Digitized by the Internet Archive

in 2016

https://archive.org/details/briefhistoryofliOOklau



POPULAR LITURGICAL LIBRARY

A BRIEF

History of Liturgy

By

DR. THEODOR KLAUSER

University of Bonn

THE LITURGICAL PRESS
St. John's Abbey Collegeville, Minnesota



Since the present survey begins with a study of Pope St. Hippolytus’

Apostolic Tradition and continues down to the reforms of Blessed

Pius X, artist John Adrian has incorporated a drawing of these two

pontiffs into the cover design.

NIHIL OBSTAT

loannes Eidenschink, O.S.B., J.C.D.

Censor Deputatus

IMPRIMI POTEST

Balduinus Dworschak, O.S.B.

Abbas

Sancti loannis Baptistae

IMPRIMATUR

Petrus W. Bartholome, D.D.

Coadjutor Episcopus

Sancti Clodoaldi

Die 23 Aprilis, 1953

Copyright 1953

The Order of St. Benedict^ Inc.

Collegeville^ Minnesota

OdfloicSRed



A Brief History of Liturgy

INTRODUCTION

The medieval cathedrals, Romanesque or Gothic, which

at the time of their building presented a clear-cut pattern

to the beholder, often appear to us now as rather confusing
structures. One century after another has left in them the

imprint of its own expressions of piety, of its mental out-
look, of its artistic taste.

About the choir and transepts there appeared a galaxy of

side chapels; gradually too the walls came to be laden with

tombs and memoriah tablets. The tracery of the windows,

altered again and again, was filled with stained glass of suc-

cessive periods and styles. Statues, free-standing tombs, chan-

deliers, pulpit and pews, the eucharistic tabernacle — these
and other additions break the quiet flow of lines that formerly

characterized the central spaces. Altars, too, of later date by

their number and ornateness diminish the dominant im-

portance of the earlier few.

One needs to be an expert in order to understand all the
various elements that make up the scene

;
as a matter of fact,

the archeological studies of experts in the field tax the ca-

pacity of our huge governmental inventories of historical

documents.

Our Roman liturgy

^

as we have it today, has undergone a

similar and still more complicated development. Its history

extends over not merely ten but over almost twenty centuries.

Its lineaments bear the enduring traces of the evolution of

mentality not only of one but of many peoples.

What various influences they are that now and again have
modified our liturgy in structure and remodeling: the con-

cise and noble virility of the popes of Christian antiquity;

the piety of early monasticism, so devoted to the “work of

God” and not grudging the hours given to prayer; the de-

light in symbolism of the Merovingian and Carolingian

periods
;
the exuberant emotion of the medieval mystics and

the systematic intellectuality of the scholastics; the ornate-

ness of the Baroque period
;
and last but not least the influ-

1



ence of the rubricists of modern times, faithful to liturgical

law but unfamiliar with history.

What then do we find as the eventual product of the age-
old process of development? How is it possible to cover it all
in a brief survey and to explain it in an intelligible way?

And yet, we must endeavor to understand our liturgy. For
it embraces and actuates our daily life. We ought certainly to
be acquainted with the decisive turning points in its history

so that we may have ready at hand a key to an initial under-
standing, at least, of whatever liturgical questions arise.

The purpose of the following pages is to indicate in a brief
survey the various modifications that have come about in the

history of our liturgy in the West according to the findings of

present-day scholarship. Therefore we divide this history

of the liturgy in western Christendom into four periods. The

first of these extends to the time of Pope Gregory the Great,

that is, to the year 590 ; the second extends to Pope Gregory

VII or to the year 1073; the third to the Council of Trent

or to the year 1545; and the fourth brings us to our own

times.

The first of these periods may be characterized as that of

creative beginnings; the second as that of the Franco-Ger-

manic influence; the third as that of unification; and the

fourth as that of uniformity under fixed liturgical law. For

each of these periods we shall first offer the results of the

scholarship of former years
;
and then we shall indicate vari-

ous points in which former opinion has been modified by

more recent research.

2



I.

TO POPE GREGORY THE GREAT: CREATIVE

ORIGINS

To sum up briefly what was known, about the year 1^14,
concerning the Christian liturgy in this first period of its

history, one might say as follows:

The chief elements in the Christian worship of the ancient

Church — the eucharistic Sacrifice, the sacraments and com-
munity prayer — derive from the explicit precepts of our
Lord Himself, or, as in the case of community prayer, at least

from His recommendation. In the exercise of these acts of

worship the precise forms, insofar as not determined by our

Lord, were fashioned in some minor degree only by the

Church herself, and in larger part were taken over by the

Church from the customs of Jewish worship and from the

customs of the Hellenistic environment.

Of Jewish origin is the structure of our Fore-Mass, a service

of prayer and instruction with scriptural readings and ser-

mon, similar to the Jewish service of the Sabbath morning.

Of Jewish origin also is the basic form of the ancient Chris-

tian eucharistic prayer, now our Canon of the Mass, similar

to the hymn of praise and thanksgiving for God’s creative

work and for His merciful guidance of the people of Israel,

which was also part of the Jewish Sabbath morning service.

Of Jewish origin are features and elements of our Hour

prayers of the divine office: the morning and evening Hours,

the three Day Hours, the threefold division of our Matins,

and the reckoning of the day from evening to evening. Of

Jewish origin is the choice of the Laudate psalms for our

morning office of Lauds. And finally, of Jewish origin are the
doxology, the triple Sanctus, and the acclamations: Amen,

Alleluia and Maranatha.

From the Hellenistic world and from its mystery-cults came

undoubtedly decisive influences for the fashioning of the

Christian rite of initiation with its exorcisms and anointings,

and also the idea of celebrating the solemn rite of baptism

on the night of Easter. From Hellenism came the “discipline

of the secret,” that is, the Christian obligation to secrecy in

regard to the essential acts of worship.

3



From Hellenism came the tendency to submit the Chris-

tian formulas of prayer to the rules of ancient rhetoric and

especially to the particular rules of symmetry. From Hellen-

ism came many technical terms in the language of the liturgy,

such as the word liturgy itself and the words mysterium, ana-

phora, canon, praefatio, anamnesis, etc. And finally, from
Hellenism came certain patterns of prayer such as that of

the litany of All Saints, and acclamations such as Kyrie

eleison and Dignum et justum est.

Drawing from these two sources, Jewish and Hellenistic, in

addition to its own proper elements, the ancient Christian

liturgy in the concrete takes form approximately as follows:

In the beginning there were two liturgical services; on

Sunday morning a “service of the word'' consisting of read-

ings, sermon and prayer, and on Sunday evening the ritual

repast consisting of the celebration of the Eucharist either

preceded by or somehow joined with a community meal.

This latter was called the “agape," and at an early date it was

separated from the eucharistic Sacrifice, no doubt because of

the increased number of Christians and the consequent prac-

tical difficulties and disciplinary problems
;
and in the course

of the fourth century the agape was discontinued. At some

time in the second century the eucharistic Sacrifice was trans-

ferred to the morning and was joined with the service of

prayer and instruction.

While the Eucharist and the agape were still united the

faithful were accustomed to bring offerings of various kinds,

and after the separation of the two they continued to do this

in both cases. This practice and the general ancient custom

whereby the offertory elements were brought by the members

of the community accounts for the origin of the so-called

offertory procession.

The great eucharistic prayer which we call the Canon of

the Mass was in the earliest days improvised freely by the

celebrant although with adherence to a traditional content

;

later it was carefully prepared in advance, and finally it was

spoken in a fixed and generally accepted text.

The proper language of the liturgy in the first centuries

was Greek, and this also in Rome. The change from Greek

to Latin came about in Rome probably about the middle
of the third century, for about this time Greek begins to

disappear in the civil life of the capital city.

The earliest Christian feast-day was Easter, which had its

4



prolongation of fifty days to Pentecost and was echoed in the

weekly observance of the Sundays; in the fourth century

Christmas and Epiphany and the anniversary days of martyrs

were included in the liturgical calendar; and the structure of

a liturgical year from Advent to Pentecost was completed in

its main lines by the end of the sixth century.

The daily Hour-prayers, which at first were exercises of

private devotion, were recited in community in monasteries

from the beginning of the fourth century ; and in the course

of that same century this custom of community Hour-prayers

extended to the various churches.

Such then is approximately the brief sketch of the ancient

Christian liturgy as given to us by modern scholarship down

to the year 1914. The extraordinary active research work of
recent years has clarified and enriched our knowledge in

regard to several points.

1) Earliest Liturgical Text

Until the world war of 1914 it was the common opinion
that the so-called Leonine Sacramentary was the oldest extant

Roman liturgical text
;
this was a collection by a private com-

piler of Mass-prayers composed by a series of popes of ancient

times, preserved in the papal archives and brought to com-

pletion about the year 550. But in the year 1916 the English

Benedictine, Hugh Connolly, proved definitely, after an
earlier attempt by Eduard Schwartz, that a text hitherto

known as the Egyptian Church Ordinance was a Roman
liturgical text, older than the Leonine Sacramentary, and

that it was in fact the manual which the Roman anti-pope
and martyr, St. Hippolytus, composed in the year 220 under

the title: the Apostolic Tradition.

The importance of this discovery can hardly be overesti-

mated. For thus of a sudden we gain firm ground in our

study of the Roman liturgy, and that at an early date and
immediately within the period of the martyrs.

It may be objected that Hippolytus, as the head of a

schismatic group, perhaps does not record in this book the

traditional usage of the Church in Rome but rather presents
a new ordinance of his own creation. This objection over-

looks the fact that Hippolytus, in his controversy with Pope

Callixtus, appears precisely as a champion of tradition and

as the vehement spokesman of the conservative party in

5



Canon; it probably was by that time a generally accepted

appellation of the royal and priestly figure of the Old Testa-

ment.

On the other hand, the Latin Canon was nevertheless not
an entirely new composition. In the course of the first Chris-

tian centuries a well defined structure or plan of the eucha-

ristic prayer had been established and it prevailed in both

East and West. It was everywhere the rule to include in the

eucharistic prayer: i) our Lord’s words of institution of the

holy Eucharist at the Last Supper, 2) the epiclesis, or the peti-

tion for the operation of the Holy Spirit in the consecration

of the elements of bread and wine,
3)

the anamnesis, or the

prayer commemorating the passion, the resurrection and the

ascension of the Lord, 4) a prayer for the acceptance of the

sacrificial gifts, and finally
5)
mementos for the faithful living

and dead.

Along with these elements of the thought-content of the

Canon, certain formulas and phrases had become common

property of all the churches. It was quite taken for granted

that one began with the dialog, Sursum corda; that the

phrase, unde et memores should connect the narrative of the

Last Supper with the anamnesis; that there be reference to

the angels about the altar; that the eucharistic Gifts be desig-

nated as a “spiritual (pneumatic) sacrifice”; and that the

prayers for the living and the dead should begin with the

words, '‘Memento, Domine”

Hence we may say in conclusion: the transition from Greek

to Latin was in such way that, while retaining the traditional

sequence of ideas and various traditionally sacred phrases,

the Greek text was renewed according to the genius of the

Latin language. A process of this kind would explain suffi-
ciently the resemblances between the Greek text of the Canon

according to Hippolytus and our present Latin one.

And then Odo Casel, a Benedictine of Maria Laach, made

the very important observation that the designation of the

eucharistic Sacrifice, peculiar to the Roman Canon and ap-

pearing already in the fourth century, as, a “reasonable obla-

tion” {ohlatio rationahilis), and as a “spiritual (pneumatic)

sacrifice,” is actually a usage peculiar to St. Ambrose, bishop

of Milan.

This testimony justifies a presumption, which is strength-

ened by other considerations, that the Latin Canon, which

was established in the fourth century and is maintained to

8



the present day, is the work not of a Roman bishop but of

the great renovator of the liturgy in Milan. Not Pope

Damasus therefore, but St. Ambrose was the pioneer in the

transition from the Greek to the Latin in the liturgy; but it

was the great merit of Pope Damasus that by the supreme

authority of the Roman See he secured general recognition

of the decisive action of the bishop of Milan.

Let us remember that the Latin language was beginning

to prevail in the leading cities at least about the year 250 —

about this time the popes in Rome begin to word the me-
morial inscriptions of their predecessors in Latin — and that
thus through the course of at least 120 years the popular

language and that of the liturgy had parted company.

In other words, there existed then already that cleft be-

tween the language of the people and that of the official

worship which many today deplore as a fateful occurrence,

while others regard it as providential inasmuch as a non-

vernacular or foreign tongue emphasizes all the more the

mystery character of the liturgy. It is very instructive, there-

fore, to observe that the ancient Church did not allow this

division to continue for a long time. The Greek, though it

was the liturgical language of the time of the apostles and the

martyrs, was definitely abandoned in favor of the language

of the people.

As the contemporary statements of Ambrosiaster (P. L.

17, 269) clearly show, the Church thus recognized and acted

on the principle voiced by St. Paul. For he had declared, in

reference to those of the faithful endowed with charismatic

gifts, that the liturgical prayer should be understood by all

the congregation
;
for all should make the prayer their own

and so be able to express their assent to it by their word

“Amen'" and to derive edification therefrom. “I will pray

with the spirit, but I will pray with the understanding also;

I will sing with the spirit, but I will sing with the understand-

ing also. Else if thou givest praise with the spirit alone, how
shall he who fills the place of the uninstructed say ‘Amen’ to

thy thanksgiving? For he does not know what thou sayest.

For thou indeed givest thanks well, but the other is not

edified” (1 Cor. 14:16-17).

In our days, when the problem of the vernacular is so much
discussed, these facts should be kept in mind. We follow
the example of the classical era of the liturgy when we main-

tain the principle that the liturgy should be intelligible in

9



some measure to simple people, and above all in the parts

which are intended for their instruction.

3) Mystery-Doctrine

Throughout the Greek text of Hippolytus and to an even

greater extent in the Latin text of the Leonine Sacramentary

and similar collections, there occur again and again expres-

sions which philologists recognize as common to the ancient
pagan mystery-cults — words such as mysterium, actio, me-
moria, illuminatio, invocatio, and their Greek equivalents.

Hence the question: did these expressions, when taken over

into the Christian liturgy, retain the concrete meaning which

they had in the ancient pagan cults; or were they given in the

moment of adoption a new and more abstract and spiritual

meaning?

Or, to clarify the question by adducing an example, does

the word mysterium in the early Christian texts have the

meaning of a secret or mysterious truth, or did it retain the

ancient meaning of a “mystery-deed,’' a sacred cult action, an

act of consecration?

Odo Casel has explored this question in many studies
chiefly of philological character and has concluded that the

said expressions retained their established meanings even

when employed in the Christian liturgy. His conclusion from

these philological studies is that the authors or creators of

the Roman liturgy regarded the eucharistic Sacrifice and
the sacraments as mystery-deeds in the customary ancient

sense, that is, as sacred acts which beneath the veil of sacra-

mental signs make present our Lord’s redeeming work in

a mystical but real presence. He has striven to show by close
examination of the traditional evidence that this conception

was not merely a theory that was held for a time in the third

and fourth centuries but was rather the general conviction

of the Church from the time of St. Paul to that of thirteenth

century scholasticism.

The product of Casel’s research work has not yet won

general approval. His opponents thus far have argued that

he has not presented a satisfying speculative, that is, ration-

ally intelligible explanation of his Mystery-doctrine.

But it must be remembered that the immediate problem is

not the speculative one as to the Mystery-doctrine as such (a

matter which meanwhile has engaged the efforts of Gottlieb

lO



Sohngen). The problem is primarily a factual one, to be

solved largely with philological means: namely, whether the

ancient Church did or did not have this understanding of

the eucharistic Sacrifice and the sacraments. And as to that,

in my opinion the case stands thus: It does seem that the
understanding of these liturgical acts as mystery-deeds is

clearly demonstrable in certain ecclesiastical regions, par-

ticularly eastern ones, and in the writings of some of the

Fathers; but that other regions, and notably the region

about Rome, seem to show only occasional evidence of it.

Hence it may perhaps be safe to say that the Mystery-

doctrine is not more than an attempt at theological explana-

tion, introduced indeed by St. Paul, and which by the increas-

ing number of converts who had grown to adult years in the

experience of the pagan mystery-cults did find a goodly

number of adherents in certain times and places without

becoming the general and common doctrine of the Church.

Despite this modification of CaseFs conclusions, one must

recognize with gratitude that he has restored the full ancient

meaning of many of the terms, phrases and rites of the

liturgy, that he has furnished us with a new and more organic

comprehension of the liturgy of the sacraments, and that he

has stimulated and aroused renewed activity in the field of

theology.

4) The Place of Christ in Liturgical Prayer

Good result has come also from the research work of Fr.

Joseph Andreas Jungmann, S.J., in regard to the place

of Christ in liturgical prayer. It had long been known that

the Mass-prayers in the ancient liturgy were nearly always

addressed to God the Father while Christ our Lord appears
in them in His role of mediator (Deus qui . . .; per Dominum
nostrum . . .), whereas in the formulas of medieval and mod-

ern composition the address is usually to our Lord (Domine

Jesu Christe . . .). But the date and the circumstances of this

change of attitude had not been determined.

Jungmann has now adduced convincing proof, after care-
ful comparison of all the pertinent liturgical texts, that it was

the Arian controversy of the fourth century which prompted

the change. For this controversy brought about gradually

an increased emphasis on the divinity of Christ and conse-

quently a lesser emphasis on the dogma of His high-priestly



mediatorship which our Lord Himself and St. Paul had

stressed, a fundamental truth of Christian faith which today

again needs renewed attention.

5) Liturgical Insignia and Ceremonial

The research work of the modern period had produced
but little new evidence in regard to the introduction of

liturgical insignia and to the origin of the ceremonial of the

solemn high Mass and of the pontifical rites.

The oldest ritual directions, the so-called Roman Ordines,
are not older than the second half of the seventh century,

and in them we find the development already well advanced,

and indeed quite concluded if we consider only the process as

its results appear in the capital city of Rome. We do not
find in these Ordines any answer to the question as to when

the genuflection before the bishop, the kissing of the foot or

hand, the use of throne and incense and processional candles

were introduced into the liturgy, nor when the bishop or

priest began to use distinctive vestments and insignia such as

the ring, the pallium, the maniple and the stole.

More recently however the Hungarian expert in ancient

history, Andreas Alfoldi, has furnished us for the first time

with a thorough description of the development of the royal

ceremonial of the Roman imperial court. And it is surprising
to find how close is the relationship between the Roman-

Byzantine court ceremonial and the rite of the papal Mass

of the seventh century, which is maintained in the pontifical

Mass today and in a modified form in our solemn high Mass.

The resemblance is so pronounced that one may consider

it quite certain that honorary privileges and ceremonial cus-

tomary at the imperial court and proper to higher state

officials were at some time extended to bishops and others

of the clergy and thus made entrance into the liturgy.

It is more difficult to determine just how this came about

in particular instances. Certainly it was initiated by the

alliance of the Empire with the Church after Constantine.

For thereafter the imperial court accorded to bishops and

deacons recognized place within the civil hierarchy, with

right to the honors and insignia which were proper to such

stations. Since the bishops were now ranked with the highest

of the civil officials, they had the right to various marks of

honor, such as the throne, lights, incense, the maniple and

12



the kissing of the hand; and since the Pope of Rome was
likened in rank to the Emperor he had the right to the wear-

ing of a ring, to be saluted by the genuflection and the kissing

of the foot, and his picture might be set up in the official

buildings, that is, in the churches.

It was left to the Church, of course, to decide if or in what

measure these customs of secular life should be adopted in

the spiritual sphere by ecclesiastical personages. When in the
third century Paul of Samosata, bishop of Antioch and at

the same time holder of high civil office, introduced in his

cathedral “a stage (bema) with an imposing throne” and in

his episcopal residence “an audience room like those of civil

officials,” he thereby gave great offense to his fellow-bishops

(Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. 7, 30, 9). But when at the beginning

of the fourth century such marks of honor were accorded to

bishops generally by the imperial government the attitude

underwent a change
;
no doubt it was now thought that the

authority of high churchmen would command more respect

if enhanced by the customary civil insignia and ceremonial.

This new insight into the secular origin of these external

elements in the liturgy might well prevent us from attaching

too much importance to these things. For not rarely does it

seem that over-emphasis of such externals distracts the mind

of the faithful from the sublime interior values of the liturgy,

6) Genius of the Roman Rite

Finally, let it be observed that research in regard to this

ancient period has enabled us to recognize certain distinctive

characteristics of the Roman liturgy. In contrast to the style
of modern prayer with its tendency toward individualism

and subjectivism and its preference for more abstract and

logically consecutive modes of thought, the ancient liturgy

has objective character, it prefers to be concrete, and its

mode of thought is one that may perhaps most aptly be called
contemplative.

^3



II.

FROM GREGORY THE GREAT TO GREGORY VII:
FRANCO-GERMANIC INITIATIVE

In regard to this second period in the history of the Roman
liturgy — from 590 to 1073 — our scholarship down to the
year 1914 had given us only meager and vague information.

What was said in general was somewhat as follows

:

The development of the Roman liturgy was brought by
Pope Gregory the Great to a certain termination

;
this found

expression in the Gregorian Sacramentary, the Gregorian

Antiphonary, the Roman Ordines and other collections.
With some additional modifications by Pope Hadrian I at

the end of the eighth century, this Roman liturgy was
adopted first in England and then, under Charlemagne, in

the Franco-Germanic empire. In the latter territory it came

into contact with what remained of the ancient Gallican

liturgy and with an older Roman form, designated as that
of Pope Gelasius, which had spread north of the Alps already

in the sixth or at the beginning of the seventh century.

The competition of these traditions, Gallican, Gelasian

and Gregorian, finally resulted in a fusion of the three, and

many elements of this composite came to be introduced in

Rome about or shortly after the year 1000. No further con-
structive work in the development of the Roman liturgy is
apparent in this period.

Characteristic of its spirit is the fondness for the allegorical

method of explaining the liturgical rites and texts, which

method now sets out from the Frankish kingdom on its

course of conquest. And meanwhile new tendencies appear

in popular piety as the passion of Christ and His eucharistic

presence appeal increasingly to Christian devotion.

1) Gregory and the 'Trayer of the FaithfuP'

The research work of recent years has found evidences

which show that a definite purpose of Gregory the Great in

his revision and organization of the liturgical legacy of the

preceding centuries was to abridge what had grown too

lengthy and so lighten a burden which placed a strain upon

the devotion of the faithful.

14



If the evidence is trustworthy, this abridging process of

Pope Gregory caused the loss to the Roman liturgy of one

notable element, a regrettable loss in my opinion, namely,
that of the great intercessory prayer. In order to explain what

I mean and to justify my statement let us consider briefly the
history of this prayer.

In Rome as elsewhere the Fore-Mass ended with the dis-
missal of the catechumens ; at the sacrificial part of the service,

offertory. Consecration and Communion, only the baptized,

“the faithful,” were allowed to assist. But immediately before

the offertory procession the assembled faithful joined in a

prayer for the needs of the community. This is the prayer

which our sources call the oratio fidelium, the prayer of the

faithful.

This prayer had in Rome an invariable form. The leader
of the service first invited those present, in a formula the

main lines of which were always identical, to join with him

in prayer to God for a designated intention. Thus for ex-

ample: “Let us pray, dearly beloved, for the holy Church

of God; that our God and Lord may be pleased to grant it

peace, to keep it in unity and to preserve it throughout the

world, subjecting to it principalities and powers; and may

He grant us, while we live in peace and tranquility, grace to
glorify God, the Father almighty. Let us pray.”

Upon this invitation of the leader the congregation spent
some time in silent prayer. Then the celebrant again spoke

aloud and in a brief formula summed up the content of
their prayer, the congregation meanwhile following his words

with outstretched arms (in the orante attitude) and at the

end expressing their accord with the word “Amen.”

In this way prayers were offered consecutively for the vari-

ous needs of the community, for the hierarchy, the confessors,

the virgins and widows, for the civil ruler, for the catechu-

mens, for those in illness and distress, for heretics and

schismatics, for Jews and pagans. On penitential days the
congregation knelt during their silent prayer and arose for

the final summary prayer. The deacon gave the signals which
called for these attitudes: ''Flectamus genua — Let us kneel,”
and: ''Levate — Arhe”

It is true no doubt that this method did produce a desirable

combination of silent personal prayer and of vocal com-

munity prayer. But it had the disadvantage that it was some-

15



what elaborate and might become tiresome by frequent

repetition.

In the East, and under eastern influence also in Gaul and

in upper Italy, the intercessory prayer had a shorter form.

The deacon pronounced the intercession in a very concise

way and the congregation responded with a Kyrie eleison.

Thus for example, the deacon called out: “For the im-

maculate Church of the living God throughout the whole

world we implore the fulness of divine blessing,’’ and the

people replied: ''Kyrie eleison.” This method has come down

to us as the form of our litanies. Its advantage lies in the fact

that it combines brevity of speech, clarity of thought and an

enlivening rhythm.

This eastern form of the intercessory prayer appealed to

Pope Gelasius I. He took it over, as Abbot Bernard Capelle
has shown with fine perception, and introduced it into the

Latin Mass in place of the older Roman form. And it was

probably at this time that the location of this prayer in the

service was changed; instead of coming immediately before

the offertory, it was now placed at the beginning of the Fore-
Mass, or the Mass of the catechumens.

It consequently also ceased to be a “prayer of the faithful.”

Only on two days of Holy Week did Pope Gelasius retain the
older custom; for on Wednesday and Friday of Holy Week
the eucharistic service began as formerly directly with the

readings, and only after these did the intercessory prayer

follow in the traditional Roman manner.
We find here a good example of an important law that

should govern the process of liturgical development, one

which Anton Baumstark has called “the law which bids us

honor the tradition of a classic period in the history of the

liturgy.” Outside of Holy Week, on all days of the year, there

remains to the present day (and this time no doubt without

relation to the intentions of Pope Gelasius) a faint trace of

the ancient Roman custom, namely, the strange Orernus im-
mediately before the offertory, an Orernus without a follow-

ing prayer.

It was the Gelasian form of the intercessory prayer which

Pope Gregory the Great altered in his work of abridgment.

He did away with the part of the deacon as leader of the

prayer and he retained only a vestige of the people’s part in

the Kyrie eleison. But on Saturday of Holy Week the ancient

custom was substantially retained, again according to the

i6



aforesaid law; for to the present day the Mass of Holy Satur-

day begins with a complete litany.

It may be that in regard to this omission of the intercessory

prayer any hesitation at the time of Pope Gregory was over-

come by the thought that sufficient attention to the various

needs and desires of the community was given within the

Canon of the Mass. But the intercessions contained in the

Canon are expressed in very general terms ; and because of

the inviolable character of the Canon text they cannot easily

be applied to particular circumstantial needs; and finally

they allow no direct voice on the part of the congregation.

Therefore they could not give satisfaction for any great

length of time.

This is evident from what came about in subsequent years.

We may observe how it became customary, and it still is cus-
tomary in some parishes, to introduce in the Sunday service,

either before or after the sermon, a “universal prayer" for

various necessities which is not in the official liturgy and

which is recited in the popular language. In Requiem Masses

it is the practice in some places to introduce before the offer-

tory vernacular prayers applied by name to the person de-

ceased. And finally, in times of special need prayers in the

vernacular for particular purposes are added at the end of

the Mass in order to express the desires which the people

have or should have at heart.

Let us recognize therefore a matter of grave concern which

deserves attention in future reforms of our liturgy: the Fore-

Mass should again take fuller cognizance of the sentiments

present at the moment in the minds and hearts of the people,

their anxieties, their hopes, their joys; provision should be

made for them, as formerly in the intercessory prayer, “the

prayer of the faithful."

2) Fusion of Roman and Frankish Liturgies

The research work of the past thirty or so years, especially

in regard to the old sacramentaries, has greatly increased and

clarified our knowledge regarding the geographical extension

of the Roman liturgy and the active contribution of Franco-
Germanic influence in its further development.

We know now (as I was able to prove in an earlier writing)
that it was not Charlemagne but rather his father Pepin who
by royal edict first made the Gregorian liturgy of obligation



in his kingdom: on the occasion of his coronation in the

presence of the then reigning Pope in the year 754. This

measure, which was intended to bring to an end the diversi-

ties in liturgical custom and the now more than century old
rivalry between the Roman and Gallican liturgies, did not in
fact achieve its purpose, primarily because of technical diffi-

culties. Instead of a uniform Mass-text presenting the latest

Gregorian form of the Roman liturgy, there came into circu-
lation a modified form which was a fusion of the Gelasian

and Gregorian along with some elements of the old Gallican.

Charlemagne undertook again to oblige the churches of his

kingdom to adopt the pure Roman Gregorian liturgy, and
in this effort he secured for his palace library authentic copies

of the Roman liturgical books (which in fact, as I have proven
in detail, were imperfect copies by reason of flaws in the

Roman text), and these were to serve as standard for the
usage of his kingdom.

But Charlemagne was obliged to recognize that his people

would not rest satisfied with the purely Roman liturgy and
that it would be necessary to retain certain long customary

feasts, rites and prayer formulas. Hence, sometime before the

year 800, he ordered the composition of an appendix to the

Roman Mass-book, containing these various customary and
popular elements, which was to be used alongside the Roman
missal but to be kept strictly distinct from it.

The churches of the Frankish kingdom did not continue

long to observe this prescription. Nevertheless Charlemagne

did succeed in establishing the Gregorian liturgy as the norm

and standard throughout his kingdom.

From the end of the ninth century the whole state of affairs

in Rome was notoriously one of extreme disorder. All under-
standing and appreciation of the liturgy seemed on the way to

disappear. The secretariates for the copying of the liturgical

books were closed. The liturgical life of the eternal city might

perhaps have been brought to a complete standstill had it

not been for the Cluniac monasteries^ lately established in

Rome, where it was faithfully maintained. It is due chiefly

to the work of these monks and to the Roman expeditions of
the Ottoman emperors that by the end of the tenth cen-

tury the Roman-Frankish liturgical texts were to be found

throughout all Italy and above all in Rome.

Thus it may be said that in this critical time it was the

18



Franco-Germanic influence which saved the Roman liturgy

for Rome and for the world.

3} Franco-Germanic Influence

But more than that. The Franco-Germanic influence also

enriched the Roman liturgy in important ways. The opinion

once common, that the constructive work was complete in

all essentials by the end of the sixth century, has in recent

years been shown to be erroneous. A pause did indeed occur
in Rome after the work accomplished by Pope Gregory the

Great. A few new feasts were added to the calendar; under
eastern influence the Agnus Dei was introduced into the

liturgy of the Mass, and the Improperia in the service of

Good Friday.

But there was lacking the vision and initiative for further

effort, notably for the organization of the post-pentecostal

part of the liturgical year and for an organic development of

the liturgy of the sacraments.

The case was otherwise in the Franco-Germanic territory;

for here, from the eighth to the tenth century, there was

distinct vitality and creative activity. It was formerly sup-

posed that the solemn anointings in the ordinations of the

clergy, the imposing rite for the consecration of churches

with its rich symbolism, the splendid and dramatic liturgy of

Palm Sunday and Holy Week, were in the main originally

features of the old Roman liturgy. This opinion has been
shown to be quite erroneous.

We know now that of the sacramental rites only that of
baptism has the major part of its rich ritual from early Chris-

tian Roman origin. The ritual structure of all the other
sacraments and the sacramentals as we have them today is

the result of Franco-Germanic creative activity, although

indeed based upon very ancient sources including eastern

ones. The same is true, as Abbot Bernard Capelle and Anton

Baumstark have demonstrated, of the liturgy of Palm Sunday

and of Holy Week. The great regret is that the gifted

liturgists of the Frankish kingdom did not achieve also the

organization of a proper of the time for the post-pentecostal

season.

The old Roman liturgy was in general almost puritanic in
its simplicity and brevity. Greater depth of emotion, greater

wealth of language and symbolism, and a certain amplitude

19



of treatment — all this, except in the case of baptism, was
contributed by the Germanic and Celtic clergy of the Caro-

lingian empire. Edmund Bishop has furnished us with a
comparative analysis of the characteristic styles of the Roman
and the Gallo-Frankish liturgies. His essay, “The Genius of

the Roman Rite,” a recognized classic, remains a work of
great value, especially in its French version with commentary

by Andre Wilmart.

It was the clergy of the diocese of Mainz, as Michel Andrieu

has taught us, who eventually, about the year 950, united the

older and newer rites in a skillfully edited text which soon

prevailed throughout the West and even in the capital city

of Rome. The work of these men persists to the present day in

our Pontifical and Ritual.

4) Roman Developments

It has been said above that in Rome too, after the time of
Gregory the Great and in the seventh and eighth centuries,

some elements were added in the structure of the Roman
liturgy, at least in the calendar of the liturgical year.

Notable especially is the introduction of our four most

ancient feasts of the Blessed Virgin Mary, all appearing in

the Roman calendar between the years 609 and 687. They
are, in the order of their establishment : the feast of the dedi-

cation of the church of St. Mary of the Martyrs (May 14), and

those of the Assumption (August 15), the Purification (Feb-

ruary 2) and the Annunciation (March 25). The first of these

four has a local significance. The other three were taken over

from the East where they were observed, as may be proven,

from about the end of the fifth century. It is probable also

that the name of the Blessed Mother was not added in the

Canon of the Mass until the same seventh century.

When one considers that these tributes to Mary were due
to the action not, as it seems, of popes who were native in the

West but of the three popes of the seventh century who were

of Syrian origin, there is clear evidence here of another char-

acteristic of the Roman liturgy: its strict adherence to ancient
tradition. For certainly an extreme conservatism is apparent

in the fact that the Roman liturgy, in contrast to that of the
East and that of the Gallican West, did not have feasts honor-

ing the Mother of God until some two hundred years after

the Council of Ephesus (431).

20



III.

FROM GREGORY VII TO TRENT: GENERAL
UNIFORMITY

Regarding this third period in the history of the Roman
liturgy, which for our purpose we reckon from 1073 to 1545,
it was customary thirty years ago to say about as follows:

From the pontificate of Gregory VII the papacy resumes

leadership in the sphere of the liturgy. The bishoprics of the

West are expected to conform to the liturgical practice of the

Roman See and to observe the papal liturgical regulations.
Certainly this plan would not have been carried out so suc-

cessfully had not the Franciscan order come into being; for

the Franciscans proved to be missionary apostles of the

Roman liturgy. Moved principally by practical considera-
tions, they adopted the missal and breviary of the papal curia

and through the influence of their itinerant preachers these

convenient papal texts became known everywhere.

Thus a certain uniformity, not only in regard to liturgical

theory but also in actual practice, came to prevail in all the

western countries, and hence there came about gradually a

condition which made it possible for the Council of Trent

to undertake the official promulgation of uniform liturgical

books for the entire Church in the West.

Notable in the history of the liturgy in this period is the

fact that Communion was no longer administered under both

species; that the understanding of the eucharistic Sacrifice

and of the intimate relationship of Sacrifice and Communion
gradually grew less

;
that devotion tended to center upon the

sacred Humanity of our Lord and that religious individu-

alism sought more and more to satisfy its devotional needs in

practices outside the liturgy.

The research work of recent years has not found it neces-

sary to make any great alterations in the foregoing sketch of

this period; but the outline of it may be made more distinct

in several respects. Four particular points may be considered

here.

1) The Silent Canon

The first of these points is that regarding the Canon of the

Mass. In the ancient Church, leadership in the liturgical

action and the pronouncing of the formulas of Consecration

and of sacramental administration were of course the func-

21



tion of the bishop or of a priest acting as his representative.

But the participation of the people in the prayer and in the

action was never disregarded.

It was understood that the people should be able to follow

both prayer and action in all detail, and not merely as atten-

tive spectators but as active participants. Therefore the

prayers were spoken aloud, the Canon of the Mass and the

words of Consecration being no exception. The people signi-
fied their union with the bishop and their assent to the words

of the Canon as spoken by him with their solemn “Amen,''

the Amen which is still maintained at the end of the Canon
immediately before the Pater noster.

It is plain therefore that the transition to a silent recitation

of the sacrificial prayers was an event of grave moment. The
bond uniting priest and people was severed at a point which

is the very heart of the liturgy. The capital portion of the
sacrificial service thus became the exclusive concern of the

bishop or priest and the people were reduced to the role

of passive spectators ; and if they might be excluded in this

way from the central part of the holy Sacrifice, why not also

restrict or omit their active cooperation in other parts of the

liturgy, for it often dragged and tended to retard the course

of the service?

Thus, evidently, a beginning was made which would lead

to grave consequences. The further history shows that the

way thus begun has been followed out logically to its end.

Can we determine when it was that the first decision was

made in this matter? One might assume that it happened

at the time when an influx of converts who had formerly been

adherents of the pagan mystery-cults brought with them

ideas and rites customary in these cults; and when the “dis-

cipline of the secret" and the terminology of the mystery-

cults became customary in the Church — that is to say, in the
fourth century.

Closer investigation of the problem shows that this sup-

position does correspond to facts so far as the East is con-

cerned, but that the Church of Rome, more conservative and

less receptive to the mystery-concepts, maintained the prac-

tice of loud recitation of the Canon until the end of the

ancient epoch. It was first of all in regions where the Roman
liturgy had experienced eastern influences, in the Gallican

territory therefore, and at some time in the seventh century,

that the transition to silent recitation of the Canon occurred.

Josef Andreas Jungmann has undertaken to bring new light



upon this question, without however reaching a definite

conclusion.

2) The Altar

A second point in the scope of recent research which may
be mentioned here is that regarding the altar. It is well known

that in the ancient Christian basilicas the arrangement of the

altar was such that the celebrant faced toward the people.

This is still the case in some of the churches in Rome such as
the Lateran and St. Clement's.

Moreover, the altar of the old Roman basilicas had no
ledge for candelbra and no retable or tabernacle. It was a

simple but massive table of stone. The paintings in the lower

church of St. Clement in Rome which date from the end
of the eleventh century show that at that time not even the

candles which are prescribed today and the equally pre-

scribed crucifix appeared upon the altar. The altar bore only

the altar cloths, the sacred vessels, the paten and the Mass-

book.

Thus there was nothing to distract the eyes of the faithful

from what was essential, the offering of the holy Sacrifice,

nothing to hinder the plain view by the people as they fol-

lowed the sacred action which went on freely and uncon-

cealed.

There used to be considerable discussion about when pre-

cisely the decisive change took place which led to present

practices: when, e.g., was the priest relegated to the front,

i.e., the people's side of the altar; when was the retable

added; and finally when were candles and crucifix placed

upon the altar? All these questions have been answered, now

for some time, through the research work of Joseph Braun in

which he has displayed remarkable erudition.

Thus we know that the position of the priest with his back

to the people became the general rule outside of Rome about
the year looo; the placing of the altar against the rear wall

and the addition of the retable followed soon after; but

candles were not placed upon the altar until after iioo, and

the crucifix probably in the thirteenth century when special

devotion to the passion of our Lord began its increase.

We may therefore conclude from what has been said that
these changes concerning the altar came about approximately

at the time when the holy Sacrifice itself had come to be

regarded as more or less the exclusive action of the priest.

And it is likewise true that a consequence of these outward

23



changes was the general formation of inward attitudes which

on the whole are regrettable.

Fortunately in recent years a better understanding of the

proper significance and function of the altar has come to be

quite general; in newly built churches the altar is given again

the position of prominence which it deserves; its form as a

table of sacrifice is again emphasized; and it is no longer

burdened with theatrical and distracting frippery of super-

structures and lace drapery. Perhaps we may hope that the

final result of this present tendency will be the restoration of

the altar to its original free-standing position and the disap-

pearance of the unfortunate necessity which obliges the priest

to turn about when he addresses the people in the Dominus

vobiscum.

3) The Offertory Procession

A third point which may be selected from the results of
recent research work is that regarding the offertory proces-

sion. Throughout Christian antiquity the faithful were

accustomed at every celebration of the holy Sacrifice to bring

offertory gifts to the altar or to the chancel. These were in

part gifts which could serve for the holy Sacrifice itself or for

other liturgical use, such as bread, wine, oil or wax; and in

other part they were gifts serving for the maintenance of the

clergy and for the charity works of the Christian community.

However, all these gifts were regarded and intended as

symbolic expression of the union of all the faithful in the

offering of the holy Sacrifice, while at the same time they

served to ground the virtue of fraternal charity in this central

act of worship.

The obligation to take part in this so-called offertory pro-

cession was still urged in ecclesiastical synods as late as the

eleventh century, after which time these admonitions of the

bishops are no longer heard. For when once the understand-

ing of the Mass as the united offering of all was no longer

well grasped, when the Mass was regarded as the action of the

priest alone, the offertory procession had lost the very reason

in which it was founded.

All that remains of it today is the collection which is taken

up at Mass-time, whether for the poor or for the needs of the

church. Moreover we dispense with any processional form of

offering; an usher or an altar-boy with plate or basket collects

the donations of the people; the priest at the altar gives no

24



attention to this but proceeds without interruption in the

course of the Mass.

Recent studies, which however are not yet complete, seem

to prove that this disappearance of the offertory procession

may be dated at sometime about the year 1200. Today it is

only in the rite for the con^secration of a bishop and in the

analogous blessing of an abbot that we retain a solemn offer-

tory procession in a reduced form.

Surprising therefore is the fact that at the end of the four-

teenth century (as I have shown in my contribution to the
testimonial volume offered to Abbot Herwegen) the offertory

procession with all the colorful character which it had in

antiquity was revived as part of the ceremony for the

canonization of saints. Did these men of the papal court of

that time who fashioned the ceremony consider the offertory

procession only as a feature which would add to the splendor

of the rite of canonization? Or did they have in mind the

symbolism of the offertory gifts? Or did they wish to restore

to general observance, using the rite of canonization as an

opening wedge, an almost gone and forgotten practice which

nevertheless they regarded as a precious feature of the ancient

Christian liturgy? These are questions which for the present

must be left unanswered.

4) Genuflection

The last point to be mentioned here is that regarding the

genuffection. In the ancient world kneeling was an attitude

expressing a sense of guilt; it was an attitude of petition;

and above all it was an attitude of adoration. In this last

named sense it was the customary pagan sign of salutation

before the image of a deity and before the deified emperor

and his image. For this reason Christians in the persecution

period refused to take part in the pagan sacrifices or to genu-

flect before the likeness of the emperor; for they could not

render such adoration.

By the middle of the third century, however, this gesture

had become so routine and devoid of meaning that in ex-

tensive circles of Roman society it was no longer regarded as a
sign of adoration. Therefore the imperial government de-

clared officially in the year 275 that the genuffection was no

longer a feature of the pagan religion but rather an expres-

sion of loyalty and civil homage as one of the Romanae
ceremoniae.

25



But it was not until the reign of Constantine that the

Church ventured to draw practical conclusions from this new

conception. From then on the Church did not hesitate to

permit the genuflection as a sign of homage before the em-

peror and before his image. The faithful were furthermore

encouraged to show honor in the same way to sacred objects

which were not objects of adoration, such as altars and the

relics and images of the saints. And finally the genuflection
accorded to the emperor was also allowed as a mark of honor

due properly to bishops.

Thereafter in the liturgy of the West the genuflection or

the kneeling attitude was not only a sign of contrition and

petition but was also customary as an expression of reverence

before the altar, the relic of the holy Cross, the crucifix, and

before the bishop.

An then rather suddenly in the eleventh century the genu-
flection took on again, in addition to the meanings which it

now had, the meaning of adoration. The occasion for this

was the denial by Berengar of Tours of eucharistic transub-

stantiation. The Church thus saw it necessary to emphasize

more than formerly the real presence of the God-man beneath

the eucharistic appearances. From that time it became cus-

tomary, as Fr. Peter Browe, S.J., has proved, to genuflect

before receiving holy Communion. This genuflection before

the real presence of our Lord was evidently a sign of adora-

tion.

In this way the gesture again acquired a significance similar

to that which it had lost at the end of pagan times. From this

time on the genuflection or the kneeling attitude appears in

the liturgy with these several meanings: in eucharistic wor-

ship it is a sign of adoration, in all other cases it is, as

formerly, a sign of veneration, of contrition or of petition.

A certain difficulty appears as a consequence in the in-
struction of the people. For since people are so accustomed

from early years to practices of eucharistic adoration and to

regard the genuflection as an expression of humble and de-

vout adoration in the divine presence, it is not easy to explain

to a congregation that the genuflection before the altar apart

from the tabernacle or before the bishop has a different mean-

ing. Is it then perhaps advisable to restrict the meaning of

this gesture to that which it has acquired since the eleventh

century and to express with a simple bow our homage to the

altar apart from the tabernacle and before the bishop?

26



IV.

FROM TRENT TO TODAY: ERA OF CODIFIED

LITURGY AND RUBRICAL RULE

This fourth and last period in the history of the Roman

liturgy extends from the time of the Council of Trent to the

present day. The research work anterior to the year 1^14
would say of this period about as follows:

The liturgy as codified by order of the Council of Trent

(the Breviary published in 1568 and the Missal in 1570) was

gradually introduced in all countries of the West and without

any great difficulty. The dioceses of northwestern Germany

and those of France, the latest ones to submit, conformed to

the Roman usage in the course of the nineteenth century.
The Congregation of Rites, established in 1588 as the para-

mount authority in matters liturgical, is concerned to assure,

by its authoritative interpretation of liturgical law and by its

supervision of liturgical practice, the uniform observance of

this codified liturgy. Thenceforth the rubricist, the expert in

liturgical law, is a leading figure in the sphere of the liturgy,

a circumstance which gives a distinctive character to this

entire period.

The devotional life of the period shows the influence of

the liturgy only in a very limited measure; it is influenced

rather by the increase of devotion to the eucharistic Christ

and to His Sacred Heart and to the Blessed Virgin Mary and

also by the practices of discursive prayer or meditation. It is

true that in the years of the so-called enlightenment and

of the romantic movement some efforts were made to lead

the people back to intelligent participation in the liturgy;

but these efforts had no widespread nor lasting effect. It was

only after the renewal of energy within the Benedictine

Order, in the second half of the nineteenth century, and

especially after the reforms of Pope Pius X, that there came

a thoroughgoing return back to liturgical life.

The studies that have been made in recent years have
found that this foregoing sketch of the modern period is cor-

rect enough except in a few points
;
but they have broadened

and deepened our knowledge in many respects. Let us con-

sider here a few especially significant examples.

27



1) Eucharistic Ceremonial

It was formerly assumed that the ceremonial observed to-

day in the cult of the Sacrament of the Altar, notably the

exposition of the monstrance upon a throne, the use of a

canopy in eucharistic processions, and a complicated system

of reverential practices, had originated in the middle ages in

the eucharistic movement of that time.

It is true that some of these customs are apparent in the

middle ages here and there, but they were not generally

adopted until the sixteenth century, that is, at the beginning

of our present period. And this came about, as Joseph Kramp

was the first to point out, influenced by the thought that the

eucharistic Christ is the King of Kings and that hence there

is due to Him the ceremonial honors and especially the royal
pomp that was customary in the courts of the sixteenth
century monarchies.

The ideas which form the background of this course of

thought are subject for further investigation and are to be

discovered no doubt by a study of the mentality peculiar to

the Baroque period. That they still persist in the romance

countries is apparent, for example, in the Italian organiza-

tion of the “Pages of the Blessed Sacrament,” a group of boys

who surround the altar on solemn occasions clad in a Spanish

costume of white satin and even equipped with little swords.

This is a second instance in history, as the reader will

recall, where the etiquette of the secular court has determined

liturgical custom. Only, in the first case it was in order to

accord honor to bishops and the clergy, but now it is to do

homage to our Lord present in the holy Eucharist.

2) Mass Before the Exposed Blessed Sacrament

We are indebted to Fr. Peter Browe for more accurate
information regarding the origin of modern eucharistic de-

votions and of the corresponding practice of Mass accom-

panied by exposition of the Blessed Sacrament. As Browe

has shown in thorough studies, ably seconded by the French

writer, Dumoutet, these new forms of eucharistic devotion

were due ultimately to the fact that from the time of the

waning middle ages the faithful were strongly and increas-

ingly attracted to the mere beholding of the Blessed Sacra-

ment: it was thought that mere vision was a source of

extraordinary grace.

The dioceses of Germany took the lead in advocating

28



these new practices o£ piety. Thus one of the popes of the

sixteenth century speaks explicitly of such exposition of the

Blessed Sacrament as a German custom. In the time of the

Counter-reformation the Jesuits especially propagated these

devotions and certainly with remarkable effect among the

people.

But the Roman curia has always maintained a reserved

attitude, especially in regard to the Mass accompanied by

exposition of the Blessed Sacrament — another example of
that conservatism in matters of liturgy which from of old

has been its grand distinction. The Roman curia has thus,

at least in the case of the Mass with exposition, shown its

more profound understanding of the nature of our liturgical

services. For who today would wish seriously to advocate

this duplication which occurs when attention is divided be-

tween the offering of the holy Sacrifice and adoration of the

eucharistic Christ enthroned in the monstrance?

3) Principles of Liturgical Reform

Some years ago the students in a seminar which I was con-

ducting discovered a very noteworthy fact about the reformed

calendar issued in 1568 and 1570 by the committee of the

Council of Trent. Two of the members of our seminar, Ernst
Focke (a war victim in Russia) and Hans Heinrichs, gave

further study to this topic and their conclusions were pub-

lished in a dissertation in the year 1939.

We have here precise proof that when the Tridentine
committee in its reform of the calendar reduced the surplus

of feasts which through the preceding centuries had over-

loaded the liturgical year, they acted on the principle that

the feasts which had been observed in Rome itself from a
date anterior to the eleventh century were to be retained,

while of those later in origin only a few were to remain, and

of these not one was of German origin.

We may recognize here two determining principles which
appear to have been in the mind of the Tridentine commit-

tee. The first of these is expressed in the rule that Roman
liturgy is to be understood as meaning the liturgical usage

of the city of Rome, as bound up with local Roman saints
and churches, and the desire of the committee is that this

usage be restored to the calendar insofar as it had been lost.

The second principle seems to be that the early centuries are

regarded as the standard or more ideal period in the history

29



of the liturgy, so that what came later was in many instances

a rank growth which may and should be pruned away.

As to the first of these principles, it seems that the supreme

authority in the Church no longer insists upon it in all its

scope. The period of absolute uniformity, in the sense of con-

formity to the local usage of the city of Rome, is no doubt

ended. The saints of the various countries again find larger

representation in the calendar of the liturgical year. And
local liturgical traditions in regard to the administration of

the sacraments may now expect a more generous recognition.

The second of these principles in the mind of the Triden-

tine committee, namely that in regard to the liturgy the

earlier centuries rank higher than the later ones, is however

of fundamental importance. For there is no little stir of

feeling over the question as to how far one may actually go

in speaking of faulty developments in the history of the

liturgy, lest one come into conflict with an essential point of

doctrine, namely with the dogma of the divine guidance of

the Church by the Holy Spirit which excludes any decisive

error. One asks if the oft-repeated cry: “Back to the origins

of the liturgy of the ancient Church,'' does not go well be-

yond the limit of what is permissible. For the solution of this

acute problem, the attitude of the Tridentine commission

presents a contribution which is of no slight importance.

4) Letter or Spirit

Differences now and then between Roman regulations and
local practices have called the attention of liturgists to the

fact that rubricists may in certain circumstances (not so in-

tending but simply under the pressure of a method too

closely bound to the given situation) cause a prescription of

the liturgy to be derived from its original meaning into a

contrary one, and perhaps even to be thus permanently estab-

lished. Sometimes, of course, opposite customs will correct

such decisions of the rubricists. Let us observe here two

examples.

The ancient mosaics, such as the splendid company of Dal-

matian saints in the church of St. Venantius in Rome, show

us how impressive the principal liturgical vestments, the

chasuble and the dalmatic, appeared in ancient times. The

chasuble, the liturgical garment of the bishop and of his

representatives, the priests, was a bell-shaped costume reach-

ing to the feet, of light weight and usually of dark-colored

30



material, which was gathered up on both sides so that the

movement of hands and lower arms was left free. In contrast

to this the dalmatic, the garb of the deacons and sub-deacons,

was a full-cut white tunic with wide sleeves, similar in cut to

the present day cowl or choir garb of the Benedictines.

These two types of garment can hardly be surpassed in

beauty and dignity: in my opinion they rank among the
classic creations of human handiwork of all ages. The chasu-

ble, with its free-flowing folds, falling in oval lines, and deep-

toned in its hue, accentuated the figure of the venerable and

priestly shepherd of the flock; while the dalmatic with its

lighter color, its folds in simple vertical lines, its sleeves

adapted to easy action, correspond well to the service function

of his more youthful assistants.

From the studies of Fr. Joseph Braun, S.J., we learn that,

despite various changes in color, material and decoration,

the chasuble and dalmatic retained their main original

features for hundreds of years — until the Baroque period,
with its characteristic and astonishing self-confidence, pro-

ceeded with its usual ruthlessness to alter in a radical way

the structure of these two garments. Until then they had been

really garments
;
now they became ornaments, gorgeous and

rigid ornaments which hung like scapulars from breast and

shoulders.

And since this inferior Baroque form of chasuble and dal-
matic was in vogue in the period of the liturgy’s codification

and also corresponded in style with the many Baroque

churches in Rome, the rubricists had no hesitation in declar-

ing it to be the standard form. And so it comes about that
there is a decree of the Congregation of Rites of December

9, 1925, which states that “Gothic chasubles” (a name mis-

takenly applied to ’the former pre-Baroque form of the

chasuble) are not in accord with the mind of the Congre-

gation.

Let us consider another example. From primitive Christian

times the beginning of the great eucharistic prayer (which we

call the preface) ended in a reference to the hymn of divine
praise chanted in heaven by the angelic hosts. At this point

the assembled faithful, in Rome from the third century, in-
terrupted the solemn prayer of the celebrant and interposed

the chant of the Sanctus^ the song of the angels found already

in the Old Testament and in the liturgy of the Jewish syna-

gogue. The bishop, or priest, waited until the end of this

31



hymn of praise, and then continued, aloud, as we have seen,
with his chanting of the Canon.

But gradually the fact came to be overlooked that the two

parts of the Canon, the preface and the body of the prayer,

separated by the Sanctus, were but two parts of one continu-

ous prayer. So it came about that the second part, the body

of the Canon-prayer, was no longer chanted by the celebrant

but was recited. Finally, as has already been said, the loud

recitation of this, the body of the Canon-prayer, was discon-

tinued. And then it must have seemed to many that there was
no reason for the celebrant to wait until the end of the

Sanctus. Moreover, the delay had become more and more

burdensome because the Sanctus had long ago already been

taken over from the people by a choir and had become an

artistic musical composition which consumed considerable

time.

And so the Sanctus became a musical piece which bridged

over the silent interval between the preface and the Consecra-

tion. Then, when the polyphony of the Baroque period drew

out the Sanctus to still greater length, it became the custom

to sing the second part of the hymn, the Benedictus, only

after the Consecration, with the observation that the literal

text seemed to justify this division. This therefore seemed to

the rubricists to be the normal arrangement, and so there

comes about the decree of the Congregation of Rites of Janu-

ary 14, 1921, stating that it is not permitted to chant the

Benedictus before the Consecration.

It seems that Pope Pius XI in his wisdom recognized the

danger that threatened the intelligent and organic further

development of the liturgy if its determination rested entirely

in the hands of the rubricists. For on February 6, 1930, he

established within the Congregation of Rites an historical

department which was to have voice in all liturgical cases.

It is to be hoped that this new department will be in position

to guard in the future against decisions like the two that have

been cited here, which are not in accord with right historical

understanding of liturgical rites and prescriptions.^

^This essay was written before the restoration of the Easter Vigil.

The latter, together with other reforms initiated by the Sacred Congrega-

tion of Rites in recent years, gives promise of a ‘‘new era” in the history

of the liturgy, in which, without sacrifice of traditional values, the

sacramental rites will be better adapted to actual spiritual and pastoral

needs. — ED.

32



The reader who has read and considered this present sur-
vey of the history of the Roman liturgy will doubtless be
struck by the thought that even a very small alteration or

innovation in the sphere of the liturgy may be like the start
of an avalanche; the beginning may be quite imperceptible

but the consequences may be widespread and far-reaching.

How many occurrences in the slipping and sliding process
have come about since the time when the Canon began to be

recited silently! Indeed one may say that this seemingly slight

divergence from the ancient tradition has in natural conse-

quence determined the entire course of development in

Christian piety in subsequent centuries and has brought

about all those features which many now regret.

From the above it is evident, too, how great is the responsi-

bility of anyone who would undertake a decisive step in such

matters. Great patience and restraint is required in all ques-

tions presented by the liturgical revival of our times. Decades

of years, of intensive study and reflection and planning, are

not too much when there is question of assuring the right

future development of an organic liturgy, the life and the

life-work of which is to continue for hundreds and thousands

of years.



r: '< !iV 'T)? ’^i • 5 ftV ^ i^-

i2pli:5<^i:v'x
,
’ffjTt.ii:,t/

• lo •'|1b^^ln^ii

‘
• rn'ij r^iiV ./.x.viift-ii t *7i i ''«««»/ '*. O ; s i ifi Hfil

•• U
\

n^ .ftg^;!^',t>ip^^
I

\\'^^ |Trtju.|)i^ ,>d.r

•i?^>|n>;^ fmii.^po t- -^T T/ilj:i ’V},;-v>n')i.ii.
j

•|£/.;'{i V > i > fcji|nr^ 'i•’ ^'^‘ Vy/iTm.h.«po I- > .; ^y>ro>i,; >..
j

if/.; {

. I ;i’7\v'\f'v i '>J)

iA.*» V-
'

. r .rr /-''I' J-4 'rVV^7 r'*’.
/
'^ i'» ( )k Ii,VV’'ir' *i\ f 'i . I ...-ti", ' .-».• t *» V *’

•ihcrr ih^

•rtl

/

'

‘V' f i

4V‘i .H>j/pdl iyA'fe^ 5?l>ft^iil;>iVjj iVdii; ni^' •:
VO: ViV:. ‘,>c< ?.7r/w 'piL, ; ..jf It-'

A^-dij,
.' '. '

'^iv p-;is
-

'

*

.
.

‘-.

Iy<: ,i'v:>i ni/U :y

•'

^

^ y t'.''>r florv:.';'' oi du: C.>r'^. ,:

.

'

ri' i ./• Hr -I’t i : 1 ^ ih,\
* i \ IS \

:

•’“

•

: ; >; <Piipe . rtfv* i . • ' " i

TO-i-v.,./

•truiiec

*^qoriV'
J

c tv.>iv:rr -/ryf; of ,duf Vssim^

.!v;!ii4'! of 'rttP

• ,(

^:4



%

.r*

l-



WORSllip
A Review Devoted to the Liturgical Apostoiate

Provocative, popular discussions on

VERNACULAR SOCIAL PROBLEMS
PARISH PARTICIPATION SUNG MASS

BREVIARY REFORMS LITURGICAL YEAR

DIALOG MASS FAMILY LIFE

SACRAMENTALS LAY PRIESTHOOD

MYSTICAL BODY LAITY & BREVIARY

TRIAL SUBSCRIBERS

become

PERMANENT READERS

Published by the Monks of St. John's Abbey, Collegeville, Minne-

sota, assisted by front-line theologians, liturgists, and Christian social

thinkers from France, Germany, Ireland, Austria, Italy, England.

10 issues annually 64 pages

“The most pressing duty of Christians is to live the liturgical hfe,

and to increase and cherish its supernatural spirit."

— Pope Pius XII