Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/349

 trnmot 312 utu&ot

certain liturgical matters. The pope's answer (in arrived atthepresentstate of things. Itremainatosay Jaff^, " Regest. Rom. Pont.'\ no. 907) shows the first a word about the various medieval uses the nature of influence of the Roman Rite in Spain. In 561 the which has often been misunderstood. Everyone has national Synod of Braga imposed Vigiiius's ritual on heard of the old English uses— Sarum^ Ebor, etc. Peo- all the kingdom of the Suevi. From this time we have pie have sometimes tried to set them up in opposition the " mixwi" Rite (Roman and Gallican) of Spain, to what they call the " modern " Roman Rite, as wit- Later, when the Visigoths had conquered the suevi nesses that m some way E^land was not ''Roman" (577-5S4), the Church of Toledo rejected the Roman before the Reformation. Tnis idea shows an aston- elements and insisted on uniformity in the pure Galli- ishing ignorance of the rites in c^^uestion. These medi- can Rite. Nevertheless Roman additions were made eval uses are in no sense really mdependent rites. To later; eventually all Spain accepted the Roman Rite compare them with the Gallican or Eastern Liturgies is (in the eleventh century) except the one comer, at absurd. They are simply cases of what was common Toledo and Salamanca, where the mixed (Mozarabic) all over Eurone in the later Middle Ages, namely slig)it Rite is still used. The great Church of Milan, appar- (often very slight) local modifications of the parent ently the starting-point of the whole Gallican Use, was Rite of Rome. As there were Sarum and Ebor, so able to resist the influence of the Roman Liturgy, there were Paris, Rouen, Lyons. (Jologne, Trier Rites. But here too, in later centuries the local rite became All t^ese are simply Roman, with a few local peculiari- considerably romanizcd (St. Charles Borromeo, d. ties. They had their own saints' di^, a trining vari- 15S4), so tmit the present Milanese (Ambrosian) use is ety in the Calendar, some extra Epistles, Gospels, only a shadow of the old Gallican Liturgy. In Britain sequences, prefaces, certain local (^nerally more exu- St. Augustine of Canterbury (597-605) naturally berant) details of ritual. In such msienificant details brought with him the Roman Liturgy. It received a as the sequence of liturgical colours ttiere was diver- new impetus from St. Theodore of Canterbury when sity in almost every diocese. No doubt, some rites (as he came from Rome (668), and gradually drove out the the Dominican use, that of Lyons, etc.) have rather GallicanUseof Lindisfame. more Gallican additions than our normal Roman

The English Church was very definitely Roman in Liturgy. But the essence of all these late rites, all the its Liturgy. There was even a great enthusiasm for parts that really matter (the arrangement. Canon of the rite of the mother Church. So Alcuin writes to the Mass^and so on) are simply Roman. Indeed they Eanbald of York in 796: " Let your clergy not fail to do not differ from the parent rite enoueh to be called study the Roman order; so that, imitating the Head derived propcdy. Here again the parallel case of lan- of the Churches of Christ, they may receive the bless- gua^es will make the situation clear. There are really ing of Peter, prince of the Apostles, whom our Lord derived languages that are no longer the same Ian- Jesus Christ made the chief of his flock"; and again: gua^ as their source. Italian is derived from Latin, "Have you not plenty of books written according to and Italian is not Latin. On the other hand, there are the Roman use? (quoted in Cabrol,  L'Angleterre dialectic modifications that do not go far enough to terre chr^tienne avant les Normans", Paris, 1909, p. make a derived language. No one would describe the 297). Before the Conquest the Roman service-books modern Roman dialect as a language derived from in England received a few Gallican additions from Italian; it is simply Italian, with a few slight local the old rite of the country (op. cit., 297-298). modifications. In the same way, there are really new

So we see that at the latest by the tenth or eleventh litur]^ies derived from the old ones. The Byzantine century the Roman Rite has driven out the Gallican. Rite is derived from that of Antioch and is a different except in two sees (Milan and Toledo), and is used rite. But Samm, Paris, Trier, etc. are simply the alone throughout the West, thus at last verifying here Roman Rite, with a few local modifications, too the principle that rite follows patriarchate. But Hence the justification of the abolition of neariy all in the long and gradual supplanting of the Gallican these local varieties in the sixteenth century. How- Rite the Roman was itself ancctcd by its rival, so that ever jealous one may be for the really independent when at last it emerges as sole possessor it is no longer liturgies, however much one would regret to see the the old pure Roman Rite, but has become the galli- abolition of the venerable old rites that share ihe edle- canized Roman Use that we now follow. These giance of Christendom (an abolition by the way tiiat is Gallican additions are all of the nature of ceremonial not in the least likely ever to take place), at an^ rate ornament, symbolic practices, ritual adornment. Our these medieval developments have no special claim to blessings of candles, ashes, palms, much of the ritual of our sympathy. They were only exuberant inflations of Holy Week, sequences, and so on are Gallican additions, the more austere ritual that had better not have been The original Uoinan Rite was very plain, simple, touched. Churches that use the Roman Rite had bet- practical. Mr. Edmund Bishop says that its charac- ter use it in a pure form; where the same rite exists at teristics were "essentially solxjmess and sense" ("The least there uniformity is a reasonable ideal. To con- Genius of the Roman Rite", p. 807; see the whole ceive these late developments as old compared with essay). Once these additions were accepted at Rome the original Roman Liturgy that has now again taken they oecame part of the (new) Roman Rite and were their place, is absurd. It was the novelties that Pius used as part of that rite everywhere. V abolished; his reform was a return to antiquity. In

When was the older simpler use so enriched? We 1570 Pius V published his revis^ and restored Roman

have two extreme dates. The additions were not Missal that was to be the only form for all Churches

made in the eighth century when Pope Adrian sent his that use the Ronmn Rite. The restoration of this

"Gregorian Sacramentary" to Charlemagne. The Missal was on the whole imdoubtedly successful; it

original part of that book (in Muratori's edition; wa.s all in the direction of edminating the later infla-

"Liturgia romana vetus", II, Venice, 1748) contains tions, farced Kyries and Glorias, exul^rant sequences,

still the old Roman Mass. They were made by the and ceremonial that was sometimes almost grotesoue.

eleventh centurj', as is shown by the " Missale Ro- In imposing it the pope made an exception for otner

manum liateranense" of that time, edited by Azevedo uses that had been m possession for at least two cen-

(Rome, 1752). Dom Suitbert Baumer suggests that turies. This privil^ was not used consktently.

the additions made to Adrian's book (by Alcuin) in Manylocalusesthat had a prescription of at least that

the Prankish Kingdom came back to Rome (after they time gave way to the authentic Roman lUte; but it

had become mixed up with the original book) imder saved the Missals of some Churches (Lyons, for in-

the influence of the successors of Charlemagne, and stance) and of some religious orders (the DominicanSy

there supplanted the older pure form (Ueber das sogen. Carmelites, Carthusians). What is much more im-

Sacr. Gelas., ibid.). portant is that the pope's exception saved the two

VI. Later Medieval LiruRGiES. — ^We have now remnants of a really independent Rite at Milan and