 |
|
| A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z |
Ritus in classical Latin in means primarily, the form and manner of any religious observance, so Livy, 1, 7: "Sacra diis aliis albano ritu, græco Herculi ut ab Evandro instituta erant (Romulus) facit"; then, in general, any custom or usage. In English the word "rite" ordinarily means, the ceremonies,prayers, and functions of any religious body, whetherpagan, Jewish,Moslem, orChristian. But here we must distinguish two uses of the word. We speak of any one such religious function as a rite — the rite of the blessing of palms, thecoronation rite, etc. In a slightly different sense we call the whole complex of the services of any Church or group of Churches a rite-thus we speak of theRoman Rite, Byzantine Rite, and various Eastern rites. In the latter sense the word is often considered equivalent toliturgy, which, however, in the older and more proper use of the word is the Eucharistic Service, or Mass; hence for a whole series of religious functions "rite" is preferable.
AChristian rite, in this sense comprises the manner of performing all services for the worship ofGod and the sanctification of men. This includes therefore: (1) the administration ofsacraments, among which the service of theHoly Eucharist, as being also the Sacrifice, is the most important element of all; (2) the series of psalms, lessons,prayers, etc., divided into unities, called "hours", to make up together theDivine Office; (3) all other religious andecclesiastical functions, calledsacramentals. This general term includesblessings ofpersons (such as acoronation, the blessing of anabbot, various ceremonies performed forcatechumens, the reconciliation of public penitents, Benediction of theBlessed Sacrament etc.),blessings of things (theconsecration of a church, altar,chalice, etc.), and a number of devotions and ceremonies, e.g. processions and the taking ofvows. Sacraments, theDivine Office, andsacramentals (in a wide sense) make up the rite of anyChristian religious body. In the case ofProtestants these three elements must be modified to suit theirtheological opinions.
TheCatholicChurch has never maintained a principle of uniformity in rite. Just as there are different locallaws in various parts of theChurch, whereas certain fundamentallaws are obeyed by all, soCatholics in different places have, their own local or national rites; they sayprayers and perform ceremonies that have evolved to suit people of the various countries, and are only different expressions of the same fundamentaltruths. The essential elements of the functions are obviously the same everywhere, and are observed by allCatholic rites in obedience to the command of Christ and the Apostles, thus in every rite is administered with water and the invocation of theHoly Trinity; theHoly Eucharist is celebrated withbread andwine over which the words of institution are said; penance involves the confession ofsins. In the amplification of these essential elements in the accompanyingprayers and practical or ceremonies, various customs have produced the changes which make the different rites. If any rite did not contain one of the essential notes of the service it would be invalid in that point, if itsprayers or ceremonies expressedfalse doctrine it would heheretical. Such rites would not be tolerated in theCatholicChurch. But, supposing uniformity in essentials and infaith, the authority of theChurch has never insisted on uniformity of rite;Rome has never resented the fact that other people have their own expressions of the sametruths. TheRoman Rite is the most, venerable, the most archaic, and immeasurably the most important of all, but our fellowCatholics in the East have the same right to their traditionalliturgies as we have to ours. Nor can wedoubt that other rites too have many beautifulprayers and ceremonies which add to the richness ofCatholicliturgical inheritance. To lose these would be a misfortune second only to the loss of theRoman Rite.Leo XIII in hisEncyclical, "Præclara" (20 June, 1894), expressed the traditional attitude of thepapacy when he wrote of his reverence for the venerable able rites of theEastern Churches and assured the schismatics, whom be invited to reunion, that there was no jealousy of these things atRome; that for all Eastern customs "we shall provide without narrowness."
At the time of the Schism, Photius andCerularius hurled against Latin rites and customs every conceivable absurd accusation. The Latin fast on Saturday,Lenten fare,law of celibacy, confirmation by abishop, and especially the use of unleavened bread for theHoly Eucharist were their accusations against the West. Latintheologians replied that both were right and suitable, each for the people who used them, that there was no need for uniformity in rite if there was unity infaith, that one good custom did not prove another to be bad, thus defending their customs without attacking those of the East. But the Byzantine patriarch was breaking theunity of the Church, denying the primacy, and plunging the East intoschism. In 1054, whenCerularius'sschism had begun, aLatinbishop, Dominic of Gradus and Aquileia, wrote concerning it to Peter III of Antioch. He discussed the questionCerularius had raised, the use ofazymes at Mass, and carefully explained that, in using this bread, Latins did not intend to disparage the Eastern custom of consecrating leavened bread, for there is a symbolic reason for either practice. "Because weknow that the sacred mixture of fermented bread is used and lawfully observed by the most holy andorthodox Fathers of theEastern Churches, we faithfully approve of both customs and confirm both by a spiritual explanation" (Will, "Acta et scripta quæ de controversiis ecclesiæ græcæ et latinæ sæc. XI composite extant", Leipzig, 1861, 207). These words represent very well the attitude of thepapacy towards other rites at all times. Three points, however, may seem opposed to this and therefore require some explanation: the supplanting of the oldGallican Rite by that ofRome almost throughout the West, the modification ofUniat rites, the suppression of the latermedieval rites.
The existence of theGallican Rite was a unique anomaly. The natural principle that rite followspatriarchate has been sanctioned by universal tradition with this one exception. Since the first organization ofpatriarchates there has been an ideal of uniformity throughout each. The close bond that joinedbishops andmetropolitans to their patriarch involved the use of his liturgy, just as thepriests of adiocese follow the rite of theirbishop. Before the arbitrary imposition of the Byzantine Rite on all Orthodox Churches no Eastern patriarch would have tolerated a foreign liturgy in his domain. AllEgypt used the Alexandrine Rite, allSyria that of Antioch-Jerusalem, allAsia Minor,Greece, and the Balkan lands, that of Constantinople. But in the vast Western lands that make up the Romanpatriarchate, north of the Alps and inSpain, various local rites developed, all bearing a strong resemblance to each other, yet different from that ofRome itself. These form the Gallicanfamily ofliturgies. Abbot Cabrol, Dom Cagin, and other writers of theirschool think that theGallican Rite was really the originalRoman Rite beforeRome modified it Paléographie musicale V,Solesmes, 1889; Cabrol, Les origines liturgiquesParis 1906). Most writers, however, maintain with Mgr Duchesne ("Origines du culte Chrétien", Paris, 1898, 8489), that theGallican Rite is Eastern, Antiochene in origin. Certainly it has numerous Antiochene peculiarities (seeGALLICAN RITE), and when it emerged as a complete rite in the sixth and seventh centuries (in Germanus ofParis, etc.), it was different from that in use atRome at the time. Non-Romanliturgies were used atMilan,Aquileia, even at Gobble at the gates of the Roman province (Innocent I's letter to Decentius of Eugubium; Ep. xxv, in P.L., XX, 551-61).Innocent (401-17) naturally protested against the use of a foreign rite in Umbria; occasionally otherpopes showed some desire for uniformity in theirpatriarchate, but the great majority regarded the old state of things with perfect indifference. When otherbishops asked them how ceremonies were performed atRome they sent descriptions (soPope Vigilius to Profuturus ofBraga in 538; Jaffé, "Regesta Rom. Pont.", n. 907), but were otherwise content to allow different uses.St. Gregory I (590-604) showed no anxiety to make the new English Church conform toRome, but toldSt. Augustine to take whatever rites he thought most suitable fromRome or Gaul (Ep. xi, 64, in P.L., LXXVII, 1186-7).
Thus for centuries thepopes alone amongpatriarchs did not enforce their own rite even throughout theirpatriarchate. The gradual romanization and subsequent disappearance of Gallican rites were (beginning in the eighth and ninth centuries), the work not of thepopes but of localbishops and kings who naturally wished to conform to the use of theApostolic See. The Gallican Rites varied everywhere (Charles the Great gives this as his reason for adopting the Roman Use; see Hauck, "Kirchengesch. Deutschlands", 11, 107 sq.), and the inevitable desire for at least local uniformity arose. Thebishops' frequent visits toRome brought them in contact with the more dignified ritual observed by their chief at thetomb of the Apostles, and they were naturally influenced by it in their return home. The localbishops insynods ordered conformity toRome. The romanizing movement in the West came from below. In theFrankish kingdom Charles the Great, as part of his scheme of unifying, sent toAdrian I for copies of the Roman books, commanding their use throughout his domain. In the history of the substitution of theRoman Rite for the Gallican thepopes appear as spectators, except perhaps inSpain and much later inMilan. The final result was the application in the West of the old principle, for since thepope was undoubtedlyPatriarch of the West it was inevitable, that sooner or later the West should conform to his rite. The places, however, that really cared for their old local rites (Milan, Toledo) retain them even now.
It istrue that the changes made in someUniat rites by the Roman correctors have not always corresponded to the bestliturgical tradition. There are as Mgr Duchesne says, "corrections inspired byzeal that was not always according toknowledge" (Origines du culte, 2nd ed., 69), but they are much fewer than is generally supposed and have never been made with theidea of romanizing. Despite the general prejudice thatUniat rites are mere mutilated hybrids, the strongest impression from the study of them is how little has been changed. Where there is no suspicion offalse doctrine, as in the Byzantine Rite, the only change made was the restoration of the name of thepope where the schismatics had erased it. Although the question of the procession of theHoly Ghost has been so fruitful a source of dispute betweenRome and Constantinople theFilioque clause was certainly not contained in the original creed, nor did the Roman authorities insist on its addition. SoRome is content that EasternCatholics should keep their traditional form unchanged, though they believe theCatholic doctrine. TheFilioque is only sung by those Byzantine Uniats who wish it themselves, as theRuthenians. Other rites were altered in places, not to romanize but only to eradicate passages suspected ofheresy. All other Uniats came fromNestorian,Monophysite, orMonotheletesects, whose rites had been used for centuries byheretics. Hence, when bodies of these people wished to return to theCatholicChurch their services were keenly studied atRome for possibleheresy. In most cases corrections were absolutelynecessary. TheNestorian Liturgy, for instance, did not contain the words of institution, which had to be added to the Liturgy of the converted Chaldees. TheMonophysiteJacobites,Copts, andArmenians have in the Trisagion the fateful clause: "who wast crucified for us", which has been the watchword ofMonophysitism ever since Peter the Dyer of Antioch added it (470-88). If only because of its associations this could not remain in aCatholic Liturgy.
In some instances, however, the correctors were over scrupulous. In the GregorianArmenian Liturgy the words said by thedeacon at the expulsion of thecatechumens, long before the Consecration: "The body of the Lord and the blood of the Saviour are set forth (or "are before us") (Brightman, "Eastern Liturgies", 430) were in theUniat Rite changed to: "are about to be before us". The Uniats also omit the words sung by the Gregorian choir before theAnaphora: "Christ has been manifested amongst us (has appeared in the midst of us)" (ibid., 434), and further change the cherubichymn because of its anticipation of the Consecration. These misplacements are really harmless when understood, yet any reviser would be shocked by such strong cases. In many other ways also theArmenian Rite shows evidence of Roman influence. It has unleavened bread, our confession andJudica psalm at the beginning of Mass, a Lavabo before the Canon, the last Gospel, etc. But so little is this the effect of union withRome that theschismaticalArmenians have all these points too. They date from the time of theCrusades, when theArmenians, vehemently opposed to the Orthodox, made many advances towardsCatholics. So also the strong romanizing of theMaronite Liturgy was entirely the work of theMaronites themselves, when, surrounded by enemies in the East, they too turned towards the greatWestern Church, sought her communion, and eagerly copied her practices. One can hardly expect thepope to prevent other Churches from imitating Roman customs. Yet in the case of Uniats he does even this. A ByzantineUniatpriest who uses unleavened bread in his Liturgy incursexcommunication. The only case in which an ancient Eastern rite has been wilfully romanized is that of theUniat Malabar Christians, where it was not Roman authority but the misguidedzeal of Alexius de Menezes,Archbishop ofGoa, and his Portuguese advisers at the Synod of Diamper (1599) which spoiled the old Malabar Rite.
The Westernmedieval rites are in no case (except the Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites), really independent ofRome. They are merely theRoman Rite with local additions and modifications, most of which are to its disadvantage. They are late, exuberant, and inferior variants, whose ornate additions and long interpolated tropes, sequences, and farcing destroy the dignified simplicity of the old liturgy. In 1570 the revisers appointed by theCouncil of Trent restored with scrupulous care and, even in the light of later studies, brilliant success the pure RomanMissal, whichPius V ordered should alone be used wherever theRoman Rite is followed. It was a return to an older and purer form. Themedieval rites have nodoubt a certain archæological interest; but where theRoman Rite is used it is best to use it in its pure form. This too only means a return to the principle that rite should followpatriarchate. The reform was made very prudently,Pius V allowing any rite that could prove an existence of two centuries to remain (Bull "Quo primum", 19 July, 1570, printed first in theMissal), thus saving any local use that had a certain antiquity. Somedioceses (e.g. Lyons) andreligious orders (Dominicans,Carthusians,Carmelites), therefore keep their special uses, and the independent Ambrosian and Mozarabic Rites, whose loss would have been a real misfortune (seeLITURGY,LITURGY OF THE MASS) still remain.
Rome then by no means imposed uniformity of rite.Catholics are united infaith and discipline, but in their manner of performing the sacred functions there is room for variety based on essential unity, as there was in the first centuries. There are cases (e.g. the Georgian Church) where union withRome has saved the ancient use, while the schismatics have been forced to abandon it by the centralizing policy of their authorities (in this caseRussia). The ruthless destruction of ancient rites in favour of uniformity has been the work not ofRome but of theschismaticalpatriarchs of Constantinople. Since the thirteenth century Constantinople in its attempt to make itself the one centre of theOrthodox Church has driven out the far more venerable and ancient Liturgies of Antioch and Alexandria and has compelled all the Orthodox to use its own late derived rite. The Greek Liturgy of St. Mark has ceased to exist; that of St. James has been revived for one or two days in the year at Zakynthos andJerusalem only (seeANTIOCHENE LITURGY). The Orthodox all the world over must follow the Rite of Constantinople. In this unjustifiable centralization we have a defiance of the old principle, since Antioch,Jerusalem, Alexandria,Cyprus, in no way belong to the Byzantine Patriarchate. Those who accuse thepapacy of sacrificing everything for the sake of uniformity mistake the real offender, the oecumenical patriarch.
A complete table of the old rites with an account of their mutual relations will be found in the articleLITURGY. Here it need only be added that there is aUniat body using each of the Eastern rites. There is no ancient rite that is not represented within theCatholicChurch. That rite,liturgical language, and religious body connote three totally differentideas has been explained at length in the articleGREEK RITES. The rite abishop orpriest follows is no test at all of his religion. Within certain broad limits a member of any Easternsect might use any rite, for the two categories of rite and religion cross each other continually. They represent quite different classifications: for instance, liturgically allArmenians belong to one class, theologically aUniatArmenian belongs to the same class as Latins, Chaldees,Maronites, etc., and has nothing to do with his Gregorian (Monophysite) fellow-countrymen (seeEASTERN CHURCHES). AmongCatholics the rite forms a group; each rite is used by a branch of theChurch that is thereby a special, though not separate, entity. So within theCatholic unity we speak of local Churches whose characteristic in each case is the rite they use. Rite is the only basis of this classification. Not allArmenianCatholics or Byzantine Uniats obey the same patriarch or local authority; yet they are "Churches" individual provinces of the same great Church, because each is bound together by their own rites. In the West there is the vastLatin Church, in the East the Byzantine, Chaldean, Coptic,Syrian,Maronite,Armenian, and MalabarUniat Churches. It is of course possible to subdivide and to speak of the national Churches (ofItaly,France,Spain, etc.) under one of these main bodies (seeLATIN CHURCH). In modern times rite takes the place of the old classification inpatriarchates and provinces.
TheReformation in the sixteenth century produced a new and numerous series of rites, which are in no sense continuations of the old development of liturgy. They do not all represent descendants of the earliest rites, nor can they be classified in the table of genus and species that includes all the oldliturgies ofChristendom. The old rites are unconscious and natural developments of earlier ones and go back to the original fluid rite of the first centuries (seeLITURGY). TheProtestant rites are deliberate compositions made by the variousReformers to suit theirtheological positions, as new services werenecessary for theirprayer meetings. No old liturgy could be used by people with theirideas. The old rites contain the plainest statements about theReal Presence, the Eucharistic Sacrifice,prayers tosaints, and for the dead, which are denied byProtestants. TheReformation occurred in the West, where theRoman Rite in its various local forms had been used for centuries. No Reformedsect could use the Roman Mass; themedieval derived rites were still more ornate, explicit, in theReformers' sensesuperstitious. So all theProtestantsects abandoned the old Mass and the other ritual functions, composing new services which have no continuity, no direct relation to any historic liturgy. However, it is hardly possible to compose an entirely newChristian service without borrowing anything. Moreover, in many cases theReformers wished to make the breach with the past as little obvious as could be. So many of their new services contain fragments of old rites; they borrowed such elements as seemed to them harmless, composed and re-arranged and evolved in some cases services that contain parts of the old ones in a new order. On the whole it is surprising that they changed as much as they did. It would have been possible to arrange an imitation of the Roman Mass that would have been much more like it than anything they produced.
They soon collected fragments of all kinds of rites, Eastern, Roman, Mozarabic, etc., which with their newprayers they arranged into services that are hopelessliturgical tangles. This is speciallytrue of theAnglicanPrayer-books. In some cases, for instance, the placing of the Gloria after the Communion in Edward VI's secondPrayer-book, there seems to be no object except alove of change. The firstLutheran services kept most of the old order. TheCalvinist arrangements had from the first no connexion with any earlier rite. The use of the vulgar tongue was a great principle with theReformers.Luther andZwingli at first compromised with Latin, but soon the old language disappeared in allProtestant services.Luther in 1523 published a tract, "Of the order of the service in the parish" ("Von ordenung gottis diensts [sic] ynn der gemeine" in Clemen, "Quellenbuch zur prakt. Theologie", 1, 24-6), in which he insists on preaching, rejects all "unevangelical" parts of the Mass, such as theOffertory andidea of sacrifice, invocation ofsaints, and ceremonies, and denounces private Masses(Winkelmessen), Masses for the dead, and theidea of thepriest as a mediator. Later in the same year he issued a "Formula missæ et communionis pro ecclesia Vittebergensi" (ibid., 26-34), in which he omits the preparatoryprayers,Offertory, all the Canon toqui pridie, fromUnde et memores to the Pater, the embolism of theLord's Prayer, fraction,Ite missa est. The Preface is shortened, the Sanctus is to be sung after the words of institution which are to be said aloud, and meanwhile the elevation may be made because of the weak who would be offended by its sudden omission (ibid., IV, 30). At the end he adds a newceremony, a blessing fromNumbers 6:24-26. Latin remained in this service.
Karlstadt began to hold vernacular services atWittenberg since 1521. In 1524 Kaspar Kantz published a German service on the lines ofLuther's "Formula missæ" (Lohe, "Sammlung liturgischer Formuläre III, Nördlingen, 1842, 37 sq.); so also Thomas Münzer theAnabaptist, in 1523 at Alstedt (Smend, "Die evang. deutschen Messen", 1896, 99 sq.). A number of compromises began at this time among theProtestants, services partly Latin and partly vernacular (Rietschel, "Lehrbuch der Liturgik", 1, 404-9). Vernacularhymns took the place of the old Proper (Introit, etc.). At last in 1526Luther issued an entirely new German service, "Deudsche Messe und ordnung Gottis diensts" (Clemen, op. cit., 3443), to be used onSundays, whereas the "Formula missæ", in Latin, might be kept for week-days. In the "Deudsche Messe" "a spiritual song or German psalm" replaces theIntroit, then followsKyrie eleison in Greek three times only. There is no Gloria. Then come the Collects, Epistle, a Germanhymn, Gospel, Creed, Sermon, Paraphrase of theLord's Prayer, words of institution with the account of theLast Supper from1 Corinthians 11:20-9,Elevation (always kept byLuther himself in spite of Karlstadt and most of his colleagues), Communion, during which the Sanctus or ahymn is sung, Collects, the blessing fromNumbers 6:24-26. Except the Kyrie, all is in German; azyme bread is still used but declared indifferent; Communion is given under both kinds, thoughLuther preferred the unmixedchalice. This service remained for a long time the basis of theLutheran Communion function, but the local branches of thesect from the beginning used great freedom in modifying it. ThePietistic movement in the eighteenth century, with its scorn for forms and still more the presentRationalism, have left very little ofLuther's scheme. A vast number ofAgendæ, Kirchenordnungen, andPrayer-books issued by variousLutheran consistories from the sixteenth century to our own time contain as many forms of celebrating the Lord's Supper. Pastors use their own discretion to a great extent, and it is impossible to foresee what service will be held in anyLutheran church. An arrangement ofhymns, Bible readings (generally theNicene Creed), a sermon, then the words of institution and Communion,prayers (often extempore), morehymns, and the blessing fromNumbers 6, make up the general outline of the service.
Zwingli was more radical thanLuther. In 1523 he kept a form of the Latin Mass with the omission of all he did not like in it ("De canone missæ epichiresis" in Clemen, op. cit., 43-7), chiefly because the town council ofZurich feared too sudden a change, but in 1525 he overcame their scruples and issued his "Action oder bruch (=Brauch) des nachtmals" (ibid., 47-50). This is a complete breach with the Mass an entirely new service. OnMaundy Thursday the men andwomen are to receive communion, onGood Friday those of "middle age", onEaster Sunday only the oldest(die alleraltesten). These are the only occasions on which the service is to be held. The arrangement is: aprayer said by thepastor facing the people, reading of1 Corinthians 11:20-29, Gloria in Excelsis, "The Lord be with you" and its answer, reading ofJohn 6:47-63,Apostles' Creed, an address to the people,Lord's Prayer, extemporeprayer, words of institution, Communion (under both kinds in wooden vessels),Psalm 113, a shortprayer of thanksgiving; thepastor says: "Go in peace". On otherSundays there is to be no Communion at all, but a service consisting ofprayer, Our Father, sermon, general confession,absolution,prayer, blessing. Equally radical was theCalvinistsect. In 1535 through Farel's influence the Mass was abolished in Geneva. Three times a year only was there to be a commemorative Supper in the baldest form; on otherSundays the sermon was to suffice. In 1542Calvin issued "La forme des prières ecclésiastiques" (Clemen, op. cit., 51-8), a supplement to which describes "La manière de célébrer la cène" (ibid., 51-68). This rite, to be celebrated four times yearly, consists of the reading of1 Corinthians 11 anexcommunication of various kinds of sinners, and long exhortation. "This being done, theministers distribute the bread and the cup to the people, taking care that they approach reverently and in good order" (ibid., 60). Meanwhile a psalm is sung or a lesson read from theBible, a thanksgiving follows (ibid., 55), and a final blessing. Except for their occurrence in the reading of1 Corinthians 11, the words of institution are not said; there is no kind of Communion form. It is hardly possible to speak of rite at all in theCalvinist body.
The other ritual functions kept byProtestants (baptism, confirmation as an introduction to Communion marriage, funerals, appointment ofministers) went through much the same development. The firstReformers expunged and modified the old rites, then gradually more and more was changed until little remained of a rite in our sense. Psalms,hymns,prayers, addresses to the people in various combinations make up these functions. TheCalvinists have always been more radical than theLutherans. The development and multiple forms of these services may be seen in Rietschel, "Lehrbuch der Liturgik", II, and Clemen, "Quellenbuch zur praktischen Theologie", I (texts only). TheAnglican body stands somewhat apart from the others, inasmuch as it has a standard book, almost unaltered since 1662. The first innovation was the introduction of an Englishlitany underHenry VIII in 1544. Cranmer was preparing further changes whenHenry VIII died (see Procter and Frere, "A New History of theBook of Common Prayer" London, 1908, 29-35). Under Edward VI (1547-53) many changes were made at once:blessings,holy water, the creeping to the Cross were abolished, Mass was said in English (ibid., 39-41), and in 1549 the firstPrayer-book, arranged by Cranmer, was issued. Much of the old order of the Mass remained, but the Canon disappeared to make way for a newprayer fromLutheran sources. The "Kölnische Kirchenordnung" composed byMelanchthon andButzer supplied part of theprayers. The changes areLutheran rather thanCalvinist. In 1552 the secondPrayerbook took the place of the first. This is the presentAnglican Book of Common Prayer and represents a much strongerProtestant tendency. The commandments take the place of theIntroit and Kyrie (kept in the first book), the Gloria is moved to the end, the Consecration-prayer is changed so as to deny the Sacrifice andReal Presence, the form at the Communion becomes: "Take and eat this in remembrance thatChrist died for thee, and feed on him in thy heart byfaith with thanksgiving" (similarly for thechalice). In 1558 Elizabeth's Government issued a new edition of the secondPrayer-book of Edward VI with slight modifications of its extremeProtestantism. Both the Edwardine forms for communion are combined. In 1662 a number of revisions were made. In particular theordination forms received additions defining the order to be conferred. A few slight modifications (as to the lessons read, days no longer to be kept) have been made since.
TheAnglican Communion service follows this order: TheLord's Prayer, Collect for purity,Ten Commandments, Collect for the king and the one for the day, Epistle, Gospel, Creed, sermon, certain sentences from theBible (meanwhile a collection is made),prayer for theChurch militant, address to the people about Communion, general confession andabsolution, the comfortable words (Matthew 11:28;John 3:16;1 Timothy 1:15;1 John 2:1), Preface,prayer ("We do not presume"), Consecration-prayer, Communion at once,Lord's Prayer, Thanksgiving-prayer, "Glory be to God on high", blessing. Very little of the arrangement of the old Mass remains in this service, for all theideasProtestants reject are carefully excluded. TheBook of Common Prayer contains all the official services of theAnglican Church,baptism, thecatechism, confirmation, marriage, funeral,ordination, articles of religion, etc. It has also forms of morning and eveningprayer, composed partly from theCatholic Office with many modifications and very considerably reduced. The Episcopal Church inScotland has aPrayer-book, formed in 1637 and revised in 1764, which is more nearly akin to the firstPrayer-book of Edward VI and is decidedly more High Church in tone. In 1789 theProtestant Episcopal Church of America accepted a book based on the English one of 1662, but taking some features from the Scotch services. TheAnglican service-books are now the least removed fromCatholicliturgies of those used by anyProtestant body. But this is saying very little. TheNon-jurors in the eighteenth century produced a number of curiousliturgies which in many ways go back toCatholic principles, but have the fault common to allProtestant services of being conscious and artificial arrangements of elements selected from the old rites, instead of natural developments (Overton, "The Non-jurors", London, 1902, ch. vi). TheIrvingites have a not very-successful service-book of this type. ManyMethodists use theAnglican book; the other latersects have for the most part nothing but loose arrangements ofhymns, readings, extemporeprayers, and a sermon that can hardly be called rites in any sense.
The language of any Church or rite, as distinct from the vulgar tongue, is that used in the official services and may or may not be the common language. For instance the Rumanian Church uses liturgically the ordinary language of the country, while Latin is used by theLatin Church for her Liturgy without regard to the mother tongue of theclergy or congregation. There are many cases of an intermediate state between these extremes, in which theliturgical language is an older form of the vulgar tongue, sometimes easily, sometimes hardly at all, understood by people who have not studied it specially. Language is not rite. Theoretically any rite may exist in any language. Thus theArmenian, Coptic, and East Syrian Rites are celebrated always in one language, the Byzantine Rite is used in a great number of tongues, and in other rites one language sometimes enormously preponderates but is not used exclusively. This is determined by church discipline. The Roman Liturgy is generally celebrated in Latin. The reason why aliturgical language began to be used and is still retained must be distinguished inliturgicalscience from certaintheological or mystic considerations by which its use may be explained or justified. Eachliturgical language was first chosen because it was the natural language of the people. But languages change and the Faith spreads into countries where other tongues are spoken. Then either the authorities are of a more practical mind and simply translate theprayers into the new language, or the conservativeinstinct, always strong in religion, retains for the liturgy an older language no longer used in common life. TheJews showed thisinstinct, when, though Hebrew was a dead language after the Captivity, they continued to use it in the Temple and thesynagogues in the time ofChrist, and still retain it in their services. TheMoslem, also conservative, reads theKoran in classical Arabic, whether he be Turk,Persian, or Afghan. The translation of the church service is complicated by the difficulty of determining when the language in which it is written, as Latin in the West and Hellenistic Greek in the East, has ceased to be the vulgar tongue. Though the Byzantine services were translated into the common language of the Slavonic people that they might be understood, this form of the language (Church-Slavonic) is no longer spoken, but is gradually becoming as unintelligible as the original Greek.Protestants make a great point of using languages "understanded of the people", yet the language ofLuther's Bible and theAnglican Prayerbook is already archaic.
WhenChristianity appeared Hellenistic Greek was the common language spoken around the Mediterranean.St. Paul writes to people inGreece,Asia Minor, andItaly in Greek. When the parent rites were finally written down in the fourth and fifth centuries Easternliturgical language had slightly changed. The Greek of theseliturgies (Apost. Const. VIII, St. James, St. Mark, the Byzantine Liturgy) was that of the Fathers of the time, strongly coloured by theSeptuagint and theNew Testament. Theseliturgies remained in this form and have never been recast in any modern Greek dialect. Like the text of theBible, that of a liturgy once fixed becomes sacred. The formulæ used Sunday after Sunday are hallowed by too sacred associations to be changed as long as more or less the same language is used. The common tongue drifts and develops, but theliturgical forms are stereotyped. In the East and West, however, there existed different principles in this matter. Whereas in the West there was no literary language but Latin till far into theMiddle Ages, in the East there were such languages, totally unlike Greek, that had a position, a literature, a dignity of their own hardly inferior to that of Greek itself. In the West everyeducated man spoke and wrote Latin almost to theRenaissance. To translate the Liturgy into a Celtic or Teutonic language would have seemed as absurd as to write aprayerbook now in some vulgar slang. The East was never hellenized as the West was latinized. Great nations, primarilyEgypt andSyria, kept their own languages and literatures as part of their national inheritance. The people, owing no allegiance to the Greek language, had no reason to say theirprayers in it, and the Liturgy was translated into Coptic inEgypt, into Syriac inSyria and Palestine. So the principle of a uniformliturgical language was broken in the East and people were accustomed to hear the church service in different languages in different places. This uniformity once broken never became an ideal toEastern Christians and the way was opened for an indefinite multiplication ofliturgical tongues.
In the fourth and fifth centuries the Rites of Antioch and Alexandria were used in Greek in the great towns where people spoke Greek, in Coptic or Syriac among peasants in the country. The Rite ofAsia Minor and Constantinople was always in Greek, because here there was no rival tongue. But when the Faith was preached inArmenia (from Cæsarea) theArmenians in taking over the Cæsarean Rite translated it of course into their own language. And the greatNestorian Church in EastSyria, evolving her own literature in Syriac, naturally used that language for her church services too. This diversity of tongues was by no means parallel to diversity ofsect or religion. People who agreed entirely infaith, who were separated by noschism, nevertheless said theirprayers in different languages.Melchites inSyria clung entirely to the Orthodoxfaith of Constantinople and used the Byzantine Rite, yet used it translated into Syriac. The process of translating the Liturgy continued later. After the Schism of the eleventh century, theOrthodox Church, unlikeRome, insisted on uniformity of rite among her members. All the Orthodox use the Byzantine Rite, yet have noidea of one language. When theSlavs were converted the Byzantine Rite was put into Old Slavonic for them; when Arabic became the only language spoken inEgypt AndSyria, it became the language of the Liturgy in those countries. For a long time all the people north of Constantinople used Old Slavonic in church, although the dialects they spoke gradually drifted away from it. Only the Georgians, who areSlavs in no sense at all, used their own language. In the seventeenth century as part of the growth ofRumanian national feeling came a great insistence on the fact that they were notSlavs either. They Wished to be counted among Western, Latin races, so they translated theirliturgical books into their own Romance language. These represent the old classicalliturgical languages in the East.
TheMonophysite Churches have kept the old tongues even when no longer spoken; thus they use Coptic inEgypt, Syriac inSyria,Armenian inArmenia. TheNestorians and their daughter-Church inIndia (Malabar) also use Syriac. The Orthodox have four or five chiefliturgical languages: Greek, Arabic, Church-Slavonic, and Rumanian. Georgian has almost died out. Later Russian missions have very much increased the number. They have translated the same Byzantine Rite into German, Esthonian, and Lettish for the Baltic provinces Finnish and Tartar for converts inFinland and Siberia,Eskimo, a North American Indian dialect,Chinese, andJapanese. Hence no general principle ofliturgical language can be established forEastern Churches, though theNestorians andMonophysites have evolved something like the Roman principle and kept their old languages in the liturgy, in spite of change in common talk. The Orthodox services are not, however, everywhere understood by the people, for since these older versions were made language has gone on developing. In the case of converts of a totally different race, such as Chinese or Red Indians, there is an obvious line to cross at once and there is no difficulty about translating what would otherwise be totally unintelligible to them. At home the spoken language gradually drifts away from the form stereotyped in the Liturgy, and it is difficult to determine when the Liturgy ceases to be understood. In more modern times with the growth of newsects the conservativeinstinct of the old Churches has grown. The Greek, Arabic, and Church-Slavonic texts are jealously kept unchanged though in all cases they have become archaic and difficult to follow by uneducated people. Lately the question ofliturgical language has become one of the chief difficulties inMacedonia. Especially since theBulgarian Schism the Phanar at Constantinople insists on Greek in church as a sign of Hellenism, while the people clamour for Old-Slavonic or Rumanian.
In the West the whole situation is different. Greek was first used atRome, too. About the third century the services were translated into the vulgar tongue, Latin (seeLITURGY OF THE MASS), which has remained ever since. There was no possible rival language for many centuries. As the Western barbarians became civilized they accepted a Latin culture in everything, having no literatures of their own. Latin was the language of alleducated people, so it was used in church, as it was for books or even letter-writing. The Romance people drifted from Latin to Italian, Spanish, French, etc., so gradually that no one can say when Latin became a dead language. The vulgar tongue was used by peasants andignorant people only; but all books were written, lectures given, and solemn speeches made in Latin. EvenDante (d. 1321) thought itnecessary to write an apology for Italian (De vulgari eloquentia). So for centuries the Latin language was that, not of theCatholicChurch, but of the Romanpatriarchate. When people at last realized that it was dead, it was too late to change it. Around it had gathered the associations ofWestern Christendom; the music of theRoman Rite was composed and sung only to a Latin text; and it is even now the official tongue of the Roman Court. The ideal of uniformity in rite extended to language also, so when the rebels of the, sixteenth century threw over the old language, sacred from its long use, as they threw over the old rite and Idlaws theCatholicChurch, conservative in all these things, would not give way to them. As a bond of union among the many nations who make up he Latinpatriarchate, she retains the old Latin tongue with one or two small exceptions. Along he Eastern coast of the Adriatic Sea theRoman Rite has been used in Slavonic (with theGlagolitic letters) since the eleventh century, and the Roman Mass is said in Greek on rare occasions atRome.
It is a question how far one may speak of a specialliturgical Latin language. The writers of our Collects,hymns, Prefaces, etc., wrote simply in the language of their time. The style of the various elements of the Mass andDivine Office varies greatly according to the time at which they were written. We have texts from the fourth or fifth to the twentieth century. Liturgical Latin then is simply lateChristian Latin of various periods. On the other hand the Liturgy had an influence on the style ofChristian Latin writers second only to that of theBible. First we notice Hebraisms (per omnia soecula soeculorum), many Greek constructions (per Dominum nostrum, meaning" for the sake of",dia) and words (Eucharistia, litania, episcopus), expressions borrowed from Biblical metaphors (pastor, liber proedestinationis, crucifigere carnem, lux, vita, Agnus Dei), and words in a newChristian sense (humilitas, compunctio, caritas).St. Jerome in hisVulgate more than any one else helped to formliturgical style. His constructions and phrases occur repeatedly in the non-Biblical parts of theMass andOffice. The style of the fifth and sixth centuries (St. Leo I,Celestine I,Gregory I) forms perhaps the main stock of our services. The mediævalSchoolmen (St. Thomas Aquinas) and their technical terminology have influenced much of the later parts, and the Latin of theRenaissance is an important element that in many cases overlays the ruder forms of earlier times. Of thisRenaissance Latin many of theBreviary lessons are typical examples; a comparison of the earlier forms of thehymns with the improved forms drawn up by order ofUrban VIII (1623-44) will convince any one how disastrous its influence was. The tendency to write inflated phrases has not yet stopped: almost any modern Collect compared with the old ones in the "Gelasian Sacramentary" will show how much we have lost of style in ourliturgicalprayers.
The principle of using Latin in church is in no way fundamental. It is a question of discipline that evolved differently in East and West, and may not be defended as either primitive or universal. The authority of theChurch could change theliturgical language at any time without sacrificing any important principle. Theidea of a universal tongue may seem attractive, but is contradicted by the fact that theCatholicChurch uses eight or nine differentliturgical languages. Latin preponderates as a result of the greater influence of the Romanpatriarchate and its rite, caused by the spread of WesternEuropeans into new lands and the unhappyschism of so many Easterns (see Fortescue, "Orthodox Eastern Church", 431). Uniformity of rite orliturgical language has never been aCatholic ideal, nor was Latin chosen deliberately as a sacred language. Had there been any suchidea the language would have been Hebrew or Greek.
The objections ofProtestants to a Latin Liturgy can be answered easily enough. An argument often made from1 Corinthians 14:4-18, is of no value. The whole passage treats of quite another thing,prophesying in tongues that no one understands, not even the speaker (see 14: "For if Ipray in a tongue, my spiritprayeth but my understanding is without fruit"). The other argument, from practical convenience, from the loss to the people who do not understand what is being said, has some value. TheChurch has never set up a mysterious unintelligible language as an ideal. There is no principle ofsacerdotal mysteries from which thelayman is shut out. In spite of the use of Latin the people have means of understanding the service. That they might do so still better if everything were in the vulgar tongue may be admitted, but in making this change the loss would probably be greater than the gain.
By changing the language of the Liturgy we should lose the principle of uniformity in the Romanpatriarchate. According to the ancient principle that rite followspatriarchate, the Western rite should be that of the Western patriarch, the Roman Bishop, who uses the local rite of the city ofRome. There is a further advantage in using it in his language, so the use of Latin in the West came about naturally and is retained through conservativeinstinct. It is not so in the East. There is a great practical advantage to travellers, whetherpriests orlaymen, in finding their rite exactly the same everywhere. AnEnglishpriest inPoland orPortugal could not say his Mass unless he and the server had a common language. The use of Latin all over the Romanpatriarchate is a very obvious and splendid witness of unity. EveryCatholic traveller in a country of which he does notknow the language has felt the comfort of finding that in church at least everything is familiar and knows that in aCatholic church of his own rite he is at home anywhere. Moreover, the change ofliturgical language would be a break with the past. It is a witness of antiquity of which aCatholic may well be proud that in Mass today we are still used to the very words that Anselm,Gregory, Leo sang in theircathedrals. A change of language would also abolish Latin chant. Plainsong, as venerable a relic of antiquity as any part of the ritual, is composed for the Latin text only, supposes always the Latin syllables and the Latin accent, and becomes a caricature when it is forced into another language with different rules of accent.
These considerations of antiquity and universal use always made proportionately (since there are the EasternUniat rites) but valid for the Romanpatriarchate may well outweigh the practical convenience of using the chaos of modern languages in the liturgy. There is also an æsthetic advantage in Latin. The splendid dignity of the short phrases with their rhythmical accent and terse style redolent of the greatLatinFathers, the strange beauty of the old Latinhymns, the sonorous majesty of theVulgate, all these things that make theRoman Rite so dignified, so characteristic of the old Imperial City where the Prince of the Apostles set up his throne, would be lost altogether in modern English orFrench translations. The impossibility of understanding Latin is not so great. It is not a secret, unknown tongue, and till quite lately everyeducatedperson understood it. It is still taught in everyschool. TheChurch does not clothe herprayers in a secret language, but rather takes it for granted that people understand Latin. IfCatholics learned enough Latin to follow the very easy style of theChurch language all difficulty would be solved. For those who cannot take even this trouble there is the obvious solution of a translation. TheMissal in English is one of the easiest books to procure; theignorant may follow in that theprayers that lack ofeducation prevents their understanding without it.
Theliturgical languages used byCatholics are:
1. Latin in the Roman,Milanese, and Mozarabic Rites (except in parts ofDalmatia).
2. Greek in the Byzantine Rite (not exclusively).
3. Syriac in the Syrian,Maronite, Chaldean, and Malabar Rites.
4. Coptic in the Coptic Rite.
5.Armenian by all the Churches of that rite.
6. Arabic by theMelchites (Byzantine Rite).
7. Slavonic bySlavs of the Byzantine Rite and (inGlagolitic letters) in theRoman Rite inDalmatia.
8. Georgian (Byzantine Rite).
9. Rumanian (Byzantine Rite).
The most obvious andnecessary study forecclesiastical persons is that of thelaws that regulate the performance ofliturgical functions. From this point of viewliturgical study is a branch of canon law. The rules for the celebration of the Holy Mysteries, administration ofsacraments, etc., are part of the positive law of theChurch, just as much as thelaws aboutbenefices,church property, orfasting, andoblige those whom they concern under pain ofsin. As it is therefore theduty ofpersons inHoly orders toknow them, they are studied in all colleges andseminaries as part of the training of futurepriests, and candidates are examined in them beforeordination. Because of its special nature and complicationliturgicalscience in this sense is generally treated apart from the rest of canon law and is joined to similar practical matters (such as preaching, visiting the sick, etc.) to make up thescience of pastoral theology. The sources from which it is learned are primarily therubrics of theliturgical books (theMissal,Breviary, and Ritual). There are also treatises which explain and arrange theserubrics, adding to them from later decrees of the S. Congregation of Rites. Of these Martinucci has not yet been displaced as the most complete and authoritative, Baldeschi has long been a favourite and has been translated into English, De Herdt is a good standard book, quite sound and clear as far as it goes but incomplete, Le Vavasseur is perhaps the most practical for general purposes.
The development of the various rites, their spread and mutual influence, the origin of eachceremony, etc., form a part ofchurch history whose importance is becoming more and more realized. For practical purposes all apriest needknow are the present rules that affect the services he has to perform, as in general the presentlaws of theChurch are all we have to obey. But just as the student of history needs toknow the decrees of formersynods, even if abrogated since, as he studies the history of earlier times and remote provinces of theChurch, because it is from these that he must build up his conception of her continuous life, so theliturgical student will not be content with knowing only what affects him now, but is prompted to examine the past to inquire into the origin of our present rite and study other rites too as expressions of the life of theChurch in other lands. The history of theliturgies that deeply affect the life ofChristians in many ways, that are the foundation of many other objects of study (architecture, art, music, etc.) is no inconsiderable element ofchurch history. In a sense this study is comparatively new and not yet sufficiently organized though to some extent it has always accompanied the practical study of liturgy. The great mediævalliturgists were not content with describing the rites of their own time. They suggested historical reasons for the various ceremonies and contrasted other practices with those of their own Churches.Benedict XIV's treatise on the Mass discusses the origin of each element of the Latin liturgy. This and other books of seventeenth and eighteenth-century liturgiologists are still standard works. So also in lectures and works on liturgy in our first sense it has always been the custom to add historical notes on the origin of the ceremonies andprayers.
But the interest in the history of liturgy for its own sake and the systematic study of early documents is a comparatively new thing. In thisscienceEngland led the way and still takes the foremost place. It followed theOxford Movement as part of the revived interest in the early Church amongAnglicans. W. Palmer (Origines liturgicæ) and J. M. Neale in his various works are among those who gave the first impulse to this movement. TheCatholic Daniel Rock ("Hierurgia" and "The Church of our Fathers") further advanced it. It has now a largeschool of followers. F.C. Brightman's edition of "Eastern Liturgies" is the standard one used everywhere. The monumental editions of the "Gelasian Sacramentary" by H.A. Wilson and the "Leonine Sacramentary" by C. L. Feltoe, the various essays and discussions by E. Bishop, C. Atchley, and many others keep up the English standard. InFranceDom Guéranger (L'année liturgique) and hisschool ofBenedictines opened a new epoch. Mgr Duchesne supplied a long-felt want with his "Origines du suite chrétien", Dom Cabral and Dom Leclereq ("Mon. eccl. lit.", etc., especially the monumental "Dict. d'arch. chrét. et de liturgie") have advanced to the first place among modern authorities on historical liturgy. FromGermany we have the works of H. Daniel (Codex lit. eccl. universæ), Probst,Thalhofer, Gihr, and aschool of living students (Drews, Rietschel, Baumstark, Buchwald, Rauschen). InItaly good work is being done by Semeria, Bonaccorsi, and others. Nevertheless the study of liturgy hardly yet takes the place it deserves in theeducation of church students. Besides the practical instruction that forms a part of pastoral theology, lectures onliturgical history would form a valuable element of the course ofchurch history. As part of such a course other rites would be considered and compared. There is a fund of deeper understanding of theRoman Rite to be drawn from its comparison with others, Gallican or Eastern. Such instruction in liturgiology should include some notion of ecclesiology in general, the history and comparison of church planning and architecture, of vestments andchurch music. The root of all these things in different countries is theliturgies they serve and adorn.
The dogmatic and apologetic value ofliturgicalscience is a very important consideration to thetheologian. It must, of course, be used reasonably. No Church intends to commit herself officially to every statement and implication contained in her official books, any more than she is committed to everything said by her Fathers. For instance, the Collect forSt. Juliana Falconieri (19 June) in theRoman Rite refers to the story of hermiraculous communion before her death, told at length in the sixth lesson of her Office, but thetruth of that story is not part of theCatholicFaith. Liturgies give us arguments from tradition even more valuable than those from the Fathers, for these statements have been made by thousands ofpriests day after day for centuries. A consensus ofliturgies is, therefore, both in space and time a greater witness of agreement than a consensus of Fathers, for as a general principle it is obvious that people in theirprayers say only what they believe. This is the meaning of the well known axiom:Lex orandi lex credendi. Theprayers for the dead, the passages in whichGod is asked to accept this Sacrifice, the statements of theReal Presence in the oldestliturgies are unimpeachable witnesses of the Faith of the early Church as to these points. TheBull ofPius IX on the Immaculate Conception ("Ineffabilis Deus", 8 Dec., 1854) contains a classical example of this argument from liturgy. Indeed there are fewarticles of faith that cannot be established or at least confirmed fromliturgies. The Byzantine Office for St. Peter andSt. Paul (29 June) contains plain statements about Roman primacy. The study of liturgy from this point of view is part ofdogmatic theology. Of late years especiallydogmatic theologians have given much attention to it. Christian Pesch, S.J., in his "Prælectiones theologiæ dogmaticæ" (9 vols., Freiburg i. Br.) quotes theliturgical texts for the theses as part of the argument from tradition. There are then these three aspects under which liturgiology should be considered by aCatholictheologian, as an element of canon law,church history, anddogmatic theology. The history of its study would take long to tell. There have been liturgiologists through all the centuries ofChristiantheology. Briefly the state of thisscience at various periods is this:
Liturgiologists in the Ante-Nicene period, such asJustin Martyr, composed or wrote down descriptions of ceremonies performed, but made no examination of the sources of rites. In the fourth and fifth centuries the scientific study of the subject began.St. Ambrose's "Liberde Mysteriis" (P.L., XVI, 405-26) the anonymous (pseudo-Ambrose) "De Sacramentis" (P.L., XVI, 435-82), various treatises bySt. Jerome (e.g., "Contra Vigilantium" in P.L., XXIII, 354-367) andSt. Augustine,St. Cyril of Jerusalem's "Catechetical Instructions" (P.L., XXXIII, 331-1154) and the famous "Peregrinatio Silvæ" (in the "Corpus script. eccl. Latin. ofVienna: "Itinera hierosolymitana", 35-101) represent in various degrees the beginning of an examination ofliturgical texts. From the sixth to the eighth centuries we have valuable texts (the Sacramentaries and Ordines) and aliturgical treatise ofSt. Isidore of Seville ("De eccl. officiis" in P.L., LXXXIII). TheCarlovingian revival of the eighth and ninth centuries began the long line ofmedieval liturgiologists.Alcuin (P.L., C-CI),Amalarius of Metz (P.L., XCIX, CV), Agobard (P.L., CIV), Florus ofLyons (P.L., CXIX, 15-72),Rabanus Maurus (P.L., CVII-CXII), and Walafrid Strabo (P.L., CXIV, 916--66) form at this time a galaxy ofliturgical scholars of the first importance. In the eleventh centuryBerno of Constance ("Micrologus" in P.L., CLI, 974-1022), in the twelfth Rupert of Deutz ("De divinis officiis" in P.L., CLXX, 9-334),Honorius of Autun ("Gemma animæ" and "De Sacramentis" in P.L., CLXXII), John Beleth ("Rationale div. offic." in P.L., CCII, 9-166), and Beroldus ofMilan (ed. Magistretti, Milan, 1894) carry on the tradition. In the thirteenth century see DURANDUS) is the most famous of all the William Durandus ofMende ("Rationale div. medieval liturgiologists. There is then a break till the sixteenth century. The discussions of theReformation period called people's attention again toliturgies, either as defenses of the old Faith or as sources for the compilation of reformed services.
From this time editions of the old rites were made for students, with commentaries.J. Clichtove ("Elucidatorium eccl.", Paris, 1516) and J. Cochlæus ("Speculum ant. devotionis", Mainz, 1549) were the first editors of this kind. Claude de Sainctes,Bishop ofEvreux, published a similar collection ("Liturgiæ sive missæ ss. Patrum", Antwerp, 1562). Pamelius's "Liturgies. latin." (Cologne, 1571) is a valuable edition of Roman,Milanese, and Mozarabic texts.Melchior Hittorp published a collection of old commentaries on the liturgy ("De Cath. eccl. div. offic." Cologne, 1568) which was re-edited inBigne's "Bibl. vet. Patrum.", X (Paris, 1610). The seventeenth century opened a great period. B. Gavanti ("Thesaurus sacr. rituum", re-edited by Merati, Rome, 1736-8) and H. Menard, O.S.B. ("Sacramentarium Gregorianum" in P.L., LXXVIII) began a new line of liturgiologists. J. Goar, O.P. ("Euchologion", Paris, 1647), andLeo Allatius in his various dissertations did great things for the study of Eastern rites. The Oratorian J. Morin ("Comm. hist. de disciplina in admin. Sac. Poen."Paris 1651, and "Comm. de sacris eccl. ordinationibus", Paris, 1655). Cardinal John Bons ("Rerum lit. libri duo", Rome, 1671),Card. Tommasi ("Codices sacramentorum", Rome, 1680; "Antiqui libri missarum", Rome, 1691),J. Mabillon, O.S.B. ("Musæum Italicum"Paris 1687-9), E. Martène, O.S.B. (" De ant. eccl. ritibus; Antwerp, 1736-8), represent the highest point ofliturgical study. Dom Claude de Vert wrote a series of treatises onliturgical matters. In the eighteenth century the most important names are:Benedict XIV ("De SS. Sacrificio Missæ", republished atMainz, 1879),E. Renaudot ("Lit. orient. collectio", Paris, 1716), the four Assemani,Maronites ("Kalendaria eccl. universæ", Rome, 1755; "Codex lit. eccl. universæ", Rome, 1749-66, etc.) Muratori ("Liturgia romana vetus", Venice, 1748). So we come to the revival of the nineteenth century,Dom Guéranger and the modern authors already mentioned.
ADRIAN FORTESCUE
The only important rite peculiar to theBenedictine Order is theBenedictineBreviary (Breviarium Monasticum). St. Benedict devotes thirteen chapters (viii-xx), of his rule to regulating thecanonical hours for hismonks, and theBenedictineBreviary is the outcome of this regulation. It is used not only by the so-calledBlack Benedictines, but also by theCistercians,Olivetans, and all those orders that have theRule of St. Benedict as their basis. TheBenedictines are not at liberty to substitute the Roman for the MonasticBreviary; by using theRoman Breviary they would not satisfy theirobligation of saying theDivine Office. Each congregation ofBenedictines has its ownecclesiastical calendar.
MICHAEL OTT
The rite in use among theCarmelites since about the middle of the twelfth century is known by the name of the Rite of the Holy Sepulchre, theCarmelite Rule, which was written about the year 1210, ordering thehermits of Mount Carmel to follow the approved custom of theChurch, which in this instance meant the Patriarchal Church ofJerusalem: "Hi qui litteras noverunt et legere psalmos, per singulas horas eos dicant qui ex institutione sanctorum patrum et ecelesiæ approbata consuetudine ad horas singulas sunt deputati." This Rite of the Holy Sepulchre belonged to the Gallicanfamily of theRoman Rite; it appears to have descended directly from theParisian Rite, but to have undergone some modifications pointing to other sources. For, in the Sanctorale we find influences of Angers, in the proses traces of meridional sources, while the lessons andprayers onHoly Saturday are purely Roman. The fact is that most of theclerics who accompanied theCrusaders were of French nationality; some even belonged to the Chapter ofParis, as isproved by documentary evidence. Local influence, too, played an important part. The Temple itself, the Holy Sepulchre, the vicinity of the Mount of Olives, of Bethany, of Bethlehem, gave rise to magnificent ceremonies, connecting the principal events of theecclesiastical year with the very localities where the various episodes of the work of Redemption has taken place. The rite is known to us by means of somemanuscripts one (Barberini 659 of A.D. 1160) in the Vaticanlibrary, another at Barletta, described by Kohler (Revue de I'Orient Latin, VIII, 1900-01, pp. 383-500) and by him ascribed to about 1240.
Thehermits on Mount Carmel were bound by rule only to assemble once a day for the celebration of Mass, theDivine Office being recited privately. Lay brothers who were able to read might recite the Office, while others repeated theLord's Prayer a certain number of times, according to the length and solemnity of the various offices. It may be presumed that on settling inEurope (from about A.D. 1240) theCarmelites conformed to the habit of the othermendicant orders with respect to the choral recitation or chant of the Office, and there is documentary evidence that on Mount Carmel itself the choral recitation was in force at least in 1254. The General Chapter of 1259 passed a number of regulations onliturgical matters, but, owing to the loss of the acts, their nature is unfortunately not known. Subsequent chapters very frequently dealt with the rite chiefly adding new feasts, changing old established customs, or revisingrubrics. An Ordinal, belonging to the second half of the thirteenth century, is preserved atTrinity College,Dublin, while portions of an Epistolarium of about 1270 are at the Maglia, becchiana at Florence (D6, 1787). The entire Ordinal was rearranged and revised in 1312 by Master Sibert de Beka, and renderedobligatory by the General Chapter, but it experienced some difficulty in superseding the old one. Manuscripts of it are preserved at Lambeth (London),Florence, and else where. It remained in force until 1532, when a (committee was appointed for its revision; their work was approved in 1539, but published only in 1544 after the then General Nicholas Audet had introduced some further changes. The, reform of the Romanliturgical books underSt. Pius V called for a corresponding reform of theCarmelite Rite, which was taken in hand in 1580, theBreviary appearing in 1584 and theMissal in 1587. At the same time theHoly See withdrew the right hitherto exercised by the chapters and the generals of altering the liturgy of the order, and placed all such matters in the hands of the Sacred Congregation of Rites. The publication of the ReformedBreviary of 1584 caused the newly established DiscaleedCarmelites to abandon the ancient rite once for all and to adopt theRoman Rite instead. Besides the variousmanuscripts of the Ordinal already mentioned, we have examined a large number ofmanuscriptmissals and breviaries preserved in public and privatelibraries in the United Kingdom,France,Italy,Spain, and other countries. We have seen most of the early prints of theMissal enumerated by Weale, as well as some not mentioned by him, and the breviaries of 1480, 1490, 1504, 1516 (Horæ), 1542, 1568, 1575, and 1579.
Roughly speaking, the ancientCarmelite Rite may be said to stand about half way between theCarthusian and theDominican rites. It shows signs of great antiquity — e.g. in the absence ofliturgical colours, in the sparing use ofaltar candles (one at lowMass, none on the altar itself at high Mass but onlyacolytes' torches, even these being extinguished during part of the Mass, four torches and one candle in choir for Tenebræ);incense, likewise, is used rarely and with noteworthy restrictions; the Blessing at the end of the Mass is only permitted where the custom of the country requires it; passing before the tabernacle, the brethren are directed to make a profound inclination, not a genuflexion. Many other features might be quoted to show that the whole rite points to a period of transition. Already according to the earliest Ordinal Communion is given under one species, the days of general Communion being seven, later on ten or twelve a year with leave for more frequent Communion under certain conditions. Extreme Unction was administered on the eyes, ears, nostrils, mouth, both hands (the palms, with no distinction betweenpriests and others) and the feetsuperius. The Ordinal of 1312 on the contrary orders the hands to be anointedexterius, but also without distinction for the priests; it moreover adds another anointing on the breast(super pectus: per ardorem libidinis).
In the Mass there are some peculiarities. the altar remains covered until thepriest andministers are ready to begin, when theacolytes then roll back the cover; likewise before the end of the Mass they cover the altar again. On great feasts theIntroit is said three times, i.e. it is repeated both before and after theGloria Patri; besides the Epistle and Gospel there is a lesson or prophecy to be recited by anacolyte. At theLavabo thepriest leaves the altar for the piscina where he says that psalm, or elseVeni Creator Spiritus orDeus misereatur. Likewise after the first ablution he goes to the piscina to wash his fingers. During the Canon of the Mass thedeacon moves a fan to keep the flies away, a custom still in use inSicily and elsewhere. At the wordfregit in the form ofconsecration, thepriest, according to the Ordinal of 1312 and laterrubrics, makes a movement as if breaking the host. Great care is taken that the smoke of the thurible and of the torches do not interfere with the clear vision of the host when lifted up for the adoration of the faithful; thechalice, however, is only slightly elevated. The celebratingpriest does not genuflect but bows reverently. After thePater Noster the choir sings the psalmDeus venerunt genies for the restoration of the Holy Land. Theprayers for communion are identical with those of theSarum Rite and other similar uses, viz.domine sancte pater, Domine Jesu Christe (as in theRoman Rite), andSalve salus mundi. TheDomine non sum dignus was introduced only in 1568. The Mass ended withDominus vobiscum, Ite missa est (or its equivalent) andPlaceat. The chapter of 1324 ordered theSalve regina to be said at the end of each canonical hour as well as at the end of the Mass. The Last Gospel, which in both ordinals serves for thepriest's thanksgiving, appears in theMissal of 1490 as an integral part of the Mass. OnSundays and feasts there was, besides the festival Mass afterTerce or Sext, an early Mass(matutina) without solemnities, corresponding to the commemorations of the Office. FromEaster tillAdvent the Sunday Mass was therefore celebrated early in the morning, the high Mass being that of theResurrection of our Lord; similarly on theseSundays the ninth lesson with itsresponsory was taken from one of theEaster days; these customs had been introduced soon after the conquest of the Holy Land. A solemn commemoration of theResurrection was held on the last Sunday beforeAdvent; in all other respects theCarmelite Liturgy reflects more especially the devotion of the order towards the Blessed Virgin.
TheDivine Office also presents some noteworthy features. The firstVespers of certain feasts and theVespers duringLent have aresponsory usually taken fromMatins.Compline has varioushymns according to the season, and also specialantiphons for the Canticle. The lessons atMatins follow a somewhat different plan from those of the Roman Office. The singing of the genealogies of Christ afterMatins onChristmas and the Epiphany gave rise to beautiful ceremonies. After Tenebræ inHoly Week (sung at midnight) we notice the chant of theTropi; all theHoly Week services present interesting archaic features. Other points to be mentioned are theantiphonsPro fidei meritis etc. on theSundays from Trinity toAdvent and the verses after the psalms on Trinity, the feasts ofSt. Paul, and St. Laurence. Thehymns are those of the Roman Office; the proses appear to be a uniform collection which remained practically unchanged from the thirteenth century to 1544, when all but four or five were abolished. The Ordinal prescribes only four processions in the course of the year, viz. onCandlemas,Palm Sunday, theAscension, and the Assumption.
The calendar ofsaints, in the two oldest recensions of the Ordinal, exhibits some feasts proper to the Holy Land, namely some of the earlybishops ofJerusalem, the PatriarchsAbraham,Isaac, andJacob, andLazarus. The only special features were the feast ofSt. Anne, probably due to the fact that theCarmelites occupied for a short time aconvent dedicated to her inJerusalem (vacated byBenedictinenuns at the capture of that city in 1187), and the octave of the Nativity of Our Lady, which also was proper to the order. In the works mentioned below we have given the list of feasts added in the course of three centuries, and shall here speak only of a few. The Chapter of 1306 introduced those of St. Louis, Barbara,Corpus Christi, and the Conception of Our Lady (in Conceptione seu potius veneratione sanctificationis B. V.); theCorpus Christi procession, however, dates only from the end of the fifteenth century. In 1312 the second part of theConfiteor, which till then had been very short, was introduced. Daily commemorations of St. Anne and Sts. Albert and Angelus date respectively from the beginning and the end of the fifteenth century, but were transferred in 1503 from the canonical Office to the Little Office of Our Lady. Thefeast of the "Three Maries" dates from 1342, those of the Visitation, of Our Ladyad nives, and the Presentation from 1391. Feasts of the order were first introduced towards the end of the fourteenth century — viz. the Commemoration (Scapular Feast) of 16 July appears first about 1386; St. Eliseus,prophet andSt. Cyril of Constantinople in 1399;St. Albert in 1411; St. Angelus in 1456. Owing to the printing of the firstBreviary of the order atBrussels in 1480, a number of territorial feasts were introduced into the order, such as St. Joseph, theTen Thousand Martyrs, the Division of theApostles. Theraptus of St. Elias (17 June) is first to be found in the second half of the fifteenth century inEngland andGermany; the feast of the Prophet (20 July) dates at the earliest from 1551. Some general chapters, especially those of 1478 and 1564, added whole lists ofsaints, partly of real or supposedsaints of the order, partly ofmartyrs whose bodies were preserved in various churches belonging to theCarmelites, particularly that of San Martino ai Monti inRome. The revision of 1584 reduced the Sanctorale to the smallest possible dimensions, but many feasts then suppressed were afterwards reintroduced.
A word must be added about the singing. The Ordinal of 1312 allowsfauxbourdon, at least on solemn occasions; organs and organists are mentioned with ever-increasing frequency from the first years of the fifteenth century, the earliest notice being that of Mathias Johannis de Lucca, who in 1410 was electedorganist atFlorence; the organ itself was a gift of Johannes Dominici Bonnani, surnamed Clerichinus, who died at an advanced age on 24 Oct., 1416.
BENEDICT ZIMMERMAN
This rite is to be found in theliturgical books of the order. The collection, composed of fifteen books, was made by the General Chapter ofCîteaux, most probably in 1134; they are now included in theMissal,Breviary, Ritual, and calendar, or Martyrology. WhenPius V ordered the entire Church to conform to the RomanMissal andBreviary, he exempted theCistercians from thislaw, because their rite had been more than 400 years in existence. Under Claude Vaussin, General of theCistercians (in the middle of the seventeenth century), several reforms were made in theliturgical books of the order, and were approved byAlexander VII,Clement IX, andClement XIII. These approbations were confirmed byPius IX on 7 Feb., 1871, for theCistercians of the Common as well as for those of the Strict Observance. TheBreviary is quite different from the Roman, as it follows exactly the prescriptions of theRule of St. Benedict, with a very few minor additions. St. Benedict wished the entirePsalter recited each week; twelve psalms are to be said atMatins when there are but twoNocturns; when there is a thirdNocturn, it is to be composed of three divisions of a canticle, there being in this latter case always twelve lessons. Three psalms or divisions of psalms are appointed for Prime, the Little Hours, andCompline (in this latter hour the "Nunc dimittis" is never said), and always four psalms forVespers. Many minor divisions and directions are given inSt. Benedict's Rule.
In the oldmissal before the reform of Claude Vaussin, there were wide divergences between theCistercian and Roman rites. The psalm "Judica" was not said, but in its stead was recited the "Veni Creator"; the "Indulgentiam" was followed by the "Pater" and "Ave", and the "Oramus te Domine" was omitted inkissing the altar. After the "Pax Domini sit semper vobiscum", the "Agnus Dei" was said thrice, and was followed immediately by "Hæc sacrosancta commixtio corporis", said by thepriest while placing the small fragment of the Sacred Host in thechalice; then the "Domine Jesu Christe, Fili Dei Vivi" was said, but the "Corpus Tuum" and "Quod ore sumpsimus" were omitted. Thepriest said the "Placeat" as now, and then "Meritis et precibus istorum et onmium sanctorum. Suorum misereatur nostri Omnipotens Dominus. Amen", whilekissing the altar; with thesign of the Cross the Mass was ended. Outside of some minor exceptions in the wording and conclusions of variousprayers, the other parts of the Mass were the same as in theRoman Rite. Also in some Masses of the year the ordo was different; for instance, onPalm Sunday the Passion was only said at the high Mass, at the other Masses a special gospel only being said. However, since the time of Claude Vaussin the differences from the Roman Mass are insignificant.
In the calendar there are relatively few feasts ofsaints or other modern feasts, as none were introduced except those especially prescribed byRome for theCistercian Order; this was done in order to adhere as closely as possible to the spirit of St. Benedict in prescribing the weekly recitation of thePsalter. The divisions of the feasts are: major or minor feast of sermon; major or minor feast of two Masses; feast of twelve lessons and Mass; feast of three lessons and Mass; feast of commemoration and Mass; then merely a commemoration; and finally the feria.
The differences in the ritual are very small. As regards the lastsacraments, Extreme Unction is given before theHoly Viaticum, and in Extreme Unction the word "Peccasti" is used instead of the "Deliquisti" in theRoman Ritual. In theSacrament of Penance a shorter form ofabsolution may be used in ordinary confessions.
EDMOND M. OBRECHT
A name denoting the distinctiveceremonies embodied in theprivilegedliturgical books of theOrder of Preachers.
The question of a special unified rite for the order received no official attention in the time ofSt. Dominic, each province sharing in the generalliturgical diversities prevalent throughout theChurch at the time of the order's confirmation (1216). Hence, each province and often eachconvent had certain peculiarities in the text and in the ceremonies of theHoly Sacrifice and the recitation of the Office. The successors of St. Dominic were quick to recognize the impracticability of such conditions and soon busied themselves in an effort to eliminate the embarrassing distinctions. They maintained that the safety of a basic principle of community life unity ofprayer and worship-was endangered by this conformity with differentdiocesan conditions. Thisbelief was impressed upon them more forcibly by the confusion that theseliturgical diversities occasioned at the general chapters of the order where brothers from every province were assembled.
The first indication of an effort to regulateliturgical conditions was manifested by Jordan of Saxony, the successor of St. Dominic. In the Constitutions (1228) ascribed to him are found severalrubrics for the recitation of the Office. These insist more on the attention with which the Office should be said than on the qualifications of theliturgical books. However, it is said that Jordan took some steps in the latter direction and compiled one Office for universal use. Though this isdoubtful, it iscertain that his efforts were of little practical value, for the Chapters of Bologna (1240) andParis (1241) allowed eachconvent to conform with the local rites. The first systematic attempt at reform was made under the direction of John the Teuton, the fourth master general of the order. At his suggestion the Chapter of Bologna (1244) asked the delegates to bring to the next chapter (Cologne, 1245) their specialrubrics for the recitation of the Office, their Missals, Graduals, and Antiphonaries, "pro concordando officio". To bring some kind of order out of chaos a commission was appointed consisting of four members, one each from the Provinces ofFrance,England,Lombardy, andGermany, to carry out the revision at Angers. They brought the result of their labours to the Chapter ofParis (1246), which approved the compilation and ordered its exclusive use by the whole Order. This same chapter approved the "Lectionary" which had been entrusted to Humbert of Romains for revision. The work of the commission was again approved by the Chapters ofMontepulciano (1247) andParis (1248).
But dissatisfaction with the work of the commission was felt on all sides, especially with their interpretation of therubrics. They had been hurried in their work, and had left too much latitude for local customs. The question was reopened and the Chapter ofLondon (1250) asked the commission to reassemble atMetz and revise their work in the light of the criticisms that had been made; the result of this revision was approved at the Chapters ofMetz (1251) and Bologna (1252) and its use madeobligatory for the whole order. It was alsoordained that one copy of theliturgical books should be placed atParis and one at Bologna, from which the books for the otherconvents should be faithfully copied. However, it was recognized that these books were not entirely perfect, and that there was room for further revision. Though this work was done under the direction of John the Teuton, the brunt of the revision fell to the lot of Humbert of Romains, thenprovincial of theParis Province. Humbert was elected Master General of the Chapter of Buda (1254) and was asked to direct his attention to the question of the order'sliturgical books. He subjected each of them to a most thorough revision, and after two years submitted his work to the Chapter ofParis (1256). This and several subsequent chapters endorsed the work, effected legislation guarding against corruption, constitutionally recognized the authorship of Humbert, and thus once and for all settled a common rite for theOrder of Preachers throughout the world.
Clement IV, through the general, John ofVercelli, issued aBull in 1267 in which he lauded the ability andzeal of Humbert and forbade the making of any changes without the proper authorization. Subsequentpapal regulation went much further towards preserving the integrity of the rite.Innocent XI andClement XII prohibited the printing of the books without the permission of the master general and alsoordained that no member of the order should presume to use in his fulfilment of the choralobligation any book not bearing the seal of the general and a reprint of the pontifical Decrees. Another force preservative of the specialDominican Rite was theDecree ofPius V (1570), imposing a common rite on the universal Church but excepting those rites which had been approved for two hundred years. This exception gave to theOrder of Friars Preachers the privilege of maintaining its old rite, a privilege which the chapters of the order sanctioned and which the members of the order gratefully accepted. It must not be thought that the rite has come down through the ages absolutely without change. Some slight corruptions crept in despite the rigid legislation to the contrary. Then new feasts have been added with the permission of the Roman Pontiffs and many new editions of theliturgical books have been printed. Changes in the text, when they have been made, have always been effected with theidea of eliminating arbitrary mutilations and restoring the books to a perfect conformity with the old exemplars atParis and Bologna. Such were the reforms of the Chapters of Salamanca (1551),Rome (1777), and Ghent (1871). Several times movements have been started with theidea of conforming with theRoman Rite; but these have always been defeated, and the order still stands in possession of the rite conceded to it by Pope Clement in 1267.
To determine the sources of theDominican Rite is to come face to face with the haze and uncertainty that seems to shroud mostliturgical history. The thirteenth centuryknew no unifiedRoman Rite. While the basis of the usages of northwesternEurope was a Gallicanized-Gregorian Sacramentary sent byAdrian I toCharlemagne, each little locality had its own peculiar distinctions. At the time of the unification of theDominican Rite most of theconvents of the order were embraced within the territory in which the oldGallican Rite had once obtained and in which the Gallico-Roman Rite then prevailed. Jordan of Saxony, the pioneer inliturgical reform within the order, greatly admired the Rite of theChurchParis and frequently assisted at the recitations of the Office at Notre-Dame. Humbert of Romains, who played so important a part in the work of unification, was theprovincial of the French Province. These facts justify the opinion that the basis of theDominican Rite was the typicalGallican Rite of the thirteenth century. But documentary evidence that the rite was adapted from any one locality is lacking. The chronicles of the order state merely that the rite is neither the pure Roman nor the pure Gallican, but based on the Roman usage of the thirteenth century, with additions from the Rites ofParis and other places in which the order existed. Just from where these additions were obtained and exactly what they were cannot be determined, except in a general way, from an examination of each distinctive feature.
Two points must be emphasized here: (1) theDominican Rite is not an arbitrary elaboration of theRoman Rite made against the spirit of theChurch or to give the order an air of exclusiveness, nor can it be said to be more gallicanized then any use of the Gallico-Roman Rite of that period. It was an honest and sincere attempt to harmonize and simplify the widely divergent usages of the early half of the thirteenth century. (2) TheDominican Rite, formulated by Humbert, saw no radical development after its confirmation byClement IV. WhenPius V made his reform, theDominican Rite had been fixed and stable for over three hundred years, while a constantliturgical change had been taking place in other communities. Furthermore the comparative simplicity of theDominican Rite, as manifested in the differentliturgical books, gives evidence of its antiquity.
The rite compiled by Humbert contained fourteen books: (1) the Ordinary, which was a sort of an index to theDivine Office, the Psalms, Lessons, Antiphons, and Chapters being indicated by their first words. (2) The Martyrology, an amplified calendar ofmartyrs and othersaints. (3) The Collectarium, a book for the use of the hebdomidarian, which contained the texts and the notes for theprayers, chapters, andblessings. (4) The Processional, containing thehymns (text and music) for the processions. (5) ThePsalterium, containing merely thePsalter. (6) The Lectionary, which contained the Sundayhomilies, the lessons fromSacred Scripture and the lives of thesaints. (7) The Antiphonary, giving the text and music for the parts of the Office sung outside of the Mass. (8) The Gradual, which contained the words and the music for the parts of the Mass sung by the choir. (9) The ConventualMissal, for the celebration of solemn Mass. (10) The Epistolary, containing the Epistles for the Mass and the Office. (11) The Book of Gospels. (12) The Pulpitary, which contained the musical notation for the Gloria Patri, the Invitatory, Litanies, Tracts, and theAlleluia. (13) TheMissal for a private Mass. (14) TheBreviary, a compilation from all the books used in the choral recitation of the Office, very much reduced in size for the convenience of travellers.
By a process of elimination and synthesis undergone so by the books of theRoman Rite many of the books of Humbert have become superfluous while several others have been formed. These add nothing to the original text, but merely provide for the Addition of feasts and the more convenient recitation of the office. The collection of theliturgical books now contains: (1) Martyrology; (2) Collectarium; (3) Processional; (4) Antiphonary; (5) Gradual; (6)Missal for the conventual Mass; (7)Missal for the private Mass; (8)Breviary; (9) Vesperal; (10) Horæ Diurnæ (11) Ceremonial. The contents of these books follow closely the books of the same name issued by Humbert and which have just been described. The new ones are: (1) the Horæ Diurnæ (2) the Vesperal (with notes), adaptations from theBreviary and the Antiphonary respectively (3) the Collectarium, which is a compilation from all therubrics scattered throughout the other books. With the exception of theBreviary, these books are similar in arrangement to the correspondingly named books of theRoman Rite. TheDominicanBreviary is divided into two parts: Part I,Advent to Trinity; Part II, Trinity toAdvent.
Only the most striking differences between theDominican Rite and the Roman need be mentioned here. The most important is in the manner of celebrating a lowMass. The celebrant in theDominican Rite wears theamice over his head until the beginning of Mass, and prepares thechalice as soon as he reaches the altar. The Psalm "Judica me Deus" is not said and theConfiteor, much shorter than the Roman, contains the name of St. Dominic. The Gloria and the Credo are begun at the centre of the altar and finished at theMissal. At theOffertory there is a simultaneous oblation of the Host and thechalice and only oneprayer, the "Suscipe Sancta Trinitas". The Canon of the Mass is the same as the Canon of theRoman Rite, but after it are several noticeable differences. TheDominican celebrant says the "Agnus Dei" immediately after the "Pax Domini" and then recites threeprayers "Hæc sacrosancta commixtio" "Domine Jesu Christe", and "Corpus et sanguis" Then follows the Communion, thepriest receiving the Host from his left hand. Noprayers are said at the consumption of the Precious Blood, the firstprayer after the "Corpus et Sanguis" being the Communion. These are the most noticeable differences in the celebration of a lowMass. In a solemn Mass thechalice is prepared just after the celebrant has read the Gospel, seated at the Epistle side of the sanctuary. Thechalice is brought from the altar to the place where the celebrant is seated by the sub-deacon, who pours the wine and water into it and replaces it on the altar.
TheDominicanBreviary differs but slightly from the Roman. The Offices celebrated are of seven classes:--of the season (de tempore), ofsaints (de sanctis), of vigils, of octaves,votive Offices, Office of the Blessed Virgin, andOffice of the Dead. In point of dignity the feasts are classified as "totum duplex", "duplex" "simplex" "of three lessons", and "of a memory". The ordinary "totum duplex" feast is equivalent to the Roman greater double. A "totum duplex" with an ordinary octave (a simple or a solemn octave) is equal to the second-class double of theRoman Rite, and a "totum duplex" with a most solemn octave is like the Roman first-class double. A "duplex" feast is equivalent to the lesser double and the "simplex" to the semi-double. There is no difference in the ordering of thecanonical hours, except that all duringPaschal time theDominicanMatins provide for only three psalms and three lessons instead of the customary nine psalms and nine lessons. The Office of the Blessed Virgin must be said on all days on which feasts of the rank of duplex or "totum duplex" are not celebrated. TheGradual psalms must be said on all Saturdays on which is said thevotive Office of theBlessed Virgin. TheOffice of the Dead must be said once a week except during the week followingEaster and the week following Pentecost. Other minor points of difference are the manner of making the commemorations, the text of thehymns, the Antiphons, the lessons of the common Offices and the insertions of special feasts of the order. There is no great distinction between the musical notation of theDominican Gradual, Vesperal, and Antiphonary and the corresponding books of the new Vatican edition. TheDominican chant has been faithfully copied from themanuscripts of the thirteenth century, which were in turn derived indirectly from the Gregorian Sacramentary. One is not surprised therefore at the remarkable similarity between the chant of the two rites. For a more detailed study of theDominican Rite reference may be had to the order'sliturgical books.
IGNATIUS SMITH.
TheFranciscans, unlike theDominicans,Carmelites, and other orders, have never had a peculiar rite properly so called, but, conformably to the mind ofSt. Francis of Assisi, have always followed theRoman Rite for the celebration of Mass. However, theFriars Minor and theCapuchins wear theamice, instead of thebiretta, over the head, and are accustomed to sayMass with their feet uncovered, save only by sandals. They also enjoy certain privileges in regard to the time and place of celebratingMass, and the Missale Romano-Seraphicum contains many proper Masses not found in the RomanMissal. These are mostly feasts ofFranciscansaints and blessed, which are not celebrated throughout theChurch, or other feasts having a peculiar connexion with the order, e.g. the Feast of the Mysteries of the Way of the Cross (Friday beforeSeptuagesima), and that of the Seven Joys of the Blessed Virgin (First Sunday after the octave of the Assumption). The same istrue in regard to the Breviarium Romano-Seraphicum, and Martyrologium Romano-Seraphicum. TheFranciscans exercised great influence in the origin and evolution of theBreviary, and on the revision of the Rubrics of the Mass. They have also their own calendar, or ordo. This calendar may be used not only in the churches of the First Order, but also in thechurches andchapels of the Second Order, andThird Order Regular (if aggregated to the First Order) and Secular, as well as those religious institutes which have had some connexion with the parent body. It may also be used bysecular priests orclerics who are members of theThird Order. The order has also its own ritual and ceremonial for its receptions, professions, etc.
FERDINAND HECKMANN
TheFriars MinorCapuchin use theRoman Rite, except that in theConfiteor the name of their founder, St. Francis is added after the names of the Apostles, and in the suffrages they make commemorations of St. Francis and allsaints of their order. The use ofincense in the conventual mass on certain solemnities, even though the Mass is said and not sung, is anotherliturgical custom (recently sanctioned by theHoly See) peculiar to their order. Generally speaking, theCapuchins do not have sung Masses except inparochial churches, and except in these churches they may not have organs without the minister general's permission. By aDecree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 May, 1890, the minister general, when celebratingMass at the time of thecanonical visitation and on solemnities, has the privileges of a domesticprelate of His Holiness. In regard to theDivine Office, theCapuchins do not sing it according to note but recite it in monotone. In the larger communities they generally reciteMatins andLauds at midnight, except on the three last days ofHoly Week, when Tenebræ is chanted on the preceding evening, and during the octaves ofCorpus Christi and the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary, whenmatins are recited also on the preceding evening with theBlessed Sacrament exposed. Every day afterCompline they add, extra-liturgically, commemorations of the Immaculate Conception, St. Francis, andSt. Anthony of Padua. On the feast of St. Francis after secondVespers they observe the service called the "Transitus" of St. Francis, and on all Saturdays, except feasts of first and second class and certain privileged feriæ and octaves, all Masses said in their churches are votive inhonour of the Immaculate Conception, excepting only the conventual mass. They follow the universal calendar, with the addition of feasts proper to their order. These additional feasts include allcanonizedsaints of the wholeFranciscan Order, allbeati of theCapuchin Reform and the more notablebeati of the whole order; and every year the 5th of October is observed as a commemoration of the departed members of the order in the same way as the 2nd of November is observed in the universal Church. Owing to the great number of feasts thus observed, theCapuchins have the privilege of transferring the greater feasts, whennecessary, to days marked semi-double. According to the ancient Constitutions of the Order, theCapuchins were not allowed to use vestments of rich texture, not even of silk, but byDecree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 December, 1888, they must now conform to the generallaws of theChurch in this matter. They are, however, stillobliged to maintain severe simplicity in their churches, especially when nonparochial.
FATHER CUTHBERT
TheNorbertine rite differs from the Roman in the celebration of theSacrifice of the Mass, in theDivine Office, and in the administration of theSacrament of Penance.
TheMissal is proper to the order and is not arranged like the RomanMissal. The canon is identical, with the exception of a slight variation as to the time of making thesign of the cross with thepaten at the "Libera nos". The music for the Prefaces etc. differs, though not considerably, from that of the RomanMissal. Twoalleluias are said after the "Ite missa est" for a week afterEaster; for the whole of the remainingPaschal time onealleluia is said. The rite for the celebration of feasts gives the following grades: three classes of triples, two of doubles, celebre, nine lessons, three lessons. No feasts are celebrated during privileged octaves. There are so many feasts lower than double that usually no privilege is needed for votive Masses. Therubrics regulating the various feasts of the year are given in the "Ordinarius Sen. liber cæremomarum canonici ordinis Præmonstratensis". Rubrics for the specialliturgical functions are found in theMissal, theBreviary, the Diurnal, the Processional, the Gradual, and the Antiphonary.
TheBreviary differs from theRoman Breviary in its calendar, the manner of reciting it, arrangement of matter. Somesaints on the Roman calendar are omitted. The feasts peculiar to theNorbertines are: St. Godfried, C., 16 Jan.; St. Evermodus, B. C., 17 Feb.; Bl. Frederick, Abbot, 3 Mar.; St. Ludolph, B. M., 29 Mar.; Bl. Herman Joseph, C., 7 Apr.; St. Isfrid, B. C., ' 15 June; Sts. Adrian and James, MM., 9 July; Bl. Hrosnata, 19 July, 19; Bl. Gertrude, V., 13 Aug.; Bl. Bronislava, V., 30 Aug.; St. Gilbert, Abbot, 24 Oct.; St. Siardus, Abbot, 17 Nov. The feast ofSt. Norbert, founder of the order, which falls on 6 June in the Roman calendar, is permanently transferred to 11 July, so that its solemn rite may not be interfered with by the feasts of Pentecost andCorpus Christi. Other feasts are the Triumph of St. Norbert over the sacramentarianheresy of Tanchelin, on the thirdSunday after Pentecost, and the Translation of St. Norbert commemorating the translation of his body fromMagdeburg toPrague, on thefourth Sunday after Easter. Besides the daily recitation of thecanonical hours theNorbertines areobliged to say theLittle Office of the Blessed Virgin, except on triple feasts and during octaves of the first class. In choir this is said immediately after theDivine Office.
The form ofabsolution is not altogether in harmony with that of theRoman Ritual. The following is theNorbertine formula: "Dominus noster Jesus Christus te absolvat, et ego auctoritate ipsius, mihi licet indignissimo concessa, absolvo te in primis, a vinculo excommunicationis ... in quantum possum et indiges", etc.
Theliturgical books of theNorbertines were reprinted by order of the general chapter held atPrémontré, in 1738, and presided over by Claude H. Lucas, abbot-general. A new edition of theMissal and theBreviary was issued after the General Chapter of Prague, in 1890. In 1902 a committee was appointed to revise the Gradual, Antiphonary, etc. This committee received much encouragement in its work by the Motu Proprio ofPius X onchurch music. The General Chapter of Tepl,Austria, in 1908, decided to edit the musical books of the order as prepared, in accordance with ancientmanuscripts by this committee
G. RYBROOK
TheOrder of Servites (see SERVANTS OF MARY) cannot be said to possess a separate or exclusive rite similar to theDominicans and others, but follows theRoman Ritual, as provided in its constitutions, with very slight variations. Devotion towards the Mother of Sorrows being the principal distinctive characteristic of the order, there are specialprayers andindulgences attaching to the solemn celebration of the five major Marian feasts, namely, the Annunciation, Visitation, Assumption, Presentation, and Nativity of our Blessed Lady.
Thefeast of the Seven Dolours of the Blessed Virgin Mary, celebrated always on the Third Sunday of September, has a privileged octave and is enriched with a plenaryindulgencead instar Portiunculoe; that is, as often as a visit is made to a church of the order. In common with allfriars theServitepriests wear anamice on the head instead of abiretta while proceeding to and from the altar. The Mass is begun with the first part of theAngelical Salutation, and in theConfiteor the wordsSeptem beatis patribus nostris are inserted. At the conclusion of Mass theSalve Regina and the orationOmnipotens sempiterne Deus are recited. In the recitation of theDivine Office each canonical hour is begun with the Ave Maria down to the wordsventris tui, Jesus. The custom of reciting daily, immediately beforeVespers, a specialprayer calledVigilia, composed of the three psalms and threeantiphons of the first nocturn of the Office of the Blessed Virgin, followed by three lessons and responses, comes down from the thirteenth century, when they were offered in thanksgiving for a special favour bestowed upon the order byPope Alexander IV (13 May, 1259). TheSalve Regina is daily chanted in choir whether or not it is the antiphon proper to the season.
LITURGICAL SCIENCE.--RENAUDOT,Liturgiarum orientalium collectio (Frankfurt, 1847); MARTENELe antiquis ecclesioe ritibus (Antwerp and Milan, 1736-8); ASSEMANI,Codex liturgicus ecclesioe universoe (Rome, 1749-66); DANIEL,Codex liturgicus ecclesioe universoe (Leipzig, 1847); DENZIGER,Ritus Orientalium (Wurzburg, 1863); NILLES,Kalendarium manuals (Innsbruck, 1896); HAMMOND,Liturgies, Eastern and Western (Oxford, 1878); BRIGHTMAN,Eastern Liturgies (Oxford, 1896); CABROL,Introduction aux études liturgiques (Paris, 1907); RIETSCHEL,Lehrbuch der Liturgik (Berlin, 1900); CLEMEN,Quellenbuch zur praktischen Theologie, 1: Liturgik (Giessen, 1910); The Prayer-books of Edward VI and Elizabeth are reprinted in theAncient and Modern Library of Theological Literature (London); PROCTOR AND FRERE,A New History of the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1908); MAUDE,A History of the Book of Common Prayer (London, 1899).
CARMELITE RITE.--ZIMMERMAN,Le cérémonial de Maitre Sibert de Beka inChroniques du Carmel Jambes-lez-Namur, 1903-5); IDEM,Ordinaire de l'Ordre de Notre-Dame du Mont Carmel (Paris, 1910), being the thirteenth volume ofBibliothèque liturgique; WESSELS,Ritus Ordinis inAnalecta Ordinis Carmelitarum (Rome, 1909); WEALE,Bibliographia liturgica (London, 1886). The oldest Ordinal, now in Dublin but of English origin, written after 1262 and before the publication of the Constitution of Boniface VIII,"Gloriosus Deus," C. Gloriosus, de Reliquiis, in Sexto, has not yet been printed.
CISTERCIAN RITE.--Missale Cisterciense, MS. of the latter part of the fourteenth century;Mis. Cist. (Strasburg, 1486);Mis. Cist. (Paris, 1516, 1545, 1584);Regula Ssmi Patris Benedicti; Breviarium Cist. cum Bulla Pii Papoe IX die 7 Feb., 1871; BONA,Op. omnia (Antwerp, 1677); GUIGNART,Mon. primitifs de la règle cist. (Dijon, 1878);Rubriques du bréviaire cist., by a religious of La Grande Trappe (1882); TRILHE,Mémoire sur le projet de cérémonial cist. (Toulouse, 1900); IDEM,Man. Coeremoniarum juxta usum S.O. Cist. (Westmalle, 1908).
DOMINICAN RITE.--MORTIER,Hist. des mattres généraux de l'Ordre des Frères Prêcheurs, I (Paris, 1903), 174, 309-312, 579 sq.; CASSITTO,Liturgia Dominicana (Naples, 1804); MASETTI,Mon. et Antiq. vet. discipl. Ord. Præd. (Rome, 1864); DANZAS,Etudes sur too temps prim. de l'ordre do S. Dominique (Paris, 1884);Acta Capitulorum Ord. Proed., ed. REICHERT (Rome, 1898-1904);Litt. Encyc. Magist. Gener. O. P., ed. REICHERT (Rome, 1900); TURON,Hist. des hommes ill. do I'Ordre de St. Dominique, 1, 341;Bullarium O. P., passim.
FRANCISCAN RITE.--Coerem. Romano-Seraph. (Quaracchi, 1908);Rit. Romano-Seraph. (Quaracchi, 1910);Promptuarium Seraph. Quaracchi, 1910).
CAPUCHIN RITE.--Ceremoniale Ord. Cap.; Analecta Ord. Cap.; Constit. ord. (Rome).
APA citation.Griffin, P.(1912).Rites. InThe Catholic Encyclopedia.New York: Robert Appleton Company.http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm
MLA citation.Griffin, Patrick."Rites."The Catholic Encyclopedia.Vol. 13.New York: Robert Appleton Company,1912.<http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/13064b.htm>.
Transcription.This article was transcribed for New Advent by Jeffrey L. Anderson.
Ecclesiastical approbation.Nihil Obstat. February 1, 1912. Remy Lafort, D.D., Censor.Imprimatur. +John Cardinal Farley, Archbishop of New York.
Contact information. The editor of New Advent is Kevin Knight. My email address is webmasterat newadvent.org. Regrettably, I can't reply to every letter, but I greatly appreciate your feedback — especially notifications about typographical errors and inappropriate ads.