Liturgy of the Mass

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...

Name and definition

The Mass is the complex ofprayers and ceremonies that make up the service of the Eucharist in the Latin rites. As in the case of allliturgical terms the name is less old than the thing. From the time of the first preaching of theChristian Faith in the West, as everywhere, theHoly Eucharist was celebrated asChrist had instituted it at theLast Supper, according to His command, in memory of Him. But it was not till long afterwards that the late Latin nameMissa, used at first in a vaguer sense, became the technical and almost exclusive name for this service.

In the first period, while Greek was still theChristian language atRome, we find the usual Greek names used there, as in the East. The commonest wasEucharistia, used both for theconsecratedbread andwine and for the whole service.Clement of Rome (d. about 101) uses the verbal form still in its general sense of "giving thanks", but also in connection with the Liturgy (Epistle of Clement 38.4:kata panta eucharistein auto). The other chief witness for the earliest Roman Liturgy,Justin Martyr (d. c. 167), speaks ofeucharist in both senses repeatedly (First Apology 65.3-5,66.1 and67.5). After him the word is always used, and passes into Latin (eucharistia) as soon as there is aLatin Christian Literature [Tertullian (d. c. 220), "De præscr.", xxxvi, in P.L., II, 50;St. Cyprian (d. 258), Ep., liv, etc.]. It remains the normal name for the sacrament throughoutCatholictheology, but is gradually superseded by Missa for the whole rite. Clement calls the serviceLeitourgia (1 Corinthians 40:2, 5;41:1) andprosphora (Ibid., 2, 4), with, however, a shade of different meaning ("rite", "oblation"). These and the other usual Greek names (klasis artou in theCatacombs;koinonia, synaxis, syneleusis inJustin, "I Apol.", lxvii, 3), with their not yet strictly technical connotation, are used during the first two centuries in the West as in the East. With the use of the Latin language in the third century came first translations of the Greek terms. Whileeucharistia is very common, we find also its translationgratiarum actio (Tertullian, "Adv. Marcionem", I, xxiii, in P.L., II, 274);benedictio (=eulogia) occurs too (ibid., III, xxii; "De idolol.", xxii);sacrificium, generally with an attribute (divina sacrificia, novum sacrificium, sacrificia Dei), is a favourite expression ofSt. Cyprian (Ep. liv, 3;On the Lord's Prayer 4; "Test. adv. Iud.", I, xvi; Ep. xxxiv, 3; lxiii, 15, etc.). We find alsoSolemnia (Cyprian,On the Lapsed 25), "Dominica solemnia" (Tertullian, "De fuga", xiv),Prex,Oblatio,Coena Domini (Tert., "Ad uxor.", II, iv, in P.L., I, 1294),Spirituale ac coeleste sacramentum (Cyprian, Ep., lxiii, 13),Dominicum (Cyprian, "De opere et eleem.", xv; Ep. lxiii, 16),Officium (Tertullian, "De orat.", xiv), evenPassio (Cyprian, Ep. xlii), and other expressions that are rather descriptions than technical names.

All these were destined to be supplanted in the West by the classical nameMissa. The first certain use of it is bySt. Ambrose (d. 397). He writes to his sister Marcellina describing the troubles of theArians in the years 385 and 386, when the soldiers were sent to break up the service in his church: "The next day (it was a Sunday) after the lessons and the tract, having dismissed thecatechumens, I explained the creed [symbolum tradebam] to some of the competents [people about to bebaptized] in the baptistry of the basilica. There I was told suddenly that they had sent soldiers to the Portiana basilica. . . . But I remained at my place and began to sayMass [missam facere coepi]. While I offer [dum ofero], I hear that a certain Castulus has been seized by the people" (Ep., I, xx, 4-5). It will be noticed thatmissa here means the Eucharistic Service proper, the Liturgy of the Faithful only, and does not include that of the Catechumens. Ambrose uses the word as one in common use and well known. There is another, still earlier, but very doubtfully authentic instance of the word in a letter ofPope Pius I (from c. 142 to c. 157): "Euprepia has handed over possession of her house to thepoor, where . . . we make Masses with our poor" (cum pauperibus nostris . . . missas agimus" — Pii I, Ep. I, inGalland, "Bibl. vet. patrum",Venice, 1765, I, 672). The authenticity of the letter, however, is verydoubtful. IfMissa really occurred in the second century in the sense it now has, it would be surprising that it never occurs in the third. We may consider St. Ambrose as the earliest certain authority for it.

From the fourth century the term becomes more and more common. For a time it occurs nearly always in the sense ofdismissal.St. Augustine (d. 430) says: "After the sermon the dismissal of thecatechumens takes place" (post sermonem fit missa catechumenorum — Serm., xlix, 8, in P.L., XXXVIII, 324). The Synod ofLérida inSpain (524) declares that people guilty of incest may be admitted to church "usque ad missam catechumenorum", that is, till thecatechumens are dismissed (Can., iv,Hefele-Leclercq, "Hist. des Conciles", II, 1064). The same expression occurs in the Synod of Valencia at about the same time (Can., i, ibid., 1067), inHincmar of Reims (d. 882) ("Opusc. LV capitul.", xxiv, in P.L., CXXVI, 380), etc. Etheria (fourth century) calls the whole service, or the Liturgy of the Faithful,missa constantly ("Peregr. Silviæ", e.g., xxiv, 11,Benedicit fideles et fit missa, etc.). So alsoInnocent I (401-17) in Ep., xvii, 5, P.L., XX, 535,Leo I (440-61), in Ep., ix, 2, P.L., LIV, 627. Although from the beginning the wordMissa usually means the Eucharistic Service or some part of it, we find it used occasionally for otherecclesiastical offices too. In St. Benedict's (d. 543) Rulefiant missae is used for the dismissal at the end of thecanonical hours (chap., xvii, passim). In the Leonine Sacramentary (sixth cent. SeeLITURGICAL BOOKS), the word in its present sense is supposed throughout. The title, "Item alia", at the head of each Mass means "Item alia missa". The Gelasian book (sixth or seventh cent. Cf. ibid.) supplies the word: "Item alia missa", "Missa Chrismatis", "Orationes ad missa [sic] in natale Sanctorum", and so on throughout. From that time it becomes the regular, practically exclusive, name for the Holy Liturgy in the Roman and Gallican Rites.

The origin and first meaning of the word, once much discussed, is not reallydoubtful. We may dismiss at once such fanciful explanations as thatmissa is theHebrewmissah ("oblation" — so Reuchlin andLuther), or the Greekmyesis ("initiation"), or the GermanMess ("assembly", "market"). Nor is it the participle feminine ofmittere, with a noun understood ("oblatio missa ad Deum", "congregatio missa", i.e.,dimissa — so Diez, "Etymol. Wörterbuch der roman. Sprachen", 212, and others). It is a substantive of a late form for missio. There are many parallels inmedieval Latin,collecta, ingressa, confessa, accessa, ascensa — all for forms in-io. It does not mean an offering (mittere, in the sense of handing over toGod), but the dismissal of the people, as in the versicle: "Ite missa est" (Go, the dismissal is made). It may seem strange that this unessential detail should have given its name to the whole service. But there are many similar cases inliturgical language.Communion, confession, breviary are none of them names that express the essential character of what they denote. In the case of the wordmissa we can trace the development of its meaning step by step. We have seen it used bySt. Augustine,synods of the sixth century, andHincmar of Reims for "dismissal".Missa Catechumenorum means the dismissal of thecatechumens. It appears thatmissa fit ormissa est was the regular formula for sending people away at the end of a trial or legal process. Avitus of Vienne (d. 523) says: "In churches and palaces or law-courts the dismissal is proclaimed to be made [missa pronuntiatur], when the people are dismissed from their attendance" (Ep. i). So alsoSt. Isidore of Seville: "At the time of the sacrifice the dismissal is [missa tempore sacrificii est] when thecatechumens are sent out, as thedeacon cries: If any one of thecatechumens remain, let him go out: and thence it is the dismissal [et inde missa]" ("Etymol.", VI, xix, in P.L., LXXXII, 252). As there was a dismissal of thecatechumens at the end of the first part of the service, so was there a dismissal of the faithful (thebaptized) after the Communion. There were, then, amissa catechumenorum and amissa fidelium, both, at first, in the sense of dismissals only. So Florus Diaconus (d. 860): "Missa is understood as nothing butdimissio, that is,absolutio, which thedeacon pronounces when the people are dismissed from the solemn service. Thedeacon cried out and thecatechumens were sent [mittebantur], that is, were dismissed outside [id est,dimittebantur foras]. So themissa caechumenorum was made before the action of the Sacrament (i.e., before the Canon Actionis), themissa fidelium is made "-- note the difference of tense; in Florus's time the dismissal of thecatechumens had ceased to be practised --" after theconsecration and communion" [post confectionem et participationem] (P.L., CXIX 72).

How the word gradually changed its meaning from dismissal to the whole service, up to and including the dismissal, is not difficult to understand. In the texts quoted we see already the foundation of such a change. To stay till themissa catechumenorum is easily modified into: to stay for, or during, themissa catechumenorum. So we find these two missae used for the two halves of the Liturgy.Ivo of Chartres (d. 1116) has forgotten the original meaning, and writes: "Those who heard the missacatechumenorum evaded themissa sacramentorum" (Ep. ccxix, in P.L., CLXII, 224). The two parts are then called by these two names; as the discipline of the catechumenate is gradually forgotten, and there remains only one connected service, it is called by the long familiar namemissa, without further qualification. We find, however, through theMiddle Ages the pluralmiss, missarum solemnia, as well asmissae sacramentum and such modified expressions also. Occasionally the word is transferred to thefeast-day. The feast of St. Martin, for instance, is calledMissa S. Martini. It is from this use that the GermanMess, Messtag, and so on are derived. The day and place of a local feast was the occasion of a market (for all this see Rottmanner, op. cit., in bibliography below).Kirmess (FlemishKermis, Fr.kermesse) isKirch-mess, the anniversary of the dedication of a church, the occasion of a fair. The Latinmissa is modified in all Western languages (It.messa, Sp.misa, Fr.messe, Germ.Messe, etc.). The English form before the Conquest wasmaesse, then Middle Engl.messe, masse --" It nedith not to speke of the masse ne the seruise that thei hadde that day" ("Merlin" in the Early Engl. Text Soc., II, 375) --"And whan ourparish masse was done" ("Sir Cauline", Child's Ballads, III, 175). It also existed as a verb: "to mass" was to say mass; "massing-priest" was a common term of abuse at theReformation.

It should be noted that the nameMass (missa) applies to the Eucharistic service in the Latin rites only. Neither in Latin nor in Greek has it ever been applied to any Eastern rite. For them the corresponding word isLiturgy (liturgia). It is a mistake that leads to confusion, and a scientific inexactitude, to speak of any Eastern Liturgy as a Mass.

The origin of the Mass

The Western Mass, like all Liturgies, begins, of course, with theLast Supper. What Christ then did, repeated as he commanded in memory of Him, is the nucleus of the Mass. As soon as the Faith was brought to the West theHoly Eucharist was celebrated here, as in the East. At first the language used was Greek. Out of that earliest Liturgy, the language being changed to Latin, developed the two great parent rites of the West, the Roman and the Gallican (seeLITURGY). Of these two the Gallican Mass may be traced without difficulty. It is so plainly Antiochene in its structure, in the very text of many of ifsprayers, that we are safe in accounting for it as a translated form of theLiturgy of Jerusalem-Antioch, brought to the West at about the time when the more or less fluid universal Liturgy of the first three centuries gave place to different fixed rites (seeLITURGY;GALLICAN RITE). The origin of the Roman Mass, on the other hand, is a most difficult question, We have here two fixed and certain data: the Liturgy in Greek described by St. Justin Martyr (d. c. 165), which is that of theChurch ofRome in the second century, and, at the other end of the development, the Liturgy of the first Roman Sacramentaries in Latin, in about the sixth century. The two are very different.Justin's account represents a rite of what we should now call an Eastern type, corresponding with remarkable exactness to that of the Apostolic Constitutions (seeLITURGY). The Leonine and Gelasian Sacramentaries show us what is practically our present Roman Mass. How did the service change from the one to the other? It is one of the chief difficulties in the history of liturgy. During the last few years, especially, all manner of solutions and combinations have been proposed. We will first note some points that are certain, that may serve as landmarks in an investigation.

Justin Martyr,Clement of Rome,Hippolytus (d. 235), andNovatian (c. 250) all agree in the Liturgies they describe, though the evidence of the last two is scanty (Probst, "Liturgie der drei ersten christl. Jahrhdte"; Drews, "Untersuchungen über die sogen. clement. Liturgie").Justin gives us the fullest Liturgical description of any Father of the first three centuries (Apol. I, lxv, lxvi, quoted and discussed inLITURGY). He describes how theHoly Eucharist was celebrated atRome in the middle of the second century; his account is thenecessary point of departure, one end of a chain whose intermediate links are hidden. We have hardly anyknowledge at all of what developments theRoman Rite went through during the third and fourth centuries. This is the mysterious time where conjecture may, and does, run riot. By the fifth century we come back to comparatively firm ground, after a radical change. At this time we have the fragment in Pseudo-Ambrose, "De sacramentis" (about 400. Cf. P.L., XVI, 443), and the letter ofPope Innocent I (401-17) to Decentius of Eugubium (P.L., XX, 553). In these documents we see that the Roman Liturgy is said in Latin and has already become in essence the rite we still use. A few indications of the end of the fourth century agree with this. A little later we come to the earliest Sacramentaries (Leonine, fifth or sixth century; Gelasian, sixth or seventh century) and from then the history of the Roman Mass is fairly clear. The fifth and sixth centuries therefore show us the other end of the chain. For the interval between the second and fifth centuries, during which the great change took place, although weknow so little aboutRome itself, we have valuable data fromAfrica. There is every reason to believe that inliturgical matters theChurch of Africa followedRome closely. We can supply much of what we wish toknow aboutRome from the African Fathers of the third century,Tertullian (d. c. 220),St. Cyprian (d. 258), the Acts of St. Perpetua andSt. Felicitas (203),St. Augustine (d. 430) (see Cabrol, "Dictionnaire d' archéologie", I, 591-657). The question of the change of language from Greek to Latin is less important than if might seem. It came about naturally when Greek ceased to be the usual language of the RomanChristians.Pope Victor I (190-202), an African, seems to have been the first to use Latin atRome,Novatian writes Latin. By the second half of the third century the usualliturgical language atRome seems to have been Latin (Kattenbusch, "Symbolik", II, 331), though fragments of Greek remained for many centuries. Other writers think that Latin was not finally adopted till the end of the fourth century (Probst, "Die abendländ. Messe", 5; Rietschel, "Lehrbuch der Liturgik", I, 337). No doubt, for a time both languages were used. The question is discussed at length in C. P. Caspari, "Quellen zur Gesch. des Taufsymbols u. der Glaubensregel" (Christiania, 1879), III, 267 sq. The Creed was sometimes said in Greek, some psalms were sung in that language, the lessons onHoly Saturday were read in Greek and Latin as late as the eighth century (Ordo Rom., I, P.L., LXXVIII, 966-68, 955). There are still such fragments of Greek ("Kyrie eleison", "Agios O Theos") in the Roman Mass. But a change of language does not involve a change of rite. Novatian's Latin allusions to theEucharistic prayer agree very well with those ofClement of Rome in Greek, and with the Greek forms in Apost. Const., VIII (Drews, op. cit., 107-22). The Africans,Tertullian,St. Cyprian, etc., who write Latin, describe a rite very closely related to that ofJustin and the Apostolic Constitutions (Probst, op. cit., 183-206; 215-30). TheGallican Rite, as in Germanus ofParis (Duchesne, "Origines du Culte", 180-217), shows how Eastern — how "Greek" — a Latin Liturgy can be. We must then conceive the change of language in the third century as a detail that did not much affect the development of the rite. Nodoubt the use of Latin was a factor in the Roman tendency to shorten theprayers, leave out whatever seemed redundant in formulas, and abridge the whole service. Latin is naturally terse, compared with the rhetorical abundance of Greek. This difference is one of the most obvious distinctions between the Roman and theEastern Rites.

If we may suppose that during the first three centuries there was a common Liturgy throughoutChristendom, variable, no doubt, in details, but uniform in all its main points, which common Liturgy is represented by that of the eighth book of the Apostolic Constitutions, we have in that the origin of the Roman Mass as of all otherliturgies (seeLITURGY). There are, indeed, special reasons for supposing that this type of liturgy was used atRome. The chief authorities for it (Clement,Justin,Hippolytus,Novatian) are all Roman. Moreover, even the presentRoman Rite, in spite of later modifications, retains certain elements that resemble those of the Apost. Const. Liturgy remarkably. For instance, atRome there neither is nor has been a publicOffertoryprayer. The "Oremus" said just before theOffertory is the fragment of quite another thing, the oldprayers of thefaithful, of which we still have a specimen in the series of collects onGood Friday. TheOffertory is made in silence while the choir sings part of a psalm. Meanwhile the celebrant says privateOffertoryprayers which in the old form of the Mass are the Secrets only. The older Secrets aretrueOffertoryprayers. In theByzantine Rite, on the other hand, the gifts are prepared beforehand, brought up with the singing of the Cherubikon, and offered at the altar by a public Synapte ofdeacon and people, and aprayer once sung aloud by the celebrant (now only the Ekphonesis is sung aloud). The Roman custom of a silent offertory with privateprayer is that of the Liturgy of the Apostolic Constitutions. Here too therubric says only: "Thedeacons bring the gifts to thebishop at the altar" (VIII, xii, 3) and "The Bishop,praying by himself [kath heauton, "silently"] with thepriests . . ." (VIII, xii, 4). Nodoubt in this case, too, a psalm was sung meanwhile, which would account for the unique instance of silentprayer. The Apostolic Constitutions order that at this point thedeacons should wave fans over the oblation (a practical precaution to keep away insects, VIII, xii, 3); this, too, was done atRome down to the fourteenth century (Martène, "De antiquis eccl. ritibus",Antwerp, 1763, I, 145). The Roman Mass, like the Apostolic Constitutions (VIII, xi, 12), has a washing of hands just before theOffertory. It once had akiss of peace before the Preface.Pope Innocent I, in his letter to Decentius of Eugubium (416), remarks on this older custom of placing itante confecta mysteria (before theEucharistic prayer — P.L., XX, 553). That is its place in the Apost. Const. (VIII, xi, 9). After theLord's Prayer, atRome, during the fraction, the celebrant sings: "Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum." It seems that this was the place to which thekiss of peace was first moved (as inInnocent I's letter). This greeting, unique in theRoman Rite, occurs again only in the Apostolic Constitutions (he eirene tou theou meta panton hymon). Here it comes twice: after the Intercession (VIII, xiii, 1) and at thekiss of peace (VIII, xi, 8). The two Romanprayers after the Communion, the Postcommunion and theOratio super populum (ad populum in the Gelasian Sacramentary) correspond to the twoprayers, first a thanksgiving, then aprayer over the people, in Apost. Const., VIII, xv, 1-5 and 7-9.

There is an interesting deduction that may be made from the present Roman Preface. A number of Prefaces introduce the reference to theangels (who sing the Sanctus) by the formet ideo. In many cases it is not clear to what thisideo refers. Like theigitur at the beginning of the Canon, it does not seem justified by what precedes. May we conjecture that something has been left out? The beginning of theEucharistic prayer in the Apost. Const., VIII, xii, 6-27 (the part before the Sanctus, our Preface, it is to be found in Brightman, "Liturgies, Eastern and Western", I, Oxford, 1896, 14-18), is much longer, and enumerates at length the benefits of creation and various events of theOld Law. Theangels are mentioned twice, at the beginning as the first creatures and then again at the end abruptly, without connection with what has preceded in order to introduce the Sanctus. The shortness of the Roman Prefaces seems to make it certain that they have been curtailed. All the other rites begin theEucharistic prayer (after the formula: "Let us give thanks") with a long thanksgiving for the various benefits ofGod, which are enumerated. Weknow, too, how much of the development of the Roman Mass is due to a tendency to abridge the olderprayers. If then we suppose that the Roman Preface is such an abridgement of that in the Apost. Const., with the details of the Creation andOld Testament history left out, we can account for theideo. The two references to theangels in the olderprayer have met and coalesced. Theideo refers to the omitted list of benefits, of which theangels, too, have their share. The parallel between the orders ofangels in bothliturgies is exact:

ROMAN MISSAL:
. . . . cum Angelis
et Archangelis, cum Thronis
et Dominationibus, cumque
omni militia cælestis exercitus
. . . . sine fine dicentes.

APOSTOLIC CONSTITUTIONS:
. . . .stratiai aggelon,
archallelon, . . . . thronon,
kyrioteton, . . . .
. . . . stration
aionion, . . . .
legonta akatapaustos.

Another parallel is in the old forms of the "Hanc igitur"prayer. Baumstark ("Liturgia romana", 102-07) has found two early Roman forms of thisprayer in Sacramentaries at Vauclair and Rouen, already published by Martène ("Voyage littéraire", Paris, 1724, 40) and Delisle (in Ebner, "Iteritalicum", 417), in which it is much longer and has plainly the nature of an Intercession, such as we find in the Eastern rites at the end of theAnaphora. The form is: "Hanc igitur oblationem servitutis nostræ sed et cunctæ familiæ tuæ, quæsumus Domine placatus accipias, quam tibi devoto offerimus corde pro pace et caritate et unitate sanctæ ecclesiæ, pro fide catholica . . . pro sacerdotibus et omni gradu ecclesiæ, pro regibus . . ." (Therefore, O Lord, we beseech Thee, be pleased to accept this offering of our service and of all Thy household, which we offer Thee with devout heart for the peace, charity, and unity of Holy Church, for theCatholicFaith . . . for thepriests and every order of theChurch, for kings . . .) and so on, enumerating a complete list of people for whomprayer is said. Baumstark prints these clauses parallel with those of theIntercession in various Eastern rites; most of them may be found in that of the Apost. Const. (VIII, xii, 40-50, and xiii, 3-9). This, then, supplies another missing element in the Mass. Eventually the clauses enumerating the petitions were suppressed, nodoubt because they were thought to be a useless reduplication of theprayers "Te igitur", "Communicantes", and the two Mementos (Baumstark, op. cit., 107), and the introduction of this Intercession (Hanc igitur . . . placatus accipias) was joined to what seems to have once been part of aprayer for the dead (diesque nostros in tua pace disponas, etc.).

We still have a faint echo of the old Intercession in the clause about the newly-baptized interpolated into the "Hanc igitur" atEaster andWhitsuntide. The beginning of theprayer has a parallel in Apost. Const., VIII, xiii, 3 (the beginning of thedeacon's Litany of Intercession). Drews thinks that the form quoted by Baumstark, with its clauses all beginningpro, was spoken by thedeacon as alitany, like the clauses in Apost. Const. beginninghyper (Untersuchungen über die sog. clem. Lit., 139). Theprayer containing the words of Institution in the Roman Mass (Qui pridie . . in mei memoriam facietis) has just the constructions and epithets of the corresponding text in Apost. Const., VIII, xii, 36-37. All this and many more parallels between the Mass and the Apost. Const. Liturgy may be studied in Drews (op. cit.). It istrue that we can find parallel passages with otherliturgies too, notably with that ofJerusalem (St. James). There are several forms that correspond to those of theEgyptian Rite, such as the Roman "de tuis donis ac datis" in the "Unde et memores" (St. Mark:ek ton son doron; Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", p. 133, 1. 30); "offerimus præclaræ maiestati tuæ de tuis donis ac datis", is found exactly in the Coptic form ("before thine holy glory we have set thine own gift of thine own", ibid., p. 178, 1. 15). But this does not mean merely that there are parallel passages between any two rites. The similarities of the Apost. Const. are far more obvious than those of any other. The Roman Mass, even apart from the testimony ofJustin Martyr, Clement,Hippolytus,Novatian, still bears evidence of its development from a type of liturgy of which that of the Apostolic Constitutions is the only perfect surviving specimen (seeLITURGY). There is reason to believe, moreover, that it has since been influenced both from Jerusalem-Antioch and Alexandria, though many of the forms common to it and these two may be survivals of that original, universal fluid rite which have not been preserved in the Apost. Const. It must always be remembered that no one maintains that the Apost. Const. Liturgy is word for word the primitive universal Liturgy. The thesis defended by Probst, Drews, Kattenbusch, Baumstark, and others is that there was a comparatively vague and fluid rite of which the Apost. Const. have preserved for us a specimen.

But between this originalRoman Rite (which we can study only in the Apost. Const.) and the Mass as it emerges in the firstsacramentaries (sixth to seventh century) there is a great change. Much of this change is accounted for by the Roman tendency to shorten. The Apost, Const. has five lessons;Rome has generally only two or three. AtRome theprayers of the faithful after the expulsion of thecatechumens and the Intercession at the end of the Canon have gone. Both no doubt were considered superfluous since there is a series of petitions of the same nature in the Canon. But both have left traces. We still sayOremus before theOffertory, where theprayers of the faithful once stood, and still have theseprayers onGood Friday in the collects. And the "Hanc Igitur" is a fragment of the Intercession. The first great change that separatesRome from all the Eastern rites is the influence of theecclesiastical year. The Easternliturgies remain always the same except for the lessons,Prokeimenon (Gradual-verse), and one or two other slight modifications. On the other hand the Roman Mass is profoundly affected throughout by the season or feast on which it is said. Probst's theory was that this change was made byPope Damasus (366-84; "Liturgie des vierten Jahrh.", pp. 448-72). Thisidea is now abandoned (Funk in "Tübinger Quartalschrift", 1894, pp. 683 sq.). Indeed, we have the authority ofPope Vigilius (540-55) for the fact that in the sixth century the order of the Mass was still hardly affected by the calendar ("Ep. ad Eutherium" in P.L., LXIX, 18). The influence of theecclesiastical year must have been gradual. The lessons were of course always varied, and a growing tendency to refer to the feast or season in theprayers, Preface, and even in the Canon, brought about the present state of things, already in full force in the Leonine Sacramentary. That Damasus was one of thepopes who modified the old rite seems, however, certain.St. Gregory I (590-604) says he introduced the use of theHebrewAlleluia fromJerusalem ("Ep. ad Ioh. Syracus." in P.L., LXXVII, 956). It was under Damasus that theVulgate became the official Roman version of theBible used in the Liturgy; a constant tradition ascribes to Damasus's friendSt. Jerome (d. 420) the arrangement of the Roman Lectionary. Mgr Duchesne thinks that the Canon was arranged by thispope (Origines du Culte, 168-9). A curiouserror of a Romantheologian of Damasus's time, who identifiedMelchisedech with the Holy Ghost, incidentally shows us oneprayer of our Mass as existing then, namely the "Supra quæ" with its allusion to "summus sacerdos tuus Melchisedech" ("Quæst. V. et N. Test." in P.L., XXXV, 2329).

The Mass from the fifth to the seventh century

By about the fifth century we begin to see more clearly. Two documents of this time give us fairly large fragments of the Roman Mass.Innocent I (401-17), in his letter to Decentius of Eugubium (about 416; P.L., XX, 553), alludes to many features of the Mass. We notice that these important changes have already been made: thekiss of peace has been moved from the beginning of the Mass of the Faithful to after the Consecration, the Commemoration of the Living and Dead is made in the Canon, and there are no longerprayers of the faithful before theOffertory (seeCANON OF THE MASS). Rietschel (Lehrbuch der Liturgik, I, 340-1) thinks that the Invocation of theHoly Ghost has already disappeared from the Mass.Innocent does not mention it, but we have evidence of it at a later date under Gelasius I (492-6: seeCANON OF THE MASS, s.v.Supplices te rogamus, andEPIKLESIS). Rietschel (loc. cit.) also thinks that there was a dogmatic reason for these changes, to emphasize the sacrificialidea. We notice especially that inInnocent's time theprayer ofIntercession follows the Consecration (seeCANON OF THE MASS). The author of the treatise "De Sacramentis" (wrongly attributed to St. Ambrose, in P.L., XVI, 418 sq.) says that he will explain the Roman Use, and proceeds to quote a great part of the Canon (the text is given inCANON OF THE MASS, II). From this document we can reconstruct the following scheme: The Mass of the Catechumens is still distinct from that of thefaithful, at least in theory. The people sing "Introibo ad altare Dei" as the celebrant and hisministers approach the alter (theIntroit). Then follow lessons from Scripture, chants (Graduals), and a sermon (the Catechumens Mass). The people still make theOffertory ofbread andwine. The Preface and Sanctus follow (laus Deo defertur), then theprayer of Intercession (oratione petitur pro populo, pro regibus, pro ceteris) and the Consecration by the words of Institution (ut conficitur ven. sacramentum . . . utitur sermonibus Christi). From this point (Fac nobis hanc oblationem ascriptam, ratam, rationabilem . . .) the text of the Canon is quoted. Then come theAnamnesis (Ergo memores . . .), joined to it theprayer of oblation (offerimus tibi hanc immaculatam hostiam . . .), i.e. practically our "Supra quæ"prayer, and the Communion with the form: "Corpus Christi, R. Amen", during whichPsalm 22 is sung. At the end theLord's Prayer is said.

In the "De Sacramentis" then, the Intercession comes before the Consecration, whereas inInnocent's letter it came after. This transposition should be noted as one of the most important features in the development of the Mass. The"Liber Pontificalis" (ed. Duchesne, Paris, 1886-92) contains a number of statements about changes in and additions to the Mass made by variouspopes, as for instance thatLeo I (440-61) added the words "sanctum sacrificium, immaculatam hostiam" to theprayer "Supra quæ", thatSergius I (687-701) introduced the Agnus Dei, and so on. These must be received with caution; the whole book still needs critical examination. In the case of the Agnus Dei the statement is madedoubtful by the fact that it is found in the Gregorian Sacramentary (whose date, however, is againdoubtful). A constant tradition ascribes some great influence on the Mass to Gelasius I(492-6).Gennadius (De vir. illustr. xciv) says he composed a sacramentary; theLiber Pontificalis speaks of hisliturgical work, and there must be some basis for the way in which his name is attached to the famousGelasian Sacramentary. What exactly Gelasius did is less easy to determine.

We come now to the end of a period at the reign ofSt. Gregory I (590-604).Gregoryknew the Mass practically as we still have it. There have been additions and changes since his time, but none to compare with the complete recasting of the Canon that took place before him. At least as far as the Canon is concerned,Gregory may be considered as having put the last touches to it. His biographer,John the Deacon, says that he "collected the Sacramentary of Gelasius in one book, leaving out much, changing little, adding something for the exposition of the Gospels" (Vita S. Greg., II, xvii). He moved theOur Father from the end of the Mass to before the Communion, as he says in his letter to John of Syracuse: "We say theLord's Prayer immediately after the Canon [max post precem] . . . It seems to me very unsuitable that we should say the Canon [prex] which an unknown scholar composed [quam scholasticus composuerat] over the oblation and that we should not say theprayer handed down by our Redeemer himself over His body and blood" (P.L., LXXVII, 956). He is also credited with the addition: "diesque nostros etc." to the "Hanc igitur" (ibid.; seeCANON OF THE MASS).Benedict XIV says that "nopope has added to, or changed the Canon sinceSt. Gregory" (De SS. Missæ sacrificio, p. 162). There has been an important change since, the partial amalgamation of the oldRoman Rite with Gallican features; but this hardly affects the Canon. We may say safely that a modern LatinCatholic who could be carried back toRome in the early seventh century would — while missing some features to which he is accustomed — find himself on the whole quite at home with the service he saw there.

This brings us back to the most difficult question: Why and when was the Roman Liturgy changed from what we see inJustin Martyr to that ofGregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the most important element of the Mass, the Canon. The modifications in the earlier part, the smaller number of lessons, the omission of theprayers for and expulsion of thecatechumens, of theprayers of the faithful before theOffertory and so on, may be accounted for easily as a result of the characteristic Roman tendency to shorten the service and leave out what had become superfluous. The influence of the calendar has already been noticed. But there remains the great question of the arrangement of the Canon. That the order of theprayers that make up the Canon is a cardinal difficulty is admitted by every one. The old attempts to justify their present order by symbolic or mystic reasons have now been given up. TheRoman Canon as it stands is recognized as a problem of great difficulty. It differs fundamentally from theAnaphora of any Eastern rite and from the Gallican Canon. Whereas in the Antiochenefamily ofliturgies (including that of Gaul) the great Intercession follows the Consecration, which comes at once after the Sanctus, and in the Alexandrine class the Intercession is said during what we should call the Preface before the Sanctus, in theRoman Rite the Intercession is scattered throughout the Canon, partly before and partly after the Consecration. We may add to this the other difficulty, the omission atRome of any kind of clear Invocation of the Holy Ghost (Epiklesis). Paul Drews has tried to solve this question. His theory is that the Roman Mass, starting from the primitive vaguer rite (practically that of the Apostolic Constitutions), at first followed the development of Jerusalem-Antioch, and was for a time very similar to the Liturgy of St. James. Then it was recast to bring if nearer to Alexandria. This change was made probably by Gelasius I under the influence of his guest, John Talaia of Alexandria. The theory is explained at length in the articleCANON OF THE MASS. Here we need only add that if has received in the main the support of F.X. Funk (who at first opposed it; see "Histor. Jahrbuch der Görresgesellschaft", 1903, pp. 62, 283; but see also his "Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen", III,Paderborn, 1907, pp. 85-134, in which he will not admit that he has altogether changed his mind), A. Baumstark ("Liturgia romana e Liturgia dell' Esarcato", Rome, 1904), and G. Rauschen ("Eucharistie und Bussakrament", Freiburg, 1908, p. 86). But other theories have been suggested. Baumstark does not follow Drews in the details. He conceives (op. cit.) the original Canon as consisting of a Preface in whichGod is thanked for the benefits of creation; the Sanctus interrupts theprayers, which then continue (Vere Sanctus) with aprayer (now disappeared) thankingGod for Redemption and so coming to the Institution (Pridie autem quam pateretur . . .). Then follow theAnamnesis (Unde et memores), the "Supra quæ", the "Te igitur", joined to anEpiklesis after the words "hæc sancta sacrificia illibata". Then the Intercession (In primis quæ tibi offerimus . . .), "Memento vivorum", "Communicantes", "Memento defunctorum" (Nos quoque peccatores . . . intra sanctorum tuorum consortium non æstimator meriti sed veniæ quæsumus largitor admitte, per Christum Dominum nostrum).

This order then (according to Baumstark) was dislocated by the insertion of new elements, the "Hanc Igitur", "Quam oblationem", "Supra quæ" and "Supplices", the list ofsaints in the "Nobis quoque", all of whichprayers were in some sort reduplications of what was already contained in the Canon. They represent a mixed influence of Antioch andAlexandria, which last reachedRome through Aquilea andRavenna, where there was once a rite of the Alexandrine type.St. Leo I began to make these changes;Gregory I finished the process and finally recast the Canon in the form if still has. It will be seen that Baumstark's theory agrees with that of Drews in the main issue — that atRome originally the whole Intercession followed the Canon. Dom Cagin (Paléographie musicale, V, 80 sq.) and Dom Cabrol (Origines liturgiques, 354 sq.) propose an entirely different theory. So far it has been admitted on all sides that the Roman and Gallican rites belong to different classes; theGallican Rite approaches that of Antioch very closely, the origin of the Roman one being the great problem. Cagin'sidea is that all that must be reversed, theGallican Rite has no connection at all with Antioch or any Eastern Liturgy; it is in its origin the same rite as the Roman.Rome changed this earlier form about the sixth or seventh century. Before that the order atRome was: Secrets, Preface, Sanctus, "Te igitur"; then "Hanc igitur", "Quam oblationem", "Qui pridie" (these threeprayers correspond to the Gallican Post-Sanctus). Then followed a group like the Gallican Post Pridie, namely "Unde et memores", "Offerimus praeclaræ", "Supra guæ", "Supplices", "Per eundem Christum etc.", "Per quem hæc omnia", and the Fraction. Then came theLord's Prayer with its embolism, of which the "Nobis quoque" was a part. The two Mementos were originally before the Preface. Dom Cagin has certainly pointed out a number of points in whichRome and Gaul (that is all the Western rites) stand together as opposed to the East. Such points are the changes caused by the calendar, the introduction of the Institution by the words "Qui pridie", whereas all Eastern Liturgies have the form "In thenight in which he was betrayed". Moreover the place of thekiss of peace (in Gaul before the Preface) cannot be quoted as a difference betweenRome and Gaul, since, as we have seen it stood originally in that place atRome too. The Gallicandiptychs come before the Preface; but no one knows for certain where they were said originally atRome. Cagin puts them in the same place in the earlier Roman Mass. His theory may be studied further in Dom Cabrol's "Origines liturgiques", where if is very clearly set out (pp. 353-64). Mgr Duchesne has attacked it vigorously and not without effect in the "Revue d'histoire et de litérature ecclésiastiques" (1900), pp. 31 sq. Mr. Edmund Bishop criticizes the German theories (Drews, Baumstark etc.), and implies in general terms that the whole question of the grouping ofliturgies will have to be reconsidered on a new basis, that of the form of the words of Institution (Appendix to Dom R. Connolly's "Liturgical Homilies of Narsai" in "Cambridge Texts and Studies", VIII, I, 1909). If is to be regretted that he has not told us plainly what position he means to defend, and that he is here again content with merely negative criticism. The other great question, that of the disappearance of the RomanEpiklesis, cannot be examined here (seeCANON OF THE MASS andEPIKLESIS). We will only add to what has been said in those articles that the view is growing that there was an Invocation of the Second Person of theHoly Trinity, anEpiklesis of the Logos, before there was one of the Holy Ghost. TheAnaphora of Serapion (fourth century inEgypt) contains such anEpiklesis of the Logos only (in Funk, "Didascalia", II,Paderborn, 1905, pp. 174-6). Mr. Bishop (in the above-named Appendix) thinks that the Invocation of the Holy Ghost did not arise till later (Cyril of Jerusalem, about 350, being the first witness for it), thatRome never had it, that her onlyEpiklesis was the "Quam oblationem" before the words of Institution. Against this we must set what seems to be the convincing evidence ofGelasius I's letter (quoted inCANON OF THE MASS, s.v.Supplices te rogamus).

We have then as the conclusion of this paragraph that atRome theEucharistic prayer was fundamentally changed and recast at some uncertain period between the fourth and the sixth and seventh centuries. During the same time theprayers of the faithful before theOffertory disappeared, thekiss of peace was transferred to after the Consecration, and theEpiklesis was omitted or mutilated into our "Supplices"prayer. Of the various theories suggested to account for this it seems reasonable to say with Rauschen: "Although the question is by no means decided, nevertheless there is so much in favour of Drews's theory that for the present it must be considered the right one. We must then admit that between the years 400 and 500 a great transformation was made in theRoman Canon" (Euch. u. Bussakr., 86).

From the seventh century to modern times

AfterGregory the Great (590-604) it is comparatively easy to follow the history of the Mass in theRoman Rite. We have now as documents first the three well-knownsacramentaries. The oldest, calledLeonine, exists in a seventh-centurymanuscript. Its composition is ascribed variously to the fifth, sixth, or seventh century (seeLITURGICAL BOOKS). It is a fragment, wanting the Canon, but, as far as it goes, represents the Mass weknow (without the later Gallican additions). Many of its collects, secrets, post-communions, and prefaces are still in use. TheGelasian book was written in the sixth, seventh, or eighth century (ibid.); it is partly Gallicanized and was composed in theFrankish Kingdom. Here we have our Canon word for word. The third sacramentary, calledGregorian, is apparently the book sent byPope Adrian I toCharlemagne probably between 781 and 791 (ibid.). It contains additional Masses sinceGregory's time and a set of supplements gradually incorporated into the original book, givingFrankish (i.e. older Roman and Gallican) additions. Dom Suitbert Bäumer ("Ueber das sogen. Sacram. Gelasianum" in the "Histor. Jahrbuch", 1893, pp. 241-301) and Mr. Edmund Bishop ("The Earliest Roman Massbook" in "Dublin Review", 1894, pp. 245-78) explain the development of theRoman Rite from the ninth to the eleventh century in this way: The (pure) Roman Sacramentary sent by Adrian toCharlemagne was ordered by the king to be used alone throughout theFrankish Kingdom. But the people were attached to their old use, which was partly Roman (Gelasian) and partly Gallican. So when the Gregorian book was copied they (notablyAlcuin d. 804) added to it theseFrankish supplements. Gradually the supplements became incorporated into the original book. So composed it came back toRome (through the influence of theCarlovingian emperors) and became the "use of theRoman Church". The "Missale Romanum Lateranense" of the eleventh century (ed. Azevedo, Rome, 1752) shows this fused rite complete as the only one in use atRome. The Roman Mass has thus gone through this last change sinceGregory the Great, a partial fusion with Gallican elements. According to Bäumer and Bishop the Gallican influence is noticeable chiefly in the variations for the course of the year. Their view is thatGregory had given the Mass more uniformity (since the time of the Leonine book), had brought it rather to the model of the unchanging Easternliturgies. Its present variety for different days and seasons came back again with the mixed books later. Gallican influence is also seen in many dramatic and symbolic ceremonies foreign to the stern pureRoman Rite (see Bishop, "The Genius of theRoman Rite"). Such ceremonies are the blessing of candles, ashes, palms, much of theHoly Week ritual, etc.

The Roman Ordines, of which twelve were published byMabillon in his "Museum Italicum" (others since byDe Rossi and Duchesne), are valuable sources that supplement thesacramentaries. They are descriptions of ceremonial without theprayers (like the "Cærimoniale Episcoporum"), and extend from the eighth to the fourteenth or fifteenth centuries. The first (eighth century) and second (based on the first, withFrankish additions) are the most important (seeLITURGICAL BOOKS). From these and thesacramentaries we can reconstruct the Mass atRome in the eighth or ninth century. There were as yet no preparatoryprayers said before the altar. Thepope, attended by a great retinue ofdeacons,subdeacons,acolytes, and singers, entered while theIntroit psalm was sung. After a prostration theKyrie eleison was sung, as now with nine invocations (seeKYRIE ELEISON); any otherlitany had disappeared. The Gloria followed on feasts (see GLORIA IN EXCELSIS). Thepope sang theprayer of the day (seeCOLLECT), two or three lessons followed (seeLESSONS IN THE LITURGY), Interspersed with psalms (seeGRADUAL). Theprayers of the faithful had gone, leaving only the one wordOremus as a fragment. The people brought up thebread andwine while theOffertory psalm was sung; the gifts were arranged on the altar by thedeacons. The Secret was said (at that time the onlyOffertoryprayer) after thepope had washed his hands. The Preface, Sanctus, and all the Canon followed as now. A reference to the fruits of the earth led to the words "per quem hæc omnia" etc. Then came theLord's Prayer, the Fraction with a complicatedceremony, thekiss of peace, the Agnus Dei (sincePope Sergius, 687-701), the Communion under both kinds, during which the Communion psalm was sung (see COMMUNION-ANTIPHON), the Post-Communionprayer, the dismissal (seeITE MISSA EST), and the procession back to thesacristy (for a more detailed account see C. Atchley, "Ordo Romanus Primus", London, 1905; Duchesne, "Origines du Culte chrétien", vi).

It has been explained how this (mixed)Roman Rite gradually drove out theGallican Use (seeLITURGY). By about the tenth or eleventh century the Roman Mass was practically the only one in use in the West. Then a few additions (none of them very important) were made to the Mass at different times. TheNicene Creed is an importation from Constantinople. It is said that in 1014 Emperor Henry II (1002-24) persuadedPope Benedict VIII (1012-24) to add it after the Gospel (Berno of Reichenau, "De quibusdam rebus ad Missæ offic. pertin.", ii), It had already been adopted inSpain,Gaul, andGermany. All the present ritual and theprayers said by the celebrant at theOffertory were introduced fromFrance about the thirteenth century ("Ordo Rom. XIV", liii, is the first witness; P.L., LXXVIII, 1163-4); before that the secrets were the onlyOffertoryprayers ("Micrologus", xi, in P.L., CLI, 984). There was considerable variety as to theseprayers throughout theMiddle Ages until the revisedMissal ofPius V (1570). Theincensing ofpersons and things is again due to Gallican influence; It was not adopted atRome till the eleventh or twelfth century (Micrologus, ix). Before that timeincense was burned only during processions (the entrance and Gospel procession; see C. Atchley, "Ordo Rom. Primus", 17-18). The threeprayers said by the celebrant before his communion areprivate devotions introduced gradually into the official text. Durandus (thirteenth century, "Rationale," IV, liii) mentions the first (for peace); theSarum Rite had instead anotherprayer addressed toGod the Father ("Deus Pater fons et origo totius bonitatis," ed. Burntisland, 625). Micrologus mentions only the second (D. I. Chr. qui ex voluntate Patris), but says that many other privateprayers were said at this place (xviii). Here too there was great diversity through theMiddle Ages tillPius V'sMissal. The latest additions to the Mass are its present beginning and end. The psalm "Iudica me", the Confession, and the otherprayers said at the foot of the altar, are all part of the celebrant's preparation, once said (with many other psalms andprayers) in thesacristy, as the "Præparatio ad Missam" in theMissal now is. There was great diversity as to this preparation tillPius V established our modern rule of saying so much only before the altar. In the same way all that follows the "Ite missa est" is an afterthought, part of the thanksgiving, not formally admitted tillPius V.

We have thus accounted for all the elements of the Mass. The next stage of its development is the growth of numerous local varieties of the Roman Mass in theMiddle Ages. Thesemedieval rites (Paris,Rouen,Trier, Sarum, and so on all over WesternEurope) are simply exuberant local modifications of the old Roman rite. The same applies to the particular uses of variousreligious orders (Carthusians,Dominicans,Carmelites etc.). None of these deserves to be called even a derived rite; their changes are only ornate additions and amplifications; though certain special points, such as theDominican preparation of the offering before the Mass begins, represent more Gallican influence. TheMilanese and Mozarabicliturgies stand on quite a different footing; they are the descendants of a really different rite — the original Gallican — though they too have been considerably Romanized (seeLITURGY).

Meanwhile the Mass was developing in other ways also. During the first centuries it had been a common custom for a number ofpriests toconcelebrate; standing around theirbishop, they joined in hisprayers andconsecrated the oblation with him. This is still common in the Eastern rites. In the West it had become rare by the thirteenth century.St. Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) discusses the question, "Whether severalpriests canconsecrate one and the same host" (Summa Theol., III, Q. lxxxii, a. 2). He answers of course that they can, but quotes as an example only the case ofordination. In this case only has the practice been preserved. At theordination ofpriests andbishops all theordained concelebrate with the ordainer. In other cases concelebration was in the earlyMiddle Ages replaced by separate private celebrations. Nodoubt the custom of offering each Mass for a special intention helped to bring about this change. The separate celebrations then involved the building of many altars in one church and the reduction of the ritual to the simplest possible form. Thedeacon andsubdeacon were in this case dispensed with; the celebrant took their part as well as his own. One server took the part of the choir and of all the otherministers, everything was said instead of being sung, theincense andkiss of peace were omitted. So we have the well-known rite oflow Mass (missa privata). This then reacted onhigh Mass (missa solemnis), so that at high Mass too the celebrant himself recites everything, even though it be also sung by thedeacon,subdeacon, or choir.

The custom of the intention of the Mass further led to Mass being said every day by eachpriest. But this has by no means been uniformly carried out. On the one hand, we hear of an abuse of the samepriest sayingMass several times in the day, whichmedieval councils constantly forbid. Again, many mostpiouspriests did not celebrate daily.Bossuet (d. 1704), for instance, saidMass only onSundays, Feasts, every day inLent, and at other times when a specialferial Mass is provided in theMissal. There is still noobligation for apriest to celebrate daily, though the custom is now very common. TheCouncil of Trent desired thatpriests should celebrate at least onSundays and solemn feasts (Sess. XXIII, cap. xiv). Celebration with no assistants at all (missa solitaria) has continually been forbidden, as by the Synod ofMainz in 813. Another abuse was themissa bifaciata or trifaciata, in which the celebrant said the first part, from theIntroit to the Preface, several times over and then joined to all one Canon, in order to satisfy several intentions. This too was forbidden bymedieval councils (Durandus, "Rationale", IV, i, 22). Themissa sicca (dry Mass) was a common form of devotion used for funerals or marriages in the afternoon, when a real Mass could not be said. It consisted of all the Mass except theOffertory, Consecration and Communion (Durandus, ibid., 23). Themissa nautica andmissa venatoria, said at sea in rough weather and for hunters in a hurry, were kinds of dry Masses. In somemonasteries eachpriest wasobliged to say a dry Mass after the real (conventual) Mass.Cardinal Bona (Rerum liturg. libr. duo, I, xv) argues against the practice of saying dry Masses. Since the reform ofPius V it has gradually disappeared. The Mass of thePresanctified (missa præsanctificatorum,leitourgia ton proegiasmenon) is a very old custom described by theQuinisext Council (Second Trullan Synod, 692). It is a Service (not really a Mass at all) of Communion from an oblationconsecrated at a previous Mass and reserved. It is used in theByzantine Church on the week-days ofLent (except Saturdays); in theRoman Rite only onGood Friday.

Finally came uniformity in the oldRoman Rite and the abolition of nearly all themedieval variants. TheCouncil of Trent considered the question and formed a commission to prepare a uniformMissal. Eventually theMissal was published byPius V by theBull "Quo primum" (still printed in it) of 14 July 1570. That is really the last stage of the history of the Roman Mass. It isPius V'sMissal that is used throughout theLatin Church, except in a few cases where he allowed a modified use that had a prescription of at least two centuries. This exception saved the variants used by somereligious orders and a few local rites as well as theMilanese and Mozarabicliturgies.Clement VIII (1604),Urban VIII (1634), andLeo XIII (1884) revised the book slightly in therubrics and the texts of Scripture (seeLITURGICAL BOOKS).Pius X has revised the chant (1908.) But these revisions leave it still theMissal ofPius V. There has been since the earlyMiddle Ages unceasing change in the sense of additions of masses for new feasts, theMissal now has a number of supplements that still grow (LITURGICAL BOOKS), but liturgically these additions represent no real change. The new Masses are all built up exactly on the lines of the older ones.

We turn now to the present Roman Mass, without comparison the most important and widespread, as it is in many ways the most archaic service of theHoly Eucharist inChristendom.

The present Roman Mass

It is not the object of this paragraph to give instruction as to how the Roman Mass is celebrated. The very complicated rules of all kinds, the minuterubrics that must be obeyed by the celebrant and hisministers, all the details of coincidence and commemoration — these things, studied at length by students before they areordained, must be sought in a book of ceremonial (Le Vavasseur, quoted in the bibliography, is perhaps now the best). Moreover, articles on all the chief parts of the Mass, describing how they are carried out, and others on vestments, music, and the other ornaments of the service, will be found in THE CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA. It will be sufficient here to give a general outline of the arrangement. The ritual of the Mass is affected by (1) theperson who celebrates, (2) the day or the special occasion on which it is said, (3) the kind of Mass (high or low) celebrated. But in all cases the general scheme is the same. The normal ideal may be taken as high Mass sung by apriest on an ordinary Sunday or feast that has no exceptional feature.

Normally, Mass must be celebrated in aconsecrated or blessed Church (privateoratories or even rooms are allowed for special reasons: see Le Vavasseur, I, 200-4) and at aconsecrated altar (or at least on aconsecratedaltar-stone), and may be celebrated on any day in the year exceptGood Friday (restrictions are made against private celebrations onHoly Saturday and in the case of privateoratories for certain great feasts) at any time between dawn and midday. Apriest may say only one Mass each day, except that onChristmas Day he may say three, and the first may (or rather, should) then be said immediately after midnight. In some countries (Spain andPortugal) apriest may also celebrate three times onAll Souls' Day (2 November). Bishops may give leave to apriest to celebrate twice onSundays and feasts ofobligation, if otherwise the people could not fulfil theirduty of hearingMass. Incathedral and collegiate churches, as well as in those ofreligious orders who are bound to say the Canonical Hours every day publicly, there is a daily Mass corresponding to the Office and forming with it the complete cycle of the public worship ofGod. This official public Mass is called theconventual Mass; if possible it should be a high Mass, but, even if it be not, it always has some of the features of high Mass. The time for this conventual Mass on feasts andSundays is afterTerce has been said in choir. On Simples and feriæ the time is after Sext; on feriæ ofAdvent,Lent, on Vigils and Ember days after None. Votive Masses and the Requiem onAll Souls' Day are said also after None; but ordinary requiems are said after Prime. The celebrant of Mass must be in the state of grace,fasting from midnight, free of irregularity and censure, and must observe all therubrics andlaws concerning the matter (azyme bread and pure wine), vestments, vessels, andceremony.

The scheme of high Mass is this: the procession comes to the altar, consisting of thurifer,acolytes, master of ceremonies,subdeacon,deacon, and celebrant, all vested as therubrics direct (seeVESTMENTS). First, the preparatoryprayers are said at the foot of the altar; the altar isincensed, the celebrant reads at the south (Epistle) side theIntroit and Kyrie. Meanwhile the choir sing theIntroit and Kyrie. On days on which the "Te Deum" is said in the office, the celebrant intones the "Gloria in excelsis", which is continued by the choir. Meanwhile he, thedeacon, andsubdeacon recite it, after which they may sit down till the choir has finished. After the greeting"Dominus vobiscum", and its answer "Et cum spiritu tuo", the celebrant chants the collect of the day, and after it as many more collects as are required either to commemorate other feasts or occasions, or are to be said by order of thebishop, or (on lesser days) are chosen by himself at his discretion from the collection in theMissal, according to therubrics. Thesubdeacon chants the Epistle and the choir sings the Gradual. Both are read by the celebrant at the altar, according to the present law that he is also to recite whatever is sung by any one else. Heblesses theincense, says the "Munda Cor meum"prayer, and reads the Gospel at the north (Gospel) side. Meanwhile thedeacon prepares to sing the Gospel. He goes in procession with thesubdeacon, thurifer, andacolytes to a place on the north of the choir, and there chants it, thesubdeacon holding the book, unless anambo be used. If there is a sermon, if should be preached immediately after the Gospel. This is the traditional place for thehomily, after the lessons (Justin Martyr, "I Apolog.", lxvii, 4). OnSundays and certain feasts the Creed is sung next, just as was the Gloria. At this point, before or after the Creed (which is a later introduction, as we have seen), ends in theory the Mass of the Catechumens. The celebrant at the middle of the altar chants"Dominus vobiscum" and "Oremus" — the last remnant of the oldprayers of thefaithful. Then follows theOffertory. The bread is offered toGod with theprayer "Suscipe sancte Pater"; thedeacon pours wine into thechalice and thesubdeacon water. Thechalice is offered by the celebrant in the same way as the bread (Offerimus tibi Domine), after which the gifts, the altar, the celebrant,ministers, and people are allincensed. Meanwhile the choir sings theOffertory. The celebrantwashes his hands saying the"Lavabo". After another offertoryprayer (Suscipe sancta Trinitas), and an address to the people (Orate fratres) with its answer, which is not sung (it is a late addition), the celebrant says the secrets, corresponding to the collects. The last secret ends with anEkphonesis (Per omnia sæcula sæculorum). This is only a warning of what is coming. Whenprayers began to be said silently, it still remainednecessary to mark their ending, that people mightknow what is going on. So the last clauses were said or sung aloud. This so-calledEkphonesis is much developed in the Eastern rites. In the Roman Mass there are three cases of it — always the words: "Per omnia sæcula sæculorum", to which the choir answers "Amen". After the Ekphonesis of the Secret comes the dialogue, "Sursum Cords", etc., used with slight variations in all rites, and so the beginning of theEucharistic prayer which we call the Preface, no longer counted as part of the Canon. The choir sings and the celebrant says the Sanctus. Then follows the Canon, beginning "Te Igitur" and ending with an ekphonesis before theLord's Prayer. All its parts are described in the articleCANON OF THE MASS. TheLord's Prayer follows, introduced by a little clause (Præceptis salutaribus moniti) and followed by an embolism (seeLIBERA NOS), said silently and ending with the third ekphonesis. The Fraction follows with the versicle "Pax domini sit semper vobiscum", meant to introduce thekiss of peace. The choir sings the Agnus Dei, which is said by the celebrant together with the first Communionprayer, before he gives thekiss to thedeacon. He then says the two other Communionprayers, and receives Communion under both kinds. The Communion of the people (now rare at high Mass) follows. Meanwhile the choir sings the Communion (seeCOMMUNION ANTIPHON). Thechalice is purified and the post-Communions are sung, corresponding to the collects and secrets. Like the collects, they are introduced by the greeting"Dominus vobiscum" and its answer, and said at the south side. After another greeting by the celebrant thedeacon sings the dismissal (seeITE MISSA EST). There still follow, however, three later additions, a blessing by the celebrant, a shortprayer thatGod may be pleased with the sacrifice (Placeat tibi) and the Last Gospel, normally the beginning of St. John (seeGOSPEL IN THE LITURGY). The procession goes back to thesacristy.

This high Mass is the norm; it is only in the complete rite withdeacon andsubdeacon that the ceremonies can be understood. Thus, therubrics of the Ordinary of the Mass always suppose that the Mass is high. Low Mass, said by apriest alone with one server, is a shortened and simplified form of the same thing. Its ritual can be explained only by a reference to high Mass. For instance, the celebrant goes over to the north side of the altar to read the Gospel, because that is the side to which thedeacon goes in procession at high Mass; he turns round always by the right, because at high Mass he should not turn his back to thedeacon and so on. Asung Mass (missa Cantata) is a modern compromise. It is really a lowMass, since the essence of high Mass is not the music but thedeacon andsubdeacon. Only in churches which have noordainedperson except onepriest, and in which high Mass is thus impossible, is it allowed to celebrate the Mass (onSundays and feasts) with most of the adornment borrowed from high Mass, with singing and (generally) withincense. The Sacred Congregation of Rites has on several occasions (9 June, 1884; 7 December, 1888) forbidden the use ofincense at a Missa Cantata; nevertheless, exceptions have been made for severaldioceses, and the custom of using it is generally tolerated (Le Vavasseur, op. cit., I, 514-5). In this case, too, the celebrant takes the part ofdeacon andsubdeacon; there is nokiss of peace.

The ritual of the Mass is further affected by the dignity of the celebrant, whetherbishop or onlypriest. There is something to be said for taking thepontifical Mass as the standard, and explaining that of the simplepriest as a modified form, just as lowMass is a modified form of high Mass. On the other hand historically the case is not parallel throughout; some of the more elaborate pontificalceremony is an after-thought, an adornment added later. Here it need only be said that the main difference of thepontifical Mass (apart from some special vestments) is that thebishop remains at his throne (except for the preparatoryprayers at the altar steps and theincensing of the altar) till theOffertory; so in this case the change from the Mass of the Catechumens to that of the Faithful is still clearly marked. He also does not put on themaniple till after the preparatoryprayers, again an archaic touch that marks them as being outside the original service. At lowMass thebishop's rank is marked only by a few unimportant details and by the later assumption of themaniple. Certainprelates, notbishops, use some pontifical ceremonies at Mass. Thepope again has certain special ceremonies in his Mass, of which some represent remnants of older customs, Of these we note especially that he makes his Communion seated on the throne and drinks theconsecrated wine through a little tube calledfistula.

Durandus (Rationale, IV, i) and all the symbolic authors distinguish various parts of the Mass according to mystic principles. Thus it has four parts corresponding to the four kinds ofprayer named in1 Timothy 2:1. It is anObsecratio from theIntroit to theOffertory, anOratio from theOffertory to thePater Noster, aPostulatio to the Communion, aGratiarum actio from then to the end (Durandus, ibid.; seeSACRIFICE OF THE MASS). The Canon especially has been divided according to all manner of systems, some very ingenious. But the distinctions that are really important to the student of liturgy are, first the historic division between the Mass of the Catechumens and Mass of the Faithful, already explained, and then the great practical distinction between the changeable and unchangeable parts. The Mass consists of an unchanged framework into which at certain fixed points the variableprayers, lessons, and chants are fitted. The two elements are theCommon and theProper of the day (which, however, may again be taken from a common Mass provided for a number of similar occasions, as are the Commons of various classes ofsaints). The Common is the Ordinary of the Mass (Ordinarium Missae), now printed and inserted in theMissal betweenHoly Saturday andEaster Day. Every Mass is fitted into that scheme; to follow Mass one must first find that. In it occurrubrics directing that something is to be said or sung, which is not printed at this place. The firstrubric of this kind occurs after theincensing at the beginning: "Then the Celebrant signing himself with thesign of the Cross begins theIntroit." But noIntroit follows. He mustknow what Mass he is to say and find theIntroit, and all the other proper parts, under their heading among the large collection of masses that fill the book. These proper or variable parts are first the four chants of the choir, theIntroit, Gradual (or tract,Alleluia, and perhaps after it a Sequence),Offertory, and Communion; then the lessons (Epistle, Gospel, sometimesOld Testament lessons too), then theprayers said by the celebrant (Collect, Secret,post-communion; often several of each to commemorate other feasts or days). By fitting these into their places in the Ordinary the whole Mass is put together. There are, however, two other elements that occupy an intermediate place between the Ordinary and the Proper. These are the Preface and a part of the Canon. We have now only eleven prefaces, ten special ones and a common preface. They do not then change sufficiently to be printed over and over again among the proper Masses, so all are inserted in the Ordinary; from them naturally the right one must be chosen according to therubrics. In the same way, five great feasts have a special clause in theCommunicantesprayer in the Canon, two (Easter andWhitsunday) have a special "Hanc Igitur"prayer, one day (Maundy Thursday) affects the "Qui pridie" form. These exceptions are printed after the corresponding prefaces; butMaundy Thursday, as it occurs only once, is to be found in the Proper of the day (seeCANON OF THE MASS).

It is these parts of the Mass that vary, and, because of them, we speak of the Mass of such a day or of such a feast. To be able to find the Mass for any given day requiresknowledge of a complicated set of rules. These rules are given in therubrics at the beginning of theMissal. In outline the system is this. First a Mass is provided for every day in the year, according to the seasons of theChurch. Ordinary week days (feriæ) have the Mass of the preceding Sunday with certain regular changes; but feriæ ofLent, rogation andember days, and vigils have special Masses. All this makes up the first part of theMissal calledProprium de tempore. The year is then overladen, as it were, by a great quantity of feasts ofsaints or of special events determined by the day of the month (these make up theProprium Sanctorum). Nearly every day in the year is now a feast of some kind; often there are several on one day. There is then constantlycoincidence (concurrentia) of several possible Masses on one day. There are cases in which two or more conventual Masses are said, one for each of the coinciding offices. Thus, on feriæ that have a special office, if a feast occurs as well, the Mass of the feast is said afterTerce, that of the feria after None. If a feast falls on the Eve ofAscension Day there are three Conventual Masses — of the feast afterTerce, of the Vigil after Sext, of Rogation day after None. But, in churches that have no official conventual Mass and in the case of thepriest who says Mass for his own devotion, one only of the coinciding Masses is said, the others being (usually) commemorated by saying their collects, secrets, and post-Communions after those of the Mass chosen. Toknow which Mass to choose one mustknow their various degrees of dignity. All days or feasts are arranged in this scale: feria, simple, semidouble double, greater double, double of the second class, double of the first class. The greater feast then is the one kept: by transferring feasts to the next free day, it is arranged that two feasts of the same rank do not coincide. Certain important days are privileged, so that a higher feast cannot displace them. Thus nothing can displace the firstSundays ofAdvent andLent, Passion andPalm Sundays. These are the so-called first-classSundays. In the same way nothing can displaceAsh Wednesday or any day ofHoly Week. Other days (for instance the so-called second-classSundays, that is the others inAdvent andLent, andSeptuagesima,Sexagesima, andQuinquagesima) can only be replaced by doubles of the first class. OrdinarySundays count as semidoubles, but have precedence over other semidoubles. The days of an octave are semidoubles; the octave day is a double. The octaves of Epiphany,Easter, and Pentecost (the original three greatest feasts of all) are closed against any other feast. The displaced feast is commemorated, except in the case of a great inferiority: the rules for this are given among the "Rubricæ generales" of theMissal (VII: de Commemorationibus). On semidoubles and days below that in rank other collects are always added to that of the day to make up an uneven number. Certain ones are prescribed regularly in theMissal, the celebrant may add others at his discretion. Thebishop of thediocese may also order collects for special reasons (the so-calledOrationes imperat ). As a general rule the Mass must correspond to the Office of the day, including its commemorations. But theMissal contains a collection ofVotive Masses, that may be said on days not above a semidouble in rank. Thebishop orpope may order a Votive Mass for a public cause to be said on any day but the very highest. All these rules are explained in detail by Le Vavasseur (op. cit., I, 216-31) as well as in therubrics of theMissal (Rubr. gen., IV). There are two other Masses which, inasmuch as they do not correspond to the office, may be considered a kind of Votive Mass: theNuptial Mass (missa pro sponso et sponsa), said at weddings, and theRequiem Mass, said for thefaithful departed, which have a number of special characteristics (seeNUPTIAL MASS and REQUIEM MASS). The calendar (Ordo) published yearly in eachdiocese or province gives the office and Mass for every day. (Concerning Mass stipends, seeSACRIFICE OF THE MASS.)

That the Mass, around which such complicated rules have grown, is the central feature of theCatholic religion hardly needs to be said, During theReformation and always the Mass has been the test. The word of theReformers: "It is the Mass that matters", wastrue. The Cornish insurgents in 1549 rose against the new religion, and expressed their whole cause in their demand to have thePrayer-book Communion Service taken away and the old Mass restored. The longpersecution ofCatholics inEngland took the practical form oflaws chiefly against sayingMass; for centuries the occupant of the English throne wasobliged to manifest hisProtestantism, not by a general denial of the whole system ofCatholicdogma but by a formal repudiation of thedoctrine ofTransubstantiation and of the Mass. As union withRome is the bond betweenCatholics, so is our common share in this, the most venerable rite inChristendom, the witness and safeguard of that bond. It is by his share in the Mass in Communion that theCatholic proclaims his union with the great Church. Asexcommunication means the loss of that right in those who are expelled so the Mass and Communion are the visible bond between people,priest, andbishop, who are all one body who share the one Bread.

CONTACT US |ADVERTISE WITH NEW ADVENT