Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/334

 UTUBGIOAL

297

LnUBGIOAL

he means 0D]3r the writers of Scripture, and therefore hiB statement is that the Eucharistic Invocation is not in the Bible. As for the Donatists, there is, on the contrary, evidence that both they and the Catholics had litureical books at that time. Optatus of Mileve, writing about the year 370 against them, says: "You have no doubt cleaned the palls" (linen cloths used in Mass), " tell me what vou have done with the books?" ("De schism. Donat., V, Vienna edition, 1893, p. 153.) What were these books? Both palls and books had been taken from the Catholics, both were used in the liturgy (ibid.). The books were not the Bible, because ine Donatists thoueht them polluted (ibid.). So there were other liturgicsu books besides the Bible. Auf^ustine too reproaches the Donatists with being in Bchism with the verv churches whose names they read iu the " holy books' (epp. lii and liii). So also a synod at Hippo in Africa (in 393) forbids anyone to write down the prayers of other Churches and use them, until he Ims shown his copy to the more learned brethren (can. xxv; Hcfele-Leclercq, "Histoire dcs Conciles", II, Paris, 1908, p. 88; cf. Probst, op. cit., ia-14).

Hiat some prajrers were occasionally written down from the first age is evident. Prayers are quoted in the Apostolic Fathers (" Didache", ix, x; Clement, ** First Epistle to the Corinthians", lix, 3 — Ixi. See Liturgy). This does not, however, prove the existence of liturgi- cal books. Probst thinks that the exact quotations made by the Fathers as far back as the second century prove that the liturgy was alreadv written do^-n. Such quotations, he says, could only be made from written books (op. cit., 15-17). This argument does not seem very convincing. We know that formula), especially liturgical formmse, can become very definite and well-known before they arc put in a book. A more solid reason for the existence of a written liturgy at any rate by the fourth century is the comparison of the liturrf of the eighth book of the Apostolic Fathers with the Bysantine Kite of St. Basil. Proclus (d. 446) says that basil (d. 379) modified and shortened the liturgy because it was too long for the people. There is no reason to doubt what he says (sec Constanti- nople, The Rite of). The liturgy shortened by Basil was that of Antioch, of which we have the oldest spec- imen in the Apostolic Constitutions. A comparison of this fespecially the Thank^iving-prajs^cr) with that of St. Basil (Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", pp. 14-18 and 321-3) shows in effect that Basil is much shorter. It does not seem likely that, after Basil's necessary shortening, anyone should have taken the trouble to write out the discarded long form. There- fore, the litiiigy of the Apostolic Constitutions was written before St. Basil's reform, although it is in- corporated into a work not finally compiled till the early fifth century (Funk, *' Die apostolischen Konsti- tutionen", Rottenburg, 1891, p. ',i6G; Probst, op. cit., 12-13).

Our conclusion then is that at any rate by the mid- dle of the fourth century there were written liturgies, and therefore liturgical lx)oks of some kind, however incomplete. How long before that anything was written down we cannot say. We conceive portions of the rite written out as occasion required. Evidently one of the first things to be written was the diptychs containing the lists of persons and churches for whom

f)rayers were to be said. These diptychs were used ituigic^lv — the deacon read them — in all rites down to the Micidle Ages. Augustine's argument against the Donatists refers to the diptychs (epp. lii and liii above). The diptychs were two tablets folded like a book {Sit and rrvx'6)] on one side the names of the living, on the other those of the dead were written. They have now disappeared and the names are said from memory. But the Byzantine Rite still contains the rubrics: "The deacon remembers the diptychs of the departed"; ** He remembers the diptychs of the liv-

ing" (Brightman, op. cit., 388-9). No doubt the next thmg to be written out was the collection of prayers said by the celebrant (Sacramentaries and Euchologia), then indications for the readers (Comites, CapituJaria, Synaxaria) and the various books for the singers (Antiphonaries, books of Troparia), and finally the rubrical directions (Ordines, Typika).

II. HlSTOUY OP THE ROMAN LiTUROICAL BoOKS.

So far the development went on in parallel lines in East and West. When we come to the actual books we must distinguish between the various rites, which have different groups and arrangements. In the Roman Rite the first complete books we know are the Sacramentaries (Sacramentaria), A Sacramentary is not the same thing as a Missal. It contains more on the one side, less on the other. It is the book for the celebrant. It contains all and only the prayers that he says. At the time that these books were written it was not vet the custom for the celebrant also to re- peat at the altar whatever is sung by the ministers or choir. Thus Sacramentaries contain none of those parts of the Mass, no Lessons, no Introits, Graduals, Offertories and so on, but only the Collects, Prefaces, Canon, all that is strictly the celebrant's part. On the other hand they provide for his use at otner occasions besides Muss. As the celebrant is normally supposed to be a bishop, the Sacramentary supplies him with the prayers he wants at ordinations, at the consecra- tion of a church and altar and many exorcisms, bless- ings, and consecrations that are now inserted in the Pontifical and Ritual. That is the order of a com- plete Sacramentary. Many of those now extant are more or less fragmentary.

The name Sacramentarium is equivalent to the other form also used (for instance, in the Gelasian book), Liber Sacramentorum. The form is the same as that of the word Ilymnartum. for a book of hymns. Gen- nadius of Marseilles (fifth cent.) uses both. He says of Paulinus of Nola: "Fecit et sacramentarium et hymnariiun" (De viris illustribus, xlviii). The word sacramentum or sacramenta in this case means the Mass. Sacramenta celebrare or facere is a common term for saying Mass. So St. Augustine (d. 430) re- marks that we say "Sursum corda" "in sacramentis fidelium", that is at Mass (De Dono Persev., xiii, 33), and two schismatics of the fifth century complain to the Emperors Gratian and Thcodosius that Pope Damasus (366-84) will not let them say Mass; but they do so all the same, because " salutis nastne sacra- menta facienda sunt" (Faust inus and Marccliinus, "Lib. prec. ad Imp." in P. L., XIII, 98; cf. Probst, " Die altesten rom. Sakram.", 20-1). A number ot Sacramentaries of the Roman Rite are still extant, either complete or in part. Of these the most impor- tant are the three known by the names I^eonine, Gela- sian, and Gregorian. Their date, authorship, place, and original purpose have l>een much discussed. What follows is a compilation of the views of recognized scholars.

The so-called "Sacramentarium Leonianum" is the oldest. Only one manuscript of it is known, written in the seventh century. This manuscript was found in the library of the cathedral chapter of Verona, was published by Joseph Bianchini in 1735 in the fourth volume of nis edition of Anastasius Bibliothecarius, and was by him attributed arbitrarily to St. Leo I (440 -61). On the strength of this attribution the book was included by the Ballerini in their edition of Leo (Venice, 1753-7), and still bears the name Leonine. It was reprinted by Muratori in his " Liturgia Romana vetus" (Venice, 174S). Now the best edition is that of C. L. Feltoe (Cambridge, 1896). The Leonine Sacramentary represents a pure Roman use with no Gallican elements. But it is not a book compiled for use at the altar. The hopeless confusion of its parts shows this. It is a fragment, containing no Canon nor Ordinary of the Mass, bxit ^ ^siVtfsi^vaii. ^\^x<3^Kt^