is shown by its recital at the foot of the altar, before the celebrant goes up to it A bishop does not put on the maniple till after the confession.^ He still keeps the old ceremony of kissing the Gospel as well as the altar. We have noticed that the late fixing of the prepara- tory prayers is shown by their variants in the mediaeval rites. At Salisbury for instance the celebrant said the Veni Creator while vesting, Ps. xlii and its antiphon on the way to the altar together with Kyrie, Pater, Ave, then a short Confiteor at the foot of the altar. He gave the kiss of peace to the deacon and subdeacon with a special form (" Habete osculum pacis" etc.), went up, said '' Aufer a nobis," kissed the altar (without a prayer) and made the sign of the cross saying '* In nomine Patris " etc.^ So also the surviving derived rites. The Dominicans, Carthusians and Carmelites do not say the Psalm, but only the antiphon. The Dominicans have a much shorter Confiteor. At Lyons the cele- brant begins with a quite different set of prayers.^ In the middle ages there were a number of long prepara- tory prayers called ApologicB. These were written in missals, but were merely private devotions, like our PrcEparatio ad Tnissam. Specimens may be seen in M6nard's Gregorian Sacramentary,* in the Mass of Fl. Illyricus^ etc. They occur especially about the IXth and Xth centuries (Stowe Missal, Book of Cerne etc.) and are certainly Gallican (Northern) in origin. The ^ Except it Requiems. The maniple, more than the chasuble, is the Eucharist vestment. ^ Missale Sarum^ 578-581. 3 Bona : Rerum liturg, ii, 2 (p. 320). See other mediceval variants there. ^ P.L. Ixxviii, 226-231. ^P.L. cxxxviii, 1305-1336. 15 * 228 THE MASS Apologise occur not only at the beginning, but are scattered throughout the Mass. Milan and Toledo now have Romanized preparatory prayers. Milan has almost exactly the present Roman form without the psalm. The Mozarabic Mass has the psalm and Confiteor (in a special form) with other ver- sicles and prayers.^ § 4. First Incensing of tlie altar. Incense as a perfume was used extensively by the Greeks and Romans. It was a common object of sacrifice both to pagans and Jews (Lev. xxi, 6 ; Lk. i, 9-II, etc.). Tertullian mentions its use by Christians in ordinary life.^ As a religious symbol it was used at tombs in the catacombs.^ The earliest reference to its liturgical use is in Origen (above pp. 33-34), unless this passage be merely metaphorical. At first incense was used only in processions. Incense carried before some great person as a sign of honour was a familiar idea in the first centuries. It was carried before consuls ; so Christians, with the development of the idea of ritual splendour, carried it before their bishop. From that to incensing persons is but a step. As it was swung before a bishop in procession, so it would naturally be waved before him at his throne. Then, accepted as a sign of respect like bowing and kneeling, it would be applied symbolically to things, especially to the altar, ^ Missale mixtum (P.L. Ixxxv, 525-526). It is strange that the first thing the Mozarabic priest says at the altar is the Ave Maria. As a specimen of the many alternative Confiteors that have existed, this is the Mozarabic form: "Confiteor omnipotenti Deo et beate Marie Virgini : et Sanctis apostolis Petro et Paulo et omnibus Sanctis : et vobis fratres manifesto me graviter peccasse per superbiam : in lege Dei mei : cogitatione : locutione : opere et omissione : mea culpa : mea culpa : gravissima mea culpa. Ideo precor beatissimam Virginem Mariam : et omnes sanctos et sanctas : et vos fratres orare pro me.'* '^De corona mil. 10 (P.L. ii, 90). 3 De Rossi : Roma sotteranea (Rome, 1877) iii, 505, etc. THE MASS OF THE CATECHUMENS 229 throne and type of Christ. Moreover the Bible plainly suggested its use Not only the Old Testament, but Lk. i, 9, the incense offered by the wise men (Mt ii, 11) and the incense at the heavenly altar in Apoc. viii, 3-5 made its use, as soon as Christian worship began to be adorned with symbolic ceremonies, inevi- table. Of all such symbolic ceremonies the use of in- cense is .perhaps the oldest and the most wide-spread. St. Ambrose (f 397) seems to be the first to mention the practice of incensing the Christian altar.^ In Pseudo-Dionysius (c. 500) it is fully developed.^ All liturgies use incense at more or less correspondilig moments. To incense the altar at this point is ob- viously a sign of reverence as the celebrant first approaches it. Ordo Rom. I mentions only the sub- deacon who goes before the Pope with incense in the entrance procession. ^ Amalarius of Metz when he went to Rome in 831 found that they did not there incense the altar before the Gospel.^ The Sixth Ordo (Xlth cent.) says that the Pope puts the incense into the thurible, that it is carried to the altar and " taken away or hung up'' when the Gloria is intoned.^ We have then the picture of incense swung before the altar at the beginning of Mass. This only needed to be fixed in a regular form to become our incensing of the altar. Durandus ^ and the later writers know the incensing at this point. The blessing of the incense is a further ^Exp. Evang. Lucae i, 28 (in vers, i, 11, P.L. xv, 1545). "^de Hier. Eccl. iii, 3 (P.G. iii, 428). The Liber Pontif. says that Pope Silvester I (314-335) gave thuribles to hang in the Lateran basilica (ed. Duchesne, i, 174). Hanging thuribles v/ere common in churches all through the early middle ages (see Atchley : Ordo Rom. primus^ 17-18). For Etheria's reference to incense see below p. 282. Mr. Atchley thinks that all incensing the altar at Mass, Vespers, etc., developed out of its incensing when it is consecrated. Hist, of the use of Incense y chap, ix (pp. 188-199). 3 P.L. Ixxviii, 941 ; so also Ordo II, ib. 970, etc. ^De eccl. offic. Prefatio altera (P.L. cv, 992). ^Ib. 986-987. ^ Rationale f iv, 10. 230 THE MASS development of the idea that underlies its being put into the thurible by the celebrant. Durandus men- tions it {loc. cit.). The insistence that it must be put in by the celebrant in the earlier documents (e. gr. Ordo rom. VI) already implies a kind of blessing — the celebrant's imposition itself is a blessing, or what would it matter who put it in ? And, according to the general idea of blessing everything used liturgically, the custom of making the sign of the cross over the incense and the use of some such short prayer as we have would obtain naturally and almost unnoticed.^ After the altar the celebrant himself is incensed — again a natural idea that has become the general rule on all occasions. Durandus knows this.^ The ex- ceedingly definite rule by which we now conduct the incensing, illustrated by a picture in the missal, the exact determination of where and how often to swing the thurible is part of the final crystallization of rubrics in the reformed Missal (Pius V and Clement VIII). In the middle ages this (as many other details) was much vaguer.^ We need not regret the minute exact- ness. Such increased definiteness was bound to come and, after all, you must incense an altar somehow ; it does not hurt to be told how to do so. § 5. Kyrie eleison. We know that the holy liturgy was originally cele- brated at Rome in Greek (pp. 126-127). '*Kyrie eleison" is the only Greek formula in our normal Mass now ; "^ it 1 The imposition and blessing of the incense is not a special rite here. It always occurs when incense is used, except coram Sanctis- simo exposito. '^Rationale, iv, 8. So also Missale Sarum^ p. 581. 3 For instance Sarum : " thurificet (all Sarum rubrics are in the subjunctive) medium altaris et utrumque cornu altaris, primo in dextera, secundo in sinistra parte, et interim in medio" (p. 581). ^ The Trisagion on Good Friday is the only other Greek text in the Roman rite. THE MASS OF THE CATECHUMENS 231 is tempting to look upon it as a survival of the days when all was Greek. It seems however that this is not so. There is no early evidence of its use in the West. It seems to be a late importation from the East (Vlth century). Even in the East there is no evidence of the use of this formula before the IVth century. The words Kvpce iXer^aov are a very old, even pre-Christian ejaculation. In the second century Arrian quotes it : '* invoking God we say: Lord have mercy (exactly: Kvpce i\e7j(rov)'\^ The precedent for Christian use was its frequent occurrence in the Bible.^ Here it is already a quasi-liturgical form. The only difference is that all the examples in the Bible have an object (iXeTjaov fi€ or iXiyaop r]fMa<;). Our formula in church is shor- tened from this. The surprising thing about the Kyrie eleison is that it is not mentioned earlier. The Apostolic Fathers and Apologists do not quote it, nor the Fathers of the IVth century before St. John Chrysostom. Nor is there any hint of its use in the early Latin Fathers.^ It began to be said, apparently at Antioch (and Jerusalem), as the answer to the litany form of prayer, that was first a speciality of the Antiochene rite, that spread throughout the Church from that centre. It may perhaps be conjectured as the answer to the petitions in the liturgy of the second book of the Apostolic Constitutions.^ It is found plainly in the ^ Diatribae Epicteti ii, 7 (ed. Schenkl, Bihl. Script. Gr. et Lat,, Teubner, Leipzig, 1894, p. 123). We notice that in this, as in all other transliterated Greek words (Paraclitus, Agios, imas), the spelling supposes the Greek pronunciation of the time when they were bor- rowed (as in modern Greek). 2 In the Septuagint Ps. iv, 2 ; vi, 3 ; ix, 14 ; xxv, 11 ; cxxii, 3 ; Is. xxxiii, 2; Tob. viii, 10, etc. In the N.T. Mt. ix, 27; xv, 22; xx, 30; Mc. X, 47; Lc. xvi, 24; xvii, 13. 3 Probst: Liturgie der 3 ersteit chr. jfahrht. 175, igo, 219 etc. Eusebius of Caesarea seems to imply its use ; Lit des 4 yahrh. 51-52. ^ Brightman : Eastern Liturgies, 30. 232 THE MASS liturgy of the eighth book.^ This gives us the middle of the IVth century as the date of its first certain appearance.^ St. John Chrysostom (f 407), who came from Antioch, quotes Kyrie eleison often. ^ Etheria (Sylvia) heard it at Jerusalem ; the Greek form is evidently strange to her, so $he translates it : *'unus ex diaconibus facit commemorationem singu- lorum, sicut solet esse consuetudo. Et diacono dicente singulorum nomina semper pisinni ^ plurimi stant respondentes semper : kyrie eleyson, quod dicimus nos : miserere Domine, quorum voces infinitae sunt.'* ^ This is exactly the Antiochene litany {crvvaTrrrj) with the answer to each clause. From Antioch the use of such litanies spread throughout the East. They and their answer : Kyrie eleison occur constantly in all Eastern liturgies, most often of all in the Antiochene- Byzantine family.^ What was there at this place in the West before the Kyrie was adopted ? The Kyrie is now the first prayer of the Mass, since the Introit is the psalm of the entrance procession and the priest's prayers are preparation. How then did the liturgy in the West begin ? The Galilean Mass in Germanus of Paris began by three chants, the Trisagion (in Greek and Latin), the Kyrie, the Benedictus. Kyrie eleison was sung thrice ^ Brightman ; Eastern Liturgies , 4 etc. passim. 2 The litany in Ap. Const. II, is a later interpolation ; Funk : Die apostol. Konstitutionen, p. 77. 3 See the quotations in Brightman, pp. 471, 477 (notes 7, 8). The Synapte of the deacon is quoted by the Synod of Ancyra in 314 ; ib. p. 524, note 8. ^ Boys. 5 Ed. Geyer (Corpus script, eccl. latin, Vienna, vol. xxxix, 1898) xxiv, 5 ; p. 72. ^ Kyrie eleison occurs 12 times in St. James' liturgy, 3 times in St. Mark and continually in the Byzantine and Armenian rites. Its normal place is the answer to a litany ; but it occurs on many other occasions too. It is translated in all the non-Greek rites except the Coptic one. THE MASS OF THE CATECHUMENS 233 by three boys.-^ It is tempting to see in it the remnant of an introductory Htany, of which it was originally the answering clause. Was there such a litany at Rome ? Is our Kyrie the remnant of a Synapte with which the liturgy began, as at Antioch and Constantinople? There is no evidence of any- thing of the kind in the first period. All the old references to the Roman and African Mass imply that it began with the lessons (Justin Martyr, p. 20; the Africans, p. 50).^ But later an allusion of St. Gregory I (p. 234) and other evidence imply that the Kyrie once had the clauses of a litany. Our first witness for the Kyrie at Rome is the second Synod of Vasio (Vaison in Provence) held under Caesarius of Aries in 529. Its third Canon says : ** since both in the Apostolic See and in all the provinces of the East and of Italy a sweet and most salutary custom has been introduced that Kyrie eleison should often be said with great devotion and compunc- tion, we too ordain that in all our churches this pious cus- tom be introduced at matins and Masses and vespers ''} This council represents the Romanizing movement in Gaul, of which St. Caesarius was the chief champion. We note that the Kyrie has lately been introduced at Rome. Nothing is said about Africa or Spain, though Africa is quoted in Canon 5 as a precedent for the Sicut erat verse.^ The Kyrie has always been foreign to the Spanish liturgy (below p. 239). We see also that Gaul took the Kyrie from Rome.^ It was apparently 1 Duchesne : Origines du Culte^ 182-183. 2 We have seen that Africa followed Rome very closely (p. 50). In default of evidence for Roman practice, Africa is always the best source for knowledge of the Roman Mass. 3 Mansi, viii, 725 ; Hefele-Leclercq : Hist, des Conciles, ii, 1113- 1114. 4 Mansi, ib. ; Hefele-Leclercq, ib. 1114. 5 St. Germanus of Paris (f 576), quoted above, comes after this Synod. 234 ' THE MASS at Rome that it was first introduced in the West Our next witness is St. Gregory I (590-604). The use of the Kyrie is one of the points in which he defends his church from following Constantinople (in his letter ix, 12 to John of Syracuse, above p. 13S). He says there: "We neither say nor have said Kyrie eleison as it is said by the Greeks. For among the Greeks it is said together by all ; with us it is said by clerks and answered by the people, and Christe eleison is said as many times, which is by no means the case among the Greeks. But in the daily Masses we leave out some things which are generally said ; we only say Kyrie eleison and Christe eleison, that we should dwell rather longer on these words of prayer ".^ His biographer, John the deacon, tells us that it was St. Gregory who introduced the Kyrie at Rome.^ But he ascribes to Gregory all the points mentioned in the letter to John of Syracuse. The Council of Vaison shows that the Kyrie is rather older. The letter mentions what is the unique speciality of the Roman rite, the formula : " Christe eleison ". In all Eastern liturgies they say only Kyrie eleison. At Milan too, where the Kyrie occurs often as a Trinitarian formula (p. 239) they say Kyrie eleison thrice. The Pope says further that, in distinction to the Byzantine manner, at Rome clerks sing the Kyrie and the people answer. This seems to mean double invocations, not very easy to account for if, as we shall see, the Kyrie itself was the answer to a litany of petitions. No doubt this was the manner of singing it in the daily Masses at which the litany was left out. How in par- ticular are we to understand the last sentence quoted above, about the " things generally said (aliqua quae dici solent) " left out in daily Masses, in order that the people should have more time to dwell on the Kyrie ^ P.L. Ixxvii, 956. 2 Yita S. Greg, ii, 20 (P.L. Ixxv, 94). THE MASS OF THE CATECHUMENS 235 itself? There was then some other text besides the actual invocation, which text was sometimes left out. Everything points to this text being the clauses of a litany, presumably sung by a deacon or other clerk. At Antioch, whence no doubt the Kyrie originally came to Rome, it is sung just at this point (as the opening chant of the Catechumens' liturgy) not isolated, but as the answer to the five petitions of the deacon's Synapte.i In all Eastern liturgies it occurs in this way, in those derived from Antioch at this place.^ Certain vestiges at Rome argue that here too the Kyrie was first adopted as part of a litany. The formula is still the beginning and end of our litany of the saints. In the Gelasian Sacramentary at the Ordination Mass (certainly Roman) after the Introit the Pope announces the names of those to be ordained. The next rubric is : " Et post modicum intervallum mox incipiant omnes Kyrie eleison cum litania ".^ Down to the IXth century there was at Rome, on days that had no Gloria, a litany at this place, formed just like the Byzantine Synapte, with the answers : *' Oramus te Domine, exaudi et miserere ".* At Milan they still have such a litany after the Ingressa (Introit) on Sundays in Lent. The answer to each clause is " Domine miserere ".^ We may no doubt see in this, as in the Kyrie generally, Roman influence. Indeed on two days in the year, the eves of Easter and Whit- sunday, our Mass still begins with a litany, in which the Kyrie fits naturally. The ordination Mass still ^ Brightman : Eastern Liturgies, 34. 2 Byzantine liturgy, ih, 362-363 ; Armenian, p. 464, St. Mark (here Byzantinized), 117. 3 Ed. Wilson, p. 22. ^ Goar : Euchologion (Venice, 1730), p. 106, note 62. Card. Bona: Rerum liturg. ii, 4 (ed. 1672, pp. 338-339) gives an example of this litany. ^ Bona, ih. p. 339 ; Duchesne : Origines, pp. 189-199. 236 THE MASS has the litany, as in the Gelasian book, though it has now been moved to the place immediately before the actual ordination. From all this we conclude that our Kyrie is the fragment of a litany, introduced at Rome from the East as the opening prayer of the liturgy about the year 500.^ St. Gregory Fs letter means that in his time the petitions of the litany were left out at ordinary (daily) Masses, that people might dwell more on the prayer contained in the words Kyrie eleison. For great occasions (feasts and ordinations) the whole litany was still kept.^ When it was left out the deacons (clerici) instead of its clauses sang repeatedly : Kyrie eleison, the people answering the same words. ^ At Rome the formula : Christe eleison had been added and was used, probably alternately.* After Gregory's time gradually what he knew as the custom for '' daily " Masses became more and more common till at last the litany disappeared altogether, except on Easter and Whitsun eves and (removed to a later place) at ordina- tions.^ No doubt the introduction of the Gloria ^ helped to banish it, so that it remained longer on days which had no Gloria. It does not appear from the Synod of Vaison and Germanus of Paris that the Gallican Mass ever had the litany. It borrowed from Rome only the invocation Kyrie eleison. At Rome for a long time the number of invocations ^ Shortly before the Synod of Vaison in 529. ^This is involved by his specifying '*in quotidianis autem missis '* etc. ^ As at the beginning of the litany on Holy Saturday. ** " Totidem vicibus." ^ Meanwhile the litany itself developed into the Roman form we now always use. Another relic of the connection between Kyrie and. litany is that for a long time the Kyrie was left out whenever a litany had just been sung, as on Rogation days. Ordo Rom. XI (XII cent.) P.L. Ixxviii, 1050. ^ See next paragraph. THE MASS OF THE CATECHUMENS 237 was not determined. The Council of Vaison says it is sung " frequentius " (above p. 233). The first Roman Ordo gives the direction : " The choir, having finished the antiphon, begins Kyrie eleison. But the leader of the choir watches if the Pontiff wishes to change the number of the litany and bows to the Pontiff^' (namely, 1 when he receives the sign). ^ By about the IXth century the number is already fixed as we know it So the Ordo of Saint-Amand : " when the choir has finished the Antiphon the Pontiff makes a sign that Kyrie eleison be said. The choir says it ^ and the regionarii ^ who stand below the ambo repeat it. When they have repeated it the third time, the Pontiff signs again that Christe eleison be said. And, it having been said a third time, he signs again that Kyrie eleison be said. And when they have finished nine times he signs to make an end."* All the later commentators know and explain the ninefold invoca- tion.^ The idea is obvious. The older vague number was fixed to make a Trinitarian invocation. We sing Kyrie eleison thrice to God the Father, Christe eleison thrice to God the Son, Kyrie eleison thrice to the Holy Ghost. In the mediaeval derived rites this ninefold invocation was not changed. But the Kyrie more than any other part of the Mass was elaborately farced. The farcing (farcitura) of a 1 P.L. Ixxviii, 942. *' Litany " here means only the Kyrie. It kept the old name a long time. 2 <' Et dicit schola." Schola is always the choir (schola cantorum) ; dicere always covers singing, as in the rubrics of the present missal (*' dicit cantando vel legendo " before the Pater noster). 3 The "defensores regionarii," who looked after and protected Church property, one of the many official ranks of the Papal court. At Constantinople they were called e/cSi/cot (see Kirchenlexikon, s.v. Defensor ecclesice). 4 Duchesne : OW^zw^s, Appendix I (p. 442). • 5 Honorius of Autun (f 1120) Gem. anim. i, 92 (P.L. clxxii, 574) ; Durandus : Rationale iv, 112. Only Amalarius of Metz (f c. 850) seems to think there were three invocations {de eccl. offic. iii, 6 ; P.L. cv, 1113). 238 THE MASS text means the introduction of other words (tropi). This was done to fill up the musical neums. Con- sistently with St. Gregory's idea of dwelling longer on the invocation, the Kyrie was sung (is still sung) with long neums on most of its syllables. In the middle ages they seem to have found these neums wearisome. So they inserted clauses to fit the notes ; one neum became a series of single notes with a text. There was a huge variety of these farced Kyries every- where. The Vatican Gradual preserves their memory in the titles of the Kyriale. "Kyrie Rex Genitor" (no. vi), " Orbis factor " (no. xi) and so on are the beginnings of old farced Kyries. As a specimen this, from the Sarum missal, will serve : " Kyrie, rex genitor ingenite, vera essentia, eleyson. Kyrie, luminis fons rerumque conditor, eleyson. Kyrie, qui nos tuae imaginis signasti specie, eleyson. Christe, Dei forma humana particeps,-^ eleyson. Christe, lux oriens per quem sunt omnia, eleyson. Christe, qui perfecta es sapientia, eleyson. Kyrie, Spiritus vivifice, vitae vis, eleyson. Kyrie, utriusque vapor in quo omnia, eleyson. Kyrie, expurgator scelerum et largitor gratiae ; quaesumus propter nostras offensas noli nos relinquere, o consolator dolentis animae, eleyson."^ The last farcing is generally the longest, since the last Kyrie has the longest neums. Sometimes the farcing replaced part of the essential text. One Kyrie begins: "Orbis factor, rex aeterne, eleyson''. There are some very curious mixtures of Latin and ^ Sic I Bona gives : *' Deus humanae formas particeps"- 2 Missale Sarum^ ed. cit. 929.* Many others will be found there and in Bona: Rerum liturg. ii. 4 (pp. 335-337). Th.^ Kyrie fons honi- tatis (no. ii, in the Vatican Gradual) may be seen, with its farcing set to the music, in an article by Dom. Gabriel Beyssac in the Rassegna Gregoriana (Descl^e, Lefebvre, Rome) for 1904 (vol. iii, pp. 531-544). THE MASS OF THE CATECHUMENS 239 Greek : **Deus creator omnium, tu Theos ymon nostri pie, eleyson". ^ All these additional texts were abolished by the reform of Pius V. We have seen that the Gallican Mass (of St. Ger- manus) had a Kyrie at this place (p. 232). Apparently Kyrie eleison was sung three times only.^ So at Milan it is sung thus after the Gloria, again after the lessons and after the Postcommunion. The Mozarabic rite has no Kyrie proper. It occurs (with Christe eleison) among the celebrant's preparatory prayers ^ and in Masses for the dead ^ ; both are Roman interpolations. § 6. Gloria in Excelsis.^ The Gloria (hymnus angelicus, doxologia maior) is the translation of a very old Greek hymn. It is one of the " private psalms ' (psalmi idiotici) that were written and sung in church during the first centuries. Namely, long before hymns in regular metre were com- posed ^ Christians began to compose texts to be sung, on the model of the only hymn-book they knew, the Psalter. These "private psalms" (as opposed to the canonical psalms) were written in short verses, like the psalter, divided in halves ; often they had a certain amount of free rhythm. Such are the $co9 IXapov,'^ later the Te Deum, the so-called Athanasian Creed, ^ Missale SarurHf p. 929.* 2 Duchesne, op. cit. p. 183. ^ P.L. Ixxxv, 525. * lb. 1014; albo in one or two Romanized Votive Masses, 983, etc. *"' Before he intones the Gloria the celebrant recites the Introit and Kyrie. This is the universal rule now (see p. 190). We need not refer to these supplementary recitations again. ^ Metrical hymns are still almost unknown in the Eastern Churches. They begin in the West with St. Hilary (f 366) and St. Ambrose (t 397)- See G. M. Dreves : Ein yahrtausend lateinischer Hymnen- dicktung (Leipsig, 1909) i, 1-14. ' Sung at the Hesperinon in the Byzantine office. 240 THE MASS best-known and certainly finest of all, the Gloria in excelsis. The rhythm of the Gloria is more obvious in the original Greek (by accent, of course) ; for instance : *' Kvpce ^acriXev eTrovpdvie, 066 TTarep TravroKparop.'^ It is found first in St. Athanasius* treatise : de Virginia tate ^ as part of morning prayer (with Ps. Ixii, and the Benedicite) and in the Codex alexandrinus (Vth cent.),^ In the Apostolic Constitutions (VII, 47) it appears again, apparently also as a morning prayer.^ There are considerable variants in these early forms. That of the Apost. Const, is : '* Gloria \\\ excelsis Deo et in terra pax, in hominibus bona voluntas. Laudamus te, hymnis celebramus te,^ benedicimus te, glorificamus te, adoramus te per magnum pontificem, te verum Deum, ingenitum unum, solum inaccessum, propter magnam gloriam tuam, Domine rex caelestis, Deus pater omnipotens. Domine Deus, pater Christi, agni immaculati, qui tollit peccatum mundi : suscipe depre- cationem nostram, qui sedes super Cherubim ; quoniam tu solus sanctus, tu solus Dominus lesus, Christus Dei universae naturae creatae, regis nostri, per quern tibi gloria honor et adoratio." ^ Duchesne corrects '* Dominus lesus, Christus" to *' Dominus lesu Christi,"^ an alteration evidently de- manded by the context (the tu is God the Father A C. 20 (P.G. xxviii, 275). The authenticity of this work, long disputed, now seems more generally admitted. See Eichhorn : Athan- asii de vita ascetica testimonia (Halle, 1886) pp. 27 seq., and especially von der Goltz in Texte und Untersuchungen, N.S. xiv, 2 a. 2 As an appendix to the psalms at the end. 3 It is followed by a quite beautiful hymn (vii, 48) as an evening prayer, and by a grace for meals (vii, 49). ■* VfXVOVfX^V 9 (PX. ccii, 48 ), Durandus: Rationale, iv, 24, § 30. St. Benedict's rule, xi (ed.Wolfflin, Teubner, Leipzig, 1895, P- 25). 3 Durandus, ih. ^ Gihr, op. cit. 444. 5 Micyologus notes the fact and gives this explanation of it (9 ; P.L. cli, 982). 284 THE MASS the Gospel book is generally the handsomest object in a Byzantine church, where it displays its enamels on a special desk just outside the Ikonostasion. The Gospel was often carried aloft in processions and was placed on a throne or altar as presiding at Synods. The meaning of all this is that the book was used as a symbol of our Lord himself It is certainly a suitable one. More than a statue or cross the book that con- tains his words may stand as a symbol of his presence.^ § 5. Homily and Creed. Since the Sermon which follows the Gospel on Sunday is in the vulgar tongue and since Protestants think so much of preaching, it might be thought that this is a modern addition to the Mass. On the con- trary, the homily after the lessons is one of the oldest elements of the liturgy. We have seen St. Paul preaching at the holy Eucharist (Act. xx, 11, see p. 6) and Justin Martyr tells us that '* when the reader has finished, the President warns and exhorts us in a speech to follow these glorious examples" (i Apol. Ixvii, 4). The long line of early Christian homilies, from the one known as the Second Epistle of Clement down to those of the Fathers of the IVth and Vth cen- tury, then on to St. Bernard and the mediaeval preachers, shows us that the Catholic Church has always kept the habit of teaching and exhorting her children by her ministers. The great number of homilies of Fathers on the Gospel and other lessons, the frequent allusions in them to the fact that these things have just been read ^ show too that the regular place for the sermon ^ More about early and mediaeval uses of the Gospel-book (some- times superstitious) will be found in Beissel and Baudot {op. cit.). On the reading of the Gospel in the Liturgy see a series of articles in the Revue Benedictine, Vol. I. -See e. gr. Origen, above p. 30, St. Augustine, p. 265, etc. TO THE END OF THE CATECHUMENS' MASS 285 was after the lessons. The priest who preaches to his people after the Gospel on Sunday morning follows the example of his predecessors in all ages back to the Apostles, and performs what is really an element of the liturgy itself — especially if his sermon explains the lessons, if he " exhorts them to follow these glorious examples".^ In most mediaeval uses the idea that the Creed is an expansion of the Gospel, naturally joined to it, led to putting the sermon after the Creed.^ At Rome itself the homily was rare. Sozomen in the Vth century, quoting examples of different customs, says that at Alexandria only the bishop preaches and at Rome ** neither the bishop nor anyone else teaches the people in church".^ But the sermons of St. Leo I and St. Gregory I show that this is an exaggeration. Since about the IXth century a custom arose, North of the Alps, of making a general confession and absolution after the sermon. It spread in Germany and Gaul and eventually found its way to Rome. Ordo Rom. XIV, 53 mentions it.^ We still have this at a Pontifical High Mass.^ All liturgies now contain a Creed ; but this is no part of the original arrangement. In every case the ^ May one offer a suggestion ? It is possible to preach on the Epistle too. The Gospel is, of course, the chief thing. Naturally first we explain that. But when year after year we say the same things about the same Gospels our people get to know them. Mean- while the Epistles offer a very rich and almost unworked mine. 2 Durandus supposes this : Rationale, iv, 26. Sometimes, at any rate in England, the sermon came after the Offertory, so the Pardoner in the Canterbury Tales : " But alderbest he sang an offertorie ; For wel he wiste, whan that song was songe, He moste preche and well affyle his tonge." (Prologue, 710-712. Skeat's Chaucer, Oxford, 1901, p. 428). 3 Hist. Eccl. vii, 19 (P.G. Ixvii, 1477)- 4 P.L. Ixxviii, 1 162; also Durandus: Rat. iv, 26, §5. Cfr. Riet- schel : Lehrbuch der Liturgik, i, 369-371. 3 Ccer. Episc. i, 22, § 4. 286 THE MASS creed is a late addition. The old use of creeds is not at the holy Eucharist ; they began as professions of faith made before baptism. The Apostles' Creed is the old Roman baptismal form ; it still keeps its place in the baptism rite.^ It is also a very naive mistake to think that all Christendom ever agreed in recogniz- ing one, or two, or three creeds as final, authoritative and quasi-inspired documents. A creed is simply a statement of certain chief points of the faith, drawn up by some council, bishop or even private person for use at baptism or (later) other function. There have been scores of creeds made by all kinds of people ; their authority is just that of the people who made and use them. No creed contains the whole faith, from any point of view. No creed even pretends to be inspired ; none is a final standard in itself, but must rather be measured by its conformity to another standard, like any other ecclesiastical document. To appeal to ** the creeds " is almost as futile as to appeal to introits or collects. One must first say which creeds and why.^ However among the innumerable creeds that have been drawn up at various times none has acquired so much fame as the one made by the Council of Nicaea (325) afterwards modified and extended, perhaps by the Council of Constantinople (381),^ and then again extended in the West by the addition of the fateful filioque clause. This is the form used in most liturgies. 1 Kattenbusch : Das apostolische Symbol^ 2 vols. (Leipzig, 1894-1900), an almost exhaustive study. 2 On creeds in general see Hahn: Bibliothek der Symbole und Glaubensregeln der alten Kirche (Breslau, 1897). ^ But it is doubtful how far the Council of Constantinople had anything to do with it. A view that seems to gain ground is that the so-called Nicene Creed in its enlarged form is a baptismal symbol composed at Jerusalem at the time of St. Cyril (f 386), adopted at Constantinople between 381 and 451. (See Duchesne: Eglises Separees, Paris, 1905, 79-80). The original creed of Nicaea in Den- zinger : Enchiridion no. 54 (ed. x, Freiburg, 1907, pp. 29-30). TO THE END OF THE CATECHUMENS' MASS 287 But its liturgical use is an after-thought. It was not till comparatively late, when people were used to the declaration of faith as a protest against here- tics, that it occurred to them as a suitable addition to the public Eucharistic service. It was then inserted, not always in the same place. In the West it appears at Mass first in Spain, as a protest against the Arians. The third Synod of Toledo in 589 orders that it should be said after the Consecration, before the Pater noster, as a preparation for communion. ^ From Spain it spread to the Prankish kingdom. Walafrid Strabo says that it was used at Mass in Gaul after the example of the East,^ as a medicine against heretics.^ It already had the filioque. Pope Leo III (795-816), hearing of this, allowed it to be said, but forbade the addition of the filioque^ advised that it should not be used at all in the Emperor's chapel and said that at Rome the creed was not said at Mass, but only used in teaching catechumens.^ This attitude of the Pope seems to have discouraged its use in Gaul to some extent. Amalarius of Metz (f c. 850) says nothing of it ; ^ but Florus of Lyons (IXth cent.) knows it.^ It is clearly a new addition made by some priests and not by others. Meanwhile the creed was not said at Mass at Rome. It is not in the Gregorian Sacramentary ; it is now in the Second Ordo,^ but is an interpolation there. Micrologus follows this Ordo exactly and knows no creed : finito evangelio statim est offeren- 1 Can. 2 (Hefele-Leclercq : Hist, des conciles, iii, 225). 2 In the East its use had begun rather earlier ; see p. 289. 3 de eccl. rerum ex. et incr. 22 (P.L. cxiv, 947). 4 So Rietschel (Lehrbuch der Liturgik, i, 373) understands Leo Ill's letter (in Mansi xiv, 19), I think rightly. Probst {die abendl. Messe, p. 129) thinks that Leo means to say that there was a creed in the Roman Mass, but said, not sung. 5 de offic. eccl. iii, 18 (P.L. cv, 1124, 1323). ** de expos. misscB, 11, (P.L. clx, 25). 7 § 9 (P.L. Ixxviii, 972). No Creed in Ordo III (ib. 980). 288 THE MASS dum.^ We happen to have an exact notice of the introduction of the creed in the Roman Mass. Berno of Reichenau tells what he himself saw and heard in 1 014. He was then in Rome with the Emperor Henry H (1002- 1024). St Henry noticed that there was no creed in the Mass at his coronation (14 Feb. 1014), whereas he was used to it in Germany. He was told that the Roman Church had never been stained by heresy and that therefore the recitation of the creed was unnecessary. However eventually the Pope (Benedict VHI, loi 2-1024), yielding to the Emperor's wish, ordered the creed to be sung after the Gospel in Rome too.^ Most authors agree in accepting this story and in admitting the creed at Rome as dating from 1014.^ There are however others who think it was said there much earlier and explain Berno's story in various ways, such as that before 1 014 it was only said by bishops, or that it had dropped out since Leo HI.^ In any case since the Xlth century the Roman Mass has had the so-called Nicene creed with the filioque. It is mentioned in the Vth ^ and Vlth ^ Ordines and by all later writers. But the fact that it is sung only on Sundays and feasts, not at every Mass, is still a sign that it is not an essential element. The Ordines say that the acolytes' candles which burned during the Gospel should be put out before the 1 10 (P.L. cli, 983). 2 de quibusdam rebus, ii (P.L. cxlii, 1060-1061). 3 Bona : Reriim liturg. ii, 8, § 2 ; Gihr : Das h. Messopfer, 449, etc. "* Probst [loc. cit.) ; Mabillon : Musceum italicunt ii, p. xliii ; Thalhofer: Handb. der Kath. Liturgik, ii, 128, etc. Probst thinks the creed was introduced by Damasus. The case is well stated by Cajetan Merati in his notes on Gavanto : Thesaurus s. rituum (Venice, 1762) i, 64 (Pars i, tit. xi). Mart^ne (de ant. Eccl. ritibus i, 383) thinks that Berno means it was said, not sung, before 10 14. There is a real difficulty about Ordo Rom.'JII, for which see Merati-Gavanto, loc. cit, ^ P.L. Ixxviii, 987. ^ lb, 992. TO THE END OF THE CATECHUMENS' MASS 289 creed. ^ The rite is the same as now; the Pontiff intones : " Credo in unum Deum " and the schola continues. In the middle ages it was commonly sung, not by the choir, but by all the people ; wherefore there was only one chant for it ^ known to everyone. This chant (in the fourth tone) is noted in the Vatican Gradual as the authentic one, though three others are allowed. The excellent custom that all the people should sing at least the creed has lasted in parts of France and Germany and is now being revived.^ Another mediaeval practice was that while the choir sang the creed the people sang **Kyrie eleison".^ In the Gallican rite the creed was sung after the Gospel, as at Rome. In the Mozarabic rite the old Spanish rule is still kept (see p. 287) ; it is said just be- fore the Pater Noster. After the fraction the celebrant sings : " fide quam corde credimus ore autem dicamus " and lifts up the Blessed Sacrament. The choir then sings the creed, beginning : " Credimus in unum Deum'\ The text is not quite ours.^ At Milan they follow the Byzantine custom and sing the creed after the Offertory. In the East the creed was sung in the liturgy earlier than in the West. Indeed in the West it is an addition borrowed from Constantinople. Its use in the liturgies of Antioch and Constantinople can be explained more easily than in the West. Namely it occurs there in connection with the kiss of peace at the beginning of the Liturgy of the Faithful. The kiss of peace comes (as once at Rome, see p. 370) just before the Prayers of the Faithful. The deacon cries : " Let us love one another that we may confess in 1 E. gr. Ordo Rom. II {ib. 972), V (ib. 987). 2 So in the Sarum missal (ed. Burntisland, 590-592). 3 See Thalhofer, op. cit, ii, 129. * Sicardus of Cremona : Mitrale, iii, 4 (P.L. ccxiii, 113). ^Missale mixtum {P.L,, Ixxxv, 556-557). 19 290 THE MASS union ". And the choir continues : Father, Son and Holy Ghost, consubstantial and undivided Trinity/' ^ This is itself a later amplification ; the older form was merely: ''Let us love one another".^ It is already a confession of faith and so would naturally suggest a further amplification by the creed. At any rate in all Eastern rites the creed is said in connection with the kiss of peace. It is said that Peter the Dyer of Antioch (470-488) introduced the creed into the liturgy in his city.^ The same authority says that Timothy I of Constantinople (5 11 -5 18) introduced it in his Patri- archate at every liturgy.* But in spite of its connection with the formula of the kiss of peace, the place of the creed in the Byzantine liturgy has not always been the same. John of Biclarum says that Justin II (565-578) ordered it to be said before the Lord's Prayer,^ just at the place where it was put by the Council of Toledo (589), which avowedly follows Byzantine use. At any rate nearly all Eastern rites now have the creed at the kiss of peace. In St. James' Greek liturgy it comes just before,^ so also in the Jacobite rite,^ in St. Mark just after,^ in the Coptic ^ and Abyssinian ^^ rites before. Only in the Nestorian ^^ rite, which has the kiss of peace after the diptychs, and among the Armenians,-^^ who (as often) follow Rome and put the creed after the Gospel, is it separated from the kiss. In all these cases the creed is a later addition, apparently an ex- ample of far-reaching Antiochene and Byzantine influence, even in the West. The creed in the Roman Mass now hides the transi- I Brightman : Eastern Liturgies, 382. ^Ib. 320. ^ Theodorus Lector : Eccl. Hist. ii. 48 (P.G. Ixxxvi, 209). "* lb. 201. ^ Chronicle (P.L. Ixxii, 863 B). ^ Brightman, 42. 7 lb. 82. 8 ih, 124. 9 lb. 162. 10 lb. 226. II lb. 270. The Nestorian and Armenian creeds have many variants. 12 lb. 426. TO THE END OF THE CATECHUMENS' MASS 291 tion from the Mass of the Catechumens to that of the Faithful. Before there was a creed the catechumens and penitents were dismissed after the lessons (and sermon, if there was one). This practice continued to the time of St Gregory I. He tells the story of two excommunicate nuns who were buried in a church. "When in this church Mass was celebrated and as usual the deacon cried : If any one does not com- municate, let him go away,^ their nurse, who was accustomed to make an offering to the Lord for them, saw them come out of their tombs and leave the church." ^ At a later time, when the expulsion had disappeared from Mass it continued at the baptism service on Holy Saturday. From this we may con- clude that the old formula was : " Catechumeni reced- ant. Si quis catechumenus est recedat. Omnes catechumeni exeant foras." ^ This ceremony must have ceased soon after the time of St. Gregory. There is no trace of it (at Mass) in the Gregorian Sacrament- ary or in any of the Ordines. Probst thinks it had disappeared just before St. Gregory's reign. ^ But the words '*as usual" in Gregory's story seem to show that he still knew it. When the whole discipline of the catechumenate had ceased, the expulsion, now meaningless, was left out. The Gallican rite in St. Germanus (Vlth cent) still kept the formula ; though it was then only a memory that no longer meant any- thing. ^ As in the East, prayers were said for each class (catechumens, penitents) before they were told to go away. St. Isidore of Seville knew the expul- 1 Si quis non communicat, det locum, 2 Dialog, ii, 23 (P.L. Ixvi, 178). 3 So Ordo Rom. I, 38 (P.L. Ixxviii, 955). 4 Die abendl. Messe, p. 115. He says this because he wants to save the Gregorian Sacramentary as being really by St. Gregory. ^ Germanus of Paris : Ep. i, de caticumeno (P.L. Ixxii, 92) ; Duchesne : OrigineSy 192-193. 19 * 292 THE MASS sion. ^ It has now quite disappeared from the Moz- arabic and Ambrosian Masses. On the other hand the Byzantine rite (alone) still keeps the old prayers for and expulsion of the cate- chumens ; '-^ though here too it has no practical mean- ing. It is curious that the Roman Mass, which has kept so many relics of former customs, should have entirely lost this one. Here ends the Mass of the Catechumens. ^ EtymologicB, vi, 19, § 4 (P.L, Ixxxii, 252). 2 Brightman : Eastern Liturgies, 374-375. In the earliest liturgy four classes of people were prayed for and expelled in turn, catechu- mens, energumens, illuminandi {(ovrj(TeL<^ in the Roman rite, always the same clause : '' Per omnia saecula saeculorum," sung before the Preface, Pater noster and Pax. As this is sung aloud, the choir answers ''Amen," though they have not heard the prayer. ^ This is always a later development, in order to shorten the service. The prayers now said silently by the celebrant during the deacon's litanies were once said aloud at the end. Simultaneous praying has produced some curious distortions which can only be understood by replacing the prayers one after another. ^ Syriac teloitho (Jac.) and qanuna (Nest.). Arabic i'/a» (Melk. Syr. Un.), or qaHlan (Mar.). CHAPTER VIII. THE CANON. I. The Preface. Though the title '' Canon Missae " now stands after the Sanctus, it is important to remember that the Pre- face is really part of the Canon. Originally it was counted as such. In the Gelasian Sacramentary the rubric: ^'Incipit canon actionis'' stands before " Sur- sum corda ".^ The reason of this is plain. The Canon is one long prayer, the Eucharistic prayer (Prayer of Consecration). In accordance with the fact that our Lord at the Last Supper took bread and wine and gave thanks,^ in all rites this prayer is in the form of a thanks- giving. In all the celebrant begins by inviting the faithful to thank God, and then prays in this form, thanking God for his benefits, especially for the coming of the Son of God on earth ; so he remembers our Lord's life and in it what our Lord did the night be- fore he died. This introduces the words of Institution. Continuing the same idea of thanksgiving the priest remembers the Ascension and the descent of the Holy Ghost, which seems originally to have introduced the Epiklesis. ^ Into this thanksgiving prayer petitions (the Intercession) are woven at various places. But the ^ Ed. Wilson, p. 234. 2 Mt. xxvi, 27 ; Mk. xiv, 23 ; Lk. xxii, 19 ; i Cor. xi, 23. 3 See p. 346. 315 3i6 THE MASS whole is one prayer, of which the dominant note is the thanksgiving {ev')(api. riL (ed. cit.) 67 and his authorities. 4 The Benedictines, for instance, have one about St. Benedict on his feast. 5 Apost. Const. VIII, xii, 4 (Brightman : op. cit. 14) etc. « de orat. dom. 31 (P.L. iv, 539). See p. 46. 7 Brightman, lb. '^ lb. 556. 320 THE MASS Eucharistic prayer (" Gratias agamus Domino Deo nostro"). With verbal variants it is in all rites.^ The Jewish grace before meals contain exactly our form: '* Let us give thanks to Adonai our God".^ **Dignum et iustum est"^ must also come from the earliest age. Its parallelism suggests a Semitic (Hebrew?) form. The celebrant then takes up the people's answer: *' Vere dignum et iustum est" ^ and so begins the Eucharistic prayer. Our common pre- face is the simplest type ; the whole list of benefits is reduced to : '' per Christum Dominum nostrum " only. The others then have the allusions to the special occasion, most of them (notably the Easter preface) exceedingly beautifully introduced. There are three forms by which the angels are introduced for the Sanctus. The commonest is : '' per quem maiestatem tuam laudant angeli " ; ^ the form : " et ideo cum angelis" occurs for Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, Apostles and : ** quapropter . . . sed et supernae virtutes " only for Pentecost. The '* dicentes " with which all end refers to us, except in this last form in which it means the angels. The people or choir continue the sentence : " Sanctus, sanctus, sanc- tus ". § 2. Sanctus. This is, of course, merely the continuation of the preface. It would be quite logical if the celebrant sang it straight on himself But the dramatic touch of letting the people fill in the choral chant of the ^ Apost. Const : Evxo-pio'r'ffa'ajiJieu rc^ Kvplip {ib. 14). 2 In the Mishna : Berakhoth, 6. 3 Apost. Const : "h^iov koL diKaiov (Brightman, ib). "* Ap. Const: "A^iov ws aKTidws kuI ^Uaiov irph iravroov aj/vfxvelu cr€j kt\ (Brightman, ib). The Alexandrine form of all this dialogue and beginning of the prayer approaches nearest to Rome. ^ The Trinity preface: " quam laudant angeli " is a variant of this. THE CANON 321 angels, in which (as the preface says) we also wish to join, is an obvious idea, a very early one and quite universal. Clement of Rome, after quoting the text Is. vi, 3 says (or implies) that we sing these words together.^ Tertullian refers to the liturgical Sanctus^ and many others down to Athanasius,^ Cyril of Jeru- salem ^ and the fathers of the fourth century. It is found at this place in all the old liturgies.^ It is then not clear why Abbot Cabrol considers the Sanctus to be no part of the original rite, or at any rate not to have been sung at this place. ^ It would seem, on the contrary that scarce any liturgical formula has so clear evidences of antiquity as this. True Clement does not say at what moment it is sung; but what could the moment be but this ? The Sanctus occurs thus, as the end to which (what we call) the Preface leads, in every rite."^ In the Apostolic Constitutions the text of the Sanctus is : '' Holy holy, holy Lord of Sabaoth. The heaven and the earth (are) full of his glory. Blessed for ever. Amen." ^ The Alexandrine form is still shorter : " Holy, holy, holy Lord of Sabaoth. The heaven and the earth (are) full of thy holy glory." ^ Antioch has exactly the same text as Rome.^^ So had the Gallican rite and now Milan and Toledo. In this ^ I Clem, ad Coy. xxxiv, 6-7 ; see above, p. 13. 2 de. or at. 3 (P.L. i, 1156) ; above p. 42. 3 de trin. et spir. 16 (P.G. xxvi, 1208). ^ Catech. v, 6 (P.G. xxxiii, 1113). 5 Ap. Const. VIII, xii, 27 (Brightman : Eastern Liturgies, 18-19) ; St. James {ih. 50-51) ; St. Mark {ib. 132). ^ Les Origines liturgiques, p. 329 ; Le Livre de la Priere antique, p. III. ■^ But I have not been able to find a complete statement of the reasons on which the Abbot bases his view. 8 Brightman, 18-19. ^ •^^- I32- 10 Except : Kifpi^ aa^auB instead of " Domine Deus Sabaoth ; ih. 50-51. The Roman form is Is. vi, 3, in the Vulgate, not LXX, nor Massora. 21 322 THE MASS the cry of the people on Palm Sunday (Mt. xxi, 9) is added to Is. vi, 3. In all the Hebrew word Sabaoth m«n!^' (5'a^aai<9, ^^ armies ") is kept^ Hosanna («:3 njr^'tyin O^ help) had already become an interjec- tion of triumph in our Lord's time. The cry of Mt. xxi, 9 is based on Ps. cxvii, 25-26. ^^ Hosanna to the God of David {^crawa rw 0eu> AaviS) occurs as a liturgical formula in the Didache, x, 6. All our ''Benedictus qui venit" forms part of the answer of the people at the elevation (before Communion) in Apost. Const. VIII, xiii, 13 (Brightman : Eastern LiU urgies, 24). It has been suggested that the second half (Bene- dictus) was originally an acclamation addressed to the celebrant (or Emperor) and only later became a hymn to Christ, at first later in the service (as in Apost. Const.), then added to the Sanctus when sung by the choir, so as to coincide with the elevation.^ Its pres- ence at Antioch seems to be against this. The Liber Pontificalis ascribes the Sanctus, as sung by the people, to Pope Sixtus I (119-128).^ We have seen that Clement I mentions it earlier ; it seems plainly to be a tradition from the very beginning in all liturgies. The second Council of Vaison (529), in Gaul, ordered the Sanctus to be sung not only on solemn feasts but at every Mass, even in Lent and at funerals.^ In Ordo Rom. I, 16^ and II, 10^ the 1 Vulg. translates it : *' exercituum "- nib^2!J /i^^ (the Lord of Hosts) is an old Semitic divine name, possibly once used for the moon- god. The Hosts were the stars (the host of heaven, Gen. ii, i ; Ps. xxxii, 6). We understand them to be the angels, as in Lk. ii, 13 (see Schrader: Die Keilinschriften u. das A. Test.; 3rd ed. by Zimmern and Winckler, Berlin, 1903, p. 456). 2 Atchley : {Ordo rom. primus^ 91-95) says about the Xlth century, but the introduction of the elevation is later than this. 3 Ed. Duchesne, i, 128. 4 Hefele-Leclercq : Hist, des Conciles^ ii, 11 14 (Can. 3). "^ P.L. Ixxviii, 945. ^ lb. 973-974. THE CANON 323 regionary subdeacons sing it. In Ordo XI, 20^ it is sung by the ^* basilicarii " (choir). It is worth noticing that our simple Sanctus tone (for ferias of Advent and Lent, Requiems, at the bless- ing of Palms) is the only one that continues the melody of the Preface. Others are more or less elaborate compositions, like the Kyries. Their long neums were in mediaeval times sometimes filled up with a new text ; so that there were farced Sanctus (though less often) too.^ The Sanctus and Benedictus are one text and should be sung through without a break. The practice of waiting till after the Consecration and then singing : ^' Benedictus qui venit/' etc. — once com- mon — is not tolerated by the Vatican Gradual.^ § 3. Name, Extent and general Character of the Canon. Now the missal puts the title Canon Missce before the Te igitur prayer. We have seen that originally the Preface was counted as part of the Canon, that by nature it is so always (p. 315). The Consecration prayer has been called by various names. The common Greek name is 'Ava^opa} In the Semitic languages it is qudddsha (Syriac), quddas (Arabic).^ In Latin it is called /r^.r by many Fathers,^ also sacrificiorum orationes^ actio gratiarum ( = eu;)^a- ' PL. Ixxviii, 1033. 2 Examples of tropi for the Sanctus (one ascribed to St. Thomas Aquinas) will be found in Bona : Rerum liturg. ii, 10, § 4. 3 See the rubrics therein : De ritibus servandis in cantu misscEy no. vii. 4 Almost exactly the Latin ohlatio {avcKpepw, to offer up). *Aifa€popT€/xa Xpicrrov, atfia Xpia-rov ttott}' piop C Quod ore stimpsimus, 384 ; missa, 400, Gelasius I, Pope (492-496) ; Gelasian Sacr., 120- 121 ; Canon, 164; introit, 217; epiklesis, 405-406. Genuflexion at the elevation, 341. German school of liturgists, 170. Germanus of Paris, 101-102 ; dis- missal of catechumens, 291. Gihr, N. ; Epiklesis, 307 ; Agnus Dei, 388. Gloria in excehisy 239-244, 173, 184. Gloria Patri, 217; omitted at the introit, 223 ; in the Communion- chant, 386; Mozarabic form, 224. Goldwell, T., 206. Good Friday ; collects, 248, 295 ; unconsecrated wine, 378. Gospel, 280-284, 258-260; II Apost. Const., 35 ; see Lessons. Gospel, last, 393-395 ; Armenian, 93 ; Sarum, 204. Gospel-book, 283-284. Gradual, 265-268. Gratias aganius, 320. Gratias agcns, 335. Great Entrance, 298; Byzantine, 90 ; Alexandrine, 95 ; Gallican, 183, n. I. Greek, liturgical language at Rome, 126-127. Gregorian antiphonary ; introit, 220; offertory-chant, 304. Gregorian Sacramentary, 121- 124, 172 ; introit, 218 ; preface, 316, 319; Agnus Deiy 387; prayers after Communion, 390. Gregory I, Pope (590-604) ; Gre- gorian Sacr., 123 ; Canon, 135, 137, ,149, 152, 154-156, 172; introit, 217, 220 ; Kyrie eleisoti, 234; Alleluia^ 26S ; dismissal of catechumens, 291 ; prayers of the faithful, 294 ; Lord's prayer, 325, 362-363 ; Nobis quoque, 357 ; form of administration, 376 ; Epiklesis, 407. Gregory, Byzantine liturgy of ; see Presanctified. Gregory III, Pope (731-741) ; Com- mitnicanteSy 332. Gregory VII, Pope (1073-1085); Roman rite in Spain, 180 ; offer- tory, 300. Gregory the Theologian, Coptic liturgy of, 95. Grimoald, Abbot ; Gregorian Sacr., 122. 27 * 420 THE MASS Gu^ranger, P., igg, 210. Guy of Mont Rocher; dry Mass, 192. Hmc COMMiXTlOy 370; see Fiat commixtio ; not said on Good Friday, 378. Haggadah, 397, 405. Hallel cup, 337. Hallel psalms, 71-72. Halleliiyah = Alleluia at Milan, 279. Ha7tc igitur, 333, 150, 155, 160- 162, 167. Hand ; Communion received in the hand, 373 ; Dionysius Alex., 34 ; Tertullian, 42 ; Cyprian, 48. Hands washed ; see Washing. Henry II, Emperor (1002- 1024) 5 creed, 288. Hermas, 15. High Mass, 185, 214-215. Hilary of Poitiers ; Gloria in exc.y 241. Hippolytus, 37. Hippolytus ; Canons, 185, 59. Hittorp, M., 197. Holy Body ; Alexandrine form of administration, 31. Holy Ghost ; theology of the Holy Ghost in the IVth cent., 404. Holy Week ceremonies not Roman, 183. Homily, 284-285 ; see Sermon. Honorius III, Pope (1216-1227) ; laudes, 253 ; kissing the gospel- book, 282. Honorius of Autun, 195 ; one Mass each day, 188 ; offertory, 300 ; ^. angeliis tuus^ 351 ; oratio super populum, 390. Hosanna, 322 ; in Didache, 9. Host ; attention directed to the sacred Host, 380 381. Hrabanus Maurus, 195 ; azyme, 302- Humiliate capita vestra Deo, 390. Hunting Mass, 192. Hymn to Christ in Pliny, 16, 213. Hymns in the N.T., 3; Irenaeus, 27 ; Clement Alex., 29 ; Origen, 30- Iacopone da Todi, author of Stabat mater, 277. Ignatius of Antioch, 14-15. Illatio, Mozarabic name of Canon, 316-317- Immaculata hostia, 305. Immolatio, Gallican name of pre- face and Canon, 103, 316-317. In spiritu humilitatis, 307. Incense, 228-229; Origen, 34; Tertullian, 43 ; at the beginning of Mass, 229-230 ; at the gospel, 282-283 ; offertor}', 308-309 ; elevation, 344 ; blessing of in- cense, 230. Incense-prayers source of Sup- plicesy 354. Incensum istud, 309. Infra actionem, 330. Ingressa, Milanese name of introit, 224. Innocent I, Pope (401-417) ; letter to Decentius, 132-133 ; place of the intercession, 168, 170-171 ; fermentum, 368 ; kiss of peace, 371. Innocent III, Pope (1178-1180); Pax vobiSy 247 ; Veni Sancte Spiritus, 277 ; moment of conse- cration, 340; Agnus Dei, 387. Institution ; vi^ords of institution, 335-337; intheN.T.,6; Justin, 22-24 ; Tertullian, 42 ; Cyprian, 46; VIII Apost. Const., 63; Rome, 159 ; as form of conse- cration, 406-407. Intercession-prayer ; Didache, 10 ; Cyprian, 47 ; VIII Apost. Const., 64 ; in the Antiochene group of liturgies, 83, 93; Gallican, 102 ; Roman, 329-333, III, 133, 159, 170. Intinction, 377-378, 380; see Commixture. Introit, 216-224 ; Gallican, 224 ; not in Eastern rites, 298. INDEX 421 Invocation in Irenaeus, 27 ; see Epiklesis. Ireland ; Roman rite, 179. Irenaeus, 27-28 ; mixed chalice, 305 ; epiklesis, 403. Isaias introduces the Sanctus, 317. Isidore of Seville, 194. lie missa est, 392. lubilus, 269. ludica met 225-226. Ivo of Chartres; prayers of the faithful, 295 ; bell at Mass, 342; s. angelus tuuSy 351. Jacobite liturgies, 84. James ; liturgy of St. James, 81- 84 ; see Antiochene ; Supra qucB, 349 ; Nobis quoquey 355. Jerome ; liturgy of St. James, 82 ; lessons, 255, 261 ; Alleluia^ 268 ; deacon reads the gospel, 280. Jerusalem, rite, 81 ; compared with the Roman rite, 148-149 ; 157-158. Jewish prayers in the Didache, 10. Jewish ritual ; influence on Chris- tian liturgies, 70-75. John the Baptist in Nobis quoque^ 356. John the Deacon and Gregory I, 123, i35» 234. John of Syracuse ; correspond- ence with Gregory I, 135, 234, 268, 362. John Talaia of Alexandria, 165. Juliana of Falconieri ; collect, 212. Julius II, Pope (1503-1513) : Mozarabic rite, 180. Justin Martyr ; I Apology, 17-26 ; Dialogue with Trypho, 22 ; VIII Apost. Const., 66-67; memory of the passion, 136 ; mixed chalice, 305 ; lessons, 254 ; kiss of peace, 370. Justin II, Emperor (565-578); creed, 290. Justinian I, Emperor (527-565) ; silent prayers, 326-327. Kattenbusch, F. ; VIII Apost. Const., 60 ; Latin liturgical language, 126. King named in the Canon, 329. Kiss of bishop's hand at Com- munion, 373. Kiss of altar, 226 ; at the end of Mass, 393 ; of the Gospel-book, 282. Kiss of peace, 370-372 ; in the N.T., 4 ; Justin, 18 ; Tertullian, 41; VIII Apost. Const., 62; Byzantine, 90; Gallican, 99, 103 ; Sarum, 227 ; at Antioch and Constantinople, 289 ; con- nection with the creed, 290 ; at Communion, 374; before the preface at Rome, 68-69. Kneeling at Communion, 375. Knights of St. John ; Grand Master at the gospel, 282. Koinonikon, 385. Kyrie eleison, 230-239 ; VIII Apost. Const., 61 ; Byzantine, 89 ; Alexandrine, 96; Gallican, 102- 103 ; Milanese, 107, 389 ; at Rome, 173 ; during the creed, 289 ; farced, 204. Language of Liturgy ; Byzantine, 92 ; see Greek ; Latin. Languet de Gergy, J., 199. Last Gospel ; see Gospel. Last supper, rite,' 1-2. Latin liturgical language, 126-128. Lauda Sion^ o.'j'j. Laudes in Mass, 253. Laus tibi Christen 283. Lavabo, 311, 173; see Washing of hands. Leavened bread, 301-303, 369. Lebrun, P., 199. Lectionary, 116. Lector, 263 ; reads the gospel, 280. Leo I, Pope (440-461) ; diptychs, 134 ; Canon, 136-137 ; gradual, 267; Sanctum sacrificiumj im- maculatam hostiam, 137, 350 ; epiklesis, 407. 422 THE MASS Leo III, Pope (795-816), said Mass nine times on one day, 188 ; creed, 287. Leo XIII, Pope (1878-1903); re- form of the missal, 209. Leonine Sacramentary, 117-119; Canon, 137-138; collects, 245, 249; prefaces, 318; Per quern hcBC omniay 358 ; Quod ore sum- psimusj 384 ; prayers after Com- munion, 389 ; missa, 400. Lent ; Communion-chant, 386 ; Oratio super populum, 390. Lerida, Synod (524) ; missa, 399- 400. Lessons, 254-262 ; in the N.T., 3 ; Justin, 20 ; Irenaeus, 27 ; Cle- ment Alex., 29 ; II Apost. Const., 35 ; at Rome, 38 ; Ter- tullian, 39-40 ; Cyprian, 45 ; VIII Apost. Const,, 61 ; Byzan- tine, 90 ; Armenian, 92 ; Galli- can, 102 ; number of lessons not determined, 68. Lewis IX, King of France (1226- 1270) ; missa nautica, 192. Liber pontificalis, 135-137. Liber sapienticej 265. Litany (Synapte) ; II Apost. Const., 36; Tertullian, 41 ; VIII Apost. Const., 61, 64; Byzan- tine, 89-90 ; Gallican, 102 ; Milanese, 107, 235 ; Roman, 233-236 ; after collects, 253 ; after Communion, 389. Little Entrance, 283. Liturgy ; name, 399. Liturgy of catechumens and of faithful; Origen, 30; see Cate- chumens ; Dismissal ; Faithful ; Mass. Liturgy of St. Peter, 92, n. 3, 161, n. I ; Hanc oblationem^ 162 ; Quant ohlationeniy 334. Local rites in the middle ages, 200-202. Logos in Justin, 22-24 ; Epiklesis, 358, 404, 407. Lord's prayer {Pater noster), 361- 364; Didache, 11; Origen, 30; Tertullian, 42, 44 ; Cyprian, 46, 47, 49 ; VIII Apost. Const., 65, Lord's supper (coena Domini); name, 398. Love-feast ; see Agape. Low Mass, 185-190, 214; reacts on High Mass, 283. Luther, M. ; sequence about him, 275. Lyons, Synod (517) ; prayers of the faithful, 294. Mabillon, J., 198 ; azyme, 301 ; consecration by contact, 379. Malachy of Armagh ; Roman rite in Ireland, 179. Marati atha^ 11. Mark, liturgy of St. Mark, 95-96; see Alexandria. Maronite rite, 84. Mart^ne, E., 198. Martyrs' feasts ; Cyprian, 45. Mass ; name, 399-401 ; not used for Eastern rites, 401. Mass; scheme of Roman Mass, 216. Masses, new, 211-213. Melania ; Communion rite, 374. Meeting (synaxis) ; name, 398. Melchiades, Pope (31 1-3 14) ; fermentum, 368. Melkisedek in the Canon, 128, 349- 350 ; Tertullian, 44 ; Cyprian, 48. Memento defunctorum, 354-355 ; 141, 144, 149, 157, 159-160, 163, 168 ; see Diptychs ; Interces- sion. Memento vivorum, 330, 141, 144, 147, 149-150, 157-158, 163, 167 ; see Diptychs ; Intercession. Memoriam venerantes^ 332. Michael, St. ; at the blessing of in- cense, 309. Micrologus, 195; Gloria in exc.j 242 ; collect, 248 ; offertory- prayers, 304 ; creed, 287 ; in- cense at the offertory, 308 ; Suscipe S. Trinitas, 311 ; intinc- tion, 378 ; Communion-prayers, INDEX 423 382 ; Placeatj 393 ; 1/ist bless- ing, 393. Milan source of Gallican rite, 100 ; de sacramentis, 152. Milanese (Ambrosian) rite, 106- 107, 180-181 ; Kyrie eleison^ 239 ; Gloria in exc.j 244 ; collect, 252 ; psalm between lessons, 279-280 ; creed, 289 ; offertory, 300 ; washing of hands, 311 ; preface, 317 ; Canon, 328 ; Lord's prayer, 362 ; embolism, 364 ; kiss of peace, 371-372 ; ablutions, 384 ; Communion- chant, 386 ; Agntis Deif 388 ; Kyrie eleison after Communion, 389 ; Placeatj 395 ; aliturgical days, 186 ; dry Mass, 193. Missa; name, 399-401. Missa = dismissal, 399-400, 392. Missa cantata, 191 ; praesanctifica- torum, 191 ; conventualis, capi- tularis, 191 ; solitaria, 192 ; sicca, 192 ; nautica, 192 ; vena- toria, 192 ; bifaciata, irifaciata, 193 ; see Mass. Missal, 189-190; Paul III (1550), 225 ; Pius V (1570), 205-208 ; Clement VIII (1604), 209; Ur- ban VIII (1634), 209 ; Leo XIII (1884), Pius X (1906), 209-210. Missale Gothicum, loi, 178 ; Fran- corum, 124, 173 ; Gallicanum vetus, 102, 178 ; Romanum later- anense, 182. Missionary Churches follow the rites of the Mother Church, 55- 56. Mixed chalice, 305-306 ; Justin, 20 ; Irenaeus, 305 ; Abercius, 305 ; Cyprian, 45 ; not in the Armenian rite, 93, 305. Mixed rite in Spain, 104 ; see Mozarabic. Mixture ; see Commixture. Mone, F. J., 102. Monogenes in the Byzantine rite, 90. Morin, G., 197 ; Baumstark's theory, 149. Moschos, J. ; silent anaphora, 326. Mozarabic rite, 105-106, 180; meaning of the name, 105, n. i ; Kyrie eleison^ 239; Gloria in exc, 244; collect, 252; psalm between lessons, 280 ; deacon reads the gospel, 281; creed, 289 ; offertory, 300 ; washing of hands, 311; Illatio, 316; Canon, 328 ; Lord's prayer, 362; embolism, 364; fraction, 365; kiss of peace, 371; bless- ing before Communion, 372 ; Communion-prayers, 382 ; Com- munion-chant, 386. Munda cor meum^ 281. Muratori, L. A., 198 ; Leonine Sacr., 119. Muscus of Marseilles ; comes, 262. Mysterium fidei, 337. Mystery-play at Easter, 276-277. Name of each Mass from the first word of the introit, 223. Names of the Eucharistic service, 397-401 ; Tertullian, 39 ; Cy- prian, 44. Nass, J. ; sequence about Luther, 275. Nestorian rite ; see Syrian, East. New Testament ; order of Euchar- ist, 1-7. Nicene creed, 286-287. Nobis quoque, 355-357; I34> 161. North side for the Gospel, 281. Notker Balbulus ; sequences, 272- 273. Novatian, 37-38; VIII Apost. Const., compared, 67. Nudum officium of the Car- thusians, 193. Offerimus tibi Domine, 306. Offertory, 296-300; II Apost. Const., 36 ; Tertullian, 42 ; Cy- prian, 45 ; VIII Apost. Const., 62 ; Gallican, 103 ; before the liturgy except in the Roman rite, 296-298. Offertory-chant, 303-304. 424 THE MASS Offertory-prayers, 304-308 ; 173, 184 ; Sarum, 204. Officium ; name of introit in the Sarum rite, 203 ; in Spain, 224. Operate ; words of institution operate what they state, 407. Optatus of Mileve ; liturgical books, 1 14- 1 15 ; Canon, 158. Orange, Synod (441) ; catechu- mens present at the gospel, 280. Orate Fratres, 31 1-3 12. Oratio super populum, 390. Order of service regulated in the first 3 centuries, 51-57 ; Clement of Rome, 11-12. Ordines romani, 125, 194. Ordo romanus I ; rite, 174-177 ; introit, 218 ; incense, 229 ; Kyrie eleison, 237 ; gradual, 271 ; Epistle, 263 ; offertory, 299 ; offertory-chant, 303 ; washing of hands, 310 ; preface, 316; Sanctus, 322; fraction, 366-367 ; fermentum, 369 ; kiss of peace, 371 ; Communion, 373 ; consecration by contact, 378 ; ablutions, 384 ; dismissal, 393- Ordo romanus II ; Galilean in- fluence, 308, 287 ; gospel, 282 ; creed, 287 ; offertory- chant, 303 ; incense at the offertory, 308 ; Sanctiis^ 322 ; silent Canon, 325. Ordo romanus III ; ablutions, 384. Ordo romanus V and VI ; creed, 288. Ordo romanus XIII ; collects, 248. Ordo romanus XIV; offertory- prayers, 305 ; incense at offer- tory, 309 ; washing of hands, 310; Orate fratres, 312; Ele- vation, 338, 341 ; commixture, 367 ; Communion prayers, 382 ; last blessing, 393. Ordo romanus XV ; Communion under both kinds, 379 ; ablu- tions, 384. Ordo of Saint Amand, 125 ; Gloria in exc, 242 ; Dominus vobiscum, 247; washing of hands, 310. Oremus, 247-248; at the prayers of the faithful, 296. Origen, 30-34 ; Domine non sum dignus, 383. Orthodox Church ; Byzantine rite, 91-92 ; azyme, 300, 303 ; Conse- cration-form, 336. Pagans dismissed ; VIII Apost. Const., 61. Panem ccelestem accipiam, 382-383. Parent rites, 78-79. Paris University; moment of con- secration, 339. Paschal II, Pope (1099-1118); in- tinction, 378. Paschal supper compared with Mass, 71-72. Pater noster ; see Lord's prayer. Patriarchal cities sources of rites, 77- Pax; Rome and VIII Apost. Const., 69 ; see Kiss of peace. Pax Domini^ 371. Pax vobisy 247. Penitents dismissed; II Apost. Const., 35 ; TertuUian, 40, 50 ; VIII Apost. Const., 61. Pentecost in the anamnesis, 346, 404; Sundays after Pentecost, 122, 221, n. I. People make the offertory, 299- 300. Per Dominum nostrum^ 250. Per ipsum et cum ipsoy 168. Per omnia scecula scBculorum after the secret, 313 ; see Ekphonesis. Per quern hcec omnia^ 357-359, 168, 407. Perceptio corporis tui^ 382. Pericope, 257-261, 116, 254. Perigrmatio Silvias, 82 ; Kyrie elei- son^ 232 ; incense, 282, n. 2 ; missa, 400. Perpetua and Felicitas ; acts, 49. Peter, St., supposed author of Ro- man Mass, 184 ; liturgy of St. Peter, see Liturgy. INDEX 425 Peter Chrysologus, Ravenna roll, 125. Peter the Dyer of Antioch ; creed, 2QO. Photizomenoi ; see Competentes. Pius V, Pope (1566-1572) ; reform of the missal, 205-208, i8g, 202 ; sequences, 275-276 ; last gospel, .394. Pius X, Pope (1903 -) ; revision of plainsong, 209-210 ; elevation, 345- Placeat tibi^ 393. Pliny's letter to Trajan, 16-17. Polycarp, 15 ; celebrates at Rome, 38. Pontifical High Mass, 190, 215 ; distinguishes the Mass of the catechumens from the Mass of the faithful, igo, n. 6 ; confes- sion after the sermon, 285. Pontificalis ; see Liber pontifica- lis. Postcommunion, 389-391 ; Rome and VIII Apost. Const., 70 ; name for Communion chant in Durandus, 386. Post-sanctus = Vere sanctus (Gal- lican and Mozarabic) 103, 167, 328. PrcEceptis salutaribus monitiy 364 ; Cyprian, 49. Prague; Milanese rite, 181. Prayers in the N.T., 3 ; fixed un- consciously, 54. Prayers of the faithful, 293-296; Justin, 18, 20 ; Tertullian, 40 ; Cyprian, 45 ; VIII Apost. Const., 62. Preface, 315-320; Cyprian, 46; VIII Apost. Const., 63; Rome and VIII Apost. Const., 69 ; Gallican, 103. Preparation of the offerings ; see Proskomide. Presanctified ; Mass, 191 ; Byzan- tine liturgy, 88. Prescription of mediaeval rites, 207. Prex ; name for Canon, 323. Pridie quam pater etuVf 335, 99, 131, 136. Private Mass, 188-189. Probst, F. ; VIII Apost. Const., 59-60 ; Jewish influence, 71, 73 ; Leonine Sacr., 119; Gregorian Sacr., 122 ; Latin liturgical language, 126 ; Canon, 141- 143 ; introit, 217 ; collects, 249 ; dis- missal of catechumens, 291 ; prayers of the faithful, 294 ; Gregory I and the Canon, 363. Procession at the gospel, 281-282 ; see Little entrance. Profession of faith in the N.T., 4; II Apost, Const., 36; see Creed. Profiiturus of Braga, 104, 134, 180. Prokeimenon, 279. Prone, 295. Proper Masses, 220-221. Prophetia, 256-257. Proprium de tempore, 211, 186; proprium sanctorum, 211. Proskomide, 297, 365 ; Antiochene, 83 ; Byzantine, 89. Protestant services not liturgies, 57» n. I. Psallendo ; Mozarabic gradual, 280. Psalm at introit, 217 ; between lessons, 265-266 ; in the Eastern rites, 279. Psalraellus ; Milanese gradual, 279. Psalms in N.T., 3 ; Clement Alex., 29 ; Origen, 30; Dionysius Alex., 34; II Apost. Const., 35 ; Tertullian, 39-40. Psalmus idioticus, 239. Psalmus responsorius, 266. Pseudo- Dionysius ; incense, 229. Pugillaris, 375. Qu^STiONES veteris et novi testa- menti, 128, Quam oblationenij 334, 160 ; Epik- lesis, 147-148, 403. Qui pridie, 335 ; see Pridie. Quid retribuam Domino^ 383. 426 THE MASS Quinisextum (Trullanum), Synod (692) ; Presanctified liturgy, 191 ; mixed chalice, 306. Quod ore siimpsimiis, 384. Rauschen, G. ; Drews' theory, 166. Ravenna, rite, 149. Ravenna roll, 125. Recitation by the celebrant at High Mass, igo. Regensburg ; Milanese rite, 181. Regino of Priim ; prayers of the faithful, 295. Relics in the altar, 227, 311 ; Ter- tullian, 43. Renaudot, E. ; liturgical books, 113-114. Requiem Mass, 120, 187 ; introit, 222-223; offertory-chant, 304; kiss of peace, 372 ; Communion chant, 386 ; dismissal, 392 ; Mozarabic, 239. Rcquiescant in pace, 392. Reservation of the Holy Euchar- ist; Justin, 18, 20; Origen, 32 ; Dionysius Alex., 34 ; Cyprian, 48. Responsum or Responsorium ; name for the gradual, 266-267. Rhyme in sequences, 273. Rhythm ot collects, 250-251; of sequences, 273-274. Rietschel, G., Latin liturgical language, 126, Rite of Eucharist in the N.T., 6- 7 ; said to be fixed by our Lord, 52 ; see Liturgy ; Mass, etc. Rite follows patriarchate, 77, 79, 98, 181-182. Robert the Pious, King (996-1031) ; Vejii sancte Spiritus, 277. Rock, D., 199, 205, u. I ; bidding prayer, 295. Roman Catholic, 206, n. i. Roman (pure) elements of Mass, 174. Roman Mass and VIII Apost. Const., 68-70 ; spreads in the West, 177-182; attributed to St. Peter, 184; in England, 205. Roman rite austere, 183, 250; mixed in England, 179. Rudolf of St. Trond ; Communion under one kind, 379. Rupert of Deutz, 195. Sabaoth, 322. Sabbath meal, 74. Sacramentarium Gallicanum of Bobbio, loi. Sacramentary, 116-117; see Gela- sian, Gregorian, Leonine. Sacrifice ; Justin, 22 ; 11 Apost. Const., 36 ; Cyprian, 44. Sacrificium; Mozarabic name for offertory -chant, 304. Saints in Communicantes, 331- 332 ; in Nobis quoque, 356-357- Salamanca; Mozarabic rite, 180. Salaville, S. ; the promise of the Eucharist in vi Job., 73 ; Epik- lesis, 73, 407 ; Justin, 24, n. 6, 407, n. 4. Salisbury ; see Sarum. Salve festa dies, 276. Salve regina, 279. Sancta, 174-175 ; 366-367. Sancta Sanctis,, 338, 359. Sancti venite, 387. Sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam, 350. Sanctus, 320-322 ; in Jev^dsh prayers, 72 ; Clement Rom., 13 ; Clement Alex., 30; Origen, 31 ; Tertullian, 42 ; VIII Apost. Const., 63 ; Antiochene, 83 ; Byzantine, 91 ; Alexandrine, 96 ; Gallican, 103. Sanctus bell, 342. Sarapion of Thmuis, 94, 131, 161, 363 ; Epiklesis, 404. Sarum rite, 202-204 ; celebrant's preparation, 227 ; bidding prayer, 295; washing of hands, 310; Communion prayers, 382-383. Scholasticus in Gregory I, 362- 363. Scotland ; Roman rite, 179. INDEX 427 Scotti, B., 206. Secret, 311 314; VIII Apost. Const., 69 ; Gallican, 103 ; in- vocation of the Holy Ghost, 404. Sedulius, C, 222, n. 4. Seeing the Host, 341. Sequence, 272-280; Sarum, 203. Sergius I, Pope (687-701) ; Agnus Dei, 137, 387. Sermon, 284-285 ; in the N.T., 3, 6 ; Justin, 20 ; Irenaeus, 27 ; Clement Alex., 29 ; Origen, 30 ; II Apost. Const., 35 ; Tertullian, 39 ; Cyprian, 45 ; VIII Apost. Const., 61 ; Gallican, 102. Sicardus of Cremona ; incense at the gospel, 282. Sicut erat in principio, 217, n. 4. Silence commanded before the lessons, 264 ; and gospel, 282. Silent prayer, 312; Canon, 325- 327- Silvia (Aetheria) ; see Peregrinatio. Sixtus (Xystus) I, Pope (c. 119- 128) ; Sanctus, 136, 322. Sirmond ; azyme, 301. Solitary Mass, 182, 192. Sonus ; Gallican offertory-chant, 103. Sozomen ; bishop reads the gos- pel, 280 ; alleluia at Rome, 268 ; sermon at Alexandria and Rome, 285. Spain ; Roman rite, 180. Spanish rites, 104-106, 180 ; creed, 287 ; see Mozarabic. Stahat mateTj 277. Standing for prayer in the N.T., 4 ; Origen, 31 ; Tertullian, 40; at the Gospel, 282 ; for Com- munion, 375; Origen, 34. Station, 244, 174. Stational days ; Tertullian, 43. Stephen II, Pope (752-757); Roman rite in the Prankish kingdom, 178. Stipend for Mass, 187. Stov/e Missal ; dismissal, 391. Subdeacon reads the epistle, 263- 264. Sunday, 185 ; in the N.T., 3, 5 ; Justin, 20-22 ; Tertullian, 43. Sully, E. de, Bishop of Paris (1196-1208); moment of conse- cration, 340. Super populum, oratio, 390. Supplices te ro^amiiSj 348-354, iio-iii, 153 ; Epiklesis, 406. Supra qticB, 348-349, 153 ; Epikle- sis, 406. Sursitm cor da, 319 ; Cyprian, 46 ; VIII Apost. Const., 63 ; Byzan- tine, go; Gallican, 103. Suscipe sancta Trinitas, 311. Suscipe sancte Pater , 305. Syllabic chant of sequences, 274. Symmachus, Pope (498-514) ; Gloria in exc, 241-242. Synapte ; see Litany. Synaxarion ; Greek name for capitulare, 116. Synaxis ; meeting, 398 ; collect, 244. Syrian, East ; rites, 85-87 ; dis- missal, 391. Table of liturgies, 107-109. Talaia, John, of Alexandria ; Roman Canon, 165. Tatian's Diatessaron, 258- Te igitury 328-329, 142, 144, 152- 153^ 157- Telesphorus, Pope (128-139 ?) ; Gloria in exc, 241. Tertullian, 39-44 ; daily celebra- tion, 186 ; kiss of peace, 370 ; names of the Eucharistic service, 398. Testament of our Lord, 59. Thanksgiving ; Didache, 10 ; Cle- ment Rom., 13 ; Justin, 18 ; see Eucharist. Theophilus of Antioch, 26. Thomas Aquinas ; Lauda Sion, 277 ; incense at the offertory, 309 ; washing of hands, 309 ; Communion under one kind, 379 ; form of consecration, 407. Thomas of Celano; Dies irce^ 278. 428 THE MASS Through our Lord ^esus Christ in the N.T., 4 ; see Per Dominum. Thurston, H. ; Holy Week cere- monies, 183, n. 5 ; elevation, 339-342; Communion-chant in Lent, 386. Ticino; Milanese rite, 180. Time at which the Holy Eucharist was celebrated ; Tertullian, 43, 186 ; Cyprian, 44, 47, 186. Timothy 1 of Constantinople (511- 518) ; creed, 290. Toledo ; see Mozarabic. Toledo, Synod (589) ; creed, 290 ; Synod (693) leavened bread, 301. Tomasi, J., 197 ; Gelasian Sacra- mentary, 119. Tract, 271-272. Transitorium ; Milanese Com- munion-chant, 386. Trecanum ; Gallican Communion- chant, 386. Trent, Synod (1545-1563) ; reform of the missal, 206 ; Communion under one kind, 380. Trinity; Sundays after Trinity, 203, n. 2. Trisagion ; Byzantine, 90 ; Alex- andrine, 96 ; Coptic and Abyssin- ian, 279 ; Gallican, 102. Tropus ; see Farced. Type of liturgy fixed before details, 56, 77-78. Unchanging Canon, 151, 155. Unde et memores^ 346 ; Sarum, 204 ; see Anamnesis. Uniates use leavened bread, 302 ; Armenians have mixed chalice, 306. Uniformity in the first three cent- uries, 51-57, 141-142 ; in the Roman rite, 208, 211. Unity of the Canon, 347-348, 353. 404. Urban II, Pope {1088- 1099); pre- face of B.V.M., 319. Urban VIII, Pope (1623-1644) ; reform of the missal, 209. Vaison, Synod (529) ; Kyrie eleisoHj 233 ; sanctuSj 322. Valencia, Synod (524) ; catechu- mens present at the gospel, 280. Vecchioni at Milan, 300, Veiling the oblata, 299. Veni sancte Spiritus^ 277. Veni sanctificator^ 307. Vere digntauy 316, 320. Vere sanctus or Post sanctus prayer (Gallican and Mozara- bic), 103, 167, 328. Vernacular sequences, 275. Versus alleluiaticus, 269. Vert, C. de, 198. Vesper collect at the end of Mass (super populum), 390. Vestments ; rudimentary in Origen, 33 ; see Colour. VictimcB paschalij 276. Victor I, Pope (190-202) writes Latin, 126 ; fermentum, 369. Victor of Capua ; Epistles, 262. Vigilius, Pope (537-555) ; letter to Profuturus of Braga, 104, 134 ; Te igitur^ 137 ; prex canonica, 324- Virgil and the number of collects, 249. Votive Mass, 211 ; Gelasian Sacr., 120. Walafrid Strabo, 287. Washing of hands, 309-311. West Goths in Spain, 180. Whitby, Synod (664) ; Roman rite in England, 179. Wipo ; Victimae paschali, 276. XiMENES, F., 105, 180. Xystus I, Pope ; see Sixtus. Zaghary, Pope (741-752); Roman rite in Germany, 179. ABERDEEN : THE UNIVERSITY PRESS :v:::^Mv^;::^.-^!;;^j . .^> ■ ^^^^mM^^m