Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 3.djvu/314

 CANON

266

CANON

Host, chalice, ciborium, and all other Hosts that may be consecrated, must always be placed on the altar- stone, if it is a movable altar, and on the corporal. Also the celebrant, whenever he lays his hand on the altar before the Consecration, does so outside the corporal; after the Consecration he lays it on the corporal.

IV. Mystical Interpretations. — It is obvious that in the great days of mystic theology so venera- ble and sacred a text as the Canon of the Mass should have received elaborate mystical explanations. In- deed, after the Bible, it was chiefly to the Canon that these pious writers turned their attention. Equally obvious is it that such interpretations never have any sort of regard to the historical development of the text. By the time they began the Canon had reigned unquestioned and unchanged for centuries, as the expression of the most sacred rite of the Church. The interpreters simply took this holy text as it stood, and conceived mystic and allegorical reasons for its divisions, expressions, rites, even — as has been seen — for the letter T, with which in their time it began. No one who is accustomed to the subtle con- ceptions of medieval mysticism will be surprised to see that these interpretations all disagree among them- selves and contradict each other in every point. The system leads to such contradictions inevitably. You divide the Canon where you like, trying, of course, as far as possible to divide by a holy number — three, or seven, or twelve — and you then try somehow to show- that each of these divisions corresponds to some epoch of our Lord's life, or to one of the Gifts of the Holy Ghost, or — if you can make eight divisions some- where — to one of the Beatitudes. The arrangements are extremely ingenious. Indeed, perhaps the strong- est impression one receives from such mystical divi- sions and explanations is how extraordinarily well their inventors do it. Nor does the utterly artificial nature of the whole proceeding prevent many of the interpretations from being quite edifying, often very poetic and beautiful. To give even a slight account of the endless varieties of these mystic commentaries would take up very much space. Various examples will be found in the books quoted below. William Durandus (Duranti) the Elder, Bishop of Mende (d. 1296), in his "Rationale divinorum officioruni", set the classic example of these interpretations. His work is important chiefly because incidentally we get from it a very exact account of the prayers and cere- monies of the thirteenth century. Very many theolo- gians followed in his footsteps. Perhaps Benedict XIV and Cardinal Bona are the most important. Gihr has collected all the chief mystical explanations in his book on the Mass. One or two of the more interesting or curious examples may be added here. A favourite idea is that the Ordinary to the Sanctus, with its lessons, represents Christ's public life and teaching; the Canon is a type of his Passion and death — hence it is said in silence. Christ taught plainly, but did not open his mouth when lie was accused and suffered. From Durandus conies the idea of dividing the Mass according to the four kinds of prayer mentioned in I Tim., ii, 1. It is an Ob.iecra- tio (supplication) to the Secret, an Oratio (prayer) to the Pater Noster, a Poslulatio (intercession) to the Communion, and a Grntiantm Actio (thanksgiving) to the end. Benedict XIV ami many others divide the Canon into four sets of threefold prayers: (I) "IV igitur", "Memento vivorum", "Communican (2) "Hanc igitur", "Quam oblationem", "Qui pridie"; (3) "I'nde et memores", ■'Supra quae", "Supplices te rogamus"; (4) "Memento defuncto- niin", "Nobis <|iic>qu<-", "Per quern luce omnia".

This gives the mystic numbers four, three, and twelve. So again each separate expression finds a mystic meaning. Why do we say "rogamus ac petimus" in the "Te igitur"? "Rogamus" shows

humility, "petimus" confidence (Odo Cameracensis; "Exp. in Can. Missae", dist. hi). Why do we dis- tinguish "haec dona" and "hsec munera"? "Dona" because God gives them to us. "munera" because we offer them back to Him (Gihr, 552, n. 5). Why is there no Amen after the "Nobis quoque peccatori- bus"? Because the angels say it at that place (Al- bertus Magnus, "Summa de off. Missse", III, c. ix). " Per ipsum et cum ipso et in ipso est tibi . . . omnis honor et gloria" signifies in its triple form that our Lord suffered three kinds of indignities in His Pas- sion — in His body, soul, and honour (Ben. XIV. 2271. See also the explanations of the twenty-five crosses made by the priest in the Canon suggested by various commentators (Gihr, 550). Historically, when these prayers were first composed, such reduplications and repetitions were really made for the sake of the rhythm which we observe in all liturgical texts. The medieval explanations are interesting as showing with what reverence people studied the text of the Canon and how, when every one had forgotten the original reasons for its forms, they still kept the conviction that the Mass is full of venerable mysteries and that all its clauses mean more than common expressions. And in this conviction the sometimes naive medieval interpreters were eminently right.

I. Texts. — Muratori, Liturgia vetus tria sacramcnlaria com- plectcns (2 vols, in fol., Venice, 1748), contains the texts of the Leonine, Gelasian and Gregorian Sacramentaries. The Grego- rian Sacramentarv is edited in Pamelius, op. cit. infra, 17S- 387 in P. L., LXXVIII, 25, sqq. The Leonine Book was first edited by Bianchini, Anastasius Bibliothecarius (1735 . IV . xii-lvii: also in Assemani, Codex liturgicus eccle.no- universes. VI. 1-1S0; and among St. Leo's works in P. L., LV, 21-156. Feltoe, Sacramentarium Leeniianum (Cambridge. 1896). First edition of the Gelasian book, Thomasius, Codices Sacramcn- !,„■:, m (Rome, 16S0); also Assemani. op. cit.. IV, 1-126; P.L.. LXXIV. 1055, sqq. Wilson, The Gelasian Sacramenlanj (Ox- ford, 1894), and Swainson, The Greek Liturgies (Cambridge. 1S84), 191-203, contain the Greek version of the Roman Mass referred to above. Pamelius. Liturgica Latinorum (2 vols., Cologne. 1571 and 16751; Gavanti. Thesaurus sacrarum rituum (Rome, 1630); Mabillon, Museum italicum (2 vols., 2nd ed., Paris, 1724); Vol. II, reprinted in P. L., LXXVIII. contains eleven of the Roman Or, lines. DrcHESNE. Origines ,l„ rulle chn/ien (2nd ed.. Paris, 1S98), App. I, pp. 440-63, and App. II, pp. 4o4-6S, gives the text of two more ordmcs, that of the Saint-Amand .U.S. (c. 800), and a fragment from Einsiedeln of about the same date. Atchley, Ordo Romanus primus (London^ 1905) in Library of Liturgiology and Ecclesiologit for VI, contains di— i-nations on the first Ordo;

Mabi

the text in sion of the Saint-Amand Ordo ! appendix. For editions of the Missals see the excellent little b Uudes liturgiguet (Paris, 1907 . logue, XLV. Latin Rite, Hours, Liturgical Catalogue (3 vols., Lo

\ er- the

ified Index to the (Cambridge, 181

\\ I

. I, V/,I<

738. «| IV in

ct incremeniw

treat number of mediel a] local ok of Cabrol, Introduction out and the British Museum Cata- tfissalst also the index to the don, 1S99). Wilson, .4 doss- il and Gregorian Sacramentaries liographia Liturgica; Catalogus

D2S ON niE Canon.— St. Isi

. II in P. L., LXXXIII, . . -, u ; > ,i ojficiis,

Walafkio Strabo d 879), De eccl. in P. L., CXIV, 919, sqq

Berno of Reichenatj (11th cent I, TAbeUus de guibuedam rebus ■■ I . CX1.I1. 1055, sqq ; ionibui in P / . (T.I. d "F Constance (elev- li\ inorum offuriorum in i us (d. 1134, Expositio Ioannes Abrincensis, CXLVII, 15, sqq ;

ojjici

MlCROLOGt S, D(

974, sqq. [probably w:i". n 1

enth century)]; Bai ethtjs,

/'./. ,CCU, 14. sqq ; UllPFl

Vissa ni /■ /, fl XXI, 11

/./)', r ,/, oljicns ,r, I, :■

Robertas Pullvs id 1153', De Carimoniis, sacramenlts a ufjiciis eccl. in P. L., CLXXVII. 381. sqq.; Sicardus of Cre- m ■. \ Mitralc site tic olficii* ■ '■una in P. L..

OCX11I, 13. sqq.; Innocent III id. 1216), De Sacrificio Mtssa in /'. L.. COXV11, 763, sqq.; Durandus, Rationale divinorum OMciorurn I ir, 1 .., 1 : Naples. 1 s59 i, VIII; AlBERTOS Mag- 1 III Later Writers. — HrrroRpros, J ' Eccl.

officiis (Cologne, 1568; Rome. 1591, a c Uection ol interpreters; Hi 00, I : : U ' (NuremberJ

i; ( . ,,. i i i -. Quad ■■■' ■ "■ r. i ' ■ 1512); Biel,

inonts Missm. . ■ cr;>< !'•> '■ 1 d. . In ranti,

aecclesia (Cologne, 1592), 111: Baldassari, I lilurgia (Venice, 1715i; BENEDICT Xl\ (d. 1758 D

.1/ i. i vim w t i ui by Giacomelli, ed. S, iiNKintn iMviu. ls7'.n, lib 111: Bona, Rerum Liturgicarum (Turin, 1763), lib, II; Idem, DeSacn 1846 :

Mihatoui. De rebus lilurgicis dissrrlol;

i/ \ enice, 1727).

IV. Modern Works. — Probst, Liturgie dcr dm