Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 13.djvu/105

 RITES

75

RITES

successor of St. Dominic. In the Constitutions (1228) ascribed to him are found several rubrics for the reci- tation of the Office. These insist more on the atten- tion with which the Office should be said than on the qualifications of the liturgical books. However, it is said that Jordan took some steps in the latter direc- tion and compiled one Office for universal use. Though this is doubtful, it is certain that his efforts were of little practical value, for the Chapters of Bologna (1240) and Paris (1241) allowed each convent to conform with the local rites. The first systematic attempt at reform was made under the direction of John the Teuton, the fourth master general of the order. At his suggestion the Chapter of Bologna (1244) asked the delegates to bring to the next chapter (Cologne, 1245) their special rubrics for the recitation of the Office, their Missals, Graduals, and Antiphonaries, "pro concordando officio". To bring some kind of order out of chaos a commission was appointed consisting of four members, one each from the Provinces of France, England, Lombardy, and Germany, to carry out the revision at Angers. They brought the result of their labours to the Chapter of Paris (1246), which approved the compilation and ordered its exclusive use by the whole Order. This same chapter approved the " Lectionarj' " which had been entrusted to Humbert of Remains for revision. The work of the commi.ssion was again approved by theChaptersof Montepulciano (1247) and Paris (1248). But dissatisfaction with the work of the commission was felt on all sides, especially with their interpretation of the rubrics. They had been hurried in their work, and had left too much latitude for local customs. The question was reopened and the Chapter of Lon- don (1250) asked the commission to reassemble at Metz and revise their work in the light of the criti- cisms that had been made; the result of this revision was approved at the Chapters of Metz (1251) and Bologna (1252) and its use made obligator>' for the whole order. It was also ordained that one copy of the liturgical books should be placed at Paris and one at Bologna, from which the books for the other con- vents should be faitlifully copied. However, it was recognized that these books wore not entirely perfect, and that there was room for further revision. Though this work was done under the direction of John the Teuton, the brunt of the revision fell to the lot of Humbert of Remains, then provincial of the Paris Province. Humbert was elected Master General of the Chapter of Buda (12.54) and was asked to direct his attention to the question of the order's liturgical books. He subjected each of them to a most thorough revision, and after two years submitted his work to the Chapter of Paris (1256). This and several subsequent chapters endorsed the work, effected legislation guard- ing against corruption, constitutionally recognized the authorship of Humbert, and thus once and for all settled a common rite for the Order of Preachers throughout the world.

(b) Preservation. — Clement IV, through the gen- eral, John of Vercelli, issued a Bull in 1267 in which he lauded the abiUty and zeal of Humbert and forbade the making of any changes without the proper author- ization. Subsequent papal regulation went much further towards preserving the integrity of the rite. Innocent XI and Clement XII prohibited the print- ing of the books without the permission of the master general and also ordained that no member of the order should presume to use in his fulfilment of the choral obligation any book not bearing the seal of the general and a reprint of the pontifical Decrees. Another force preservative of the special Dominican Rite was the Decree of Pius V (1570), imposing a common rite on the universal Church but excepting those rites which had been approved for two hundred years. This ex- ception gave to the Order of Friars Preachers the privilege of maintaining its old rite, a privilege which

the chapters of the order sanctioned and which the members of the order gratefully accepted. It must not be thought that the rite has come down through the ages absolutely without change. Some slight cor- ruptions crept in despite the rigid legislation to the contrary. Then new feasts have been added with the permission of the Roman Pontiffs and many new edi- tions of the liturgical books have been printed. Changes in the text, when they have been made, have always been effected with the idea of efiminating arbitrary mutilations and restoring the books to a perfect con- formity with the old exemplars at Paris and Bologna. Such were the reforms of the Chapters of Salamanca (1551), Rome (1777), and Ghent (1871). Several times movements have been started with the idea of conforming with the Roman Rite; but these have al- ways been defeated, and the order still stands in posses- sion of the rite conceded to it by Pope Clement in 1267.

(c) Sources of the rite. — To determine the sources of the Dominican Rite is to come face to face with the haze and uncertainty that seems to shroud most liturgical history. The thirteenth century knew no unified Roman Rite. While the basis of the usages of north-western Europe was a Gallicanized-Gre- gorian Sacramentary sent by Adrian IV to Charle- magne, each little locality had its own peculiar dis- tinctions. At the time of the unification of the Dominican Rite most of the convents of the order were embraced within the territory in which the old Galilean Rite had once obtained and in which the Gallico-Roman Rite then prevailed. Jordan of Saxony, the pioneer in liturgical reform within the order, greatly admired the Rite of the Church of Paris and frequently assisted at the recitations of the Office at Notre-Dame. Humbert of Romains, who played so important a part in the work of unification, was the provincial of the French Province. These facts justify the opinion that the basis of the Domini- can Rite was the typical Galilean Rite of the thir- teenth century. But documentary evidence that the rite was adapted from any one locality is lacking. The chronicles of the order state merely that the rite is neither the pure Roman nor the pure Galilean, but based on the Roman usage of the thirteenth cen- tury, with additions from the Rites of Paris and other places in which the order existed. Just from where these additions were obtained and exactly what they were cannot be determined, except in a general way, from an examination of each distinctive feature.

Two points must be emphasized here: (1) the Dominican Rite is not an arbitrary elaboration of the Roman Rite made against the spirit of the Church or to give the order an air of exclusiveness, nor can it be said to be more gallicanized then any use of the Gallico-Roman Rite of that period. It was an honest and sincere attempt to harmonize and simplify the widely divergent usages of the early half of the thirteenth century. (2) The Dominican Rite, for- mulated by Humbert, saw no radical development after its confirmation by Clement IV. When Pius V made his reform, the Dominican Rite had been fixed and stable for over three hundred years, while a con- stant liturgical change had been taking place in other communities. Furthermore, the comparative sim- plicity of the Dominican Rite, as manifested in the dif- ferent liturgical books, gives evidence of its antiquity.

(d) Liturgical books. — The rite compiled by Hum- bert contained fourteen books: (1) the Ordinary, which was a sort of an index to the Divine Office, the Psalms, Lessons, Antiphons, and Chapters being indicated by their first words. (2) The Martyrology, an amplified calendar of martyrs and other saints. (3) The CoUectarium, a book for the use of the hebdomidarian, which contained the texts and the notes for the prayers, chapters, and blessings. (4) The Processional, containing the hymns (text and music) for the processions. (5) The Psalterium, con-