HOME | Liturgies-Key | The Romano-Gallican Rite I | R-G Rite II (Gelasian) | R-G Rite III | Conclusion | The Ambrosian Liturgy |
(Par. Bib. Nat.
13246).
This most interesting document is still to a great extent a mystery.
Dom Wilmart, who has given much study to it, says: 'From the
liturgical point of view it is generally admitted that the Bobbio Missal is a disconcerting compilation, rebellious to
investigation [H.B.S. Ixi. 56.]; to palaeographists it is equally puzzling. It was discovered
by Mabillon at Bobbio in northern Italy, and he thought it had been written at Luxeuil in the seventh century; E. A. Lowe dates it
eighth century [Ibid. 98.]. Its provenance is important to enable us to place it in its
historical relation with other liturgies, but it is variously assigned to Bobbio or its environs, to the region of Narbonne, to
Milanese territory, and to 'an obscure village in France'. E. Bishop was convinced that it was written at Bobbio by Irish
scholars, and that it was an Irish rite [Liturgica hist. 62 sqq.]. It is a strange
mixture of Irish, Gallican, Roman, and Spanish elements.
A curious feature of the book is that out of its sixty-one Masses, which usually have two Collects, a Post Nomina, an Adpacem, and a Contestatio, rather more than one quarter have instead one Collect, a Secret, and a Contestatio. This suggests Roman borrowing, but while there are many Roman forms in the other Masses, there are few in this group, which must be taken from some unknown source. The Secret here seems to correspond to the 'ad pacem', but nowhere in this book are the prayers which are headed 'ad pacem' and 'post nomina' true to type.
This Sacramentary (for it is not a Missal in the later sense of the word) contains the Roman Canon with slight variants, and calls it 'Roman'. The words added by St. Gregory are included, so it is not earlier than the seventh century.
(Royal Irish Academy, Dublin).
This, too, has caused much difficulty. Some scholars place it in the seventh century, others in the eighth, ninth, or tenth. It is
Irish with Roman admixtures. The Canon, with the words 'diesque &c.', is called by Moel-caich, its corrector, 'Canon
dominicus Papae Gilasi', which Burkitt takes to mean simply that it was known to be 'old-fashioned' by those who knew the
Gregorian Sacramentary, which succeeded the Gelasian Sacramentary, shortly to be considered. [J.T.S. Apr. 1931 (xx), 281.]
(Vat. Reg. lat. 257).
This comes from France, as is shown by frequent references to the King and Kingdom of the Franks.
It is seventh or eighth
century, and only a fragment. The Roman element is so strong that Duchesne includes it among the Roman books [Christian Worship, p. 134.]; but it should be classed as Gallican mixed with
Roman.
This group of Sacramentaries shows a very definite Romanizing of the Gallican liturgy. Coming from Italy (or SE. France), Ireland, and France, respectively, they are independent of one another; yet they have behind them one original Roman text, which may, however, consist only of the Canon. Bishop sees a common ancestor of Bobbio and Stowe in a supposed manuscript current in Ireland about 600 [Liturgica hist. pp. 62 sqq.]. The existence of Gregory's addition does not date the original, for the words may have been added, but certain slight divergencies suggest that it was earlier than those used by the documents to be considered later, and prior to Gregory I. For example, in the Hanc igitur, Stowe and Francorum, with De Sacr., two early north Italian manuscripts, and a corrector of Bobbio, have 'suscipias' instead of 'accipias', and the same pair add 'et petimus' after 'Supplices te rogamus' also with De Sacr.; and in Hanc igitur all these add 'quam tibi offerimus in honorem'.
Bishop's conclusion that an Irish original lies behind all is hardly consistent with the evidence he adduces, though Irish scholars may have had a hand in the Bobbio Missal. Stowe and Franc, are closer to one another than to Bobb., which, with the later Biasca and Bergamo Sacramentaries, represents a north Italian tradition.
(Vat. Reg. lat 316).
This was for a long time looked upon as a Roman Sacramentary, but it must now be included in the Gallican books of the time when
the Roman liturgy had made considerable advance in the Gallican regions.
It was written in the seventh century or perhaps the beginning of the eighth, probably for the Abbey of St. Denis. The place of its origin is not known, but it was somewhere in the north of France. The name by which it is always known is not to be found in the manuscript, where it is called 'Liber sacramentorum Romanae ecclesiae'; but the title 'Gelasian' was given to it, or rather to its type, as far back as the ninth century, for several inventories of monastic libraries from the year 830 onwards mention both 'Gregorian' and 'Gelasian' Missals; at St. Riquier there were no less than nineteen of the latter.
There is no reason for believing that Gelasius (492-6) compiled such a collection of Masses as this book
contains.
The attribution of its authorship to him is no doubt due to a notice in Liber PontificaUs, which says of Gelasius:
'He also made prefaces and prayers of the sacraments in restrained language (cauto sermone)', and to an early life of Gelasius by Gennadius, who says that 'he wrote expositions of divers passages of Scripture and the Sacraments in polished language (delimata sermone)'. [De viris illustr. The passage is apparently an addition. D.A.C.L, xi, 709.] These statements do not suggest that he composed or collected a whole Sacramentary. Walafrid Strabo (d. 849) tells us that Gelasius 'is said to have' arranged prayers composed by himself and others, and that the Churches of God made use of his prayers. [De rebus ecclesiast. x.]
The Sacramentary is divided into three books. The first is 'Liber sacramentorum Romanae ordinis anni circuit'; but it has no Masses for Sundays after Pentecost and contains, besides Masses for the Church's seasons, forms of ordination, reconciliation of penitents, consecration of oils, &c. It also includes among the ordination prayers a 'capitulum S. Gregorii Papae', warning against unworthily seeking orders, which shows that even this part as a whole could not have come from Gelasius. The second part contains Masses for the Saints' days; the third those for Sundays outside the great Festivals and for special occasions, and also the Canon. Here we have, very roughly it is true, the triple arrangement of the later Missal: the Propers of the Season, the Sanctorale, and the Commune and Votive Masses.
The Canon includes the words 'diesque nostros, &c.', which are said to
have been added by Gregory, another indication that some portions at least are more than 100 years later than Gelasius. There are
other evidences of date. That there are no Masses for Thursdays in Lent, which were made Stations by Gregory II (715-31), shows
that the Roman collection, which forms the nucleus of the book, cannot have been made later than his death. But there are Masses
for the Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays in Lent, which were established as Stations by Gregory I.
The Lord's Prayer is also
in the position in which it was placed by this Pope, and he is mentioned as a Saint in a prayer for the fruitfulness of a woman.
In the same book there is a Mass for the Exaltation of the Cross, a Festival created to commemorate the discovery of what was
believed to be the true Cross in 628. There are now fewer Prefaces and Post-communions than in previous books, and usually only
two Collects, often only one.
The collection from which the Vatican MS. was copied must therefore have been made somewhere between 628 and the early years of the eighth century. But this is not necessarily the date of the Roman source that underlies it. The manuscript shows a Gallican rite which is far removed from that described by Germanus. All the features that characterize the Gallican liturgy as compared with others have gone. The Memento etiam (I) is absent, but otherwise the Canon is scarcely different from that of the Missal. Yet it is a liturgy which was used in Gaul and contained many Gallic features which show themselves in secondary matters instead of in the main structure of the Mass. There are a certain number of pages that are Gallican in style, and some forms which occur in other Gallican Sacramentaries but not in Rome. Certain ordination forms are also probably of Gallican origin. The absence of any indication of Roman 'Station Churches' also points this way, and so do terms such as 'post dausum Paschae' for the Sundays between Low Sunday and Whitsunday. The solemn prayers for Good Friday have 'Romanum sive Francorum imperium', though the Masses for kings in Part III only read 'Romanum'.
Before attempting any answer to the problems set by the data given by this document, the books which are now to be described, and which also bear the name of 'Gelasian', will need to be considered.
(Zurich
30).
This manuscript is one of a group that, with the Vatican MS, are usually all included in the term 'Gelasian', but there are
sufficiently important differences to require a distinguishing term. These are often referred to as the 'Eighth-century Gelasian'
books. The arrangement is quite different from that of the Vatican document. The Saints' days and the movable feasts are, in
general, placed in order of date throughout the Church's year, forming the first part; those matters which are not strictly Masses
are in the second part together with the votive Masses. It appears that this manuscript was compiled for the use of a priest,
since the pontifical forms are generally omitted. It is, however, distinctly more Gallican than Vaticanus. It has the Rogation
days,' ordered by a Council of Orleans in 511, and not introduced into Rome till about 866. Frankish Saints are mentioned in the
Canon, which unlike Vatican and St. Gall (to be described next) has the Memento etiam (I). In one Mass, instead of the
Secret, there is a bidding that implies the recitation of names, at this date and in this part of the Mass a Gallican feature [For it belongs to Memento Domine (V), which is now in the Canon.], and probably a similar
commemoration of the departed in the Canon is also local. On the other hand, the Roman 'Stations' are mentioned in this book.
(St. Gall. Bibl. Canton. 348).
Eighth century or beginning of ninth. A note in a handwriting of the same period says: 'Remember, O Lord, thy servant Remedius', who is probably the notable Bishop of Chur in Raetia c. 800. The order of this book is much the same as in Rheinau, with which it is more closely allied than with Vat.; but it lacks the second part, and shows few signs of Gallicanism, as is to be expected from its birthplace. The Franks are not mentioned; there are no Rogation days. Some of the Saints mentioned may be Gallican, but the Kalendar shows little French or Teuton influence. The names of St. Hilary and St. Martin are in the Communicantes, but their prominence would explain that. There are large numbers of Saints commemorated, who are not found in the early Roman Kalendars; but they are chiefly Italian.
There are a few other texts of the Gelasian type; they do not add much to our knowledge of the history of the rite.
A careful study of these Sacramentaries shows that Vaticanus is not only an earlier manuscript but represents an earlier stage of development. Besides rearranging the matter, Rheinau and St. Gall have mixed it with further Gallican forms, including a number that seem to belong to the next stage, the Gregorian. The Gelasian Sacramentaries thus overlap the Gregorian.
The Canon is that of St. Gregory, except that Memento etiam is absent from
the earlier editions.
It is worthy of note that in the best manuscripts it appears at the end of the book, or followed only by
obvious additions to the original book. The form of Canon that is given in these documents is probably later than the date of the
original collection. It has either been substituted for the original, or more probably there was no Canon in the original; it was
merely a collection of variable Masses. This may also have been the case with Leonianum. Even if that document had a
Canon it could well have been Gregory's, since the manuscript, though not the original collection, was later than that Pope. It is
certain that in copying old manuscripts it is the Canon that would be most carefully brought up to date.
As to the date of the original Gelasian collection, Duchesne puts it between 628 and 731, as above [Christian Worship, p. 130.]. There is a difficulty about this, for, if it is as late as that, it is hard to explain the existence of the Gregorian book, which is so different from this, and could not be much later. Wilson's conclusion is that it was a pre-Gregorian book with post-Gregorian additions and insertions, and that a revision had taken place after Vaticanus had been copied, from which Reich and St. Gall were made [Gelas. Sacr. Introd.]. Cabrol takes the earlier phase back to c. 500. [D.A.C.L. vi. 768.]
The Gelasian Sacramentary does not give the Ordinary of the Mass [The word 'Ordinary' is sometimes used for the whole Mass; but I have used it for that portion which precedes the Canon.], but each separate Mass has generally two Collects, a Secret, and a Post-communion, and many have a proper Preface. In Lent there are also Ad, populum prayers.
Manuscripts of the Roman rite after Leonianum are very rare, but there is one which is thought by some scholars to give an example of the liturgy as revised by St. Gregory and current in Rome in the second half of the seventh century (Monte Cassino 271 or 348). It consists of seven fragments which were erased in the eleventh century to make way for another writing. It was taken to Monte Cassino early in the eighth century. It includes the Canon, which was by this time fixed.
The Gregorian Sacramentary gives us a later stage in the development of the Roman rite, as well as that of Gaul. The origin of this is recorded in the letter from Pope Hadrian to Charlemagne (see p. 81), about 790. None of the manuscripts that survive is the document sent by Hadrian. It would appear that the Roman Mass was too austere for the Gallican Church, which was accustomed to give freer rein to the expression of its religious feelings than the more dignified and restrained Church of Rome, and which also had many customs unknown in Rome but dear to the people of the north. No sooner, then, had the Emperor prescribed Hadrian's book for use in his dominions than the copies distributed began to be supplemented for local needs. The manuscripts of the Gregorian Sacramentary, which should rather be called the 'Hadrian Sacramentary', give us the expanded editions current in divers regions.
E. Bishop has shown that the original document of Hadrian has been preserved in substance in the oldest type of Gregorian books, for there is in them a first part, which he considers to be that of Hadrian, generally followed by supplements giving the additions required for Gallican use [Liturgica hist.; 'The Roman Rite'.]. These supplements include Prefaces for each Mass and the Benedictions which Gallican bishops were accustomed to give with great solemnity at the Communion.
In one group of manuscripts (Ottobonianus MS. 313, and many like it) there is a special Preface (Praefatiuncula) between these two portions, probably written by Alcuin, the English scholar who was the liturgical adviser of the Emperor. Micrologus (11th cent.) definitely attributed it to him [c. 60.]. In this Preface he states that the preceding portion, with some few exceptions, which he marks, had been put forth by Gregory, and also that the text had become corrupt, and had now been corrected. But there were other materials which the Church 'necessarily' used, and which Gregory had left aside, knowing that others had already put them forth, and these 'like spring flowers in the meadows' were placed in this book apart, so that the reader might find all things that were necessary. The writer is careful to add that if any one thinks the work superfluous, he can still use Gregory's work alone. There are, however, in all extant copies more alterations to the first part than Alcuin indicates by his marks. This portion has been interpolated with Gelasian texts.
There are several classes of Gregorian MSS.
It is clear, then, that the first part of the Gregorian Sacramentary is the book, slightly altered, which Hadrian sent to Charlemagne. The supplementary Masses drew their matter from the Gelasian books then in use, and from the older Gallican books. But there remains the question whether that document was, as the writer of the Praefatiuncula says, the work of St. Gregory.
That Gregory was responsible for a number of changes and additions to the Mass is certain. He inserted the words 'diesque nostros, &c.' into the Canon; from his own letters we learn that he either brought the Lord's Prayer into the Canon or moved its position; he had Alleluia sung in other seasons than Easter; he organized processions. Aid-helm (d. 709) [De laudibus virginitatis, xlii.] and Egbert of York (d. 766) [Dialogus, xv.] in England attribute the Missals brought over by St. Augustine for use there to St. Gregory. Walafrid Strabo (807-49) [De ecclesiast. rerum exordiis, xxi.] ascribes to him a missal, and both he and John the Deacon (c. 872) say that Gregory constructed the Antiphonary [Ibid, and Vita B. Gregori, ii. 6.]. The last-named also credits him with the foundation of the Schola cantorum, though wrongly, for it must have been earlier. There are other evidences of his liturgical interest and activity.
Duchesne, on the ground of the inclusion in the first part of the Gregorian Sacramentary of several Masses which must be later than Gregory, says: 'It would be hazardous to cite the Gregorian Sacramentary as an authority belonging to the end of the sixth century.' [Christian Worship, p. 124.] This is not conclusive. It is possible that Gregory revised and rearranged the Mass, that it was later added to, and that Hadrian's book was a later edition of Gregory's work. The great majority of liturgiologists, Bishop, Morin, Cagin, Probst, Cabrol, Wilmart, Lietzmann, and others uphold the Gregorian compilation of the original document.
One strange feature of Hadrian's Missal is the absence of Masses for the ordinary Sundays of the year such as the Sundays after Epiphany, after Easter, and after Pentecost. This supports the suggestion that it was not actually the Missal of the Church of Rome but a private collection for the use of the Pope. If so, it is probable that the Missal in use in Roman parishes was different and fuller. The Monte Cassino fragments indicate that in its time, about 650, the Temporals and Sanctorale were mingled as in Hadrian's book, and that there was a fairly complete year. But it does not seem to me to have been satisfactorily explained how, if Gregory made a book of the whole year 'liber sacramentorum ordinis anni circuit'. Hadrian's could lack so much. Duchesne's theory of two books, one for the Pope and one for the priests, does not explain this; nor does Bishop's suggestion that there was a supplement which Hadrian failed to send. Could a Pope providing an empire with the Church's liturgy have been guilty of such carelessness as either implies, and would it not have been rectified? We are almost compelled to the conclusion that in Hadrian's time there were still no Masses set forth by authority for some Sundays in the year.
Perhaps we ought to go farther and ask whether there was any official Mass-book before Hadrian made his authoritative by giving it to the Emperor as a standard. Hadrian's Sacramentary is a very different book from that which lies behind the Gelasian. If the latter was produced before the episcopate of St. Gregory, and had an official character, it is difficult to believe that he would have made such drastic changes, involving not only the redistribution of the prayers that are common to the two books, but in many cases the alteration in function of some of the prayers. If, on the other hand, it is later than St. Gregory, it is scarcely possible that Hadrian's book, if it is due to St. Gregory, could have been official. Either of them would have precluded the other.
Putting these considerations side by side with the silence of contemporary writers on Gregory's authorship of a Sacramentary, it seems better to suppose that the Gelasian original was a private collection, possibly the collection used by a Pope but not issued for the use of the Church, and that St. Gregory's was a similar but different collection, which may be his work, but which was not, at least in his time, put forth as official. If this is so, it was handed down to his successors, came into the hands of Hadrian as the work of Gregory, and thus passed into the Gallican Church as the Gregorian Sacramentary.
We have now before us all the principal evidence available for the reconstruction of the course of development of the Roman Mass. It is the Canon that most concerns us for comparative purposes, for the pre-Anaphora as yet consists of little more than the variables.
The problems are of amazing complexity. Most of the incidental evidence is equivocal. At each stage of the inquiry we are called on to balance probabilities, with the result that the truth of any complete theory of development has a very small probability in its favour. Nevertheless, we can form some opinion of the merits of the various theories that have been put forward, and arrive at some conclusions that are likely to be not far from the truth. The following are some of the chief explanations of the facts:
These are only a few of the many explanations, varying in details, which have been made. Naturally some of the scholars mentioned have modified some of their ideas. The various theories are very confusing and can scarcely be classified. It would be rash to venture on any attempt to decide between them; but some remarks may be made.
At any stage, when once improvisation has become unusual, gradual changes are much more likely to have taken place than a thoroughgoing recasting of the liturgy. Throughout the history we see signs of great reverence for tradition. It is therefore more probable that alterations, when made, did not seem to involve a radical change. On the whole this suggests that extensive rearrangement is more likely to be early than late.
It seems to me that De Sacramentis must substantially preserve the act of consecration of the Roman liturgy of that date, and that it must be prior to Gelasius; but that Pope clearly refers to an Invocation in his time. It would be too much to suppose that the Epiclesis of Apostolic Tradition, if genuine, was dropped and then at a later date a new one inserted. We can only account for both appearances by the hypothesis that De Sacramentis, which certainly does not give the whole Canon, had an Epiclesis before the Words of Institution, and that that was also its position with Gelasius. If this is so neither VIII nor the first part of will be the remains of the original Epiclesis; but the beginning of IV and the end of do look very like an Epiclesis, the middle of which has dropped out. And we know that there has been a recasting of . It is then quite reasonable to imagine that an Invocation, such as appears in Apostolic Tradition, was either moved to a place before the Institution at some time before the fifth century, or was always there, and that it continued there till the end of the fifth century. What form it took one cannot tell.
We have seen too, if the conclusions come to on p. 61 are correct, that the Intercessions were not in the Canon at the beginning of the fifth century. In fact there is no sound evidence that any changes in the Canon, except a few words added by Leo, were made during that century. But the change of the Intercession could hardly have been made later than Symmachus (498-514), for Vigilius (538) has evidently been used to it all his life.
After the establishment of the Gregorian Sacramentary in Gaul, with all the Gallican elements which had been introduced into Hadrian's model, it began to find its way back into Rome, and gradually the local Roman use adopted much of its non-Roman contents, thereby receiving enrichment, though of an exotic flavour.
About the ninth and tenth centuries there sprang up, principally as the result of the multiplication of Masses, which had brought about the Low Mass, where the priest had to supply the parts properly belonging to the deacon and other ministers, the practice of gathering together into one book all the words of the Mass. Thus the Sacramentary, so far as the Mass was concerned, the Lectionary (or its divisions. Epistles, Gospels, &c.), and the books containing the chants, formed the Missal proper - Missale plenum. During the next few centuries the increasing authority of the Papacy prevented any fundamental changes, but every important Church had its own variations, until the Council of Trent appointed a Commission to revise the Missal. In 1570 this Missal of Pius V was issued, and became the only book to be used in the Roman Catholic Churches, with the exception of a few places where an ancient rite is still allowed, as, e.g., Toledo and Milan. Since then it has again been revised in 1604 (Clement VIII), in 1634 (Urban VIII), and in 1884 (Leo I) and 1911 (Pius X)
The whole of the Roman Catholic Church, not including the Uniats, use the Roman rite in Latin, though
Slavonic is allowed in some places, and Greek on occasions in Rome. There are, however, modified rites used by certain Orders
(Dominicans, Carthusians, and Carmelites), and in some dioceses [Viz. Lyon, and since 1929 also Braga.].
These mostly differ in the ceremonies and occasions on which certain optional forms may be used. Amongst the Uniats Greek,
Palaeoslavonic, Georgian, Rumanian, and Arabic are allowed.
The Church of Milan, as we have seen, was to a certain extent independent of Rome, and at an early time developed a rite that has marked Gallican characteristics. The nearness of Milan to Rome caused it to adopt with greater ease Roman customs, while perhaps the same cause saved it from extinction, so that to-day it still retains the Ambrosian rite in its modified form. The most important of the early Sacramentaries of this type is that of Biasca, of the tenth century.
A convenient English version of the Ambrosian liturgy has been edited by E. G. Cuthbert Atchley.
[The modern Latin editio typica is the Missale Ambrosianum of 1902.]
top