Liturgy

Please help support the mission of New Advent and get the full contents of this website as an instant download. Includes the Catholic Encyclopedia, Church Fathers, Summa, Bible and more — all for only $19.99...

The variousChristian liturgies are described each under its own name. (SeeALEXANDRINE LITURGY;AMBROSIAN LITURGY;ANTIOCHENE LITURGY;CELTIC RITE;Clementine Liturgy, treated inCLEMENT I;RITE OF CONSTANTINOPLE;GALLICAN RITE;LITURGY OF JERUSALEM;MOZARABIC RITE;SARUM RITE; SYRIAN RITE;SYRO-JACOBITE LITURGY.) In this article they are considered only from the point of view of their relation to one another in the most general sense, and an account is given of what is known about the growth of a fixed liturgy as such in the earlyChurch.

Definition

Liturgy (leitourgia) is a Greek composite word meaning originally a publicduty, a service to the state undertaken by a citizen. Its elements areleitos (fromleos = laos, people) meaningpublic, andergo (obsolete in the present stem, used in futureerxo, etc.),to do. From this we haveleitourgos, "a man who performs a publicduty", "a public servant", often used as equivalent to the Romanlictor; thenleitourgeo, "to do such aduty",leitourgema, its performance, andleitourgia, the publicduty itself.

At Athens theleitourgia was the public service performed by the wealthier citizens at their own expense, such as the office ofgymnasiarch, who superintended the gymnasium, that ofchoregus, who paid the singers of a chorus in the theatre, that of thehestiator, who gave a banquet to his tribe, of thetrierarchus, who provided a warship for the state. The meaning of the word liturgy is then extended to cover any general service of a public kind. In theSeptuagint it (and the verbleitourgeo) is used for the public service of the temple (e.g.,Exodus 38:27;39:12, etc.). Thence it comes to have a religious sense as the function of thepriests, the ritual service of the temple (e.g.,Joel 1:9,2:17, etc.). In theNew Testament this religious meaning has become definitely established. InLuke 1:23, Zachary goes home when "the days of hisliturgy" (ai hemerai tes leitourgias autou) are over. InHebrews 8:6, thehigh priest of the New Law "has obtained a betterliturgy", that is a better kind of public religious service than that of the Temple.

So inChristian use liturgy meant the public official service of theChurch, that corresponded to the official service of the Temple in theOld Law.

We must now distinguish two senses in which the word was and is still commonly used. These two senses often lead to confusion.

On the one hand, liturgy often means the whole complex of official services, all the rites, ceremonies,prayers, andsacraments of theChurch, as opposed toprivate devotions. In this sense we speak of the arrangement of all these services in certain set forms (including thecanonical hours, administration ofsacraments, etc.), used officially by any local church, as the liturgy of such a church — the Liturgy of Antioch, the Roman Liturgy, and so on. So liturgy means rite; we speak indifferently of the Byzantine Rite or the Byzantine Liturgy. In the same sense we distinguish the official services from others by calling them liturgical; those services are liturgical which are contained in any of the official books (seeLITURGICAL BOOKS) of a rite. In theRoman Church, for instance,Compline is a liturgical service, theRosary is not.

The other sense of the word liturgy, now the common one in allEastern Churches, restricts it to the chief official service only — the Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist, which in our rite we call the Mass. This is now practically the only sense in whichleitourgia is used in Greek, or in its derived forms (e.g., Arabical-liturgiah) by anyEastern Christian. When a Greek speaks of the "Holy Liturgy" he means only the Eucharistic Service. For the sake of clearness it is perhaps better for us too to keep the word to this sense, at any rate in speaking ofEastern ecclesiastical matters; for instance, not to speak of the Byzantinecanonical hours as liturgical services. Even inWestern Rites the word "official" or "canonical" will do as well as "liturgical" in the general sense, so that we too may useLiturgy only for theHoly Eucharist.

It should be noted also that, whereas we may speak of our Mass quite correctly as the Liturgy, we should never use the wordMass for the Eucharistic Sacrifice in anyEastern rite.Mass (missa) is the name for that service in theLatin Rites only. It has never been used either in Latin or Greek for any Eastern rite. Their word, corresponding exactly to ourMass, isLiturgy. The Byzantine Liturgy is the service that corresponds to our Roman Mass; to call it the Byzantine (or, worse still, the Greek) Mass is as wrong as naming any other of their services after ours, as calling theirHesperinosVespers, or theirOrthrosLauds. When people go even as far as calling their books and vestments after ours, sayingMissal when they mean Euchologion,alb when they mean sticharion, the confusion becomes hopeless.

The origin of the liturgy

At the outset of this discussion we are confronted by three of the most difficult questions ofChristian archæology, namely: From what date was there a fixed and regulated service such as we can describe as a formal Liturgy? How far was this service uniform in various Churches? How far are we able to reconstruct its forms and arrangement?

With regard to the first question it must be said that an Apostolic Liturgy in the sense of an arrangement ofprayers and ceremonies, like our present ritual of the Mass, did not exist. For some time the Eucharistic Service was in many details fluid and variable. It was not all written down and read from fixed forms, but in part composed by the officiatingbishop. As for ceremonies, at first they were not elaborated as now. All ceremonial evolves gradually out of certain obvious actions done at first with noidea of ritual, but simply because they had to be done for convenience. Thebread andwine were brought to the altar when they were wanted, the lessons were read from a place where they could best be heard,hands were washed because they were soiled. Out of these obvious actionsceremony developed, just as our vestments developed out of the dress of the firstChristians. It follows then of course that, when there was no fixed Liturgy at all, there could be no question of absolute uniformity among the differentChurches.

And yet the whole series of actions andprayers did not depend solely on the improvisation of the celebratingbishop. Whereas at one time scholars were inclined to conceive the services of the firstChristians as vague and undefined, recent research shows us a very striking uniformity in certain salient elements of the service at a very early date. The tendency among students now is to admit something very like a regulated Liturgy, apparently to a great extent uniform in the chief cities, back even to the first or early second century. In the first place the fundamental outline of the rite of theHoly Eucharist was given by the account of theLast Supper. Whatour Lord had done then, that same thing He told His followers to do in memory of Him. It would not have been a Eucharist at all if the celebrant had not at least done asour Lord did the night before He died. So we have everywhere from the very beginning at least this uniform nucleus of a Liturgy:bread andwine are brought to the celebrant in vessels (a plate and a cup); he puts them on a table — the altar; standing before it in the natural attitude ofprayer he takes them in his hands, gives thanks, asour Lord had done, says again the words of institution, breaks the Bread and gives the consecrated Bread and Wine to the people in communion. The absence of the words of institution in theNestorian Rite is no argument against the universality of this order. It is a rite that developed quite late; the parent liturgy has the words.

But we find much more than this essential nucleus in use in every Church from the first century. The Eucharist was always celebrated at the end of a service of lessons, psalms,prayers, and preaching, which was itself merely a continuation of the service of thesynagogue. So we have everywhere this double function; first asynagogue serviceChristianized, in which the holy books were read, psalms were sung,prayers said by thebishop in the name of all (the people answering "Amen" in Hebrew, as had their Jewish forefathers), andhomilies, explanations of what had been read, were made by thebishop orpriests, just as they had been made in thesynagogues by the learned men and elders (e.g.,Luke 4:16-27). This is what was known afterwards as the Liturgy of the Catechumens. Then followed the Eucharist, at which only thebaptized were present. Two other elements of the service in the earliest time soon disappeared. One was the Love-feast (agape) that came just before the Eucharist; the other was the spiritual exercises, in which people were moved by the Holy Ghost to prophesy, speak in divers tongues, heal the sick byprayer, and so on. This function — to which1 Corinthians 14:1-14, and theDidache (10:7, etc.) refer — obviously opened the way to disorders; from the second century it gradually disappears. The Eucharistic Agape seems to have disappeared at about the same time. The other two functions remained joined, and still exist in the liturgies of all rites. In them the service crystallized into more or less set forms from the beginning. In the first half the alternation of lessons, psalms, collects, andhomilies leaves little room for variety. For obvious reasons a lesson from a Gospel was read last, in the place ofhonour as the fulfilment of all the others; it was preceded by other readings whose number, order, and arrangement varied considerably (seeLESSONS IN THE LITURGY). A chant of some kind would very soon accompany the entrance of theclergy and the beginning of the service. We also hear very soon of litanies of intercession said by oneperson to each clause of which the people answer with some short formula (seeANTIOCHENE LITURGY;ALEXANDRINE LITURGY;KYRIE ELEISON). The place and number of thehomilies would also vary for a long time. It is in the second part of the service, the Eucharist itself, that we find a very striking crystallization of the forms, and a uniformity even in the first or second century that goes far beyond the mere nucleus described above.

Already in theNew Testament — apart from the account of theLast Supper — there are some indexes that point to liturgical forms. There were already readings from the Sacred Books (1 Timothy 4:13;1 Thessalonians 5:27;Colossians 4:16), there were sermons (Acts 20:7), psalms andhymns (1 Corinthians 14:26;Colossians 3:16;Ephesians 5:19).1 Timothy 2:1-3, implies public liturgicalprayers for all classes of people. People lifted up their hands atprayers (1 Timothy 2:8), men with uncovered heads (1 Corinthians 11:4),women covered (1 Corinthians 11:5). There was akiss of peace (1 Corinthians 16:20;2 Corinthians 13:12;1 Thessalonians 5:26). There was an offertory of goods for the poor (Romans 15:26;2 Corinthians 9:13) called by the special name "communion" (koinonia). The people answered "Amen" afterprayers (1 Corinthians 14:16). The word Eucharist has already a technical meaning (1 Corinthians 14:16). The famous passage,1 Corinthians 11:20-29, gives us the outline of the breaking of bread and thanksgiving (Eucharist) that followed the earlier part of the service.Hebrews 13:10 (cf.1 Corinthians 10:16-21), shows that to the firstChristians the table of the Eucharist was an altar. After theconsecrationprayers followed (Acts 2:42).St. Paul "breaks bread" (= theconsecration), then communicates, then preaches (Acts 20:11).

Acts 2:42, gives us anidea of the liturgical Synaxis in order: They "persevere in the teaching of the Apostles" (this implies the readings andhomilies), "communicate in the breaking of bread" (consecration and communion) and "inprayers". So we have already in theNew Testament all the essential elements that we find later in the organized liturgies: lessons, psalms,hymns, sermons,prayers,consecration, communion. (For all this see F. Probst: "Liturgie der drei ersten christl. Jahrhunderte", Tübingen, 1870, c. i; and the texts collected in Cabrol and Leclercq; "Monumenta ecclesiæ liturgica", I, Paris, 1900, pp. 1-51.) It has been thought that there are in theNew Testament even actual formulæ used in the liturgy. TheAmen is certainly one.St. Paul's insistence on the form "For ever and ever,Amen" (eis tous aionas ton aionon amen. —Romans 16:27;Galatians 1:5;1 Timothy 1:17; cf.Hebrews 13:21;1 Peter 1:11;5:11;Revelation 1:6, etc.) seems to argue that it is a liturgical form well known to theChristians whom he addresses, as it was to theJews. There are other shorthymns (Romans 13:11-2;Ephesians 5:14;1 Timothy 3:16;2 Timothy 2:11-3), which may well be liturgical formulæ.

In theApostolic Fathers the picture of the earlyChristian Liturgy becomes clearer; we have in them a definite and to some extent homogeneous ritual. But this must be understood. There was certainly no set form ofprayers and ceremonies such as we see in our present Missals andEuchologia; still less was anything written down and read from a book. The celebratingbishop spoke freely, hisprayers being to some extent improvised. And yet this improvising was bound by certain rules. In the first place, no one who speaks continually on the same subjects says new things each time. Modern sermons and modernex temporeprayers show how easily a speaker falls into set forms, how constantly he repeats what come to be, at least for him, fixed formulæ. Moreover, the dialogue form ofprayer that we find in use in the earliest monuments necessarily supposes some constant arrangement. The people answer and echo what the celebrant and thedeacons say with suitable exclamations. They could not do so unless they heard more or less the sameprayers each time. They heard from the altar such phrases as: "The Lord be with you", or "Lift up your hearts", and it was because they recognized these forms, had heard them often before, that they could answer at once in the way expected.

We find too very early that certain general themes are constant. For instanceour Lord had given thanks just before He spoke the words of institution. So it was understood that every celebrant began theprayer ofconsecration — theEucharistic prayer — by thankingGod for His various mercies. So we find always what we still have in our modern prefaces — aprayer thankingGod for certain favours andgraces, that are named, just where that preface comes, shortly before theconsecration (Justin, "Apol., " I, xiii, lxv). An intercession for all kinds of people also occurs very early, as we see from references to it (e.g.,Justin, "Apol., " I, xiv, lxv). In thisprayer the various classes of people would naturally be named in more or less the same order. A profession offaith would almost inevitably open that part of the service in which only thefaithful were allowed to take part (Justin, "Apol.", I, xiii, lxi). It could not have been long before the archetype of allChristianprayer — theOur Father — was said publicly in the Liturgy. The moments at which these variousprayers were said would very soon become fixed, The people expected them at certain points, there was no reason for changing their order; on the contrary to do so would disturb thefaithful. One knows too how strong conservativeinstinct is in any religion, especially in one that, likeChristianity, has always looked back with unbounded reverence to the golden age of the first Fathers. So we must conceive the Liturgy of the first two centuries as made up of somewhat free improvisations on fixed themes in a definite order; and we realize too how naturally under these circumstances the very words used would be repeated — at first no doubt only the salient clauses — till they became fixed forms. The ritual, certainly of the simplest kind, would become stereotyped even more easily. The things that had to be done, the bringing up of thebread andwine, the collection ofalms and so on, even more than theprayers, would be done always at the same point. A change here would be even more disturbing than a change in the order of theprayers.

A last consideration to be noted is the tendency of newChurches to imitate the customs of the older ones. Each newChristian community was formed by joining itself to the bond already formed. The new converts received their first missionaries, theirfaith andideas from a mother Church. These missionaries would naturally celebrate the rites as they had seen them done, or as they had done them themselves in the mother Church. And their converts would imitate them, carry on the same tradition. Intercourse between the localChurches would further accentuate this uniformity among people who were very keenly conscious of forming one body with one Faith, one Baptism, and one Eucharist. It is not then surprising that the allusions to the Liturgy in the first Fathers of various countries, when compared show us a homogeneous rite at any rate in its main outlines, a constant type of service, though it was subject to certain local modifications. It would not be surprising if from this common early Liturgy one uniform type had evolved for the wholeCatholic world. Weknow that that is not the case. The more or less fluid ritual of the first two centuries crystallized into different liturgies in East and West; difference of language, the insistence on one point in one place, the greater importance given to another feature elsewhere, brought about our various rites. But there is an obvious unity underlying all the old rites that goes back to the earliest age. Themedievalidea that all are derived from one parent rite is not so absurd, if we remember that the parent was not a written or stereotyped Liturgy, but rather a general type of service.

The liturgy in the first three centuries

For the first period we have of course no complete description. We must reconstruct what we can from the allusions to theHoly Eucharist in theApostolic Fathers and apologists.Justin Martyr alone gives us a fairly complete outline of the rite that heknew. The Eucharist described in the "Teaching of the Twelve Apostles" (most authorities now put the date of this work at the end of the first century) in some ways lies apart from the general development. We have here still the free "prophesying" (10:7), the Eucharist is still joined to the Agape (10:1), the reference to the actualconsecration is vague. The likeness between theprayers of thanksgiving (9-10) and the Jewish forms for blessingbread andwine on theSabbath (given in the "Berakoth" treatise of the Talmud; cf. Sabatier, "La Didache", Paris, 1885, p. 99) points obviously to derivation from them. It has been suggested that the rite here described is not our Eucharist at all; others (Paul Drews) think that it is a private Eucharist distinct from the official public rite. On the other hand, it seems clear from the whole account in chapters 9 and 10 that we have here a real Eucharist, and the existence of private celebrations remains to beproved. The most natural explanation is certainly that of a Eucharist of a very archaic nature, not fully described. At any rate we have these liturgical points from the book. The "Our Father" is a recognized formula: it is to be said three times every day (8:2-3). The Liturgy is a eucharist and a sacrifice to be celebrated by breaking bread and giving thanks on the "Lord's Day" by people who have confessed theirsins (14:1). Only thebaptized are admitted to it (9:5). The wine is mentioned first, then the broken bread; each has a formula of giving thanks toGod for His revelation inChrist with the conclusion: "To thee be glory forever" (9:1, 4). There follows a thanksgiving for various benefits; the creation and our sanctification byChrist are named (10:1-4); then comes aprayer for theChurch ending with the form: "Maranatha. Amen"; in it occurs the form: "Hosanna to theGod of David" (10:5-6).

The First Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians (written probably between 90 and 100) contains an abundance of liturgical matter, much more than is apparent at the first glance. That the longprayer in chapters 59-61 is a magnificent example of the kind ofprayers said in the liturgy of the first century has always been admitted (e.g., Duchesne, "Origines du Culte", 49-51); that the letter, especially in this part, is full of liturgical forms is also evident. The writer quotes the Sanctus (Holy,holy,holy Lord ofSabaoth; all creation is full of his glory) fromIsaiah 6:3, and adds that "we assembled in unity cry (this) as with one mouth" (34:7). The end of the longprayer is adoxology invokingChrist and finishing with the form: "now and for generations of generations and for ages of ages.Amen" (111:3). This too is certainly a liturgical formula. There are many others. But we can find more in I Clem. than merely a promiscuous selection of formulæ. A comparison of the text with the first known Liturgy actually written down, that of the "Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions" (written long afterwards, in the fifth century inSyria) reveals a most startling likeness. Not only do the sameideas occur in the same order, but there are whole passages — just those that in I Clem. have most the appearance of liturgical formulæ — that recur word for word in the "Apost. Const."

In the "Apost. Const." theEucharistic prayer begins, as in all liturgies, with the dialogue: "Lift up your hearts", etc. Then, beginning: "It is truly meet and just", comes a long thanksgiving for various benefits corresponding to what we call the preface. Here occurs a detailed description of the first benefit we owe toGod — the creation. The various things created — the heavens and earth, sun, moon and stars, fire and sea, and so on, are enumerated at length ("Apost. Const.", VIII, xii, 6-27). Theprayer ends with the Sanctus. I Clem., xx, contains aprayer echoing the sameideas exactly, in which the very same words constantly occur. The order in which the creatures are mentioned is the same. Again "Apost. Const.", VIII, xii, 27, introduces the Sanctus in the same way as I Clem., xxxiv, 5-6, where the author actually says he is quoting the Liturgy. This same preface in "Apost. Const." (loc. cit.), remembering the Patriarchs of theOld Law, names Abel, Cain, Seth, Henoch,Noah, Sodom,Lot, Abraham,Melchisedech, Isaac, Jacob, Moses,Josue. The parallel passage in I Clem. (ix xii) names Enoch,Noah,Lot, Sodom, Abraham, Rahab,Josue: we may note at once two other parallels to this list containing again almost the same list of names —Hebrews 11:4-31, andJustin, "Dialogue", xix, cxi, cxxxi, cxxxviii. The longprayer in I Clem. (lix-lxi) is full ofideas and actual phrases that come again in "Apost. Const.", VIII. Compare for instance I Clem., lix, 2-4, with "Apost. Const.", VIII, X, 22-xi, 5 (which is part of the celebrant'sprayer during thelitany of the faithful: Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", p. 12), and xiii, 10 (prayer during thelitany that follows the great intercession. Brightman, p. 24). Other no less striking parallels may be seen in Drews, "Untersuchungen über die sogen. clement. Liturgie," 14-43. It is not only with the Liturgy of "Apost. Const." that I Clem. has these extraordinary resemblances. I Clem., lix, 4, echoes exactly the clauses of the celebrant'sprayer during the intercession in theAlexandrine Rite (Greek St. Mark. Brightman, 131). These parallel passages cannot all be mere coincidences (Lightfoot realized this, but suggests no explanation."The Apostolic Fathers", London, 1890, I, II, p. 71).

The question then occurs: What is the relation between I Clement and — in the first place — the Liturgy of"Apost. Const."? The suggestion that first presents itself is that the later document ("Apost. Const.") is quoting the earlier one (I Clem.). This is Harnack's view (" Gesch. der altchristl. Litteratur", I, Leipzig, 1893, pp. 42-43), but it is exceedingly unlikely. In that case the quotations would be more exact, the order of I Clem. would be kept; theprayers in the Liturgy have no appearance of being quotations or conscious compositions of fragments from earlier books; nor, if the "Apost. Const." were quoting I Clem., would there be reduplications such as we have seen above (VIII, xi, 22-xi, 5, and xiii, 10).

Years ago Ferdinand Probst spent a great part of his life in trying to prove that the Liturgy of the "Apostolic Constitutions" was the universal primitive Liturgy of the whole Church. To this endeavour he applied an enormous amount of erudition. In his "Liturgie der drei ersten christlichen Jahrhunderte" (Tübingen, 1870) and again in his "Liturgie des vierten Jahrhunderts und deren Reform" (Münster, 1893), he examined a vast number of texts of the Fathers, always with a view to find in them allusions to the Liturgy in question. But he overdid his identifications hopelessly. He sees an allusion in every text that vaguely refers to a subject named in the Liturgy. Also his books are very involved and difficult to study. So Probst's theory fell almost entirely into discredit. His ubiquitous Liturgy was remembered only as the monomania of a very learned man; the rite of the "Eighth Book of the Apostolic Constitutions" was put in what seemed to be its right place, merely as an early form of the Antiochene Liturgy (so Duchesne, "Origines du Culte", 55-6). Lately, however, there has come again to the fore what may be described as a modified form of Probst's theory. Ferdinand Kattenbusch ("Das apostolische Symbol", Tübingen, 1900, II, 347, etc.) thought that after all there might be some foundation for Probst'sidea.

Paul Drews (Untersuchungen über die sogen. clementinische Liturgie, Tübingen, 1906) proposes and defends at length what may well be the germ oftruth in Probst, namely that there was a certain uniformity of type in the earliest Liturgy in the sense described above, not a uniformity of detail, but one of general outline, of theideas expressed in the various parts of the service, with a strong tendency to uniformity in certain salient expressions that recurred constantly and became insensibly liturgical formulæ. This type of liturgy (rather than a fixed rite) may be traced back even to the first century. It is seen inClement of Rome,Justin, etc.; perhaps there are traces of it even in the Epistle to the Hebrews. And of this type we still have a specimen in the "Apostolic Constitutions". It is not that that rite exactly as it is in the "Constitutions" was used by Clement andJustin. Rather the "Constitutions" give us a much later (fifth century) form of the old Liturgy written down at last inSyria after it had existed for centuries in a more fluid state as an oral tradition. Thus, Clement, writing to the Corinthians (that the letter was actually composed by theBishop of Rome, asDionysius of Corinth says in the second century, is now generally admitted. Cf. Bardenhewer, "Gesch. der altkirchl. Litteratur", Freiburg, 1902, 101-2), uses the language to which he was accustomed in the Liturgy; the letter is full of liturgicalideas and reminiscences. They are found again in the later crystallization of the same rite in the "Apostolic Constitutions". So that book gives us the best representation of the Liturgy as used inRome in the first two centuries.

This is confirmed by the next witness,Justin Martyr.Justin (d. about 164), in his famous account of the Liturgy, describes it as he saw it atRome (Bardenhewer, op. cit., 206). The often quoted passage is (I Apology 65-67):

65. We lead him who believes and is joined to us, after we have thusbaptized him, to those who are called the brethren, where they gather together to sayprayers in common for ourselves, and for him who has been enlightened, and for all who are everywhere. . . . We greet each other with akiss when theprayers are finished. Then bread and a cup of water and wine are brought to the president of the brethren, and he having received them sends up praise and glory to the Father of all through the name of his Son and the Holy Ghost, and makes a long thanksgiving that we have been made worthy of these things by him; when theseprayers and thanksgivings are ended all the people present cry 'Amen'. . . . And when the president has given thanks (eucharistesantos, already a technical name for the Eucharist) and all the people have answered, those whom we calldeacons give thebread andwine and water for which the 'thanksgiving' (Eucharist) has been made to be tasted by those who are present, and they carry them to those that are absent.

66. This food is called by us the Eucharist" (the well-known passage about theReal Presence follows, with the quotation of the words of Institution).

67. On the day which is called that of the Sun a reunion is made of all those who dwell in the cities and fields; and the commentaries of the Apostles and writings of theprophets are read as long as time allows. Then, when the reader has done, the president admonishes us in a speech and excites us to copy these glorious things. Then we all rise and sayprayers and, as we have said above, when we have donepraying bread is brought up and wine and water; and the president sends upprayers with thanksgiving for the men, and the people acclaim, saying 'Amen', and a share of the Eucharist is given to each and is sent to those absent by thedeacons.

This is by far the most complete account of the Eucharistic Service we have from the first three centuries. It will be seen at once that what is described in chapter 67 precedes the rite of 65. In 67Justin begins his account of the Liturgy and repeats in its place what he had already said above.

Putting it all together we have this scheme of the service:

This is exactly the order of the Liturgy in the "Apostolic Constitutions" (Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", 3-4, 9-12, 13, 14-21, 21-3, 25). Moreover, as in the case of I Clement, there are many passages and phrases inJustin that suggest parallel ones in the "Apost. Const." — not so much inJustin's account of the Liturgy (though here too Drews sees such parallels, op. cit., 58-9) as in other works in whichJustin, like Clement, may be supposed to be echoing well-known liturgical phrases. Drews prints many such passages side by side with the corresponding ones of the "Apost. Const.", from which comparison he concludes thatJustin knows a dismissal of thecatechumens (cf."I Apol.", xlix, 5; xiv, 1;xxv, 2, with "Apost. Const.", VIII, vi, 8; x, 2) and of the Energumens (Dialogue with Trypho 30; cf. "Apost. Const.", VIII, vii, 2) corresponding to that in the Liturgy in question. From "I Apol.", lxv, 1; xvii, 3; xiv, 3; deduces aprayer for all kinds of men (made by the community) of the type of thatprayer in "Apost. Const.", VIII, x."I Apol.", xiii, 1-3, lxv, 3; v, 2, andDialogue with Trypho 41,70 and107 give us the elements of a preface exactly on the lines of that in "Apost. Const." VIII, xii, 6-27 (see these texts in parallel columns in Drews, "op. cit.", 59-91).

We have, then, in Clement andJustin the picture of a Liturgy at least remarkably like that of the "Apostolic Constitutions". Drews adds as striking parallels fromHippolytus (d. 235), "Contra Noetum", etc. (op. cit., 95-107) and Novatian (third cent.)"De Trinitate" (ibid., 107-22), both Romans, and thinks that this same type of liturgy continues in the knownRoman Rite (122-66). That the Liturgy of the "Apostolic Constitutions" as it stands is Antiochene, and is closely connected with the Rite of Jerusalem, is certain. It would seem, then, that it represents one form of a vaguer type of rite that was in its main outline uniform in the first three centuries. The other references to the Liturgy in the first age (Ignatius of Antioch, died about 107,Ephesians 13 and 20;Philadelphians 4;Romans 7;Smyrnæans 7 and 8; Irenæus, died 202,Against Heresies IV.17-18 andV.2;Clement of Alexandria, died about 215,The Pedagogue I.6 andII.2;Origen, d. 254,Against Celsus VIII.33; "Hom. xix in Lev.", xviii, 13; "In Matt.", xi, 14; "In Ioh.", xiii, 30) repeat the sameideas that we have seen in Clement andJustin, but add little to the picture presented by them (see Cabrol and Leclercq, "Mon. Eccles. Liturg.", I, passim).

The parent rites, from the fourth century

From about the fourth century ourknowledge of the Liturgy increases enormously. We are no longer dependent on casual references to it: we have definite rites fully developed. The more or less uniform type of Liturgy used everywhere before crystallized into four parent rites from which all others are derived. The four are the old Liturgies of Antioch,Alexandria,Rome, andGaul. Each is described in a special article. It will be enough here to trace an outline of their general evolution.

The development of these liturgies is very like what happens in the case of languages. From a general uniformity a number of local rites arise with characteristic differences. Then one of these local rites, because of the importance of the place that uses it, spreads, is copied by the cities around, drives out its rivals, and becomes at last the one rite used throughout a more or less extended area. We have then a movement from vague uniformity to diversity and then a return to exact uniformity. Except for theGallican Rite the reason of the final survival of these liturgies is evident.Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch are the old patriarchal cities. As the otherbishops accepted thejurisdiction of these threepatriarchs, so did they imitate their services. The Liturgy, as it crystallized in these centres, became the type for the otherChurches of theirpatriarchates. Only Gaul and northwestEurope generally, though part of the Roman Patriarchate, kept its own rite till the seventh and eighth centuries.

Alexandria and Antioch are the starting-points of the two original Eastern rites. The earliest form of the Antiochene Rite is that of the "Apostolic Constitutions" written down in the early fifth century. From what we have said it seems that this rite has best preserved the type of the primitive use. From it is derived the Rite of Jerusalem (till theCouncil of Chalcedon, 451,Jerusalem was in the Antiochene Patriarchate), which then returned to Antioch and became that of thepatriarchate (seeANTIOCHENE LITURGY andLITURGY OF JERUSALEM). We have this liturgy (called after St. James) in Greek (Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", 31-68) and in Syriac (ibid., 69-110). The Alexandrine Rite differs chiefly in the place of the great intercession (seeALEXANDRINE LITURGY). This too exists in Greek (Brightman, 113-43) and the language of the country, in this case Coptic (ibid., 144-88). In both cases the original form was certainly Greek, but in both the present Greek forms have been considerably influenced by the later Rite of Constantinople. A reconstruction of the original Greek is possible by removing the Byzantine additions and changes, and comparing the Greek and Syriac or Coptic forms. Both these liturgies have given rise to numerous derived forms. TheRoman Rite is thought by Duchesne to be connected with Alexandria, the Gallican with Antioch (Origines du Culte, p. 54). But, from what has been said, it seems more correct to connect theRoman Rite with that of Antioch. Besides its derivation from the type represented by the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions there are reasons for supposing a further influence of the Liturgy of St. James atRome (seeCANON OF THE MASS, and Drews, "Zur Entstehungsgesch. des Kanons in der römischen Messe", Tübingen, 1902). TheGallican Rite is certainly Syrian in its origin. There are also very striking parallels between Antioch and Alexandria, in spite of their different arrangements. It may well be, then, that all four rites are to be considered as modifications of that most ancient use, best preserved atAntioch; so we should reduce Duchesne's two sources to one, and restore to a great extent Probst's theory of one original rite — that of the "Apostolic Constitutions".

In any case the oldRoman Rite is not exactly that now used. OurRoman Missal has received considerable additions from Gallican sources. The original rite was simpler, more austere, had practically no ritual beyond the mostnecessary actions (see Bishop, "The Genius of the Roman Rite" in "Essays on Ceremonial", edited by Vernon Staley, London, 1904, pp. 283-307). It may be said that our present Roman Liturgy contains all the old nucleus, has lost nothing, but has additional Gallican elements. The original rite may be in partdeduced from references to it as early as the fifth century ("Letters of Gelasius I" in Thiel, "Epistolæ Rom. Pontificum", I, cdlxxxvi, "Innocent I to Decennius of Eugubium", written in 416, in P.L., XX, 551; Pseudo-Ambrose, "De Sacramentis", IV, 5, etc.); it is represented by the Leonine and Gelasian "Sacramentaries", and by the old part of the Gregorian book (seeLITURGICAL BOOKS). TheRoman Rite was used throughout Central and SouthernItaly. The African use was a variant of that ofRome (see Cabrol, "Dictionnaire d'archéologie chrétienne", s.v. Afrique, Liturgie postnicéenne). In the West, however, the principle that rite should followpatriarchate did not obtain till about the eighth century. Thepope wasPatriarch of all Western (Latin) Europe, yet the greater part of the West did not use the Roman Rite. The North ofItaly whose centre wasMilan,Gaul,Germany,Spain, Britain, andIreland had their own Liturgies. These Liturgies are all modifications of a common type; they may all be classed together as forms of what is known as theGallican Rite. Where did that rite come from? It is obviously Eastern in its origin: its whole construction has the most remarkable conformity to the Antiochene type, a conformity extending in many parts to the actual text (compare theMilaneselitany of intercession quoted by Duchesne, "Origines du Culte", p. 189, with the correspondinglitany in the Antiochene Liturgy; Brightman, pp. 44-5). It used to be said that theGallican Rite came from Ephesus, brought by the founders of theChurch of Lyons, and from Lyons spread throughout North-WesternEurope. This theory cannot be maintained. It was not brought to the West till its parent rite was fully developed, had already evolved a complicated ceremonial, such as is inconceivable at the time when theChurch of Lyons was founded (second century). It must have been imported about the fourth century, at which time Lyons had lost all importance. Mgr Duchesne therefore suggestsMilan as the centre from which it radiated, and the CappadocianBishop ofMilan, Auxentius (355-74), as the man who introduced this Easter Rite to the West (Origines du Culte, 86-9). In spreading over WesternEurope the rite naturally was modified in variousChurches. When we speak of theGallican Rite we mean a type of liturgy rather than a stereotyped service.

TheMilanese Rite still exists, though in the course oftime it has become considerably romanized. For Gaul we have the description in two letters ofSt. Germanus ofParis (d. 576), used by Duchesne "Origines du Culte", ch. vii: La Messe Gallicane. Original text in P.L., LXXII).Spain kept theGallican Rite longest; the Mozarabic Liturgy still used at Toledo and Salamanca represents the Spanish use. The British andIrish Liturgies, of which not much is known, were apparently Gallican too (see F.E. Warren, "The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church", Oxford, 1881; Bäumer, "Das Stowe Missale" in the "Innsbruck Zeitschrift für kath. theol.", 1892; and Bannister, "Journal of Theological Studies", Oct., 1903). FromLindisfarne theGallican Use spread among the Northern English converted byIrishmonks in the sixth and seventh centuries.

The derived liturgies

From these four types — of Antioch, Alexandria,Rome, and the so-calledGallican Rite — all liturgies still used are derived. This does not mean that the actual liturgies we still have under those names are the parents; once more we must conceive the sources as vaguer, they are rather types subject always to local modification, but represented to us now in one form, such as, for instance, the Greek St. James or the Greek St. Mark Liturgy. The Antiochene type, apparently the most archaic, has been also the most prolific of daughter liturgies. Antioch first absorbed the Rite ofJerusalem (St. James), itself derived from the primitive Antiochene use shown in the "Apostolic Constitutions" (seeLITURGY OF JERUSALEM). In this form it was used throughout thepatriarchate till about the thirteenth century (seeANTIOCHENE LITURGY). A local modification was the Use of Cappadocia. About the fourth century the great Byzantine Rite was derived from this (seeRITE OF CONSTANTINOPLE). TheArmenian Rite is derived from an early stage of that of Byzantium. TheNestorian Rite is also Antiochene in its origin, whether derived directly from Antioch, orEdessa, or from Byzantium at an early stage. The Liturgy of Malabar isNestorian. TheMaronite Use is that of Antioch considerably romanized. The other Eastern parent rite, of Alexandria, produced the numerous Coptic Liturgies and those of the daughter Church ofAbyssinia.

In the West the later history of the Liturgy is that of the gradual supplanting of the Gallican by the Roman, which, however, became considerably gallicanized in the process. Since about the sixth century conformity withRome becomes an ideal in mostWestern Churches. The old Roman Use is represented by the "Gelasian Sacramentary". This book came to Gaul in the sixth century, possibly by way of Arles and through the influence of St. Cæsarius of Arles (d. 542-cf. Bäumer, "Ueber das sogen. Sacram. Gelas." in the "Histor. Jahrbuch der Görres-Gesellschaft", 1893, 241-301). It then spread throughout Gaul and received Gallican modifications. In some parts it completely supplanted the old Gallican books.Charles the Great (768-814) was anxious for uniformity throughout his kingdom in the Roman use only. He therefore procured fromPope Adrian I (772-795) a copy of the "Roman Sacramentary". The book sent by thepope was a later form of theRoman Rite (the "Sacramentarium Gregorianum").Charles imposed this book on all theclergy of his kingdom. But it was not easy to carry out his orders. The people were attached to their own customs. So someone (possiblyAlcuin — cf. Bäumer, loc. cit.) added toAdrian's book a supplement containing selections from both the older Gelasian book and the original Gallican sources. This composition became then the service-book of theFrankish Kingdom and eventually, as we shall see, the Liturgy of the wholeRoman Church.

InSpain Bishop Profuturus of Braga wrote in 538 toPope Vigilius (537-55) asking his advice about certain liturgical matters. Thepope's answer (in Jaffé, "Regest. Rom. Pont.", no. 907) shows the first influence of theRoman Rite inSpain. In 561 thenational Synod of Braga imposed Vigilius's ritual on all the kingdom of the Suevi. From this time we have the "mixed" Rite (Roman and Gallican) ofSpain. Later, when theVisigoths had conquered the Suevi (577-584), theChurch of Toledo rejected the Roman elements and insisted on uniformity in the pureGallican Rite. Nevertheless Roman additions were made later; eventually allSpain accepted theRoman Rite (in the eleventh century) except the one corner, at Toledo and Salamanca, where the mixed (Mozarabic) Rite is still used. The great Church ofMilan, apparently the starting-point of the wholeGallican Use, was able to resist the influence of the Roman Liturgy. But here too, in later centuries the local rite became considerably romanized (St. Charles Borromeo, died 1584), so that the presentMilanese (Ambrosian) use is only a shadow of the old Gallican Liturgy. In BritainSt. Augustine of Canterbury (597-605) naturally brought with him the Roman Liturgy. It received a new impetus fromSt. Theodore of Canterbury when he came fromRome (668), and gradually drove out theGallican Use ofLindisfarne.

The English Church was very definitely Roman in its Liturgy. There was even a great enthusiasm for the rite of the mother Church. SoAlcuin writes to Eanbald of York in 796: "Let yourclergy not fail to study the Roman order; so that, imitating theHead of the Churches of Christ, they may receive the blessing of Peter, prince of the Apostles, whomour Lord Jesus Christ made the chief of his flock"; and again: "Have you not plenty of books written according to the Roman use?" (quoted in Cabrol, "L'Angleterre terre chrétienne avant les Normans", Paris, 1909, p. 297). Before the Conquest the Roman service-books inEngland received a few Gallican additions from the old rite of the country (op. cit., 297-298)

So we see that at the latest by the tenth or eleventh century theRoman Rite has driven out the Gallican, except in two sees (Milan and Toledo), and is used alone throughout the West, thus at last verifying here too the principle that rite followspatriarchate. But in the long and gradual supplanting of theGallican Rite the Roman was itself affected by its rival, so that when at last it emerges as sole possessor it is no longer the old pureRoman Rite, but has become the gallicanized Roman Use that we now follow. These Gallican additions are all of the nature of ceremonial ornament, symbolic practices, ritual adornment. Ourblessings of candles, ashes, palms, much of the ritual ofHoly Week, sequences, and so on are Gallican additions. The originalRoman Rite was very plain, simple, practical. Mr. Edmund Bishop says that its characteristics were "essentially soberness and sense" ("The Genius of the Roman Rite", p. 307; see the whole essay). Once these additions were accepted atRome they became part of the (new)Roman Rite and were used as part of that rite everywhere.

When was the older simpler use so enriched? We have two extreme dates. The additions were not made in the eighth century when Pope Adrian sent his "Gregorian Sacramentary" toCharlemagne. The original part of that book (in Muratori's edition; "Liturgia romana vetus", II, Venice, 1748) contains still the old Roman Mass. They were made by the eleventh century, as is shown by the "Missale Romanum Lateranense" of that time, edited by Azevedo (Rome, 1752). Dom Suitbert Bäumer suggests that the additions made to Adrian's book (byAlcuin) in the Frankish Kingdom came back toRome (after they had become mixed up with the original book) under the influence of the successors ofCharlemagne, and there supplanted the older pure form (Über das sogen. Sacr. Gelas., ibid.).

Later medieval liturgies

We have now arrived at the present state of things. It remains to say a word about the variousmedieval uses the nature of which has often been misunderstood. Everyone has heard of the old English uses — Sarum, Ebor, etc. People have sometimes tried to set them up in opposition to what they call the "modern"Roman Rite, as witnesses that in some wayEngland was not "Roman" before theReformation. Thisidea shows an astonishingignorance of the rites in question. Thesemedieval uses are in no sense really independent rites . To compare them with the Gallican or Eastern Liturgies is absurd. They are simply cases of what was common all overEurope in the laterMiddle Ages, namely slight (often very slight) local modifications of the parent Rite ofRome. As there were Sarum and Ebor, so there wereParis,Rouen,Lyons,Cologne,Trier Rites. All these are simply Roman, with a few local peculiarities. They had their ownsaints' days, a trifling variety in the Calendar, some extra Epistles, Gospels, sequences, prefaces, certain local (generally more exuberant) details of ritual. In such insignificant details as the sequence of liturgical colours there was diversity in almost everydiocese. No doubt, some rites (as theDominican use, that of Lyons, etc.) have rather more Gallican additions than our normal Roman Liturgy. But the essence of all these late rites, all the parts that really matter (the arrangement, Canon of the Mass and so on) are simply Roman. Indeed they do not differ from the parent rite enough to be called derived properly. Here again the parallel case of languages will make the situation clear. There are really derived languages that are no longer the same language as their source. Italian is derived from Latin, and Italian is not Latin. On the other hand, there are dialectic modifications that do not go far enough to make a derived language. No one would describe the modern Roman dialect as a language derived from Italian; it is simply Italian, with a few slight local modifications. In the same way, there are really new liturgies derived from the old ones. The Byzantine Rite is derived from that of Antioch and is a different rite. But Sarum, Paris,Trier, etc. are simply theRoman Rite, with a few local modifications.

Hence the justification of the abolition of nearly all these local varieties in the sixteenth century. However jealous one may be for the really independent liturgies, however much one would regret to see the abolition of the venerable old rites that share the allegiance ofChristendom (an abolition by the way that is not in the least likely ever to take place), at any rate thesemedieval developments have no special claim to our sympathy. They were only exuberant inflations of the more austere ritual that had better not have been touched. Churches that use theRoman Rite had better use it in a pure form; where the same rite exists at least there uniformity is a reasonable ideal. To conceive these late developments as old compared with the original Roman Liturgy that has now again taken their place, is absurd. It was the novelties thatPius V abolished; his reform was a return to antiquity. In 1570Pius V published his revised and restoredRoman Missal that was to be the only form for all Churches that use theRoman Rite. The restoration of thisMissal was on the whole undoubtedly successful; it was all in the direction of eliminating the later inflations, farced Kyries and Glorias, exuberant sequences, and ceremonial that was sometimes almost grotesque. In imposing it thepope made an exception for other uses that had been in possession for at least two centuries. This privilege was not used consistently. Many local uses that had a prescription of at least that time gave way to the authenticRoman Rite; but it saved the Missals of some Churches (Lyons, for instance) and of somereligious orders (theDominicans,Carmelites,Carthusians). What is much more important is that thepope's exception saved the two remnants of a really independent Rite atMilan and Toledo. Later, in the nineteenth century, there was again a movement in favour of uniformity that abolished a number of surviving local customs inFrance andGermany, though these affected theBreviary more than theMissal. We are now witnessing a similar movement for uniformity inplainsong (the Vatican edition). The Monastic Rite (used by theBenedictines andCistercians) is also Roman in its origin. The differences between it and the normalRoman Rite affect chiefly theDivine Office.

Table of liturgies

We are now able to draw up a table of all the real liturgies used throughout theChristian world. The variousProtestantPrayerbooks, Agendæ, Communion-services, and so on, have of course no place in this scheme, because they all break away altogether from the continuity of liturgical development; they are merely compilations of random selections from any of the old rites imbedded in new structures made by various Reformers.

In the first three centuries

A fluid rite founded on the account of theLast Supper, combined with aChristianizedsynagogue service showing, however, a certain uniformity of type and gradually crystallizing into set forms. Of this type we have perhaps a specimen in the Liturgy of the second and eighth books of the "Apostolic Constitutions".

Since the fourth century

The original indetermined rite forms into the four great liturgies from which all others are derived. These liturgies are:

Antioch

Alexandria

Rome

Gaul

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT