Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 9.djvu/852

 2CASS

796

MA88

great problem. Cagin's idea is that all that must be reversed, the Gallican Rite has no comiezion at all with Antioch or any Eastern Liturgy; it is in its origin the same rite as the Roman. Rome changed this ear- lier form about the sixth or seventh century. Before that the order at Rome was: Secrets, Preface, Sanctus, "Te igitur"; then "Hanc igitur", "Quam oblatio- nem", "Qui pridie" (these uuree pravers correspond to the Gallican Post-Sanctus). Then followed a group like the Gallican Pos^Pridie, namely '* Undo et memores",?*0flferimu8 praeclar»", ** Supra quae", "Supplices", "Per eunaem Christum etc.", "Per quern hsec omnia", and the Fraction. Then came the Lord's Prayer with its embolism, of which the " Nobis uoque " was a part. The two Mementos were orig- inally before the Preface. Dom Cagin has certainly pointed out a number of points in which Rome and Uaul (that is all the Western rites) stand together as opposed to the East. Such points are the changes caused by the calendar, the introduction of the Insti- tution by the words '* Qui pridie ", whereas all Eastern Liturgies have the form " In the night in which he was betrayed". Moreover the place of the kiss of peace (in Gaul before the Preface) cannot be quoted as a difference between Rome and Gaul, since, as we have seen, it stood originally in that place at Rome too. The Gallican diptychs come before the Preface; but no one knows for certain where they were said ori^- nally at Rome. Caein puts them in the same place in the earlier Roman Mass. His theory may be studied further in Dom Cabrol's ** Origines liturgiques", where it is very clearly set out (pp. 353-64). Mgr Duchesne has attacked it vigorously and not without effect in the " Revue d'histoire et de litt^rature eccl6siastiques" (1900), pp. 31 sq. Mr. Edmund Bishop criticizes the German theories (Drews, Baumstark etc.), and im- plies in general terms that the whole question of the grouping of liturgies will have to be reconsidered on a new oasis, that of the form of the words of Institution (Appendix to Dom R. Connolly's "Liturgical Homi- lies of Narsai" in "Cambridge Texts and Studies", VIII, I, 1909). It is to be regretted that he has not told us plainly what position he means to defend, and tha^ he is here again content with merelv negative criticism. The other great question, that of the disap- pearance of the Roman Epiklesis, cannot be examined here (see Canon of the Mass and Epiklesis). We will only add to what has been said in those articles that the view is growing that there was an Invocation of the Second Person of the Holy Trinity, an Epiklesis of the Logos, before there was one of the Holy Ghost. The Anaphora of Serapion (fourth century in Egypt) contains such an Epiklesis of the Logos only (in I* unk, "Didascalia", II, Paderborn, 1905, pp. 174-6). Mr. Bishop (in the above-named Appendix) thinks that the Invocation of the Holy Ghost did not arise till later (Cyril of Jerusalem, about 350, being the first witness for it), that Rome never had it, that her only Epiklesis was the "Quam oblationem" before the words of Institution. Against this we must set what seems to be the convincing evidence of Gelasius I's letter (quoted in Canon op the Mass, s. v. Supplicea te rogamua).

We have then as the conclusion of this paragraph that at Rome the Eucharistic prayer was fundamen- tally changed and recast at some uncertain period be- tween the lourth and the sixth and seventh centuries. During the same time the prayers of the faithful before the Offertory disappeared, the kiss of peace was trans- ferred to after the Consecration, and the Epiklesis was omitted or mutilated into our "Supplices" prayer. Of the various theories suggested to account for this it seems reasonable to say with Rauschen: "Although the question is by no means decided, nevertheless there is so much in favour of Drews's tneory that for the present it must l)e considered the right one. We must then admit that between the years 400 and 600

a great transformation was made in the Roman Canon" (Euch. u. Busssakr., 86).

D. From the Seventh Century to Modern Times.-- After Gregory the Great (590-604) it is comparatively easy to follow the history of the Mass in the Roman Rite. We have now as documents first the three well- known sacramentaries. The oldest, called Leonine^ exists in a seventh-century manuscript. Its composi- tion is ascribed variously to the fifth, sixth, or seventh century (see Litubgical Boosls). It is a fragment, wanting the Canon, but, as far as it goes, represents the Mais we know (without the later Gallican addi- tions). Many of its collects, secrets, post-commu- nions, and prefaces are still in use. The Gelasian book was written in the sixth, seventh, or eighth century (ibid.); it is partly GalUcanized and was composed in the Frankish Kingdom. Here we have our Canon word for word. The third sacramentary, called GregO' riaUf is apparentlv the book sent by Pope Adrian I to Charlenaagpe probably between 781 and 791 (ibid.). It contains additional Masses since Gregory's time and a set of supplements gradually incorporated into the original book, giving Frankish (i e. older Roman and Gallican) additions. Dom Suitbert Baumer ('* Ueber das sogen. Sacram. Gelasianum" in the '' Histor. Jahr- buch', 1893, pp. 241-301) and Mr. Edmund Bishop ("The Earliest Roman Massbook" in "Dublin Re- view", 1894, pp. 245-78) explain the development of the Roman Rite from the nmth to the eleventh cen- tury in this way: The (pure) Roman Sacramentary sent by Adrian to Charlemagne was ordered by the king to be used alone throughout the Frankish King- dom. But the people were attached to their, old use, which was partly Roman (Gelasian) and partly Galli- can. So wnen the Gregorian book was copied they (notably Alcuin, d. 804) added to it these Franki^ supplements. Gradually the supplements became incorporated into tKe original book. So composed it came back to Rome (tmou^h the influence of the Carlo vingian emperors) and became the "use of the Roman Church". The "Missale Romanum Latem- nense" of the eleventh century (ed. Azevedo, Rome, 1752) shows this fused rite complete as the only one in use at Rome. The Roman Mass has thus gone through this last change since Gregory the Great, a partial fusion with GaUican elements. According to Baumer and Bishop the Gallican influence is noticeable chiefly in the variations for the course of the year. Their view is that Gregory had given the Mass more uniformity (since the time of the Leonine book), had brought it rather to the model of the unchanging Eastern litur- gies. Its present variety for different days and seasons came bacK again with the mixed books later. Gallican influence is also seen in many dramatic and symbolic ceremonies foreign to the stern pure Roman Kite (sec Bishop, "The Genius of the Roman Rite"). Such ceremonies are the blessing of candles, ashes, palms, much of the Holy Week ritual, etc.

The Roman Ordines, of which twelve were pub- lished by Mabillon in his "Museum Italicum" (others since by De Rossi and Duchesne), are valuable sources that supplement the sacramentaries. They are de- scriptions of ceremonial without the prayers (like the " Cserimoniale Episcoporum"), and extend from the eighth to the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries. The first (eighth century) and second (based on the first, with Frankish additions) are the most important (see LiTURQiCAL Books). From these and the sacramen- taries we can reconstruct the Mass at Rome in the eighth or ninth century. There were as yet no pre- paratory prayers said before the altar. The pope, attended oy a great retinue of deacons, subdeacons, acolytes, and singers, entered while the Introit psalm was sung. After a prostration the Kjrrie eleison was sung, as now with nine invocations (see Ktrie Elei- son); any other litany hail disappeared. The Gloria followed on feasts (sec (iLoria in Excelsib). The