THE MASS OF THE WESTERN RITES

By the Right Reverend Dom Fernand Cabrol


PREFACE

Theologians, historians, and liturgiologists are to-day in agreement in 
recognizing that the Mass is the most important function of all Christian 
worship; and that the greater part of the other rites are in close relation 
with the Eucharist.

This affirmation rests upon the most serious study of Christianity, in 
antiquity as well as in the Middle Ages; and the various works regarding 
the Mass, which have been multiplied in recent years, have merely confirmed 
this truth. More and more have the faithful, in their turn, become 
convinced of it; while even those who are without the Faith are beginning 
to interest themselves in the Mass, and to endeavor to know more of its 
history and to understand its meaning.

These facts explain the number of books which have recently appeared on 
this subject. A glance at the Bibliography printed at the end of this 
Preface will suffice to give an idea of their extent, and may serve as a 
guide to those who wish to study the question more deeply. This 
consideration might have dissuaded us from adding to all these works (some 
of which are excellent) another book on the Mass. But we may first remark 
that the "Bibliotheque catholique des sciences religieuses"[1] had, from 
the beginning, comprehended in its plan a volume on the Latin Mass as one of 
the elements of its synthesis.

Further, it may be noticed that the larger number of the books whose titles 
we quote are chiefly, and sometimes entirely, occupied with the Roman Mass, 
while our own plan comprises a study of the Latin, or Mass of the Western 
Rites; that is, of the Mass as celebrated in Africa, Gaul, Spain, Great 
Britain, and Northern Italy and in the other Latin countries in the Middle 
Ages, as well as in Rome.

Now this comparison of the different Latin rites is most suggestive. Better 
than all other considerations it reveals first the relationship of these 
rites, and the fundamental unity of all the liturgies under their different 
forms. Then, as we shall see, it throws light on the rites of the Roman 
Mass which, consequently on the suppression of some of their number, can 
only be understood by comparison with more complete rites. It must be added 
that the Mass is so rich in material that each may study it from his own 
point of view, and while receiving much benefit from the latest works on 
the same subject, may present his own under a new aspect. Thus, following 
Mgr. Duchesne's book, Mgr Batiffol thought it worth while to give us his 
"Lecons sur la Messe;" and assuredly no one will consider that these 
"Lessons" are a repetition of the work of his illustrious predecessor, or 
of any of the other books already published upon this subject.

To those who may recognize in our own study views already exposed by one or 
other of the authors quoted, we may remark that many articles in our 
"Dictionnaire d'archeologie chretienne et de liturgie" (anamnese, anaphore, 
canon, etc.) had taken chronological precedence of the greater part of 
these books, so that in drawing inspiration from them we have but made use 
of the "jus postliminii."

This, then, is the line we shall follow in this new study of the Mass; and, 
while conforming with chronology, it seems to us at the same time to be the 
most logical. We shall first examine the Mass in the first three centuries, 
during which a certain liturgical unity reigned, and while the different 
Christian provinces of the West had not each created its own special 
liturgy. We shall then explain (Ch. II) how and why, from the fourth to the 
seventh century, those liturgical characteristics which distinguish the 
various Latin families became definite. According to these principles we 
shall attempt to establish the classification of these liturgical families 
and their genealogy.

In the following chapters we shall rapidly sketch the general 
characteristics of the Mass in Africa, Gaul, Spain, Milan, and Great 
Britain. It goes without saying that the Roman liturgy having become our 
own, as well as that of the West (with rare exceptions), and also that of 
the East, the Far East, and the New World--in short, of most Christian 
countries--it demands detailed study, as well as a close following of its 
historical development from the fifth to the twentieth century.

We have, according to the usual method, placed in an Excursus certain 
questions which would have delayed the progress of the work, since they can 
be studied separately. Such are: the chants of the Mass, the liturgical 
gestures, the meaning of the word "Missa," the ancient books now united in 
the existing Missal, the different kinds of Masses, etc. We hope that those 
who are willing to follow us on these lines will arrive at certain 
conclusions, and, if they are not specialists (for whom this book is not 
written), that their ideas as to the great Christian Sacrifice will be 
clearer and more precise.

The Mass as it is to-day, presents itself under a somewhat complicated form 
to the non-Catholic, and even to a large number of the faithful. The 
ceremonies, readings, chants, and formulas follow each other without much 
apparent method or logic. It is a rather composite mosaic, and it must be 
confessed that it does seem rather incoherent. Rites, indeed, have been 
added to rites; others have been rather unfortunately suppressed, and where 
this is the case, gaps, or what have been styled "gaping holes," appear.

But the historical and comparative method applied in this book explains the 
greater part of these anomalies, making it fairly easy to reconstitute the 
synthesis of the Mass, to grasp the guide-line, and, once in possession of 
the general idea which has presided at all these developments, to 
understand the whole better when light is thus thrown on the details.

The Mass thus studied throughout its different epochs reveals a magnificent 
theological and historical thesis. We have not been able to insist on this 
point as strongly as we could have wished, because in the first place these 
volumes are not intended to be books of spiritual edification, nor, 
strictly speaking, of apologetics. But it seems to us that here facts speak 
for themselves, telling us why the Mass has from its very origin taken its 
place as the true center of the liturgy; how it has drawn everything to 
itself; how at one moment it was almost the whole liturgy, in the sense 
that, primitively, all Christian rites gravitated round it.

At the same time Sacrifice and Sacrament, the One Christian Sacrifice and, 
if one may say so, the most Divine of the Sacraments, it sums up and 
sanctifies all the elements which have made of sacrifice the center of the 
greater part of all religions; first, by the idea that man owes to God 
homage for the gifts he has received from Him and that he recognizes His 
dominion over all creation; then, by the idea that he must expiate his 
faults in order to render God favorable to him; lastly, by a certain desire 
to unite himself to God by participation in that sacrifice. Thus the Mass 
raises the idea of sacrifice to its highest expression, whilst purifying it 
from all the false notions which had obscured it in pagan religions.

For the Christian, too, it is the best means by which to unite himself with 
his brethren in communion with Christ. Prayer in common, the Kiss of Peace, 
above all the participation in the same Banquet of the Body and Blood of 
Our Lord are so many expressive, living symbols of Christian unity, of 
Catholicity, of charity.

For the Christian, again, the Mass is an efficacious help along the road of 
the spiritual life. One of his essential duties, common to all men, is to 
praise God in His works, to offer Him our thanks, to present our requests 
to Him: in a word, to pray. Now the Mass is the center of the whole Divine 
Office; we even believe it would be possible to show that at one time the 
first part of the Mass was the most eloquent and, indeed, the only mode of 
expression of this official prayer.

The Mass, then, sums up the greatest mysteries of our Faith. The faithful 
Catholic is present at the Last Supper, at the Passion and Death of Our 
Lord upon the Cross ù he realizes what Christ has willed by the institution 
of this Divine Sacrament and by the accomplishment of His Sacrifice on 
Calvary. He is invited to share in that Banquet which was the Last Supper, 
when Our Lord gives Himself in Holy Communion; and, being present at the 
bloody Sacrifice of Calvary, he sees what Christ has suffered for the sins 
of the whole of humanity as well as those of His own disciples.

Theologians and all mystical writers have dwelt upon these different 
aspects of the Mass, and when once the claims of erudition and of history 
are satisfied it will be easier and more profitable to go direct to these 
authors, for so far from being an obstacle, the exact knowledge of facts 
is, on the contrary, of the greatest assistance to true piety.


ENDNOTES

1. "La Messe en Occident," of which the present volume is a translation, 
was published (1932) in the above series.


BIBLIOGRAPHY

LE BRUN (Pierre), "Explication litterale, historique et dogmatique des 
prieres et des ceremonies de la Messe," remains the most complete and 
learned work on the Mass. It has been many times republished, and has not 
lost its value. (First edition, 4 vols., Paris, 1726.) The first volume 
contains the "Explication de la Messe romaine," the second and third, 
"Etude des diverses liturgies orientales et occidentales," the fourth, 
dissertations on different subjects, notably on the "Silence des prieres de 
la Messe."

The work of Mgr. DUCHESNE, "Origines du culte chretien" which is in reality 
an "Etude sur la liturgie latine avant Charlemagne" (fourth edition, 1908), 
is an admirable synthesis of the Latin liturgies which has on more than one 
point shown the subject in a new light, though several syntheses, even in 
the opinion of the writer, are subject to revision.

Mgr. BATIFFOL, in his "Lecons sur la Messe" (Paris, 1919), has laid down on 
this subject the latest pronouncements of criticism. In the "Eucharistie 
(La Presence reelle et la transubstantiation" (fifth edition, revised, 
Paris, 1913) he had already studied the history of Eucharistic dogma from 
its origins to the Council of Ephesus.

ADRIAN FORTESCUE in "The Mass, a study of the Roman liturgy"(London 1912), 
had approached the same subject a few years earlier; his book treats 
specially of the history of the Roman Rite. See also his article "Mass" in 
the "Catholic Encyclopaedia."

JOH. BRINKTRINE:, the latest comer, "Die Heilige Messe" (Paderborn, 1931), 
has also treated the subject specially as a historian and liturgiologist.

M. GIHR, "Le Saint Sacrifice de la Messe" (2 vols., Paris, 19O1), a 
theological, ascetical, and liturgical "summa" upon the Mass, containing a 
great quantity of information.

AD. FRANZ, "Die Messe im Deutschen Mittelalter "(I vol., 8vo, 
Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1902).

Cardinal SCHUSTER, "Liber Sacramentorum, Notes historiques et liturgiques 
sur le Missel romain," translated from the Italian (6 vols., Brussels, 
1925-1930).

Dom J. DE PUNIET, "La Liturgie de la Messe" (Avignon, 1928). P. MARANGET, 
"La Messe romaine" (Brussels, 1925).

Dom E. VANDEUR, "La Sainte Messe "(Maredsous, 1928, seq.). 

The articles "Eucharistie" and "Messe" in the "Dictionnaire de Theologie 
catholique," and in DACL (which, once for all, may be said to stand for 
"Dictionnaire d'Archeologie chretienne et de Liturgie"), and the same 
articles in U. CHEVALIER, "Topo-bibliographie," for the Bibliography; there 
is also a Bibliography in FORTESCUE, op. cit., p. 541 seq. In our own 
pamphlet on THE MASS there is a chapter on the literature of this subject. 
See also in DACL the articles "anamnese," "anaphore," "Communion," "canon," 
"Eucharistie," "elevation," and others mentioned in the course of our work.

Ch. ROEAULT DE FLEURY has written a fine monumental work in his "La Messe," 
consisting chiefly of archeological studies (4to, Paris, 1883-1889). The 
most valuable information is to be found here upon the furnishing of 
churches, the ornaments and sacred vessels, and upon all those things 
connected with the service of the Mass.

AUTHOR'S NOTE.--The works of Duchesne, Batiffol, Gihr, Schuster, and De 
Puniet mentioned above have been translated into English.



CHAPTER I 

THE MASS, FROM THE FIRST TO THE FOURTH CENTURIES. LITURGICAL UNITY

The Eucharistic Synaxis.--The aliturgical (non-liturgical, or without the 
Eucharist) Synaxis.--The days and hours of the Synaxis.--The Eucharistic 
Prayer.

It must be laid down from the beginning of this chapter that during this 
first period the Mass has what we may call a universal character. No 
regional distinctions appear; and our own divisions into Oriental and 
Occidental, or Greek and Latin liturgies, had no reality in those days.

It was not until the fourth century that the geographical and political 
division between the East and West was truly established. Thus during the 
first three centuries it may be said that there were no liturgical 
families, but only one single Christian liturgy, where, in a certain sense, 
unity reigned.

The word "unity," however, must not be taken too literally. It is true that 
so far there was no division into liturgical families, but there was great 
variety of usages and rites. The law was "great liberty," and it may be 
said that there is more difference between the liturgy of the Didache, that 
of Hippolytus, and that of Serapion than there was, later, between the 
liturgies of Byzantium, of Rome, and the Mozarabic and Gallican liturgies. 
The differences are rather those between church and church; the old 
churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, Rome, and Carthage were great 
liturgical centers. 

But the differences existing between the different churches did not prevent 
peace and unity from reigning amongst them. In the second century 
Polycratus, Bishop of Ephesus, tells us that Pope Anicetus invited St. 
Polycarp to celebrate the Mass. And a little later Firmilianus, Bishop of 
Caesarea in Cappadocia, the correspondent of St. Cyprian, remarks in his 
turn that the varieties of ritual then existing (in the middle of the third 
century) made not the least difference to unity.[1]

What was the Mass during this first period? How was it celebrated? What 
were its principal elements and, if evolution has taken place, what were 
its different stages? To answer these questions the best method seems to us 
to study the following points:

1. The Eucharistic Synaxis.

2. The aliturgical Synaxis (separated from the Eucharist).

3. The days and hours of the Synaxis.

4. The Eucharistic Prayer.


1 THE EUCHARISTIC SYNAXIS.--The word "synaxis" comes from "sunaxis," 
gathering together; "sunaxein," to meet or gather together. It was early 
employed in the language of Christians to designate an assembly, and 
especially an assembly to hear Mass.

The Church was born in Jewish surroundings. It is a fact that the first 
Christians, Apostles or disciples, were Jews by birth, or proselytes, on 
the day of Pentecost, the true Birthday of the Church. So it was during the 
years that followed, until the day when, by the preaching of St. Paul, the 
Gentiles entered the Church, of which very soon they became a majority. 
This is of the highest importance, all the more because there was never any 
brutal rupture between the Church and the Mosaic religion. The Church 
indeed always condemned the Marcionites and all those who, with them, 
proscribed the ancient law and those who had come out from it.

Most preciously did the Church guard the Pentateuch and all the inspired 
books of the Jews. This means that She preserved faith in the God of the 
Old Testament; that She kept the Decalogue--that is, the laws of universal 
morality and all the Old Testament theology. But at the same time She was 
no Judaiser. She separated Herself from the synagogue and declared Herself 
against it, as a distinct society which had its own organization, 
institutions, and laws. Just as She condemned the Marcionites, so She 
expelled the Judaisers from Her company, as those who desired jealously to 
retain circumcision and the other Jewish practices.

It was the same thing as regards the liturgy. When the Church was born the 
Temple was still standing, with its sacrifices, its highly complicated 
ceremonies, its priesthood. It is true that the Apostles still went to pray 
at the Temple, but here one most important fact must be noted. The first of 
the faithful formed a band apart. The Jews saw in them a sect desirous of 
separating itself from Judaism, against which they fought furiously, and 
tried to suppress as a disloyal and dangerous body. And this separation was 
more keenly accentuated day by day. We can, of course, see how natural it 
was that many of the new Christians should still remain attached to the 
ancient form of worship. These were the Judaisers. We find them mentioned 
in the Acts. St. Paul in his Epistles fights against them; raising his 
voice against those who wished to circumcise all new converts, to force 
them to observe the new moons, the Jewish feasts, etc.

All that had to cease. He claims the right of liberty for these new 
converts. It is not the Law and its observances which will save them; it is 
the Faith in Jesus Christ, obedience to His precepts, docility to His 
teaching. Naturally, between these two parties there were innumerable 
shades of difference, but as time went on these shades gradually effaced 
themselves. These practices of the Law were only shadows; figures reflected 
in the new worship, but which in the end must give way to it, "et antiquum 
documentum novo cedat ritui."

Moreover, in a few years (A.D. 70) a most important event would give the 
final blow to the Jewish worship and its sacrifices. The Temple was 
destroyed by the Roman armies, and the inhabitants of Jerusalem were 
dispersed.

A new form of worship was instituted for the Christians in those private 
meetings, which are many times mentioned in the Acts. (Acts ii. 42, 46. Cf. 
Acts xx. 7, seq.) Prayer was offered, and the Breaking of Bread took place. 
This Breaking of Bread was the Mass.

In what, exactly, did it consist? The converts met to celebrate anew that 
Banquet, the Last Supper, which took place in the Cenacle on the night 
preceding the death of Our Lord. This is stated in texts of the first 
importance, for it is upon their witness that the whole tradition of the 
Mass is based. There is first the witness of the three synoptic Gospels, 
St. Matthew, St. Mark and St. Luke, whose accounts may be summed up as 
follows:

On the first day of the "Azymes," which is Thursday, the Apostles, at the 
request of Our Lord Himself, prepared a room where He might celebrate the 
Pasch with His disciples. It was the Jewish custom, and Our Lord had 
assuredly not failed to observe it throughout the preceding years. But this 
time the banquet was to have a supreme importance, for He knew that this 
meal was the last He should take with His Apostles.

Now, "coenantibus eis," as St. Matthew says, during the meal, and no doubt 
towards the end, Our Lord took bread, blessed it, brake, and gave it to His 
disciples, saying: "Take, eat, this is My Body." Then, taking the chalice 
(the cup containing wine mingled with water), He offered it to them, 
saying: "This is My Blood of the New Testament" (the New Covenant) "which 
is shed for many for the remission of sins." Then, "hymno dicto," the 
prayer being said, they went out to the Mount of Olives. There Our Lord 
entered into His Agony, and the soldiers, led by Judas, came to seize Him 
(St. Matt. XXVi. 13--15)

We know what followed, and the story of that night whose details the 
Evangelists have given us; the scenes of the Crucifixion and Death on Good 
Friday. The same account which we have just quoted from St. Matthew is 
found with little variation in St. Mark and St. Luke.[2]

As for St. John, faithful to his system, he does not repeat what the three 
synoptic Gospels have related; but contents himself with completing them as 
occasion arises. Thus he gives us details omitted by them as to the Last 
Supper, and the discourse of Our Lord during and after the meal. His 
seventeenth chapter contains what is called the Sacerdotal Prayer of 
Christ, which may be considered as the Divine commentary on the Eucharist. 
In his sixth chapter, on the occasion of the multiplication of the loaves, 
he had set forth teaching of incomparable precision upon the Eucharist. 
"Except you eat the flesh of the Son of Man, and drink His blood you shall 
not have life in you" (vi. 54).

Lastly, St. Paul is a fifth witness, and not the least. He, in his Epistle 
to the Corinthians (I Cor. xi. 23-29) gives us a detailed account, the most 
ancient in our possession, of the way in which the early Christians 
celebrated the Eucharist. These different texts having been explained 
elsewhere, I content myself with noting certain principal points upon which 
almost every one is agreed.[3] It is a question of a repast which was the 
Paschal meal. At its close Our Lord took bread and wine, and in virtue of 
His Blessing and of His words they were changed into His Body and Blood. We 
use the theological term transubstantiated to mark that of the bread and 
wine nothing is left but the species or appearances, the substance having 
given place to the Body and Blood of Christ.

It is a new covenant in the Blood of Christ shed to wash away the sins of 
the world, and to redeem us, thus it is a sacrifice in intimate union with 
that of the Cross, which was to take place the next day; a sacrifice, and 
at the same time a sacramental meal.

Upon this point, as upon many others, the synoptic Gospels do not enter 
into great detail, they merely sum up and abbreviate. One thing, however, 
is certain: the capital importance of this act in the Life of Our Lord. 
This can be deduced even from the record of the synoptics, though they 
relate these Divine events with a disconcerting simplicity which in reality 
is Divine. The other Sacraments are not mentioned in the Gospels, or only 
mentioned in a few words. But here each synoptic one after the other, 
carefully relates the same history which, as has been said, St. John 
completes. The room where the feast is to be held has been chosen, prepared 
by Christ Himself. This meal is to be the last in His Life, it is like the 
last meal of one condemned to death; for the solemnity of death hovers over 
this brotherly love-feast. It is probably also the Paschal supper, which 
Our Lord was accustomed solemnly to celebrate with His disciples. His 
attitude, his very words, all have now a deeper meaning than ever before. 
He speaks of bread and wine becoming His Body and Blood, and of offering 
them as food to His Apostles.

It is the New Covenant, which is to replace the Old Covenant concluded 
between God and His people in the time of Moses; the New Testament which 
takes the place of the Old. A new order of things is beginning, of which we 
may say with the poet: "novus ab integro saeclorum nascitur ordo."

Now St. Paul's text proves that the Christians obeyed Christ's precept; 
they renewed their celebration of that last banquet in memory of Him, "hoc 
facite in Meam commemorationem." But they introduced a new element into it. 
According to St. Paul the Eucharist was accomplished at the close of 
another repast, which was the "agape." This circumstance has complicated 
the history of the origin of the Eucharist, but I think the difficulty may 
be shortly summed up.

The agape was a repast celebrated by the Christians, and, as the word 
indicates, it was a feast of love, or charity. The details given by St. 
Paul make it easy to understand the possible abuses which might arise from 
it. The Jews, and even the pagans, had feasts of the same kind. Is the 
"agape" derived from either of these, or is it specifically Christian? My 
own opinion is that this question is of little importance. But what we must 
note is that, according to St. Paul and other witnesses, it was at that 
time united to the Eucharist. Very soon--probably at the beginning of the 
second century--the two were separated on account of abuses, and towards 
the fourth century the "agape" was declining. It must not be confounded 
with those repasts sometimes celebrated by the Christians on the tombs of 
the martyrs, or in cemeteries, though these also had a liturgical 
character.

After the text of St. Paul, which throws great light on the question of the 
Eucharist, I will quote the "Didache." The "Didache," or "Doctrine of the 
Apostles," is a document discovered in 1883, which is extremely interesting 
but also most obscure, and about which opinions still vary. We may, I 
suppose, believe that it was written at the beginning of the second 
century. It was recognized almost generally as a description of the 
Eucharist from the moment of its discovery. In recent years many scholars--
and those by no means the least important--have come to the conclusion that 
it describes the agape, and not the Eucharist. Others again, with, in my 
own opinion, greater reason, say that part applies to the agape, the rest 
to the Eucharist (Maclean, Thibaut). Here is the translation of the part 
which will interest us:

"As to the Eucharist, give thanks thus. 
First, for the chalice: 
We thank Thee, O our Father 
For the holy vine of David Thy servant, 
Which Thou hast made us know through Jesus Thy Servant. 
Glory be to Thee throughout all ages! 
Then for the broken bread: 
We give Thee thanks, O our Father 
For life and knowledge 
Which Thou hast made us know through Jesus Thy Servant. 
Glory be to Thee throughout all ages!
As this broken bread, formerly scattered over the mountains, has been 
gathered together to form a single whole,
So may Thy Church be assembled from the ends of the earth in Thy Kingdom,
For to Thee is all power and glory by Jesus Christ through out all ages!
Let no one eat or drink of your Eucharist if he be not baptized in the Name 
of the Lord, for it was of this that the Lord said: 'Give not that which is 
holy unto the dogs.'
After you are filled, give thanks thus:
We thank Thee, O Holy Father!
For Thy Holy Name
That Thou hast caused to dwell in our hearts,
For knowledge, faith, and the immortality
Which Thou hast revealed through Jesus Thy Servant.
Glory be to Thee throughout all ages!
It is Thou, Omnipotent Master,
Who hast created the universe for the honor of Thy Name
Who hast given food and drink to man, that he may enjoy them and render 
thanks to Thee;
But Thou hast given us a spiritual food and drink, and eternal life by Thy 
Servant.
Above all, we give thanks to Thee because Thou art powerful.
Glory be to Thee throughout all ages!
Remember, O Lord, to deliver Thy Church from all evil,
And to make it perfect in Thy love. Assemble it from the four winds, that 
Holy Church,
In Thy Kingdom which Thou hast prepared for it,
For Thine is all power and glory throughout all ages!
Come, Grace, let the world pass!
Hosanna to the God of David!
Let him that is holy, come!
Let him that is not, do penance!
Maran-Atha (The Lord comes). Amen.
But as to the prophets, let them give thanks as they will."[4]

Besides the "Didache" there are numerous passages containing allusions to 
the Eucharist in the writers at the close of the first and of the second 
century. St. Clement of Rome has a prayer which is considered Eucharistic; 
we shall come back to it presently. St. Ignatius gives it the names of 
"eucharistia" and of breaking "ena harton klontes". He insists that this 
should be accomplished by the Bishop, and that it is a sign of unity.[5] He 
uses the word "thusiasterion" to design the place of sacrifice, which 
clearly points out that, to him, the Eucharist was also Sacrifice. It would 
also seem that with him the "agape" is still united to the Eucharist 
(Srawley, loc. cit., p. 31).

The testimony of St. Justin in the middle of the second century must be 
specially noted, since it is an actual description of the Christian 
assembly:

" As for us, after having washed him who believes and has joined himself to 
us (Justin has just described Christian Baptism), we lead him to that place 
where are assembled those we call our brothers. With fervor we offer 
prayers for ourselves, for the enlightened[6] (him who has just received 
the 
light of Baptism), for all the rest, wherever they may be, in order to 
obtain with the knowledge of the Truth, the grace to practice virtue, to 
keep the commandments, and thus to merit eternal salvation.

"When the prayers are ended we give each other the Kiss of Peace. Then to 
him who presides over the assembly of brothers are brought bread and a cup 
of water and wine mingled. He takes them, and praises and glories the 
Father of the universe in the Name of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; then 
he makes a long thanksgiving for all the benefits we have received from 
Him. When he has finished his prayers and the thanksgiving, all the people 
present exclaim: Amen! Amen is a Hebrew word meaning 'So be it.' When he 
who presides has made the thanksgiving, and when all the people have 
answered, the ministers whom we call deacons distribute to all those 
present the consecrated bread, the consecrated wine and water, and they 
carry them to those who are absent. We call this food the EUCHARIST, and no 
one can have part in it unless he believe in the Truth of our Doctrine; 
unless he have received the bath for the remission of sins and 
regeneration; and unless he live according to the precepts of Christ. For 
we take not that Food as common bread and common drink. Just as by virtue 
of the Word of God, Jesus Christ our Savior took flesh and blood for our 
salvation, thus the Food consecrated by the prayer formed of the very words 
of Christ, that Food which nourishes by assimilation our own body and 
blood, is the Flesh and Blood of Jesus incarnate. Such is our Doctrine. The 
Apostles, in their memoirs which are called Gospels, relate that Jesus 
Himself announced these things to them. He took bread and, having given 
thanks, said to them:

" 'Do this in memory of Me: This is My Body.' In the same manner He took 
the chalice, and having given thanks, He said to them: 'This is My Blood.' 
And to them alone He gave it. The evil spirits have imitated this 
institution in the mysteries of Mithra: bread and a cup of water are 
presented in the ceremonies of initiation, and certain formulas are 
pronounced which you know, or which you may know."[7]

It is well to cite even the testimony of the apocryphal writings, some of 
which indeed are heretical, but which often give us priceless information 
as to the usages of the second and third centuries. A German author[8] has 
made a special study of all these texts on the Eucharist. For the heretics 
also celebrated the Eucharist after their manner; they consecrated bread 
and wine; they considered the rite as a sacrifice; some forbade wine, 
declaring they would only consecrate water, whence their name of 
Aquarians.[9] Sometimes they give the text of the prayer they recited over 
the bread and wine, and which produced, they thought, its change into the 
Body and Blood of Christ.

At the beginning of the third century we have a text the very high value of 
which has long since been recognized, and which an English scholar has 
attributed to St. Hippolytus. This text is that of the Eucharistic 
anaphora, or of the Canon recited at Rome at the beginning of the third 
century. To this also we shall return later on. Nor must we forget the 
African writers of the third century, notably Tertullian and St. Cyprian 
whose testimony we shall study in Chapter III.

Lastly, in the fourth century, we have the text of another anaphora 
recently discovered. It is that of Serapion, the friend of St. Athanasius, 
and Bishop of Thmuis in Egypt. This we shall deal with in Chapter IV.


2. THE ALITURGICAL SYNAXIS (WITHOUT THE EUCHARIST).--The liturgic or 
Eucharistic synaxis, as it is described in these texts, is a gathering 
exclusively Christian, to which none but the faithful are admitted. The 
names usually given to it are "Eucharistia" or "Fractio Panis," either 
equally appropriate, because this rite is, above all, a Eucharistic prayer 
of thanksgiving; and the breaking of bread for distribution to the faithful 
is an essential act of it, an integral part.

But beyond this Eucharistic gathering there were others which may have been 
connected with the Eucharist, but which are distinct from it, and in fact 
are sometimes separated from it. Thus, in that room in which the 
Eucharistic mystery had already been accomplished, where the Church was to 
be born, we find the Apostles, after the Ascension, meeting together and 
persevering unanimously in prayer (Acts i.14). Later on Peter and John, 
after having appeared before the synagogue, returned to their brethren and 
addressed that sublime prayer to God which is yet not a Eucharistic prayer 
(iv. 23 seq.). When Peter was put into prison by Herod the whole Church 
united in prayer for him (xii. 5, and further on, 12, "multi congregati et 
orantes").

Pliny, at the beginning of the second century, in his famous text on the 
Christians, speaks of a first meeting which they held upon a fixed day, 
"statuto die," probably Sunday; it took place before the dawn, and they 
sang hymns to Christ as God. In the evening of the same day they met 
together again for a meal in common, in which some have seen the "agape," 
but which was far more probably the Eucharist. Many other allusions to 
these aliturgical synaxes will be found in Clement of Rome, Ignatius, 
etc.[10]

St. Justin also speaks, in the text already quoted, of a meeting at which 
were read the Holy Scriptures and the memoirs of the Apostles, and at which 
certain prayers were recited. This meeting was followed by the Eucharistic 
service. Thus prayers, readings, chants all served as prelude to the 
Eucharist. We have here I believe the first really precise example of what 
we call to-day the Pre-Mass, or Mass of the catechumens, as to which I will 
only say one word. Even in the existing liturgy we find traces of this 
aliturgical synax separated from the Eucharistic service, as, for example, 
in the office for Good Friday. It seems evident that this ceremony proceeds 
from that used in the synagogues on the Sabbath: the singing of psalms, 
reading the law and the prophets homily--all this is just the material of 
the Mass of the catechumens. It also agrees with what was said at the 
beginning of this chapter. From the synagogue the Church freely borrowed 
those customs which would adapt themselves to her liturgy; but she 
completed and made perfect such rites. Here, for example, the reading of 
the New Testament has been added to that of the Old, and we have the 
admirable whole of the Mass of the catechumens, which will often be 
mentioned in the course of this book.

The fact to be retained is this: there were, amongst the Christians of the 
first three centuries, beyond the Eucharistic synax, other gatherings which 
were aliturgical, and which must be distinguished from the Mass although in 
many cases the aliturgical synax was followed by the Eucharist. In the same 
way the "agape," a meal quite distinct from the Eucharist, at one time 
preceded its celebration. The two cases are analogous and when once this 
distinction is clearly understood it becomes easier to interpret the 
ancient texts on the Eucharist it is because this analogy was not taken 
into account that so many writers on this subject have fallen into 
confusion and error.

The pagans were not excluded from these non-liturgical synaxes as they were 
from that of the Eucharist. Catechumens were admitted to them, and even 
heretics; but when the Eucharistic service began all these people were sent 
out, "foris canes," as was somewhat rudely said.

As to the vigils celebrated at the tombs of the martyrs, they were another 
form of synaxis which borrowed not only from the aliturgical gathering but 
from the agape, and from the liturgical synaxis itself. It was a local 
anniversary service which took place in the cemeteries, where psalms were 
chanted and the story of the passion of the martyr was read; and which was 
often followed by the agape and by the Eucharist. It was sometimes called 
"pannuchia," because it was celebrated at night, and was supposed to last 
from the previous evening until daylight next morning. We shall say no more 
about them here, as they do not exactly form part of our subject, but the 
ancient writers often speak of them; abuses occasionally took place, and in 
the end they were suppressed.[11]


3. THE DAYS AND HOURS OF THE SYNAXIS.--Pliny tells us that the Christian 
synaxes (liturgical or aliturgical) were held before the dawn, and in the 
evening. Tertullian and St. Cyprian also speak of these early or nocturnal 
meetings, as well as the different canonical documents of the third 
century.[12] In order, on days of fasting, not to break the fast, the 
meeting 
was kept back until the hour of None, or even till Vespers. Because these 
gatherings were often held at night the pagans called the Christians a race 
of night-birds--"lucifugae."

From the Acts it would seem that the faithful assembled thus daily. Pliny 
speaks of a certain fixed day, probably Sunday, which, of course, has been 
from the beginning the liturgical day par excellence. But from a very early 
date, especially in the West, Wednesday and Friday were days of meeting; 
while in the East the day chosen was Saturday. Thus was constituted the 
Christian week, with its Sunday and its Station days, Wednesday and Friday. 
In one sense it might be said that the Christian week preceded the 
Christian, or liturgical, year. The latter, however, does in its germ 
certainly date from the primitive epoch. Easter and Pentecost are as 
ancient as Sunday itself; and have contributed in no small degree to the 
importance of Sunday, since both Feasts were celebrated on that day. Now 
Easter and Pentecost early formed the sacred Fifty Days; the two Feasts 
depended on each other chronologically and liturgically. There was a 
preparation for Easter, in which we see the beginnings of Lent.

The principle on which Easter was celebrated applied, from the fourth 
century, to the Birth of Christ; thus we have the Feasts of Christmas and 
Epiphany. From this the entire liturgical year was derived. But from the 
beginning of this century Jerusalem was already ahead of all the other 
churches; her liturgical year was complete; she celebrated not only Easter 
and Pentecost, but also the Birth of Christ, the Presentation in the 
Temple, Lent with all its exercises, Holy Week. All these anniversaries 
were celebrated in the Holy Places. Thus, if we may so speak, a local 
liturgical year was created, soon to be imitated in many other churches, 
and first of all in that of Rome.[13]

The anniversaries of the martyrs were also solemnly celebrated, and gave 
birth to as many Feasts. The compilation of ecclesiastical calendars was in 
full flower in the fourth century. But this subject leads us away from our 
own, and we must return to the Eucharist.


4. THE EUCHARISTIC PRAYER.--In the texts we have quoted from the three 
synoptic Gospels Our Lord pronounces no prayer for the institution of the 
Eucharist: none, at least, is given us. Neither does St. Paul make any 
allusion to such a prayer. There are not wanting those who have wished to 
supplement this silence; and it has been said that such terms as "hymno 
dicto" (St. Matt. xxvi. 30) after the institution (see St. Mark xiv. 26) 
presuppose a prayer. It has been also said that, the institution of the 
Eucharist having taken place after the Paschal meal, Our Lord of necessity 
recited the prayers in use on that day, as well as the psalms called 
"Alleluiatic." Bickell's whole thesis rests on this hypothesis; he 
endeavors to discover traces of the Jewish Pasch in the ancient liturgies, 
especially in the "Apostolic Constitutions;" and other scholars have 
followed him along this road. Quite recently Pere Thibaut has undertaken 
the same task again, in a most interesting thesis. But as has been said 
other interpreters contest all relation between the Jewish Pasch and the 
Last Supper of the Christians.

Some consider St. John xiv.-xvii. as a Eucharistic prayer, of which Probst 
finds vestiges in the ancient liturgies. This is possible; but here we are 
upon hypothetical ground. With more likelihood we may see an anaphoric 
prayer, "a fragment of an evidently liturgical character" (Duchesne), in a 
text of the Epistle of Pope St. Clement. This we do not translate here, 
since it has so often been reproduced elsewhere.[14] After the text of the 
"Didache," which has become classic, and which has been given above, it 
will be well to cite that of St. Hippolytus already alluded to, and which 
under its primitive form is a prototype of all "anaphorae" and Eucharistic 
prayers, which scarcely do more than develop and paraphrase its theme.

"We render thanks to Thee, O God, through Thy well beloved Son Jesus 
Christ, that in these last days Thou hast sent Him as Savior and Redeemer 
and Angel (messenger) of Thy will, Who is Thine inseparable Word, by Whom 
Thou hast made all things, and in Whom Thou art well pleased; Thou hast 
sent Him from Heaven into the Virgin's womb, where He became Incarnate and 
manifested Himself as Thy Son, born of the Holy Ghost and of The Virgin; 
then, accomplishing Thy Will and conquering a new and holy race, He 
stretched out His Hands in His Passion in order that He might deliver from 
suffering those who have believed in Thee; and at the moment when He 
delivered Himself voluntarily to His Passion, in order to destroy Death, to 
break the devil's chains, to spurn hell under His Feet, to enlighten the 
just, to fix a term, to show forth the Resurrection, taking the bread and 
giving thanks He said: Take, eat: This is My Body which shall be mangled 
for you. Likewise the cup, saying, This is My Blood which is shed for you: 
when you do this you do it in memory of Me. Remembering then His Death and 
Resurrection we offer Thee this bread and this chalice, thanking Thee 
because Thou hast deigned to permit us to appear before Thee and to serve 
Thee. And we pray Thee to send Thy Holy Spirit upon the oblation of the 
Holy Church, and uniting them as one, that Thou wilt give to all the Saints 
who participate (in the Sacrifice) to be filled with the Holy Ghost and 
fortified in the truth of the Faith, so that we may praise Thee and glorify 
Thee by Thy Child Jesus Christ, by Whom to Thee is glory and honor, to the 
Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, in Your holy Church, now and for all ages. 
Amen.[15]

We have also spoken above of the text of that "anaphora" made by an 
Egyptian Bishop of the fourth century. In a sort of euchology intended for 
the Bishop, Serapion has composed prayers for the blessing of oil and 
water, for Baptism, for Ordinations, for the sick and for the dead. A whole 
series of prayers is recited before the "anaphora" (n. xix.-xxx.) in that 
part which we have called the Pre-Mass. The Mass of the faithful is 
composed of the "Prayer of the faithful," of the "anaphora" properly so 
called, which follows the ancient theme of the Prefaces: the mercy of God 
in creation, in the Incarnation, the recital of the institution of the 
Eucharist, the "anamnesis" and "epiclesis," the final doxology of the 
"anaphora," and the blessing over the people.[16]

To give an idea of the Mass at this epoch we may perhaps mention a text 
which was drawn up in the fourth century, though most of its leading 
features are more ancient, and to which certain liturgiologists have given 
a rather exaggerated importance, as they consider that it represents the 
Apostolic anaphora better than any other. Yet it has not the same value as 
the anaphora of Hippolytus, though it uses his text. The liturgical design 
of the Mass is as follows: readings from the Old and New Testaments, 
preaching; then, prayer for the catechumens, penitents, and those in other 
categories; the "oratio fidelium," the Kiss of Peace, the ablution of the 
hands, the Offertory, Preface, "Sanctus," the prayer of institution, the 
"Anamnesis," "Epiclesis," Memento, Communion, thanksgiving, and dismissal. 
Book VIII of the "Apostolic Constitutions" is especially interesting on 
account of the influence it exercised in the East, and even in the West, 
and at Rome.[17] This is a fresh argument in favor of that liturgical unity 
in the first centuries, Hippolytus, Serapion, the "Apostolic 
Constitutions," and even Clement of Rome and the "Didache" all exploit a 
theme which presents numerous analogies.[18]

We find one custom, which is that of the celebrated church of Antioch, 
retraced in the "Apostolic Constitutions." In another church which rivals 
that of Antioch in antiquity and fame--that of Alexandria--we have the 
Canon of Balizeh, which appears to go back to a period less remote, and 
which shows a different custom. But here, as with the different Eucharistic 
prayers which we have given, we have a text with a universal tendency, in 
spite of certain regional characteristics.[19]

We must now gather a few conclusions from all these texts. The first is 
this:

From the very beginning of the Church there existed an essential rite, 
distinct from that of the synagogue; a rite which, from the first moment, 
seems to take the lead amongst all others, of which in a manner it is the 
center. It consists of the reproduction and reconstruction of Our Lord's 
last repast, of the Last Supper in the Cenacle.

This rite is found everywhere. We have quoted the texts of Clement of Rome, 
of Ignatius of Antioch, of Justin, etc. But we could have multiplied our 
witnesses. A Christian traveler of the third century, Abercius, who had 
journeyed through the East as well as the West, tells us in a famous 
inscription:

" My name is Abercius: I am the disciple of a Holy Shepherd Who feeds His 
flocks of sheep on mountains and on plains; Who has eyes so large that 
their glance reaches everywhere. He it is Who has taught me the faithful 
Scriptures. He it is Who sent me to Rome.... I have also seen the plain of 
Syria and all its towns-- Nisibis on the borders of the Euphrates. 
Everywhere I went I found brethren. Paul was my companion. Faith led me 
everywhere; everywhere it served as my food, a fish from the spring, very 
great and pure, caught by a Holy Virgin; continuously she gave it to eat to 
her friends; she also has a delicious wine, which she gives with the 
bread."[20]

This rite considered as a banquet and a sacrifice, has banished ail the 
other sacrifices. Although the Church borrowed so largely from the Jewish 
liturgy, she left them their sacrifices. Those who attempt to discover 
analogies between the rites of paganism and those of the Christians cannot 
deny that the peaceful and unbloody Sacrifice of the altar has put an end 
to all sacrifices of blood. That river of blood which flowed through all 
pagan temples has been stopped by the Sacrifice of the Lamb.

This rite was accomplished with bread and wine. (Certain eccentrics are 
pointed out, such as the "Aquarians" or "Hydroparastes," who, already 
prohibitionists, forbade all wine, even at Mass.) Those who partook of it 
wished to renew the scene in the Cenacle in relation to the Sacrifice of 
the Cross; and were persuaded that under the species of bread and wine they 
received the Body and Blood of Christ.

The rite, as has been remarked, presents numerous variants when it is 
studied according to the testimony of different Churches, and great liberty 
of interpretation and improvisation still reigns; but the general and 
essential features are the same. What is called the Eucharist, the 
fraction, the "anaphora," the eulogy, the synaxis, is always and for all 
the same rite as that which we call the Mass.

Through the different witnesses quoted we can find a starting-point in the 
third or fourth century, whether it be the "anaphora" of Hippolytus or of 
Serapion, or the Canon of "De Sacramentis;" and thus we are able to retrace 
our steps through century after century till we come to the time of the 
Apostles, and to Christ Himself. Thus we may say that an unbroken chain 
binds our Mass to that of the Apostles, to the Last Supper. It is the proof 
of the Apostolic origin of our Mass.

From that time--that is, from the first three centuries --we see, both as 
regards the Mass and Baptism, a tendency to develop the very simple 
original rite. To the kind of liturgic synaxis described, for example, in 
St. Paul's meeting at Troas, where, after the Apostle's sermon those 
present "broke bread" before separating, the heads of the Church under 
whose control the liturgy was constituted, added sometimes one ceremony, 
sometimes another.

The union of the aliturgical synaxis to the Mass is, already, a 
considerable fact; it is a prelude which in our own day has the same extent 
as the rite of Sacrifice or of the Mass properly so called. Hippolytus 
gives us an "anaphora" which is a model of precision and concision. It is a 
brief, weighty sermon in a single breath; for the whole "anaphora" proceeds 
without a break from the Preface to the conclusion, which is the Amen of 
the faithful. The Fraction follows; the Communion, thanksgiving, and 
dismissal.

The centuries to come had a tendency to add fresh rites to this. The "Liber 
Pontificalis," on which, however, we cannot always rely in these matters, 
gives us in this case an exact idea of the facts. Such a Pope added the 
"Sanctus" to the Preface; another added the "Agnus Dei;" another, a 
sentence to the Canon; yet a fourth has added another sentence. Then there 
would be a prayer for the offering of the bread; another for the censing; a 
third for the Communion. Until the day when Leo XIII ordained a series of 
prayers for the Church, the Gospel of St. John was the conclusion of the 
Mass. There have been those who said that all these trees prevent us from 
seeing the forest; and it must assuredly be admitted that those who are for 
the first time present at High Mass must find themselves rather at a loss.

But those who have studied the liturgy and its history will readily find 
the great lines of the primitive Mass in the Mass of the twentieth century.


ENDNOTES

1. The text of Polycratus, P. Gr., T. XX, col. 508; that of Firmilianus, 
edn. Hartel, T. III, p. 810 seq.
2. St. Mark xiv.; St. Luke xxii. These texts have been studied and 
commented on with great learning by P. d'Ales, in one volume of this 
series, "L'Eucharistic," p. 15 seq.; we are thus dispensed from dwelling 
more fully upon them here.
3. Cf. d'Ales, "L'Eucharistie," p. 15 seq.
4. Trans. (into French), A. Laurent, in the Hemmer and Lejay collection, 
"Textes et documents." A commentary will be found in Mgr Batiffol, 
"L'Eucharistie," p. 62 seq. The studies of Armitage Robinson and Connolly 
place the "Didache" after the epistle of ps. Barnabas.
5. The different texts of St. Ignatius-Philad. 4, Smyrn. 6 & 8, Eph. 20.
6. On the use he makes of this word, cf. J. H. Srawley, "The Early History 
of the Liturgy," p. 32.
7. 1st Apol. LXV, LXVI, trans. Louis Pontigny, coll. Hemmer-Lejay.
8. Struckmann, "Die Gegenwarth Christi in der hl. Eucharistie nach den 
Schriftl. Quellen der vornizan. Zeit," p. go seq. Cf. Woolley "Liturgy of 
Primitive Church," pp. 53 seq. and 138.
9. Cf. the article by Mgr. Batiffol, DACL, "Aquarians."
10. Ign., Eph. 5, 13; Magn. 7; Smyrn. 6. In our "Monumenta Ecclesiae," Dom 
Leclercq has gathered all the texts from the writers of the first three 
centuries which concern the Eucharist and these aliturgical synaxes.
11. Cf. the "opusculum" of M. Gastoue, "Les Vigiles" (Paris, 1908).
12. Maclean, op. cit., pp. 128, 129.
13. Cf. our book, "Etude sur la Peregrinatio Silviae, les eglises de 
Jerusalem au IVe siecle" (Paris, 1895) .
14. Cf. particularly Mgr. Duchesne, "Origines du culte," pp. 51, 52.
15. Trans. (into French) from the attempt to restore the Greek text made by 
Dom Cagin, "Eucharistia," pp. 294-296.
16. I have analyzed this text in the article "Messe of the Dictionnaire de 
Theologie Catholique." The French translation will be found in Mgr. 
Batiffol's "L'Eucharistie," loc. cit.
17. Drew, and after him Fortescue (notably in the article "Mass" in the 
Catholic Encyclopedia), have attempted to bring out the resemblances 
between the Roman Mass and that of the Apostolic Constitutions,
18. We have analyzed this text from the A. C. in our article "Messe," 
quoted above. Cf. col. 1355.
19. We have analyzed this in DACL, art. Canon, col. 1847 seq. In Chapter 
III we shall cite the text of the Canon in the book "De Sacramentis," which 
brings us to the end of the fourth century.
20. On "Abercius" and his inscription, cf . DACL, under this heading. 


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Dom CABROL and Dom LECLERQ, "Monumenta Ecclesiae Liturgica" (Vol. I), 
"Reliquiae Liturgicae vetustissimae" (Paris, 1900-1902)--(all the texts of 
the writers of the first three centuries on the Mass and Liturgy).

F. PROBST, "Liturgie der drei ersten Jahr." (Tubingen, 1870); "Liturgie der 
vierten Jahr." (Munster, 1897); "Die abendlandische Messe vom 5 bis zum 8 
Jahr." (Munster, 1896). 

G. RAUSCHEN, "Florilegium patristicum," Fasc. VII. "Monumenta eucharistica" 
(Bonn, 1909).

Dom CAGIN, "Eucharistia. L'Anaphore apostolique ou canon primitif" (Paris, 
1912).

R. H. CONNOLLY, "The So-called Egyptian Church Order," in Texts and Studies 
(Vol. VIII, 1916).

R. MAXWELL WOOLLEY, "The Liturgy of the Primitive Church" (Cambridge, 1910) 
.

A JOHN MACLEAN, "Recent Discoveries" (London, 1915).

F E. WARREN, "The Liturgy and Ritual of the ante-Nicean Church" (London, 
1912).

J. H. SRAWLEY, "The Early History of the Liturgy" (Cambridge, 1912). 



CHAPTER II

THE MASS IN THE FOURTH AND FIFTH CENTURIES, AND ITS DIVISION INTO 
LITURGICAL FAMILIES

Divisions into liturgical families.--Analogies between the Oriental and 
Latin Liturgies.--Divergencies between the different Western Liturgies.

The proposition developed in the previous chapter that in the three first 
centuries, and even until the end of the fourth, hardly any distinction can 
be made between the liturgies of different countries, may be taken for 
granted. But from this moment certain customs which made it possible easily 
to distinguish between the liturgies of these different lands were 
established; on one hand between East and West; on the other, between the 
different provinces of these two great halves of the Roman Empire. As Mgr. 
Duchesne has justly remarked, the liturgical provinces fall into line with 
the great ecclesiastical provinces--in the East, Antioch and Jerusalem, 
closely united from their origin, as contrasted with Alexandria, in the 
West, Rome, round which were grouped Italy, Africa Gaul, Spain, and, very 
soon, England and Germany.

If we apply that principle, the first division necessary is that between 
East and West.

The day on which Constantine in 325 founded Constantinople, and transported 
to the city of Byzantium the seat of empire with all its functionaries, 
that division was accentuated. Habits, standards of cultivation social, 
political, and even religious tendencies present changed characteristics. 
Each of the two parts of the Empire had its own language; Greek for the 
East, Latin for the West; and this difference made itself felt in the 
liturgy. The Roman liturgy had been Greek until towards the middle of the 
third century; but the place of Greek was taken by Latin, and the traces of 
the older language were gradually effaced. The Kyrie Eleison and other 
similar words still to be found in this liturgy are not, as was formerly 
wrongly believed, relics of the primitive language, but expressions of 
universal usage, like Eucharist, acolyte, exorcist, etc., or else, terms 
which have been introduced in later years.

Greek and, for some parts of the East, Syriac, were henceforth the 
languages of the liturgies born in those countries. The liturgy of Rome was 
in Latin, as that of Africa then was, and as those of Gaul, Spain, and 
Milan soon would be. Few can refuse to see in this difference of language, 
without mentioning political, administrative, or social differences, the 
establishment of a profound separation between East and West on the one 
hand, and, on the other, a certain relationship between the provinces of 
the West.

Thus, in our opinion, the first division to establish between the various 
liturgies is that between East and West.

In the East, as already noted, another division existed. The two churches 
of Antioch and Jerusalem, neighbors, and closely allied as they were, had a 
liturgy which spread over a part of the East, in Syria, Asia Minor 
(Cappadocia, Pontus, Bithynia, and Caesarea), and later to Constantinople, 
Mesopotamia, and Persia. It is represented by the liturgy of the Apostolic 
Constitutions (fourth century), the Greek liturgy of St. James (sixth 
century, and perhaps earlier), the Nestorian liturgies of Mesopotamia and 
Persia (liturgy of Addeus and Maris), the Byzantine, or liturgy of 
Constantinople (St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom), and the Armenian 
liturgy.

The church of Alexandria followed a use which differed in several ways from 
the preceding, as may be established by the anaphora of Serapion, and by 
that of Balizeh, of which we have given a summary in the previous chapter. 
In this chapter, too, may also be seen the plan and sequence of the prayers 
in the Apostolic Constitutions and in other liturgies of this class.

In the Latin West various liturgical divergencies took shape at Rome, in 
Africa, Milan, Gaul, Spain, and the Celtic countries. These correspond with 
that rupture of political unity which was the consequence of the barbarian 
invasions of the fifth century; of the breaking up of the Roman Empire in 
476, and of the separatist tendencies which were the result of these 
events.

We arrive, then, at the following division:

ORIENT  (EASTERN LITURGIES)  Antioch-Jerusalem  (Syrian type), Alexandria  
(Egyptian type)

OCCIDENT   (LATIN LITURGIES)  Rome, Africa, Milan, Gaul, Spain, Celtic 
countries

To this division we will return in Chapter V.; but it may be said at once 
that as far as the West is concerned, some part of it is based on mere 
conjecture, and that liturgiologists are by no means all agreed upon 
particular points. There is, however, a distinct tendency to gather all 
Latin liturgies into one and the same group.[1]

But henceforward it must be noted that liturgical unity is not broken by 
these divisions. The East and West had characteristics in common. The 
various Latin liturgies, including the Roman, borrowed largely from the 
Oriental, notably from that of Constantinople. Rome exercised considerable 
influence over all the Latin churches, and fresh analogies are continually 
visible between all these different liturgies, either as the result of 
borrowing, or of their original unity.

It must not be forgotten that travel and other relations between East and 
West were much more frequent than is sometimes imagined. There were many 
Greek or Eastern Popes of Rome during the first three centuries. At Milan, 
seven of the ten predecessors of St. Ambrose have Greek names. St. Ambrose 
himself by his literary training was more Greek than Latin. One striking 
example in the history of the liturgy is found in Etheria, who in the 
fourth century came from the heart of Spain to Jerusalem, and while there 
described with great precision all the Feasts of the year. She does not 
fail to note that such and such functions are not carried out in her own 
country in exactly the same manner as at Jerusalem; while others are 
similar to those of her own liturgy. Upon her traces followed pilgrims in 
increasing numbers, eager to visit the Holy Places. Numerous Bishops were 
attracted to the East by the Councils, or else driven there by the fate of 
exile, like St. Hilarius. All of which goes to explain the liturgical 
exchanges. Mgr. Mercati has very truly remarked that connections were 
established between the Arians of East and West, and that this also 
contributed to the system of exchanges. It has, moreover, become possible 
to discern this reciprocal influence of East and West through the study of 
the most ancient calendars and creeds.

Thus there is nothing astonishing in the fact that Oriental elements can be 
discovered in the Latin liturgies. It is indeed our own opinion that the 
cause of the analogies between the two groups is to be found rather in the 
common origin of all liturgies, whether Eastern or Western, or in the 
exchanges just mentioned, than in the sudden transportation, by the act of 
a Bishop or some other personage, of an Eastern liturgy into a Western 
country.

Here, then, are some of the divergencies which can already be distinguished 
between the different Western liturgies. Gaul, Spain, and Upper Italy 
followed the Oriental Use (notably that of the Church of Constantinople) as 
regarded the place of the diptychs, the Kiss of Peace, and even the 
"epiclesis;" while Rome stood apart, either because she had on these points 
changed her primitive custom, or else because she had had a special Use 
from the beginning. For the rest, such as the variability of the prayers of 
the canon, the use of the "Qui pridie" for the Consecration, the importance 
given to the story of the institution of the Mass, the tendency to compose 
sacramentaries and other liturgical books, all the Latin countries seem to 
follow the same current, and there is nothing to show that these books 
presented special characteristics, whether they were composed at Rome, 
Milan, Capua, in Gaul, or in Africa. Still, all such compositions reveal a 
liturgical progress which affects only the West, while the East appears to 
be unaffected by it.[2]

The liturgical vocabulary, the calendar, and certain institutions like 
Lent, and even the Ember Days, also offer characteristic analogies in the 
Western liturgies.

During this period (fourth-fifth centuries) two liturgies alone, that of 
Rome and that of Africa, are directly known to us through documents, or by 
the texts of the authors. As to all the others--those of Upper Italy, Gaul, 
Spain, and the Celtic countries--the sources from which we may study them 
are of a much later age than the fifth century, or even than the sixth. I 
do not say that there is nothing in them which makes for the earlier date, 
but such inductions are necessarily based on hypothesis.


From this moment the design and the framework of the Mass appear with 
sufficient clearness. In Chapter I we saw of what the first part is 
composed: the Pre-Mass, or aliturgical synaxis is a preparation, with 
psalms, readings, and a homily. We shall study it more in detail in the 
developments which it has gained in the sixth and seventh centuries. Its 
general characteristics have been outlined by St. Justin and other authors 
quoted in the preceding chapter.

The second part, the Mass properly so called, or Mass of the faithful, was 
to receive some additions, but henceforth we know that the catechumens and 
unbaptized were dismissed at this point. The faithful alone remained for 
the Offering, or Offertory; they had brought the bread and wine which 
served for the Sacrifice, as well as other gifts which were also blessed at 
Mass. A special prayer for the Church, or "Prayer of the Faithful," was now 
said, and the Kiss of Peace was its natural conclusion; doubtless it was 
only in consequence of the suppression of this prayer, or from other 
circumstances, that in certain liturgies the Kiss of Peace has been placed 
immediately before the Communion, where its existence is not less 
justified.

The Eucharistic prayer, or "anaphora," follows; of this we have had 
specimens in the "anaphora" of Hippolytus, Serapion, Balizeh, and the 
"Apostolic Constitutions." The chant of the "Sanctus" took its own place in 
the fifth century, and has divided the Eucharistic prayer into two 
portions. The story of the Institution is the center of this prayer, which 
ends with the doxology and "Amen." Then follow the Fraction and Communion. 
The latter, like the Offertory, involved the passing up of the people, 
which occupied some time, and from an early date (probably the fourth 
century) the singing of a chant was instituted at both these moments. Psalm 
xxxiii. was usually chosen for the Communion, chiefly on account of the 
verse, "Gustate et videte quoniam suavis est Dominus," which is here so 
applicable. Afterwards a prayer of thanksgiving was made; the Pontiff 
blessed the people for the last time and sent them home.

Such were the general lines of the Mass in the fourth-fifth centuries. In 
studying the Latin liturgies, especially that of Rome, we shall see how 
these principal parts are adorned with new rites and more numerous 
formulas. Other rites perhaps have been suppressed, but in the main, in the 
East as in the West, according to the different rites, the framework 
remains the same.

Nothing can be simpler, more logical, and, if we may say so, more rational 
than this rite which is faithful to primitive tradition. There are certain 
suppressions which break the general line, or additions which complicate 
the original design. Certain truths had to be insisted on, certain errors 
to be fought, new formulas had to be emphasized by the gestures of the 
priest, or favor shown to recent devotions.

After having studied the Latin, Gallican, Mozarabic, Celtic, Ambrosian, and 
Roman liturgies, we shall attempt, not to reconstitute the primitive Latin 
liturgy, since this would be but a premature effort, but to establish some 
of its general characteristics.


ENDNOTES

1. Mgr. Duchesne connects the Gallican and Syrian, and the Roman and 
Alexandrine types of liturgy (fourth edition, p. 55).
2. Cf. "Books of the Latin Liturgy" (Sands, 3s. 6d.).


BIBLIOGRAPHY

On the classification of liturgies:

H. LIETZMANN, "Messe u. Herrenmahl" (Bonn, 1926), P. 262.

Mgr. DUCHESNE, "Origines du Culte chretien," p. 64 seq. 

SALAVILLE, "Liturgia, pp". 887 and 873. 

FORTESCUE: "The Mass" (1914), a table of the liturgies, p. 76. 

JANIN, "Les Eglises orientales". 

Mgr. DUCHESNE, "Les Eglises separees," I vol. (Paris, 1896). 

BRINKTRINE, "Die Heilige Messe," p. 19 seq.



CHAPTER III 

THE MASS IN AFRICA 

Origin of the African Liturgy.--The African Mass.

Of  all the Latin liturgies the African is the only one of which no 
liturgical document, properly so called, remains to us. All its books have 
perished; there are neither Sacramentaries nor Lectionaries; no "Ordo" or 
"libellus" of any kind existing. Yet it is the most ancient of the Latin 
liturgies; it might indeed be said to have been almost the only one known 
during the first three centuries, since, until the middle of the third 
century the Roman liturgy was said in Greek. This fact is of supreme 
importance.

Yet though this absence of all liturgical documents is to be deplored, we 
find, on the other hand, in African writers up to the fifth century a very 
large number of allusions to the liturgy, and even several formulas of 
prayer. In this latter item the African liturgy is the richest of all; but 
it is none the less true that the lack of authentic liturgical documents 
makes any study of this rite more or less deceptive, and necessarily 
hypothetical. We will, however, do our best to supplement this want.


THE ORIGIN OF THE AFRICAN LITURGY.--The first question which arises is: 
what is the origin of this liturgy? The greater number of liturgiologists 
will reply: Roman. We, however, may well wait for the close of this study 
before drawing the same conclusion; the question touches that of the origin 
of the African Church, and both must be resolved simultaneously. Was this 
Church founded by the Church of Rome? If so, it would be difficult to put 
aside the contention that Rome, in founding the African Church, did also 
introduce her liturgy there, since it is hardly possible that Roman 
missionaries should not have brought their own liturgy with them, or that 
at a given moment the Africans should have changed it. In any case there is 
no text to be found in favor of such a conclusion. Unfortunately, the 
question of the origins of Christianity is here obscure, as it is in most 
other countries. Many historians hold to the Roman origin, it is true, and 
it may well be the most probable opinion; but it cannot be proved by direct 
and decisive arguments. Relations between Africa, Alexandria, and the East 
were frequent, and it may be that the earliest missionaries came thence to 
Africa. Some have wished to support this theory, as we shall see, by 
certain analogies between the African and Alexandrine liturgies; but 
neither would this be a very solid proof, for the resemblances between 
Africa and Rome from the liturgical standpoint are very much more striking.

Let us for the moment be content to state that the question of the origin 
of Christianity in Africa cannot enlighten us as to that of its liturgy. 
Keeping simply to the texts, we must remember, as was said at the 
beginning, that this liturgy is Latin. Although Greek was freely spoken in 
this province, and though Tertullian wrote some of his treatises in Greek, 
the African liturgy is Latin, and to prove this it would be enough to cite 
the formulas found in the writings of the same Tertullian, of St. Cyprian 
and other writers, or even in the inscriptions of Roman Africa.


THE AFRICAN MASS.--In Tertullian and St. Cyprian we find numerous allusions 
to the Eucharist and the Mass. By these we know that the synaxis or meeting 
took place before the dawn; that the Sacrifice, or actual Mass, was 
preceded by readings, prayers, chants, and by the dismissal of the 
catechumens. Tertullian blames the heretics who allow these last to be 
present at the Sacrifice. We also know that the bread and wine were 
consecrated by the words which Our Lord pronounced at the Last Supper. St. 
Cyprian sharply rebukes other heretics (Aquarians) who, by a misplaced 
scruple, left out the wine and declared that they offered the Sacrifice 
with bread and water; reminding them that the water used at the Mass must 
be mixed with wine. These two writers also allude to the litanic prayers, 
to the dialogue which precedes the Preface, to the "Pater," and to some 
other rites, such as the dismissal of the faithful at the end of Mass.

St. Augustine completes this information. We may accept his description 
given by Mgr. Batiffol (p. 100) of the Pre-Mass. The Bishop, he says, 
awaits in the "secretarium" (a place close to the Basilica) the moment of 
entrance. He enters solemnly, but St. Augustine does not speak of the chant 
which should accompany his entry, and which corresponds with the Roman 
Introit. He salutes the people, probably with the "Pax vobis," but it does 
not appear that this greeting was followed by the prayer or collect 
customary at Rome. The readings, as in Spain, Gaul, and elsewhere, were 
three in number--the first taken from the Prophets (and called Prophecy, or 
prophetical reading), the second from the Acts of the Apostles or their 
Epistles (the Apostolic reading), while the third was from the Gospel. This 
was followed by the homily of the prelate, who commented on one or another 
of these lessons; for usually the events of the day, anniversaries, or the 
Feast itself had determined both the course of reading and the Bishop's 
sermon.

Sometimes the text of the Old Testament or the New was read without choice 
or interruption; this was the "lectio continua," of which traces may be 
found in our existing missal (see, for example, the chants for Communion in 
Lent, the readings for Holy Week, or in Paschal Time, etc.).

In other passages St. Augustine speaks of only two lessons, the Epistle and 
the Gospel, but between the two a Psalm was sung (our Gradual), which the 
Saint considered as a lesson, and on which he sometimes commented. After 
the homily the catechumens were dismissed--"catechumeni discedite," says 
St. Augustine. The Mass of the Faithful was thus composed:

Prayer of the faithful;
Reading of the Diptychs;
Offertory, with chanting of a Psalm and a prayer over the offerings, which 
corresponds to our Secret, or the "Oratio post nomina;"
The "anaphora" or Eucharistic prayer, which is interrupted by the 
"Sanctus;"
The recital of the institution, which is the center of the Mass;
"Epiclesis;"
Fraction (before the "Pater," as at Rome until the seventh century);
Kiss of Peace;
Benediction;
Communion, with the singing of a Psalm;
Thanksgiving;
Dismissal.

Let us consider some of these different points enumerated. The "Prayer of 
the Faithful," "preces," "precatio," "deprecatio," consists in the 
indication by the Bishop of the object of the prayer, of an invitation by 
the deacon, and of a final prayer by the Bishop. This devotion may be 
compared to the solemn prayers at Rome on Good Friday, which also contain 
the indication of the object for which the prayer is offered, "Oremus;" the 
deacon's order, "Flectamus genua" (here, an instant of recollection or 
silent prayer); followed by "Levate" and the prayer of the Bishop. The 
design is the same. We may also compare the "preces fidelium" of the 
Mozarabic rite, to which an allusion has been found in the works of St. 
Fructuosus, which at once takes us back to the third century. For Africa, 
St. Cyprian also makes an allusion to a prayer of this kind.[1]

The "Prayer of the Faithful" is described at length by St. Augustine, who 
tells us that it is the deacon who announces the prayer, but the Bishop who 
reads it. He exhorts the people to pray for infidels, for catechumens, and 
for the faithful.[2] In Africa, as at Rome, the faithful offered the bread 
and wine, and the Bishop asked God to accept them. While the offering was 
being made, a Psalm was sung (the offertory). In St. Augustine's day this 
custom was not ancient, for he was obliged to write a book (now lost) 
against a certain Hilarius, who condemned it.

The mixing of wine and water in the chalice is one of those universal 
traits which we have mentioned as a proof of the unity of the primitive 
liturgy. St. Cyprian explains this act by saying that the water is the 
symbol of all Christian people, thus mingled in the chalice with the Blood 
of Christ (Ep. lxiii.). St. Cyprian, too, is the most ancient witness we 
possess as to the dialogue before the Preface, "Sursum corda," "Habemus ad 
Dominum" ("De dom. orat.," 31). St. Augustine, after him, explains the 
meaning of these words, and completes them, quoting the beginning: "Dignum 
et justum est." This prayer, which we call the Preface, comes after the 
"Prayer of the Faithful," and continues till the final "Amen," at the close 
of the last doxology. It is during the course of this prayer that by the 
might of the Divine Word the bread is changed into the Body of Christ, and 
the wine into His Blood (Sermo CCXXVII).

After this prayer, which is that of the consecration of the elements, St. 
Augustine mentions the "Pater."

In the article on "l'Afrique (Liturgie post-niceenne de l'Afrique)" I have 
quoted other texts of St. Augustine, of Optatus, and of St. Fulgentius, 
which allude to the canon, especially to the "anamnesis." The Kiss of Peace 
was given after the "Pater," as at Rome. St. Augustine also frequently 
refers to the Communion, defining it in the terms: "accedere ad mensam," 
"ad altare," "nostis fideles ad quam mensam." It was given under both 
kinds, and he seems to give even the formula for Communion: "accipite et 
edite Corpus Christi et potate Sanguinem Christi," to which the faithful 
answered "Amen." The Communion chant was Psalm xxxiii., as was the custom 
generally at this time. There seems to have been a blessing before the 
Communion, as there was in Gaul and Spain.

All these features are fairly general, and in themselves not sufficient to 
determine precisely to which class this liturgy belongs. However, Mgr. 
Duchesne and other liturgiologists with him declare without hesitation 
that, excepting for insignificant details, the African liturgy is identical 
with that of Rome. Le Blant has pointed out numerous analogies in the 
inscriptions of these two places.

I have also mentioned that the African resembles in a few points the 
Mozarabic liturgy. W. C. Bishop presses this point in the article cited, 
and Fr. Thibaut supports him. But let us remember that these resemblances 
may be explained by the relations between the two provinces, and also by 
the fact on which we have throughout insisted: the original unity of all 
liturgies.


ENDNOTES

1. Because of this "Prayer of the Faithful," W. C. Bishop thinks that the 
relations between the Mozarabic liturgy and that of Africa were closer than 
those between Africa and the Roman liturgy.

2. Mgr. Batiffol quotes these different texts (p. 141); they will also be 
found, and in greater number, in our article on the "Liturgie de l'Afrique, 
etc." (DACL).


BIBLIOGRAPHY

Cf. our article in DACL, "Afrique (Liturgie de l'Afrique ante-niceenne" and 
"Liturgie de l'Afrique post-niceenne" and the Bibliography at the end of 
the article).

W. C. Bishop, "The African Rite," in the "Journal of Theological Studies," 
Vol. XIII, 1912, pp. 250-277.

Dom W. ROETZER, "Der heil.-Augustinus Schriften als Liturgie-geschichtl. 
Quelle" (Munich, 1930).

Cf. also Dom H. LECLERCQ "l'Afrique chretienne, 2 vols. (Paris, 1904).

P. MONCEAUX, "Hist. litteraire de l'Afrique chretienne" (Paris, 1901).



CHAPTER V 

THE MASS AT ROME, FROM THE FIFTH TO THE SEVENTH CENTURIES

DOCUMENTS AND TEXTS.--THE ROMAN MASS: Station.--Litany. --Introit.--Kissing 
of the Altar.--Collect.--Readings and Chants (Gradual, Alleluia, Tract, 
Epistle).--Gospel.--THE MASS OF THE FAITHFUL: Offertory.--Singing of the 
Offertory.--Secret.--Preface.--Sanctus.--The Roman Canon.-- Fraction and 
Pater.--Immixtion.--Kiss of Peace.--Communion.--The last Prayers and 
Dismissal.--Conclusions.


DOCUMENTS AND TEXTS

We have, to enlighten us as to this period, several allusions in 
contemporary writers; while certain liturgical documents explain, with more 
or less exactitude, how Mass was celebrated at Rome about the sixth and 
seventh centuries. Other writers of the fifth, and even of the fourth, 
century, such as Arnobius and the Jew Isaac, allude to the text of the 
Roman canon. Pope Innocent I (401-417) in a celebrated text forbids the 
recitation of names (Memento of the living and the dead) at the Offertory 
in the Roman canon (as was the Gallican and Oriental custom, and also 
probably the most ancient usage). The Popes Boniface I (418-422) and 
Celestine I (422-432) attest that the Emperors also were prayed for in this 
place.[1] Pope Vigilius, in a letter to Profuturus, says that at Rome the 
text of the canon only varies at Easter, Ascension-tide, Pentecost, and the 
Epiphany. He sends the Bishop that text of the canon which he believes to 
be of Apostolic origin. The authors of the eighth-ninth centuries, Bede, 
Agobard, Amalarius, also bear witness to the Roman canon.[2] In a 
celebrated 
work of the close of the fourth century, sometimes attributed to St. 
Ambrose, and which in any case is almost contemporary with him, which is 
inspired by his writings, and which belongs to a church of Upper Italy, the 
author quotes the prayer of Consecration, which, with a few variants, is 
the very text of our own canon. It is of such importance that it must be 
given here:

TEXT OF DE SACRAMENTIS

"Fac nobis (inquit sacerdos), hanc oblationem ascriptam, ratam, 
rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod figura est corporis et sanguinis Jesu 
Christi."

Qui pridie quam pateretur, in sanctis manibus suis accepit panem, respexit 
in coelum ad te, sancte Pater omnipotens, aeterne Deus, Gratias agens, 
benedixit, fregit, fractum que apostolis suis et discipulis suis tradidit 
dicens: accipite et edite ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim corpus meum, quod pro 
multis confringetur.

Similiter etiam calicem postquam coenatum est, pridie quam pateretur, 
accepit, respexit in coelum ad te, sancte pater omnipotens, aeterne Deus, 
gratias agens, benedixit, apostolis suis et discipulis suis tradidit, 
dicens: accipite et bibite ex hoc omnes: hic est enim sanguis meus.

Ergo memores gloriosissimae ejus passionis et ab inferis resurrectionis, in 
coelum ascensionis, offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam, hunc panem 
sanctum et calicem vitae aeternae:

et petimus et precamur, ut hanc oblationem suscipias in sublimi altari tuo 
per manus angelorum tuorum sicut suscipere dignatus es munera pueri tui 
justi Abel et sacrificium patriarchae nostri Abraham et quod tibi obtulit 
summus sacerdos Melchisedech.

ROMAN CANON 

Te igitur . . . 
Memento Domine . . . 
Communicantes . . . 
Hanc igitur oblationem . . .
Quam oblationem tu Deus, in omnibus, quassumus, benedictam, adscriptam, 
ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilemque facere digneris: ut nobis corpus et 
sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Jesu Christi.

Qui pridie quam pateretur, accepit panem in sanctas ac venerabiles manus 
suas: et elevatis oculis in coelum, ad Te Deum Patrem suum omnipotentem, 
tibi gratias agens, benedixit, fregit, deditque discipulis suis dicens: 
accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim corpus meum.

Simili modo postquam coenatum est, accipiens et hunc praeclarum calicem in 
sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas item tibi gratias agens, benedixit, 
deditque discipulis suis, dicens: accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est 
enim calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti: mysterium fidei, qui 
pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

Haec quotiescumque feceritis, in mei memoriam facietis.

Unde et memores, Domine, nos servi tui, sed et plebs tua sancta, ejusdem 
Christi Filii tui Domini nostri, tam beatae passionis necnon et ab inferis 
resurrectionis, sed et in coelos gloriosae ascensionis: offerimus 
praeclarae majestati tuae de tuis donis ac datis, hostiam puram hostiam 
sanctam, hostiam immaculatam, Panem sanctum vitae aeternae, et Calicem 
salutis perpetuae.

Supra quae propitio ac sereno vultu respicere digneris: et accepta habere, 
sicuti accepta habere dignatus es munera pueri tui justi Abel, et 
sacrificium patriarchae nostri Abrahae, et quod tibi obtulit summus 
sacerdos tuus Melchisedech sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam.

Supplices te rogamus, omnipotens Deus: jube haec perferri per manus sancti 
Angeli tui in sublime altare tuum, in conspectu divinae majestatis tuae: 
etc.

There is no doubt that we have here two editions of the same text; and as 
that of "De Sacramentis" is localised in Upper Italy and dated about the 
year 400, it is the most ancient witness we possess as to the principal 
parts of the Roman canon, which only appear in the Sacramentaries some time 
after the seventh century. The question as to whether the Roman canon is 
not older even than that of "De Sacramentis" is discussed by 
liturgiologists. Mgr. Batiffol is of this opinion, but we, on the contrary, 
think that the former bears traces of closer composition, of a more 
carefully guarded orthodoxy, and that consequently it is a text corrected 
from "De Sacramentis." We shall see, in studying the list of names in the 
"Memento" of the living and that of the dead, that Mgr. Batiffol argues 
with good reason that he can date these fragments from the pontificate of 
Symmachus (498-514). We thus have the state of the Roman Mass, or at least 
of the chief parts of the canon, at the beginning of the fourth century.

A Sacramentary of a very special character, called "Leonine," because it 
has sometimes been attributed to St. Leo, and which seems to have been 
composed in the fifth century, contains Prefaces some of which seem to 
refer to events which took place in the previous century. It gives us other 
valuable indications as to the Roman liturgy of that time. The references 
to churches, to cemeteries, to Roman Saints, and even to the "chronique 
scandaleuse" of the day, are numerous. The style of the prayers, the use of 
the "cursus" and of rhythm, the liturgical terminology--in short, 
everything in this precious document has a Roman character.[3]

Another Roman Sacramentary, the "Gelasian-"-attributed to the Pope of that 
name, Gelasius I (492-496)-- has been altered and retouched up to the 
eighth or ninth century; but, strictly speaking, its text is not authentic; 
and its principal elements only go back to the end of the fifth century. 
Like the "Leonine," we may, by studying it, find in it many Roman 
characteristics. It is divided into three parts: the Masses of the Feasts 
of the liturgical year, from Christmas to Pentecost, the "Proper of the 
Time," as we call it; the Masses of Saints, from St. Felix (Feb. 14) to St. 
Thomas the Apostle (Dec. 21), or the "Proper of Saints;" and the third 
part, containing Masses for Sundays, Votive Masses, and those for special 
circumstances. Whoever drew up this Sacramentary knew the "Leonine," and 
has borrowed numerous formulas from it, though these are quite differently 
arranged; the Roman style is even more evident than in the "Leonine;" the 
liturgical year takes the first place in the "Gelasian," and exercises a 
preponderating influence on the liturgy.[4]

A third Roman Sacramentary, the "Gregorian," presents itself under 
conditions analogous with those of the "Gelasian." In spite of the 
uncertainty we must feel on finding it retouched again and again up to the 
ninth century (especially in Gaul), we cannot doubt that we have here a 
document of Roman origin. The author has taken the "Gelasian 
Sacramentary"as the basis of his work, which he reshapes, curtails, 
sacrificing all that appears to him purely archaic, but utilising the other 
elements. The attribution to St. Gregory (590-604) of this Sacramentary 
(with the exception, of course, of all the changes and additions which it 
underwent from the seventh to the ninth centuries) has been eagerly 
contested; but the most important liturgiologists are more and more 
inclined to accept the indications given by tradition on this point. In 
recent times an attempt has been made to recover the primitive "Gregorian 
Sacramentary," and the discovery of a copy at Monte Cassino is of the 
greatest importance.[5]

At Rome again, during this period of the sixth-ninth centuries, when the 
liturgy became of such importance, liturgical books were composed which 
have not the same characteristics as the Sacramentaries, but which complete 
them. These books are the "Ordines Romani." The Sacramentaries give us the 
text of the prayers to be recited, but usually without indications as to 
the nature of the ceremonies. The "Ordines," on the other hand, take as 
their aim the dcscription of the ceremonies themselves; those of the Mass, 
in particular, giving on this point the necessary information. Their 
composition is spread over a period of many centuries (seventh-fifteenth). 
These "Ordines," some of which are of Roman origin, have, like the 
Sacramentaries, been retouched in Gaul, where the greatest liturgical 
activity was displayed from the eighth-eleventh centuries. But one of these 
"Ordines," the first of the series, is exempt from any retouching; it goes 
back to the eighth century and perhaps beyond it, and has even been, with 
some probability, attributed to St. Gregory himself.[6] In any case, it is 
possible without scruple to describe the Roman Mass in the seventh century 
under St. Gregory on the information here contained.

Whatever doubts we may have as to their composition, all these documents do 
clearly show the interest taken by the Roman Church from the fifth-eighth 
centuries in the liturgy. No other Church can display a collection of 
documents of equal importance. Even now we have said nothing as to the 
composition of those music-books which are called "Gregorians," as we 
prefer to treat that question in an Excursus (see Chap. XII).

Another indication of the interest taken by the Popes in the organisation 
and direction of Christian worship can be found in the "Liber 
Pontificalis." Some portions of its testimony have been quoted at the 
beginning of this chapter. But this document, which was not drawn up before 
the fifth century, professes to enlighten us upon the most ancient period 
of all, and to attribute to the earliest Popes certain acts concerning the 
liturgy, especially concerning the Mass.[7] All this information is by no 
means of equal value, and we may well ask what were the sources from which 
the author has drawn his information as to the first centuries. But from 
the fourth, and particularly from the fifth century onward, his testimony 
is of real value.


THE ROMAN MASS

It is by comparing all these documents, and by completing them by each 
other that certain contemporary liturgiologists have endeavoured to 
reconstruct the Roman Mass in the seventh century. Such are Edmund Bishop, 
Atchley, Dom Wilmart, Mgr. Duchesne, Mgr. Batiffol, and Dom Jean de Puniet, 
whose works are mentioned in the Bibliography; all having arrived at nearly 
the same results. Their reconstruction can therefore be accepted with 
confidence.

It should be added that this Mass is really that celebrated at Rome by the 
Pope during the great solemnities; but it is also that of the Bishop in his 
cathedral, and that of the simple priest in his church, the number of 
ministers and clerics and the splendour of the ceremonies being always 
excepted; there is no essential rite peculiar to the Pope. We shall 
describe it here in some detail, for if modifications have been brought in 
later, the Mass has remained substantially the same, and in the following 
chapters on the Roman Mass from the seventh-twentieth centuries, we need 
only note what has been added or omitted. But the very fact that this is 
the Mass of the Pope and of his court explains any changes, for such a 
ceremony, in the presence of many Bishops and of a numerous assembly, could 
hardly remain unaltered. The "Liber Pontificalis" mentions several of the 
reforms which were made in it, but not all, since St. Gregory alone, as we 
know by his correspondence, made many alterations, of which the principal 
are: the introduction of the singing of the "Kyrie," changes in that of the 
"Alleluia," the alteration of the place of the "Pater," important 
modifications of the Gelasian text, and probably of the chant. We must not, 
then, be astonished if the Roman Mass has conformed far less to the 
primitive form than the Mozarabic, Gallican, or Ambrosian Masses, and more 
especially the Eastern liturgies.

The Popes possessed an authority which allowed them to change any part of 
the ceremonial, and they used it.


THE STATION.--The faithful, according to an invitation which was given at a 
preceding assembly, met in a church, whence they went in procession to 
another church, called the Church of the Station. The word "statio" is old 
Latin, which in military language means a watch or vigil. Hermas and 
Tertullian have given it the Christian sense of prayer arld fasting; thus 
Wednesday and Friday are called "Station Days," because they were days of 
fasting, on which Mass was celebrated. The word also means the plenary 
assembly of a church, and St Cyprian uses it in this sense. Finally it 
became a liturgical term at Rome, in the sense given above: that of a 
gathering of the faithful for the Papal Mass.[8]

In the Roman missal we still find certain days designated in this way: 
"Statio ad Sanctum Petrum," "Statio ad Sanctum Paulum," etc. This means 
that on that day Mass was said at St. Peter's (of the Vatican), or at St. 
Paul's (Without the Walls), or at any other church mentioned. Such churches 
are the most ancient in Rome; the greater number existed in the time of St. 
Gregory (end of the sixth century), and many are very much older.[9] In all 
this we have the elements of a little course of topography and Roman 
archaeology; and scholars like Armellini, Grisar, Morin, Schuster, and 
others have carefully described these venerable churches. Every day during 
Lent, and some other days in the year, have under the heading of the Mass 
some indication of this kind. This list, according to Mgr. Duchesne, goes 
back to the seventh century, but Dom Morin considers it originated two 
centuries earlier. The greater number of these churches exist to-day; but 
the Station which in St. Gregory's time was so solemn a ceremony is now 
little more than a memory.

Sometimes Mass was celebrated in the catacombs on the outskirts of Rome, 
and this was especially the case on the anniversary days of the death of a 
martyr, when it was probably said on the tomb in which his relics reposed. 
But after the year 410, when Rome was taken by Alaric, these cemeteries 
were exposed to the incursions of the barbarians, and it became the custom 
to transport the bodies of the martyrs to churches in the interior of Rome.

The church" where the Station was to take place was a "Basilica," a great 
building inspired by architectural tradition as this was understood in the 
third and fourth centuries, but modified since by the Church for Divine 
service. Many of the most ancient Roman churches such as St. Clement, St. 
Sabina, St. Laurence-Withoutthe-Walls, have preserved this form. And even 
those which have been altered again and again, like St. PaulWithout-the-
Walls, have been reconstructed on the same plan. It was that of a long 
building with a central nave, separated by columns from two lateral naves 
to right and left, with an altar at the end and in the axis of the 
principal nave; and behind the altar, an apse. At the end of the apse was 
the "cathedra," or Bishop's chair, and, all around it, stalls for the 
clergy; this was the choir. The part surrounding the altar is the 
sanctuary, with an "ambone," or pulpit, or sometimes two, one to right, the 
other to left.

To-day, as the altar usually has a retable and a tabernacle, the priest 
when standing before it turns his back to the people; so that when he 
greets them with "Dominus vobiscum" he is obliged to turn round. The Bishop 
would be hidden on his "cathedra"at the back of the apse, and could hardly 
follow the ceremonies, therefore his throne, as well as the stalls of the 
clergy, have been moved to places before the altar. But if we wish to 
understand the ancient positions, it will help us to remember that at that 
time the altar was a "table" (hence its name of "mensa") of wood or stone, 
forming either a solid block or else raised on four feet, but in any case 
without a tabernacle; so that the officiating priest would face towards the 
people, as he does to-day at "San Clemente." In our own churches, of 
course, he officiates on the other side of the altar; the Gospel side being 
the left and that of the Epistle the right. As we explain elsewhere,[10] 
another consideration has brought about these changes: the practice of 
turning in prayer towards the East, the region of that light which is the 
image of Christ, Who Himself came from the East. The question of the 
orientation of churches was an important one in Christian architecture from 
the fourth-twelfth centuries.

In the catacombs the tomb of a martyr could be used as an altar. When, lest 
their relics should be profaned, the bodies of the martyrs had been brought 
from the cemeteries in the Roman "campagna "into the churches of the city, 
they were usually placed beneath the altar. In any case, the altar was 
henceforth a sacred object. The word "mensa" (table) recalled the Last 
Supper of the Lord; it was an image of Calvary where Christ was sacrificed 
for us; frequently it was a martyr's tomb; upon it was accomplished the 
tremendous Eucharistic Mystery, and thus it was dear to the devotion of the 
faithful. The liturgy ordains that the priest shall kiss it at the 
beginning and during the course of Mass; that he shall cover it with a 
"Corporal," the image of that winding-sheet in which Our Lord was buried; 
that he shall surround it with honour. All this was not instituted in the 
same detail during the earliest centuries, but it is a legitimate 
development of Catholic piety whose growth in intensity throughout the ages 
which followed we are now about to contemplate.

At the time we are now considering (seventh century) there were neither 
crosses nor candles, neither tabernacle or retable; nor were there any of 
these things till the ninth, or even the eleventh, century[11] But the 
"ciborium," a kind of dome, or dais, usually supported by four columns, was 
in use from the fourth century onwards, and sometimes at Rome it was made 
of precious metal. The marbles, mosaics, chandeliers, and candelabras, the 
lamps hanging from the vaulted roof and other ornaments in use from the 
time of Constantine, show us that the Church has come out of the catacombs, 
and that to primitive austerity has succeeded the desire to surround Divine 
worship with splendour, upheld by the generosity of Christians.

Let us return to the church where the faithful assembled and whence they 
started in procession, with the clergy and all those holding ecclesiastical 
office up to the Pope himself. for the church where the Station was to be 
held.


THE LITANY. The "Kyrie Eleison."--During the march of the procession they 
sang a prayer which resembles neither the Collects nor Prefaces- which is 
neither an Anthem, a Responsory, a Tract, nor a Psalm, like those to be 
found in the Mass. It is a "Supplication," as the Greek etymology 
indicates. A cantor, or perhaps the priest himself, said an invocation, 
which all the people repeated, or to which they responded by an acclamation 
The most ancient memorial of this which we possess is the litany, which is 
said before the Mass of Holy Saturday

At an early date (fourth century) Rome adopted the principal invocation of 
the Eastern liturgy, the "Kyrie Eleison" (Lord, have mercy upon us). But 
Rome added the "Christe Eleison," and thus we have that chant to the 
Trinity with wh"with which in future all litanies were to begin:

"Kyrie Eleison "(thrice)--The Father 
"Christe Eleison (thrice)--The Son 
"Kyrie Eleison "(thrice)--The Holy Ghost.

The "Kyrie Eleison" is thus borrowed from the Greek liturgy, but marked 
with the seal of Rome. When St. Gregory was reproached for having 
introduced it into the Roman liturgy he could not deny the fact that he had 
done so, but he pointed out that he had modified its form. Among the Greeks 
it was sung by all- at Rome it was sung by clerics, the people repeating 
the words after them (or, according to the correct expression, responding). 
Furthermore, says the Pope, the people confine themselves to these 
acclamations at the daily Masses, while at others (probably at the 
stational Masses) other words are added. What are these words? Other 
invocations, probably, such as we see in those litanies preserved to us, 
like that of Holy Saturday.

Apart from the Mass the litany was frequently used in processions and in 
the canonical office, and St. Benedict remarks this in the sixth 
century.[12]


THE INTROIT (Lat. "introire," enter) is really the commencement of the 
Mass. It is a chant sung while the Pontiff proceeded solemnly from the 
sacristy to the church. It was usually sung by cantors, and as was 
customary for all psalms from the fourth century onwards, closed with a 
doxology, "Gloria Patri et Filio et Spsritui Sancto." Our "Introits "have 
preserved but one verse of the psalm and the doxology. Sometimes the words 
are chosen from other books of Scripture than the Psalter; they are even 
occasionally taken from the Apocryphal books. The Roman liturgy, usually so 
severe, shows itself accommodating upon this point. The "Accipite 
jucunditatem" of the Tuesday after Pentecost is taken from IV book of 
Esdras (apocryphal), which has also furnished the "Introit" for the Mass of 
the Dead, "Requiem aeternasn dona eis Domine." That "Introit" of many 
Feasts, "Gaudeamus in Domino," is also extra-scriptural; while the "Salve 
Sancta Parens" of Masses of Our Lady is taken from Sedulius, a poet of the 
fifth century.

We have already said (Chap. IV, note) what must be thought of the text 
which attributes the introduction of the "Introit" to Pope Celestine (422-
432). But its presence is noted in the Gelasian Sacramentary and in "Ordo 
Romanus I". From this Mgr. Batiffol concludes that it is a Roman creation 
of the sixth century--at least, under the form described. One of St. 
Gregory's successors, Hadrian (772-795) attributes the composition, or at 
least the arrangement, of the Roman Antiphonary to the former Pope; and 
tells us at the same time that this book began with "Ad Te levavi," the 
first words of the Advent "Introit." The Gelasian books began with the 
Feast of Christmas: the celebrated lines are as follows:

Gregorius praesul, meritis et nomine dignus, 
Unde genus ducit summum conscendit honorem. 
Renovavit monumenta patrum priorum. 
Tunc composuit hunc libellum musicae artis 
Scolae cantorum anni circuli: Ad Te levavi.[13]

Elsewhere (Excursus, ii. Chap. XII) we shall speak of the music composed 
for the "Introit." It is enough to say here that it has not preserved the 
characteristics of a processional chant any more than it has the primitive 
form of a psalm.


THE KISSING OF THE ALTAR.--At the Pontifical ceremony on Good Friday the 
prelate with his ministers leaves his throne at the beginning of the 
office, goes to the altar, kisses it, and returns to his place. This is an 
act of the most remote antiquity; a mark of devotion to that altar which is 
sacred; and which when the church was consecrated was blessed with so great 
solemnity. Mgr. Batiffol rightly reminds us that this act is peculiarly 
Roman (loc. cit., p. 117). It is repeated many times during Mass (cf. 
Excursus, "Liturgical Acts," p. 232).


THE GLORIA IN EXCELSIS.--At certain Masses, after the "Kyrie," the "Gloria 
in Excelsis" is sung. It has no relation to the "Kyrie," and is not sung or 
said in the ancient Masses for Vigils, nor in those of Holy Week, nor of 
Lent, nor of ferials, and in reality its proper place is not in the Mass 
any more than in any other office. Indeed, at the beginning, it was not, as 
it is to-day, consecrated to the Mass alone.[14] It is a doxology in honour 
of the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit only comes in at the end; and 
this is perhaps an addition. It is thus very probably anterior to the 
fourth century, for from the time of the Arian disputes the doxology was 
almost always trinitarian.[15] This is confirmed by its presence in the 
"Apostolic Constitutions." It was early adopted by Rome, with many other 
Greek formulas; but, to begin with, only at the first of the three 
Christmas Masses, where its place is admirably justified.

Pope Symmachus extended its use to every Sunday and to the Feasts of the 
martyrs; but only for episcopal Masses; it was said by priests only at 
Easter. Then, little by little, as was the way with so many other chants 
and ceremonies, the reserves were done away with, and its use became much 
more frequent. It is almost unnecessary to say that it is an admirable 
prayer; that it is the expression of a very beautiful mysticism, and that 
it is of great Christological importance. It has been the subject of many 
works, to which we can only refer.[16]


THE COLLECT.--The Pontiff arrived at the church to the singing of litanies 
if there was a Station, or to that of the "Introit" when the procession 
came from the sacristy. He greeted the people, as St. Augustine has told 
us, with the "Pax vobis," or "Dominus vobiscum," to which they responded 
"Et cum spiritu tuo;" after which the celebrant said a prayer of a very 
special nature, called the "Collect." The general term is "oratio." There 
are three of these prayers in the Mass--the first that just mentioned; the 
second the "oratio super oblata," or Secret; and, lastly, the "oratio ad 
complendum," or Post-Communion. The Collect is the "oratio prima." As it 
was said at the moment when the faithful were assembling for Mass, some 
have thought that this was the origin of its name, "oratio ad collectam," 
prayer at the moment of meeting. Others have thought it was derived from 
the fact that the celebrant here collects and expresses the intentions of 
all those present. The term is not exclusively Roman; in the Gallican 
liturgies we find prayers called "collectiones."

We have a large number of such prayers in the Roman missal. Their character 
is easily recognised, especially that of the most ancient, which are really 
of Roman origin, and which are distinguished by the clearness of their 
style, and the elegance and symmetry of their composition. Such is the 
following, chosen haphazard:

Deus qui ineffabilibus mundum renovas 
sacramentis: praesta, quaesumus, ut Ecclesia 
tua et aeternis proficiat institutis, 
et temporalibus non destituatur auxiliis. 
Per Dominum....
(Friday of the fourth week in Lent).

The old Roman books, such as the "Leonine," "Gelasian," and "Gregorian 
Sacramentaries" contain a great number of these prayers, which are of equal 
interest from the literary and theological standpoints.

The character of these prayers in the Roman liturgy has been much praised; 
they are always short, precise, elegant, and of a scholarly rhythm. Those 
of the other Latin liturgies, such as the Gallican and Mozarabic, are, on 
the contrary, much longer and more diffuse, clearly betraying a time when 
the Latin tongue was scarcely spoken except by the barbarians, and was 
falling into decadence.

We see that there was at that period no question of the prayers now said at 
the foot of the altar (Psalm xlii., the "Confeteor" and the rest). It was 
only later that these were added to the Mass (cf. Chapter IX). Not only, 
however, have we preserved the use of the Collects, but the greater part of 
them are very ancient, dating from the seventh and even from the fifth 
century. Originally there was only one Collect; now we have often a 
sequence of several--memorials of another Feast, prayers to the Holy Ghost, 
to Our Lady, or for other intentions.


THE READINGS AND THE CHANTS (GRADUAL, ALLELUIA TRACT, EPISTLE).--The 
"Collect" is followed by a reading or lesson from Holy Scripture (Old or 
New Testament) called the "Epistle," because it is often taken from the 
Epistles of St. Paul. It was read from the pulpit by one of the ministers, 
usually a Lector. To-day it is reserved for the sub-Deacon. It is usually 
contained in a special book called the "Epistolary." The most ancient of 
those copies, which have come down to us under the title of "Lectionaries," 
go back to the eighth century, or to an even earlier epoch, that of the 
seventh century. In some ancient copies of the Bible these lessons are 
marked. The study of the "Lectionaries" is most useful for the right 
understanding of the liturgy.[17]

We have seen that in Africa (fourth and fifth centuries) there were 
sometimes three lessons--one from the Old Testament (Prophecy), one from 
the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles (Apostolic reading), and finally the 
Gospel. On certain days like vigils or the Ember Days we have several 
Lessons in the Roman Mass; on the vigil of Pentecost there are six; on that 
of Easter, twelve. But these are exceptional cases, and these vigils were 
really night offices, each with their own special characteristics.

The custom in the Mozarabic and Gallican liturgies is to have three 
lessons--the Prophecy, the Apostolic Lesson, and the Gospel. It is also, 
though not without exceptions, the Eastern custom.

Liturgiologists have asked whether, at a certain epoch --say, before the 
fifth century--the Roman Mass had not also its three Lessons, of which the 
first was omitted later on. In any case, the reading of the Old Testament 
during Lent has taken the place of the Apostolic Lesson. With the three 
Lessons we can better understand a certain gradation in the form of the 
Pre-Mass--Old Testament, New Testament (from the Apostolic part), and, 
lastly, the Gospel, which in solemn Masses is surrounded with great 
solemnities. It has also been pointed out that in the Roman Mass the 
"Alleluia" follows the "Gradual." Two consecutive chants are not according 
to the ancient and normal custom, in which a reading should be followed by 
a chant or responsory. The psalmody or singing of a psalm alternates with 
the reading. This would be another indication of the presence of three 
Lessons--the "Gradual" after the "Prophecy," the "Alleluia" after the 
"Epistle."

As a matter of fact, the "Gradual" to-day follows the "Epistle," as also, 
according to circumstances, does the "Alleluia" or the "Tract." The 
"Prose," when there is one, follows the "Alleluia," on which it originally 
depended.

The "Gradual" was thus styled at Rome because it was sung from the pulpit 
on the altar steps, "Gradus." Its generic name is "Psalmus responsorius," 
as St. Augustine tells us. This particular way of singing a psalm in 
responses differs from the Anthem. It was executed by a cantor, the choir 
answering with a refrain or "Response" taken from the same psalm. Our own 
"Gradual" has kept these general characteristics; it is sung by a cantor, 
or a "schola," the choir taking up part of the verse; but the rest of the 
psalm has been suppressed. The "Gradual" is one of the chief elements of 
the Pre-Mass; we have seen the importance attached to it by St. Augustine, 
who sometimes commented on it in his homilies, and regarded it as one of 
the Lessons. At Rome until the time of St. Gregory it was, like the Gospel, 
sung by a Deacon. St. Gregory, however, doubtless found some inconvenience 
attached to this practice, and withdrew this privilege from the Deacons. 
But the "Gradual" kept its place of honour among the chants of the Mass, 
while the singing of the Anthems "Introit," "Offertory "and "Communion," 
which are, chronologically, later than the "Gradual," was carried out by 
the "schola," or by the people themselves, since these chants were 
instituted to occupy the faithful during the course of a procession.[18]

The "Alleluia" is a chant of a special character. Of Hebraic origin, like 
"Amen" and "Hosanna," it was adopted by the Christians, and is found in the 
Apocalypse. It is frequently used, like the "Sanctus" and other 
acclamations; but not at first in the Mass. The word means "Glory to God," 
and often occurs in the Psalms, some of which are called "alleluiatic" for 
this reason. The time and occasion of its introduction into the Mass are 
not very well known. But the custom existed from the days of St. Augustine, 
who speaks of the "Jubilus," a kind of prolonged "melopeia" on the last "a" 
of "Alleluia;" but he does not say whether it was followed by a psalm, as 
it is to-day. It was chiefly sung on Easter Day and in Paschal time.

Sozomenus tells us that it was only sung at Rome on that day, but is his 
information accurate? The real custom was to sing it during the whole of 
Paschal time. And St. Gregory, again inspired by the Greek custom, extended 
its use beyond Paschal time, probably to every Sunday and Feast day of the 
year. Doubtless through its analogy with the "Gradual" a verse of Scripture 
was sung after it, but this verse is not always taken from the Psalter.

The "Alleluia" is omitted on vigils, on certain ferials, at the Office of 
the Dead, and from Septuagesima till Holy Saturday. In some countries in 
the Middle Ages this suppression of the "Alleluia" was marked by a ceremony 
called the "Burial of the Alleluia," held on the Saturday before 
Septuagesima. It is needless to say that this ceremony was not observed in 
Rome, nor any others which appeared contrary to the austerity of the 
liturgy. Tropes, Proses, and the Mysteries which were derived from them did 
not originate in Rome. It was by no means at an early date, and even then, 
as it would seem, almost against her will, that she adopted four of the 
most beautiful of the Proses: "Victimae pascali laudes," "Veni Sancte 
Spiritus," "Dies Irae," "Lauda Sion," and much later, the "Stabat."

But at the time of which we speak (fifth-seventh centuries) there was no 
question of these compositions. We shall speak of them in Chapter IX, and 
shall then see how they were attached to the "Jubilus" of the "Alleluia." 
To-day, when the "Alleluia "is omitted, its place is taken by a much more 
ancient chant, the Tract.

The "Tract" (Tractus) is also rather obscure in its origin. What is certain 
is that the manner of its singing (it has no refrain nor is it repeated, 
hence its derivation from "tractim," meaning with a single stroke) is of 
the highest antiquity. St. Benedict refers to it in his Rule, but in 
connection with the Omce, in which it was probably used before its 
introduction into the Mass. In the Roman antiphonary it has preserved its 
original character better than the other chants; it is almost always a 
psalm, or at least several verses of a psalm, and even the tone to which it 
is sung recalls more faithfully its psalmodic origin.


THE GOSPEL.--The reading of the Gospel is the end of the Mass of the 
catechumens; in a certain sense it is its crown and fulfilment. This 
gradation observed between the reading of the Prophecy, that of the 
Epistle, and finally of the Gospel, is more marked, as we have noted, in 
certain other liturgies than in the actual Roman Mass; but, on the other 
hand, Rome has always surrounded the singing of the Gospel with great 
solemnities. The function was reserved for the Deacon, who was accompanied 
to the pulpit by acolytes bearing candles and incense, and the book was 
kissed by the celebrant. All that was the custom in St. Gregory's time; and 
this Roman practice is the same as that of the church of Jerusalem in the 
fourth century, as Etheria tells us. St. Benedict too, at the end of the 
fifth century, in the office for vigils (matins) for Sundays and Feast 
days, which he has so carefully composed, seems to have been inspired by 
the same principles and to follow the same lines as those of the Pre-Mass, 
with its singing of psalms, readings from the Old and New Testaments 
accompanied by responses, the "Te Deum," and lastly the solemn reading of 
the Gospel. Those Gospels to be read at Mass at that time, as also to-day, 
were usually contained in a special book called the "Evangeliarium." The 
richness of its binding, the perfection of the penmanship, and the beauty 
of the illumination of some of these books is a urther proof of the 
devotion of Christians to the Gospel. As to this the "Ordo Romanus I," 
which we are analysing here, tells us that the "Evangeliarium" used at the 
Papal Mass was enriched with jewels; and that in order that these jewels 
should not be stolen it was enclosed in a casket sealed with the seal of 
the "Vestararius," and only opened at the moment of the reading of the 
Gospel.

Another Roman custom of the eighth-twelfth centuries was that the Deacon 
reading the Gospel should turn to the south, and not to the north, as he 
does to-day.

The "Credo" was neither read nor sung in the Roman Mass until much later 
(see Chap. VI).

The dismissal of the catechumens and others outside the fold customary in 
the fifth century, and which was maintained much longer in some other 
liturgies, was suppressed at Rome, probably in the sixth century. The 
diaconal prayer at this juncture was also suppressed and the Mass of the 
catechumens closed with the reading of the Gospel. But the Gallican, 
Mozarabic, and Celtic liturgies have preserved this diaconal prayer which 
formerly had its place in the Roman Mass (cf. Chap. IV).


THE MASS OF THE FAITHFUL


OFFERTORY.--It is still the custom for the celebrant to turn towards the 
people after the Gospel and to say: "Dominus vobiscum, Oremus." This 
salutation is generally followed by a prayer. Here, after this solemn 
announcement, the priest reads the Offertory and carries out certain 
functions, but no prayer follows. Something has evidently been suppressed 
here, and the anomaly has naturally intrigued the liturgiologists. Mgr. 
Duchesne thinks that the "Prayer of the Faithful" used to be in this place, 
and this hypothesis has secured widespread approval. It is certainly 
specious, for that prayer had its own place, and that an important one, in 
most of the ancient liturgies. After the departure of the catechumens and 
others outside the fold, who were not allowed to assist at Mass, the 
faithful were invited to pray for several intentions: the Church, The Pope, 
Bishops and other ministers, the Emperor, the sick, travellers, etc. This 
prayer is no longer found in the Roman Mass, but during Holy Week (since it 
is there that we must always seek the traces of the most ancient customs) 
we have in Good Friday's morning office certain solemn prayers which are 
nothing less than the "Prayer of the Faithful," and which may be considered 
as one of the jewels of the Roman liturgy. Was it a prayer of this kind 
which was announced by the "Dominus vobiscum" and "Oremus "mentioned above? 
It would certainly be possible, but another conjecture has been made, and 
this appears to be better founded. We may first remark that the "Prayer of 
the Faithful" has not entirely disappeared. The "Te igitur "recalls it, and 
sums up its principal features. Lastly, the Ambrosian, so near a neighbour 
of the Roman liturgy, has at this very place an "Oratio super sindonem;" 
this linen cloth is the "Corporal," which at this moment is placed upon the 
altar. The Roman Mass has the same ceremony, but of the prayer has only 
retained the "Dominus vobiscum "and "Oremus." The "Gelasian Sacramentary" 
has also preserved traces of this prayer.[19]

At the Roman Mass, after the Deacon had spread the Corporal presented by 
the acolyte upon the altar, the Pope descended from his throne, and went to 
receive the offerings, those of the men first, the order of precedence 
being sedulously observed, according to Roman tradition. It may perhaps be 
said here that St. Benedict, who was very faithful to the Roman spirit and 
often draws his inspiration from the Roman liturgy of his day (sixth 
century), has a whole chapter, "De ordine congregationis," in which he too 
insists on the order of precedence for the Kiss of Peace, the Communion, 
and for the whole choir office. After the men's offering came that of the 
women, who occupied the other side of the nave, the congregation at that 
time being divided in two parts.

The offering was made in the following way: each person offered a small 
flagon of wine and a loaf; the wine was emptied into a great chalice, and 
the bread placed in a white cloth held by two acolytes. It goes without 
saying that as yet there was no question of unleavened bread; that offered 
here is the usual leavened bread. This distinction between leavened and 
unleavened did not then exist; it was only much later, and especially about 
the eleventh century, that a quarrel, which in our own opinion was 
unnecessary, arose between the Eastem and Westem churches on this 
subject.[20]

The most important thing to notice is that the offering as we have just 
described it is a Roman custom, also followed in Africa and at Milan. In 
the Gallican, Mozarabic, and Greek liturgies the preparation of the 
offering was made before Mass.

After the offering had been made the Pope retumed to his throne and washed 
his hands in preparation for the Sacrifice; after which he went to the 
altar, where the oblations had been placed, the bread on one side, the 
chalice into which the wine had been poured on the other. Mgr. Batiffol 
aptly recalls a fresco at Ravenna, and also the famous chalice of Gourdon 
(sixth century), preserved in the Cabinet of Medals. A reproduction of the 
latter is given in DACL, at the word "calice."


THE OFFERTORY CHANT--All the time that this was going on--doubtless rather 
a long time--the "schola" had sung the "Offertory "psalm; and when the Pope 
arrived at the altar he made a signal for the singing to stop, whether the 
psalm were finished or not. This "Offertory" chant, as well as those of 
"Introit"and "Communion," had not, we repeat, the importance of the 
"Gradual," which formed a whole apart; the former might be interrupted or 
abridged without difficulty. If the "Introit "is a Roman creation of the 
sixth century, as Mgr. Batiffol declares, the "Offertory" and "Communion 
"chants are older, and were probably first instituted in the church of 
Carthage. We may remember that St. Augustine was obliged to write a book to 
defend this custom of chanting a psalm during the Oblation and the 
Communion.[21]


THE SECRET.--What, first of all, does this word mean? More than any other 
it has given rise to discussions. Is it a substantive or an adjective? Very 
naturally it has been compared with analogous terms like "Missa"for 
"Missio," "Oblata" for "Oblatio." Thus, it is asked, is not "Secreta" for 
"Secretio?" Bossuet, who was the first to risk this interpretation, did so 
with circumspection; the "Secretio," or "separation," meaning the 
separation of the oblations. Others have taken it to be an adjective 
qualifying the word "Oratio" understood; thus it would mean a secret 
prayer, or one said in a low voice. Each interpretation presents serious 
difficulties. In our own opinion, and that of others, "Secreta"is a 
substantive synonymous with "Mysteria." Thus we sometimes find the 
expression "Oratio super Secreta;" aud again, the whole canon is called 
"Secreta," the "Mysteries."[22]

At the epoch of which we are speaking this was the only prayer made over 
the oblations, "super oblata." The Offertory prayers in the present Missal, 
"Suscipe sancte Pater" and the rest (cf. Chap. IX), are of more recent 
introduction, and probably of Gallican origin. There was then no question 
of censing the "oblata"at Rome. Doubtless at the "Introit" and the "Gospel" 
a golden censer was carried (thymiamaterium aureum), but this was merely a 
vase of perfume which was not used for censing; it was not the 
"thuribulum." This custom is of Gallican origin, and was not introduced at 
Rome until after the eleventh century.[23]

The "Secret," the only "Offertory "prayer, had thus at that time a special 
importance; and its formulas should be carefully studied in our Missal. In 
its composition, and it may be said in its functions, it corresponds to the 
"Collect" and the "Post-communion." Each of the three, as the principal 
prayers of the Romau Mass, has its own "role," but all three correspond; 
they are fashioned in the same mould and follow the same laws of 
composition and rhythm. Attention has often been called to the sobriety, 
simplicity, firmness, and elegance of the purely Roman style, which has so 
well preserved the chief qualities of the best classical manner. These 
characteristics will be noted all the more clearly if we compare these 
prayers with the corresponding composition of the other Latin liturgies, of 
which some examples are quoted in Chapters VI and VII. But what is 
especially remarkable is less the literary quality than the depth and 
certainty of the teaching given us in these Roman prayers. Here, above all, 
appear the mastery and the superiority of the liturgy of that Church which 
is Mother and Mistress. To speak only of the "Secrets," we find that more 
than one affirms the faith of the Roman Church in Transubstantiation; and 
Bossuet has made good use of this fact against the Protestants in his 
explanations of the prayers of the Mass.


THE PREFACE.--The adoption of the "Sanctus" as well as other circumstances 
have led the Roman and the other Churches, both Greek and Latin, to divide 
into several parts that Eucharistic prayer which, in the second and third 
centuries, forms a single uninterrupted whole up to the final doxoiogy 
(before the "Pater") (cf. Chap. IV).

The first part of this Eucharistic prayer has become what is called at Rome 
the "Preface," "Praefatio" (a word in use at Rome from the sixth century, 
and already mentioned at the Council of Carthage in 407). It was a general 
term, meaning rather a prayer or blessing than an introduction, in the 
sense the word is used to-day. There are "Prefaces" for the blessing of 
fonts and of the holy oils, and for ordinations. The "Exultet" at the 
blessing of the Paschal Candle is also a "Preface."

That it was an improvised prayer the great number of its formulas would 
prove. Many of these date back to the fourth century. The Leonine 
Sacramentary contains a rich collection of "Prefaces," many of which bear 
the stamp of their time and allude to contemporary events (fourth-fifth 
centuries). The Gelasian has also a large number, but the Sacramentary of 
St. Gregory accepted only eleven, to which were added later (eleventh 
century) the "Preface" of Our Lady, and in our own day that of the Dead, 
one for St. Joseph, one for Christ the King, and another for the Sacred 
Heart.

All these "Prefaces" present the same general characteristics; they begin 
with the same protocol; they are addressed to God the Father Almighty 
through Jesus Christ Our Lord. On this point the "Preface" is not 
distinguished from the "Collects" and other Roman prayers. But it has 
greater scope; it refers to the Feast which is being celebrated, or even to 
contemporary events (as in the Leonine), or to the blessing about to take 
place (baptismal fonts, ordinations, Paschal Candle, etc.). At Mass the 
"Preface" always closes with a formula leading to the "Sanctus."

The Roman "Preface" is composed with the same care and according to those 
same rules of the "Cursus" as are the "Collects" and other prayers. These 
"Prefaces" are usually as remarkable for their workmanship as for their 
theological teaching, as, for example, that for the Holy Trinity and that 
for Christmas. If our present aim were to comment on the prayers of the 
Mass, it would be necessary to pause here for some time to underline the 
importance of the "Prefaces" of our Missal, of the "Communicantes" which on 
certain days accompany them, and to compare them with the  "Illationes" or 
"Contestationes" of other Latin liturgies, notably with those of the 
Mozarabic rite, which are sometimes actual theological treatises or 
biographies of Martyrs and Saints.


THE SANCTUS.--The "Sanctus," like the "Gloria in Excelsis" the "Te decet 
laus" and other chants, goes back to the most ancient Christian antiquity. 
It is in reality taken from the Old Testament, from Isaias. It must have 
been in use at other times than in the Mass, as we see by a quotation from 
Tertullian, and by the Acts of SS. Perpetua and Felicitas. Its introduction 
into the actual Eucharistic prayer towards the fifth century, or even 
before it has somewhat modified the form of the latter by dividing it into 
several parts. It exists in two forms: in the Eastern Church the "Sanctus" 
is usually read as it exists in the text of Isaias. Rome, however, added to 
these words the second part: "Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini," the 
words sung by the multitude at Jerusalem to welcome the Messiah on Palm 
Sunday. The other Latin liturgies have followed Rome in this custom, and 
this again is a point on which all these liturgies betray their unity.


THE ROMAN CANON.--The word "Canon," Canon Missae" in our Missal, is the 
title of all the prayers which follow the "Sanctus." No other indication is 
furnished in the Missal to show where the "Canon" ends, and it would seem 
to continue till the Last Gospel inclusively. But according to a text of 
St. Gregory which we shall quote in connection with