February 2001 Print

 

On May 8th, 1899, Edmund Bishop gave a conference at Archbishop's House, Westminster, to the Historical Research Society, on the Genius of the Roman Rite.¹ He there showed with incomparable skill that the Roman Liturgy, contrary to the opinion of a number of Anglicans, is a Liturgy admirable in its sobriety, its logic, its good sense, its faithfulness to the best traditions of the most ancient Liturgies; and that by these very qualities of simplicity, strength and austerity this, rather than any other Rite, ought to find favor with the English nation.

It would seem as if these forceful and learned pages of the great English liturgiologist are today forgotten; for during the last few years we could point out many attacks on the Roman liturgy by theologians of the Anglican Church, from Wickham Leg to Bishop Gore....²

[T]hese attacks upon the Roman Liturgy are not new. Without going back to the Protestants of the 16th century, we remember that towards the middle of the 19th century there was a lively dispute in France among the partisans of the neo-Gallican Liturgies, when priests and even bishops, under the pretext of attacking Dom Gueranger and those who with him desire to re-establish the Roman Liturgy in France, tried to point out in it, if not doctrinal errors, at least errors in good taste, and to show that from the liturgical–above all from the aesthetic point of view–it was very inferior to the new Liturgies.³

It must be admitted that when we read these pamphlets today their weakness is evident; and they also show to how low a level liturgical studies in France had sunk during the first half of the 19th century. The polemics of Anglican theologians are generally brought to bear upon other points. Some argue about the moment of Consecration, others about the absence of the Epiklesis, about the meaning of the Per quem haec omnia or other prayers of the Mass, about the suppression of the Prayer of the Faithful, etc.

We shall not stop to fight these objections in detail here. It seems to us more profitable to show in a general way, agreeably to our title, the excellence of the Roman Mass. In this way, we think, the futility of such attacks will be fully demonstrated.

The Territorial Extent of the Roman Liturgy

The Roman Liturgy, which at the beginning was the local Liturgy of Rome, has been gradually adopted in Italy, in Gallic countries, in England, Germany, and even in Spain, in all missionary countries, in the United States, Canada and Australia, so thoroughly that it has become today the universal Catholic rite, if we except the countries which still follow the Oriental Liturgies, and the few parishes which have preserved the use of the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Liturgies. So completely is this the case that today to attack the Roman Liturgy is to attack that of the whole Latin Church; it might even be said, save the few exceptions mentioned above, that of the whole Catholic Church.

Everyone knows that this situation is not primitive. Its history may be divided into three parts:

1) From the beginning to the fourth or fifth century.

2) From the fifth century to the ninth or tenth.

3) From the eleventh century to our own day.

During the first period there was in reality only one Liturgy. Liturgical differences and varieties may, and in fact do exist among various churches before the fifth century, for it was only from that time onwards that the characteristics which will allow us to differentiate between the Roman, the Oriental, the Gallican, and the Mozarabic Liturgies began to be outlined and fixed.

For Gaul this situation ceases towards the 9th century, when the Roman replaced the Gallican Liturgy; and for Spain in the 12th century, when the Mozarabic Liturgy almost disappears. What we call the Ambrosian, as well as the Celtic Liturgies, have had almost the same fate. It must be understood that this is merely a general resume, and that we should have to enter into a great many details to outline a more exact history from this evolution. But we only wish here to make one thing clear: that the Roman Liturgy, especially in the West, has gradually supplanted the others. This history has not yet been written in all its details, as would be most desirable; but one fact remains established, which is that this conquest or this invasion by the Roman Liturgy of all the Catholic countries of the Latin world is one of the proofs of the Roman supremacy in the Middle Ages. It is certain that if the Roman Liturgy was accepted in these countries it is because it was usually imposed by the authority of the Popes, or by rulers of an empire who thus wished to assure the Roman supremacy. These Papal interventions are numerous and well known. We shall quote only a few examples here to show what the procedure was in such matters.

Pope Siricius (384-399) insists on unity in the Liturgy: "If there is but one Faith there should be but one tradition. If there is but one tradition, one discipline alone should be preserved in all the churches."⁴ Innocent I (401-417), in a famous letter to Decentius, Bishop of Eugubio, written in 416, protests against liturgical innovations, and insists that the bishop shall remain faithful to the tradition of the Roman Church; he particularly mentions the place of the Kiss of Peace, the recitation of the Diptychs, and several other observances. Vigilius (537-55) invites Profuturus, Bishop of Braga, to follow in worship the same rules as the Roman Church, and sends him the text of the canon "which," he says, "we have received from the Apostles..."⁵ We could cite other examples, but it seems to us that the above are sufficient to prove our thesis.

The neo-Gallican Liturgies constitute a case apart. These must not be confounded with the ancient Gallican Liturgies which were considered legitimate for many centuries, like the Mozarabic or Ambrosian rites. One may indeed say of the neo-Gallican liturgies that they are illegitimate from their birth.

In the 17th, 18th, and even in the 19th centuries there existed French bishops, inspired by Gallican ideas, who, contrary to liturgical law as then recognized, rejected the Roman Liturgy followed in their dioceses, putting in its place new Liturgies devised by men who are not remarkable either for the orthodoxy of their doctrines or the piety of their lives, though sometimes, it is true, they were excellent classical scholars. These Liturgies have been examined–that thoroughly–by Dom Gueranger in his Institutions Liturgiques, so we need not dwell upon them.

What might surprise us is that this liturgical revolution in the 18th century could have taken place without rousing numerous protests, both in the dioceses where the Roman Rite was suppressed, and also at Rome where the Popes do not seem to have paid much attention to it. It was not until the 19th century, from about 1830 onwards, that a young monk, the Abbot of Solesmes, entered on the struggle which continued for many years, and which was finally crowned with complete success, since in 1853 every diocese in France had returned to the use of the Roman Liturgy, which is a fresh proof of the thesis of the influence of the Popes upon the evolution of the Liturgy, and of the supremacy of the Roman Liturgy in the Latin Church.⁶

Two Stages in the Roman Mass

As in this article we wish to treat specially of the Roman Mass, it is here necessary to make a remark. The Roman Mass appears in two very different stages, or states: before the ninth century, and after. Before, it was the true Roman Mass such as was celebrated at Rome for centuries, in the Golden Age of the Roman Liturgy as we may call it; the origin of which goes back to the fifth, the fourth, and perhaps even to an earlier century; a Mass of which all the elements, with very few exceptions, are specifically Roman. It can almost be reconstructed by means of the three Sacramentaries–the Leonine, the Gelasian, the Gregorian Ordines–and also by means of some of the works of writers of that period. The first of these Sacramentaries, the Leonine, contains the Masses anterior to the seventh century; some perhaps of the seventh century itself; some perhaps of the sixth and even of the fifth centuries; some, it is said, of the end of the fourth century.

Unfortunately other rites were interpolated into the two other Sacramentaries in Gaul from the 8th to the 10th century, so that it is rather difficult to decide which of their elements are Roman, and which Gallican. In spite of that, however, both contain precious information, and allow us to form a fairly precise idea of what the Roman Mass and Liturgy really were in the 9th century and the preceding period. Now this, the true Roman Mass, presents us with a Liturgy which is distinguished by its liturgical characteristics –simplicity, a certain austerity, and good sense. It is this that Edmund Bishop and Dom Wilmart describe so lovingly in the Genie du Rite Romain, where it is shown under the aspect of a building all of whose details are harmonious and regular; where there is neither crack nor crevice.

We must admit that Bishop is amusing on this point. Substantially, he says to his countrymen:

Popular prejudice in England calls everything Romanism which, in its opinion, seems in the Roman Liturgy to be sullied by materialism or sensuousness, by overpompous and complicated rites; by an element of poetry bordering on the dramatic.⁷

Then, history in hand, Bishop proves to them that such elements are not of Roman origin. Under St. Gregory the spirit of the Roman Rite, of the authentic Roman Rite, is composed of simplicity and common sense, of sobriety and discipline, of gravity and dignity. In liturgical matters the Roman spirit is neither creative nor original, nor is it symbolic; further, it is wholly lacking in poetry. To sum up: far from meriting the reproaches ordinarily made by Anglicans it might more truly be said that this spirit inclines to puritanism. The dramatic, lyric, poetic element in Liturgy, which has succeeded in penetrating into the Roman Liturgy itself, has another origin; it comes from the Oriental, Gallican and Mozarabic Liturgies, which are precisely those which Anglican scholars affect to prefer and to oppose to the Roman Liturgy. We must admit that this demonstration, founded as it is upon a profound knowledge of the Liturgies and upon incontestable facts, is not lacking in a certain piquancy. It is the argument ad hominem in all its beauty.

We must now explain how this change came about; how these additions or alterations were produced in the Roman Missal of St. Gregory. The transformation took place in Gaul; since the publication of Bishop's works its history has been well known. We will sum it up in a few words. About the year 780 Charlemagne asked Pope Hadrian to send him a copy of the Sacramentary of St. Gregory which he wished to substitute for the Gallican missals. The Sacramentary proved so poor and incomplete that a liturgist of that period, most probably Alcuin, added a second part to it, full of Gallican or Gelasian formulas. Very soon the distinction between the first and second parts ceased to be observed: and a combination or amalgamation of the various elements was made. It is from this composition that the actual Roman Missal has sprung: it might be called Gallico-Roman. If any are guilty in this matter they must be sought for in Gaul; and it was actually an Englishman, Alcuin, who became their instrument. Therefore to those, either in France or in England, who attack the Roman Liturgy, we may reply in the words of the poet: "Me, me adsum qui feci, in me convertite ferrum.–Upon me, on me who have made myself present, on me you should turn your sword!"⁸

In order to judge the Roman Mass fairly we must take it as it was in the middle of the 5th century, almost pure from any foreign importation. This is what Bishop did, and on pp. 7 and 8 of his conference we find this description, which he concludes thus: "What can be more simple? It is the Mass reduced to its least possible expression. There is not a single element that is not essential."

There are, however, two occasions during the Mass in which the Roman ceremonial, usually so simple, admitted the display of a certain pomp. The first was the entrance, on Feast Days, of the celebrant as he passed from the sacristy to the choir with his ministers, seven acolytes bearing torches, seven deacons, seven sub-deacons, one of whom bore a censer; all vested in the planeta, or chasuble, as we call it. During this processional entry the cantors, ranged in two groups in the presbyterium, sang the psalm called the Introit. A ceremony of the same sort was observed at the reading of the Gospel. The deacon, followed by the acolytes with their lighted candles, walked towards the ambo; the Book of the Gospels was censed as it is today, and the deacon sang the chosen passage. The Sacrifice properly so called began with the offertory and continued with great simplicity till the Communion. Here again, while the Communion psalm was being sung, the approach of all the clergy as well as that of the people to receive Holy Communion in the sanctuary was carried out with order and dignity, and was both imposing and solemn.

But again, in all this there is nothing useless, purely ceremonial, or symbolic. All is logical, practical, sensible, and at the same time dignified–sometimes even imposing. And there is another characteristic which Bishop has only rapidly sketched, but on which he might have dwelt at length. The contrast is striking between the Oriental, Gallican and Mozarabic Liturgies on one hand and the Roman Liturgy on the other; and it may be said is very much in favor of the Roman Liturgy. On one hand we have long dogmatic developments, lyrical effusions, riches and abundance which often degenerate into prolixity and which are sometimes disfigured by bad taste; while on the contrary the style of the Roman Liturgy has always been celebrated for its force, its sobriety, the precision and theological accuracy of its language, and its elegant simplicity. This applies to the collects and prefaces. The same qualities can be observed in the old Roman chant. A study of primitive Gregorian plainchant would lead us to the same conclusions, and all the elements of this demonstration, which we cannot touch upon here, have been gathered together by our brethren of Solesmes in the volumes of their Paleographie Musicale. Lastly, the Lectionary, or choice of readings from the prophecies, the epistles and the Gospels, would prove the same argument. While elsewhere some have ventured to arrange the text of the Sacred Books, to combined passages, to use the proper term, to centonise them; while some have added to the reading of the Sacred Books that of the Acts of the Martyrs and legends taken sometimes from books that could hardly be called orthodox, the Church of Rome, more severe, confines herself to the reading of the Sacred Books; and very early takes the trouble to draw up a catalogue or canon of what these Books are, while condemning those books which in her mind are not sufficiently characterized by authenticity and orthodoxy.

While in France, in Germany and other countries the Mass was being decorated with proses, sequences, tropes and other ornaments, it was necessary at Rome to wait for centuries before the Liturgy of the Mass would admit five or six of these compositions. This first point, that the Roman Liturgy in the fifth and sixth centuries was rather austere than not, and that it is not here that the poetic, lyric, or as the English say "emotional" element must be sought, may be taken as proved.

The Excellence of the Present Roman Mass

But it seems to me that we shall never reach our goal if we content ourselves with showing the beauty of the Roman Mass in the fifth and sixth centuries. What our contempories are interested in is not so much in knowing what the Mass was at that time as in knowing it in its actual state today, with all the additions it had received and all the changes it has undergone. Before beginning this examination we must warn our readers that in the Mass in its present state they will not find the unity, the ritual sobriety, or the logic which Bishop has thrown into such high relief in the Mass which he describes to us. Ours is a composite work in which we can recognize elements both Gallican and Oriental, but which has kept its characteristics both as Roman and primitive. If the Mass at present has lost something of its primitive originality, it has gained a certain variety and several rites and formulas, of which some are admirable. Who, for instance, could regret that the Roman Liturgy has adopted such ceremonies as the Blessing of candles on the Feast of the Purification (Feb. 2), the Blessing of Palms and the Procession on Palm Sunday, the Improperia of Good Friday, the sequences Dies Irae, Veni Sancte Spiritus, Victimae Paschali Laudes, Lauda Sion Salvatorem, and many other rites?

At the beginning of the Mass, where the psalm of the introit, the collect, gradual, and the readings composed the primitive Roman rite, there have now been added the psalm Judica me, the confession of sins, the prayers Aufer a nobis and Oramus Te, the Kyrie Eleison, often the Gloria in Excelsis, and the Credo. The Judica me and the confession of sins are a preparation for Mass which in certain Liturgies were said before Mass, outside the choir, usually in the sacristy, as were the various prayers for the amice, the alb, the chasuble, etc. Our missal has preserved a Preparation for Mass which contains other psalms, verses and prayers, and in particular certain prayers called formerly Apologiae Sacerdotis, which have been wrongly attributed to St. Ambrose.⁹

The Kyrie Eleison is one of the items borrowed by Rome from the Byzantine Liturgy, is a part of the Diaconal Litany which had a place in the greater number of the Oriental Liturgies. We owe further to Edmund Bishop a learned study which helps us to follow the whole history of the Kyrie Eleison.¹⁰ We need not speak of the Gloria in Excelsis, the history of which is well known and which is also of Greek origin.

The Gradual, which follows the Epistle, is not of Roman origin either, strictly speaking, any more than are the anthems of the Introit, Offertory, and Communion. But as we have already seen, they formed part of the Roman Mass in the fifth century. We may add that the items borrowed by the Roman from the Oriental Liturgies, or to be more precise, from that of Byzantium, and admired its Liturgy, and who had brought to Rome certain Oriental practices and formulas.

The Credo which, however, is only recited or sung on certain days, entered the Roman Mass very late. A German in the 11th century having expressed his astonishment at this omission, was told by a Roman of ancient lineage that as the Church of Rome had never fallen into heresy there was no reason why she should solemnly sing her profession of faith during Mass, like other churches which had not the same guarantee of orthodoxy. The Blessing and Procession of Holy Water at the beginning of the Sunday Mass, and the censing of the altar at the Offertory, are also foreign importations in the Roman Mass.

So much for the part which is called the Mass of the Catechumens. It was formerly followed by the departure of the catechumens, the penitents, the unbelievers, of all those, in a word, who had no right to be present at the Sacrifice proper. The faithful alone remained in their places; and they would all communicate at Mass, when all the rest had been sent away.¹¹ In the primitive Liturgy at this point there was a prayer called the Prayer of the Faithful. It was offered for the universal Church, for its ministers, the Bishop, the Pope, for the Emperor, for the captives, the sick, often for the dead, for heretics, heathen, Jews, for all men in general. This Prayer of the Faithful which the Oriental Liturgies have preserved, no longer exists in the Roman Mass of every day. The only memory of it kept by the existing Roman Liturgy is found in the solemn prayers on Good Friday. These have kept all the characteristics of that prayer whose composition can never be sufficiently admired. The Pontiff announced the subject of the prayer and invited the faithful to pray. The deacon and sub-deacon pronounced the Flectamus genua and the Levate; then the Pontiff uttered the prayer. Bishop truly remarks that in Rome this Prayer of the Faithful was much more of a prayer for the faithful, said by the Bishop in person.¹² Lastly, we may remark that the prayer for the Church Quam Pacificare, Custodire, etc.; for the Pope, for the Bishop, et omnibus orthodoxis, etc., in the Te Igitur, reminds us of the Prayer for the Faithful.

Today the greater number of liturgists like to find another reminder of the Prayer of the Faithful in the Dominus vobiscum and Cum spiritu tuo: Oremus, which are said after the Gospel or after the Credo, when the Creed is said in Mass. Msgr Duchesne says:

It is a strange thing that this exhortation was as barren of result in the eighth century as it is in the present day. No one prayed. The Pope and his assistants proceeded to collect the offerings of the people and clergy, the choir executed some chant or other, but no prayer was provided by the liturgical books, and there was no rubric implying that any prayer was to be said privately or secretly. There is therefore a hiatus here; something has disappeared, and that something is nothing else than the Prayer of the Faithful, which in all other liturgies occurs in this place.¹³

...The ceremony of the Offertory, which was rather complicated, even in Rome, when the faithful themselves brought the bread and wine which were to be used in the Sacrifice, is simplified now that this custom has ceased.¹⁴ But here the censing of the altar has been added with the prayers Per intercessionem Beati Michaelis; Incensum istud; Dirigatur, Domine and those which follow: Suscipe, Sancte Pater; Offerimus Tibi; In spiritu humilitatis; Veni Sanctificator; Suscipe Sancta Trinitas; Orate fratres. These are prayers of recent date, mostly of Gallican origin; and their wording often varies in the ancient missals. The prayer Deus qui humanae substantiae is an exception. It is ancient, and of Roman origin. In its graceful simplicity, in the technique of its rhythm, and in its theological profundity it bears the marks of the Roman spirit.

The Washing of Hands, for which there was a reason when the Pontiff received the gifts of the faithful in his own hands, and censed the altar, is now merely a symbolic rite, especially at a Low Mass.

From the Secret onwards the present Mass closely follows the ancient rite, and has received no additions, at least not in the Canon. The Secret has remained what it was in the time of Gregory, of Gelasius, and before them. Most of them are taken from the Sacramentaries of these Popes or from the Leonine Sacramentary. The Preface, with its dialogue, and the Sanctus, goes back to the most ancient times, and is found in every Liturgy....

The Canon of the existing Roman Mass, which is the most important part of it, is also the part which has been most hotly contested. It comprehends a certain number of prayers in which the Consecration is enshrined, which terminate by the doxology Per ipsum, etc. The Canon answered to the ancient Anaphora from the dialogue Dominus vobiscum, to the final doxology, formed but one single prayer, like a speech which nothing may interrupt, not the singing of the Sanctus nor Amen, nor any intervention of the faithful. It was the Pontiff alone who recited or sang the prayer in the name of the people, who at the end answered Amen. We have various ancient texts as witnesses to this, notably those of St. Justin and St. Hippolytus. The restitution to St. Hippolytus of the Apostolic Tradition, which contains the famous Anaphora of the beginning of the third century, is one of the most important discoveries of recent years, for which we must thank a disciple of Bishop, Dom Connolly.¹⁵ The document having often been printed, we do not give it here, but we should read it again to convince ourselves that the Eucharistic prayer was originally only one well-arranged prayer: the Preface, the recital of the Institution, Anamnesis, Epiklesis, doxology. The Sanctus itself, ancient as it is, is of later date. It is certain that the existing Roman Canon, in which we find certain analogies with the Prayer of Hippolytus, represents an epoch earlier than the fifth or even the end of the fourth century. The treatise De Sacramentis, which dates from this time, and which contains some parts of our Canon, seems to us to present the intermediate stage between the Anaphora of Hippolytus and the existing Canon....¹⁶

[B]ishop took the Roman Canon as he found it in the manuscripts, and he has the merit of having fixed its text according to the most ancient tradition. From this work it would seem to result that the text of the Canon in the Roman missal comes down from a manuscript of the Ottob. 313 type (it is number XXXV in Delisle). It is impossible here to condense Bishop's work, minute and detailed as it is, but we have done this elsewhere in our article "Canon" already mentioned.

The prayers Te igitur, Hanc igitur, Quam oblationem, lead up to the recital of the Institution. The Qui pridie quam pateretur is a very distinctive feature of the Roman Liturgy, and one point in which it resembles other Latin Liturgies even the Mozarabic, which at a certain moment abandoned the Western use to follow the Oriental Liturgies; all of which, instead of the Qui pridie had adopted St. Paul's formula: in qua nocte tradebatur.¹⁷

We know that according to Roman doctrine the miracle of Transubstantiation is wrought by the words of the institution ....

[I]t is certain that the Roman Church, in agreement with St. Augustine, St. Ambrose, and we may say the majority of Doctors, teaches that the consecration of the Body and Blood of Christ is effected by the words of institution. In the article referred to by Dr. Gore, the author tries to find in the Roman Anamnesis and the following prayer the proof that the elements have not yet been consecrated. But on the contrary, the expressions Hostiam puram, Hostiam sanctam, Hostiam immaculatam, panem sanctum vitae aeternae et calicem salutis perpetuae, can only be applied to the Body and Blood of Christ; and the presentation made to the Father per manus sancti angeli tui, whoever this "angel" may be, can only be that of His Divine Son under the forms of bread and wine. These formulas are conformable with the spirit and symbolism of the Liturgy...¹⁸

Since the 12th and 13th centuries a great solemnity has been added to the ceremonial of the Consecration, and it may be well to say some words about it at this point. Naturally Protestants have accused the Roman Church of having invented all these ceremonies, and of having changed the spirit of the Liturgy. But it is no longer allowable to make these accusations since the results of research undertaken in recent years have been made known. In the first place, it is certain that it was not the Church of Rome which instituted this ceremonial. On this point, as on others, the primitive Roman Mass was remarkable for great simplicity. The restrained gestures of the celebrant emphasized, and as it were, imitated all the words of the recital; but that was all. The principal elevation of the Host and the Chalice were not even made at that moment, but in the last doxology, at the words per Ipsum et cum Ipso. The elevation of the Body and Blood at the moment of the consecration, the presence of acolytes with lighted candles, the sound of bells small and great, the inclinations, prostrations and genuflections, the censing, which makes this instant the most solemn of the whole Mass–all this is of comparatively recent date, and did not originate in Rome. Today it is well known, thanks to the work of scholars, notably that of Fr. Thurston, that France gave birth to all these rites in the 12th and 13th centuries.¹⁹ They were only adopted at Rome much later on. Moreover these additions to the ancient and very simple primitive Roman rite must not be considered as a drawback but on the contrary, as greatly enriching the Liturgy; according to many, as a distinct progress. It may be said of this, as of many devotions of the Middle Ages or of later centuries, such as the Feast of the Most Holy Sacrament, of the Precious Blood, of the Sacred Heart, that they throw into greater relief and illuminate more fully the feelings and beliefs which already existed in the hearts of primitive Christians.

The Per Quem haec omnia is another difficult passage which has been explained in many ways. Ancient sacramentaries have been quoted in which the Per Quem is the conclusion of a prayer which has been omitted from the Roman Canon; a blessing of fruit, of oil, and other substances, as, for example, on Holy Thursday or Ascension Day; or a prayer over the Body and Blood of Christ. In any case the sense of the Per Quem is in conformity with the general sense of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, to the effect that it is through Christ that all blessing comes to us; and thus these words lead directly to the final doxology of the Canon, after which the Fraction of the Host takes place.

We wish to draw attention to this doxology. The most ancient traditions, which go back to the third and even to the second century, inform us that the Canon or Anaphora ended in a doxology to which all the faithful answered Amen, "So be it." It was an Act of Faith, which showed that in this Divine action of the Mass the Pontiff had acted in their name, and that they associated themselves with him by this Amen. But in the Roman Mass this doxology is full of incomparable majesty. The priest, holding the Host in his right hand, makes the sign of the Cross three times over the Chalice which contains the precious Blood, with the words Per Ipsum, etc. And after two other signs of the cross he elevated the Host and the Chalice. This elevation was formerly the principal elevation of the Mass and this doxology is the most solemn of all the numerous doxologies in the Catholic Liturgy; it was also the principal doxology in the Mass–we might say, the only one. ²⁰

This last part of the Mass, after the doxology, is that which has undergone the greatest number of changes since the time of St. Gregory. Before him, the Kiss of Peace was probably given at this moment,²¹ and the Fraction of the Host followed. This was a rather complicated operation of which the details are given in the ancient Ordines. The Pontiff began the Fraction at the altar, and then went to his seat in the transept; the ministers completed the division of the consecrated bread which was to be distributed in the Communion of the Faithful; the Chalice being handed to a sub-deacon. At this moment the Chant of the Fraction was sung: Ad Confractionem. The ancient Liturgies still preserve examples of this.²²

St. Gregory introduced an important reform here. The Pater was then not sung till after the operation of the Fraction had taken place. He wished the Pater to form part of the Canon, and he placed the Fraction later ....

Some recent interpreters have thought that...it was St. Gregory himself who introduced the Pater into the Mass. But this is inadmissible. The Pater, since the fourth century at least, was recited in nearly all Liturgies; St. Augustine tells us so formally; had Rome been an exception to the rule he would not have failed to say so, he, so familiar with all her customs ....

[I]f we go back to the Liturgy in the time of St. Gregory as we have already described it, the words will seem quite plain. The Pontiff, as we have said, began the Fraction at the altar, and then went to his throne in the transept while his ministers continued to break the Bread and to prepare It for the Communion. And the Pontiff only recited the Pater after this operation was finished, after the consecrated elements had been removed from the altar; so that it was now said super Ejus Corpus et Sanguinem. In a rapture of faith and devotion St. Gregory desired to change this custom, a change to which we have remained faithful.²³

The rest of the Mass has been somewhat modified, either in St. Gregory's time or later. Besides the disappearance of the anthem Ad Confractionem, the Commixtio, or mingling of the Body and Blood, which had a deep meaning in the ancient Liturgy, has been simplified ;²⁴ and the Kiss of Peace has been placed later on. The introduction in this place of the chant Agnus Dei by Pope Sergius in 687-­701, and the three Communion prayers which follow it are a fresh modification, as well as the ceremonial of Communion and the prayers which accompany it. The ancient rite was simpler. Nevertheless, as Bishop says, "the impression produced by the general Communion of all the ministering clergy in the sanctuary must have been, in the highest degree, solemn and imposing" (p.11): for everyone present at Mass communicated, and during this time the Communion psalm was sung. This had long been the 33rd Psalm, Benedicam Dominum in omni tempore, well suited as it was to the circumstances, with its verses Accedite ad Eum et illuminamini...gustate et videte quoniam suavis est Dominus.–Come ye to him and be enlightened...taste and see that the Lord is sweet" (v. 6, 9).

The celebrant went to the altar and recited the last collect, or Post Communion, and the Mass ended with the Ite Missa est. The Placeat Tibi is of later date. The Blessing given here by the priest in the words: Benedicat vos Omnipotens Deus, is the Blessing which the prelate used to give as he withdrew at the end of Mass, and gave generally at all solemn ceremonies. It must not be confounded with the Blessing preserved in the Gallican and Mozarabic rites, which preceded the Communion. We still possess many collections of these Blessings in the books called Benedictionals, some of which, like those of St. Ethelwold and St. Robert, are celebrated in England, and have been most carefully edited. But they are not of Roman origin...²⁵

Conclusion

...We wished to dwell upon one aspect only of the question: The Excellence of the Roman Mass, and to protest against criticisms which usually seem to us exaggerated and inconclusive. The Roman Mass, even after all the changes it has undergone during the Middle Ages, has preserved its character of dignity and grandeur. If during this long journey it has lost something of its primitive simplicity, it has gained in variety and symbolism; it is more picturesque. Much better than the Oriental Liturgies, it has kept the purest and most ancient tradition, represented by St. Justin and St. Hippolytus, a tradition which places the words of the institution at the Last Supper in the midst of the Sacrifice, and terminates the Eucharistic prayer by a solemn doxology. I think we may say that it is the Liturgy which approaches most closely to the Apostolic Anaphora. In the Mass of the Catechumens also it has carefully kept the most ancient and most universal arrangement of the readings, psalmody and chants, which ends with the solemn reading of the Gospel, it has given a place of honor to the ancient chants of the Kyrie, the Gloria in Excelsis, the Credo, the Offertory and the Communion, as well as to those solemn prayers, the Collect, Secret, and Post-Communion, and to the most pathetic ceremonies, the Kiss of Peace, the Elevation, the Mingling, the Fraction, and Communion....

The Liturgy of the Church Militant is addressed to men; ...hence the modifications which we have noticed in the Roman rite. Popes themselves have approved these changes, of which they personally have often been the authors. They have reformed the Missal, the Breviary, the Ceremonial. We know that in Rome at the present time the Pontifical and the Martyrology are undergoing most careful study. Thus, if corrections have been made we need not be surprised that Rome has been the first to make them. But in our own opinion what is most to be feared at the present time is not blind and obstinate attachment to ancient traditions; it is, on the other hand, the love of change and novelty which has seized upon our generation, and which makes us contemptuous of the things of the past. St. Paul's words ought to be the motto of every Christian: Depositum custodi–let us keep that which has been committed unto us.

---

Reprinted and abridged from The Catholic Quarterly Review, 1992, Vo1. 6, No. 2, of the District of Great Britain of the Society of Saint Pius X.

1 This conference was first published in the Weekly Register, May, 1899 (three articles). It was republished without alteration in the Liturgica Historica, by Edmund Bishop (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1918). It was translated into French and enriched with notes by Dom Wilmart under the title Le Genie du Rit Romain (édition française, Librarie de l'Art Catholique, Paris, 1921). We shall in the course of this article quote other works of Edmund Bishop which complete this conference.

2 There are, however, exceptions; one of which we have noticed with pleasure in a number of the Church Quarterly Review (July, 1928, p. 314), that of Dr. Nairne.

3 These polemics have been collected in various pamphlets of Dom Gueranger; republished in the second edition of his Institutions Liturgiques (Paris, 1880); and more recently by the Abbé J. F. Bergier, Histoire de la Controverse et de la Reforme Liturgiques en France au XIXme Siecle (Besanqon, 1860); finally, quite recently, the book Liturgia contains a chapter on the Liturgies neo-Gallicanes.

4 Dom Constant, p. 692.

5 Epistolae Decretales Romanotum Pontiftcum, Madrid, 1821, p. 155.

6 Part of the second volume of the Institutions Liturgiques of Dom Gueranger is consecrated to this question. Cf. also the work of J. F. Bergier, quoted above.

7 In France, to mark this difference, we should call this Liturgy "romantic" in opposition to a "classic," that is, a far more austere liturgy.

8 I have told this story at greater length in the conferences of the Cambridge Summer School: Catholic Faith in the Holy Eucharist, Cambridge, 1923.

9 On this prayer Summe Sacerdos, cf. Dom Wilmart, "L'Oratio sancti Ambrosii du Missel Romain," in the Revue Benedictine, October, 1927, pp. 317 ff.

10 "Kyrie Eleison: A Liturgical Consultation," in Liturgica Historica, p. 116 fol. and 197ff. May I quote here my two articles, "Kyrie Eleison" and "Litanies" in Dict. d'Archeol. Chretienne et de Liturgie, Vol. IX, p. 154ff. 

11 A curious trace of this custom still remains in the pontifical: the Prelate reminds the Exorcist, "oportet...dicere populo ut qui non communicat det locum." An allusion to this custom may yet be read in the Life of St. Benedict by St. Gregory.

12 Le Génie du Rit Romain, French edition, p. 92. We may here remark that this prayer of or for the faithful has often been, and still is, mistaken for the Kyrie and the Diaconal Litany, which are quite different.

13 Christian Worship, 5th edition, London, S.P.C.K., 1919, p. 172. The translator, Mrs. L. McClure, observes that in the Book of Common Prayer the Bidding Prayer or prayers of the Praeconium answers to the ancient Prayer of the Faithful (loc. cit., p. 173, note 1).

14  In some places a timid attempt has been made to bring back this practice, and the faithful who wish to communicate, themselves place a host on the paten presented to them by the priest at the Offertory.

15  The so-called Egyptian Church Order and derived documents, in Texts and Studies, Vo1.VIII (Cambridge, 1916). Dom Cagin in his "Eucharistia" (Rome, Tournai, 1912) and L'Anaphore apostolique (Paris, 1919), has studied this document profoundly and at length.

16  The prayer runs thus: Fac nobis hanc oblationem adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem, acceptabilem, quod figura est corporis et sanguinis Domini Nostri Jesu Christi qui pridie, etc. Unfortunately the author says nothing about the preceding part; and we do not exactly know what was the connection between the Preface and the Fac nobis.

17 Dom Cagin in his Paleographie Musicale, Vol. V., pp. 55ff., has a learned dissertation on this point, and has shown all the consequences of this divergence. It is rather curious to note that some time previously Father H. Lucas, S.J., of whose work Dom Cagin was unaware, had on his own account drawn attention to this difference between the East and West. He returned to the question in his work Holy Mass (London, 1914).

18  This is what Bossuet, Le Brun, and in our own day Dom Cagin have shown at great length.

19  Thurston's articles appeared in the Tablet, October, 1907, and November 2, 1907; cf. also A. Drury, Elevation in the Eucharist, Its History and Rationale (Cambridge, 1907); and our article "Elevation" in the Dictionnaire d'Archeologie Chré­tienne et de Liturgie. It must not be forgotten that these works upon the Elevation have been recently completed by the studies of M. l'Abbé E. Dumoutet, upon that devotion so popular in the Middle Ages, the desire to see the Host: Le Desir de voir l'Hostie et les origines de la devotion au Saint Sacrament (Paris, 1926) which have also contributed to the development of this part of the ceremonial.

20  On these two points see our article "Elevation" in the Dictionnaire d'Archeologie Chrétienne et de Liturgies and another article "Doxologie" in the Melanges Grand­maison.

21  We may conclude this from the letter of Pope Innocent I to Decentius in 416. On the oriental practice, cf. Journal of Theological Studies, Vo1.XIV, p.51ff.

22  Cf. Thomassii Opera, Vol. V, p. 96; Dom Cagin, Te Deum ou Illatio, pp. 241, 495, and our article, "Fractio Panis," Dict. d'Archeol. Chrét. et de Liturgie, Vo1.V, col. 2111, 2112.

23  On this point I follow the interpretation of Edmund Bishop, which has been restated and strengthened by Dom Wilmart in the Genie du Rit Romain, p. 84.

24  On this question see the articles of the Abbé Andrien, later collected in the Book Immixtio et Consecratio (Paris, 1925).

25  John Gage, "The Benedictional of St. Ethelwold," in Archaeologia, Vol. XXIV (London, 1832); and The Benedictional of Archbishop Robert, edited by H. A. Wilson (London, 1903).