We have, to enlighten us as to this period, several allusions in contemporary writers; while certain liturgical documents explain, with more or less exactitude, how Mass was celebrated at Rome about the sixth and seventh centuries. Other writers of the fifth, and even of the fourth, century, such as Arnobius and the Jew Isaac, allude to the text of the Roman canon. Pope Innocent I (401-417) in a celebrated text forbids the recitation of names (Memento of the living and the dead) at the Offertory in the Roman canon (as was the Gallican and Oriental custom, and also probably the most ancient usage). The Popes Boniface I (418-422) and Celestine I (422-432) attest that the Emperors also were prayed for in this place.[1] Pope Vigilius, in a letter to Profuturus, says that at Rome the text of the canon only varies at Easter, Ascension-tide, Pentecost, and the Epiphany. He sends the Bishop that text of the canon which he believes to be of Apostolic origin. The authors of the eighth-ninth centuries, Bede, Agobard, Amalarius, also bear witness to the Roman canon.[2] In a celebrated work of the close of the fourth century, sometimes attributed to St. Ambrose, and which in any case is almost contemporary with him, which is inspired by his writings, and which belongs to a church of Upper Italy, the author quotes the prayer of Consecration, which, with a few variants, is the very text of our own canon. It is of such importance that it must be given here:

There is no doubt that we have here two editions of the same text; and as that of "De Sacramentis" is localised in Upper Italy and dated about the year 400, it is the most ancient witness we possess as to the principal parts of the Roman canon, which only appear in the Sacramentaries some time after the seventh century. The question as to whether the Roman canon is not older even than that of "De Sacramentis" is discussed by liturgiologists. Mgr. Batiffol is of this opinion, but we, on the contrary, think that the former bears traces of closer composition, of a more carefully guarded orthodoxy, and that consequently it is a text corrected from "De Sacramentis." We shall see, in studying the list of names in the "Memento" of the living and that of the dead, that Mgr. Batiffol argues with good reason that he can date these fragments from the pontificate of Symmachus (498-514). We thus have the state of the Roman Mass, or at least of the chief parts of the canon, at the beginning of the fourth century.

A Sacramentary of a very special character, called "Leonine," because it has sometimes been attributed to St. Leo, and which seems to have been composed in the fifth century, contains Prefaces some of which seem to refer to events which took place in the previous century. It gives us other valuable indications as to the Roman liturgy of that time. The references to churches, to cemeteries, to Roman Saints, and even to the "chronique scandaleuse" of the day, are numerous. The style of the prayers, the use of the "cursus" and of rhythm, the liturgical terminology--in short, everything in this precious document has a Roman character.[3]

Another Roman Sacramentary, the "Gelasian-"-attributed to the Pope of that name, Gelasius I (492-496)-- has been altered and retouched up to the eighth or ninth century; but, strictly speaking, its text is not authentic; and its principal elements only go back to the end of the fifth century. Like the "Leonine," we may, by studying it, find in it many Roman characteristics. It is divided into three parts: the Masses of the Feasts of the liturgical year, from Christmas to Pentecost, the "Proper of the Time," as we call it; the Masses of Saints, from St. Felix (Feb. 14) to St. Thomas the Apostle (Dec. 21), or the "Proper of Saints;" and the third part, containing Masses for Sundays, Votive Masses, and those for special circumstances. Whoever drew up this Sacramentary knew the "Leonine," and has borrowed numerous formulas from it, though these are quite differently arranged; the Roman style is even more evident than in the "Leonine;" the liturgical year takes the first place in the "Gelasian," and exercises a preponderating influence on the liturgy.[4]

A third Roman Sacramentary, the "Gregorian," presents itself under conditions analogous with those of the "Gelasian." In spite of the uncertainty we must feel on finding it retouched again and again up to the ninth century (especially in Gaul), we cannot doubt that we have here a document of Roman origin. The author has taken the "Gelasian Sacramentary"as the basis of his work, which he reshapes, curtails, sacrificing all that appears to him purely archaic, but utilising the other elements. The attribution to St. Gregory (590-604) of this Sacramentary (with the exception, of course, of all the changes and additions which it underwent from the seventh to the ninth centuries) has been eagerly contested; but the most important liturgiologists are more and more inclined to accept the indications given by tradition on this point. In recent times an attempt has been made to recover the primitive "Gregorian Sacramentary," and the discovery of a copy at Monte Cassino is of the greatest importance.[5]

At Rome again, during this period of the sixth-ninth centuries, when the liturgy became of such importance, liturgical books were composed which have not the same characteristics as the Sacramentaries, but which complete them. These books are the "Ordines Romani." The Sacramentaries give us the text of the prayers to be recited, but usually without indications as to the nature of the ceremonies. The "Ordines," on the other hand, take as their aim the dcscription of the ceremonies themselves; those of the Mass, in particular, giving on this point the necessary information. Their composition is spread over a period of many centuries (seventh-fifteenth). These "Ordines," some of which are of Roman origin, have, like the Sacramentaries, been retouched in Gaul, where the greatest liturgical activity was displayed from the eighth-eleventh centuries. But one of these "Ordines," the first of the series, is exempt from any retouching; it goes back to the eighth century and perhaps beyond it, and has even been, with some probability, attributed to St. Gregory himself.[6] In any case, it is possible without scruple to describe the Roman Mass in the seventh century under St. Gregory on the information here contained.

Whatever doubts we may have as to their composition, all these documents do clearly show the interest taken by the Roman Church from the fifth-eighth centuries in the liturgy. No other Church can display a collection of documents of equal importance. Even now we have said nothing as to the composition of those music-books which are called "Gregorians," as we prefer to treat that question in an Excursus (see Chap. XII).

Another indication of the interest taken by the Popes in the organisation and direction of Christian worship can be found in the "Liber Pontificalis." Some portions of its testimony have been quoted at the beginning of this chapter. But this document, which was not drawn up before the fifth century, professes to enlighten us upon the most ancient period of all, and to attribute to the earliest Popes certain acts concerning the liturgy, especially concerning the Mass.[7] All this information is by no means of equal value, and we may well ask what were the sources from which the author has drawn his information as to the first centuries. But from the fourth, and particularly from the fifth century onward, his testimony is of real value.

It is by comparing all these documents, and by completing them by each other that certain contemporary liturgiologists have endeavoured to reconstruct the Roman Mass in the seventh century. Such are Edmund Bishop, Atchley, Dom Wilmart, Mgr. Duchesne, Mgr. Batiffol, and Dom Jean de Puniet, whose works are mentioned in the Bibliography; all having arrived at nearly the same results. Their reconstruction can therefore be accepted with confidence.

It should be added that this Mass is really that celebrated at Rome by the Pope during the great solemnities; but it is also that of the Bishop in his cathedral, and that of the simple priest in his church, the number of ministers and clerics and the splendour of the ceremonies being always excepted; there is no essential rite peculiar to the Pope. We shall describe it here in some detail, for if modifications have been brought in later, the Mass has remained substantially the same, and in the following chapters on the Roman Mass from the seventh-twentieth centuries, we need only note what has been added or omitted. But the very fact that this is the Mass of the Pope and of his court explains any changes, for such a ceremony, in the presence of many Bishops and of a numerous assembly, could hardly remain unaltered. The "Liber Pontificalis" mentions several of the reforms which were made in it, but not all, since St. Gregory alone, as we know by his correspondence, made many alterations, of which the principal are: the introduction of the singing of the "Kyrie," changes in that of the "Alleluia," the alteration of the place of the "Pater," important modifications of the Gelasian text, and probably of the chant. We must not, then, be astonished if the Roman Mass has conformed far less to the primitive form than the Mozarabic, Gallican, or Ambrosian Masses, and more especially the Eastern liturgies.

The Popes possessed an authority which allowed them to change any part of the ceremonial, and they used it.

The faithful, according to an invitation which was given at a preceding assembly, met in a church, whence they went in procession to another church, called the Church of the Station. The word "statio" is old Latin, which in military language means a watch or vigil. Hermas and Tertullian have given it the Christian sense of prayer arld fasting; thus Wednesday and Friday are called "Station Days," because they were days of fasting, on which Mass was celebrated. The word also means the plenary assembly of a church, and St Cyprian uses it in this sense. Finally it became a liturgical term at Rome, in the sense given above: that of a gathering of the faithful for the Papal Mass.[8]

In the Roman missal we still find certain days designated in this way: "Statio ad Sanctum Petrum," "Statio ad Sanctum Paulum," etc. This means that on that day Mass was said at St. Peter's (of the Vatican), or at St. Paul's (Without the Walls), or at any other church mentioned. Such churches are the most ancient in Rome; the greater number existed in the time of St. Gregory (end of the sixth century), and many are very much older.[9] In all this we have the elements of a little course of topography and Roman archaeology; and scholars like Armellini, Grisar, Morin, Schuster, and others have carefully described these venerable churches. Every day during Lent, and some other days in the year, have under the heading of the Mass some indication of this kind. This list, according to Mgr. Duchesne, goes back to the seventh century, but Dom Morin considers it originated two centuries earlier. The greater number of these churches exist to-day; but the Station which in St. Gregory's time was so solemn a ceremony is now little more than a memory.

Sometimes Mass was celebrated in the catacombs on the outskirts of Rome, and this was especially the case on the anniversary days of the death of a martyr, when it was probably said on the tomb in which his relics reposed. But after the year 410, when Rome was taken by Alaric, these cemeteries were exposed to the incursions of the barbarians, and it became the custom to transport the bodies of the martyrs to churches in the interior of Rome.

The church" where the Station was to take place was a "Basilica," a great building inspired by architectural tradition as this was understood in the third and fourth centuries, but modified since by the Church for Divine service. Many of the most ancient Roman churches such as St. Clement, St. Sabina, St. Laurence-Withoutthe-Walls, have preserved this form. And even those which have been altered again and again, like St. PaulWithout-the-
Walls, have been reconstructed on the same plan. It was that of a long building with a central nave, separated by columns from two lateral naves to right and left, with an altar at the end and in the axis of the principal nave; and behind the altar, an apse. At the end of the apse was the "cathedra," or Bishop's chair, and, all around it, stalls for the clergy; this was the choir. The part surrounding the altar is the sanctuary, with an "ambone," or pulpit, or sometimes two, one to right, the other to left.

To-day, as the altar usually has a retable and a tabernacle, the priest when standing before it turns his back to the people; so that when he greets them with "Dominus vobiscum" he is obliged to turn round. The Bishop would be hidden on his "cathedra"at the back of the apse, and could hardly follow the ceremonies, therefore his throne, as well as the stalls of the clergy, have been moved to places before the altar. But if we wish to understand the ancient positions, it will help us to remember that at that time the altar was a "table" (hence its name of "mensa") of wood or stone, forming either a solid block or else raised on four feet, but in any case without a tabernacle; so that the officiating priest would face towards the people, as he does to-day at "San Clemente." In our own churches, of course, he officiates on the other side of the altar; the Gospel side being the left and that of the Epistle the right. As we explain elsewhere,[10] another consideration has brought about these changes: the practice of turning in prayer towards the East, the region of that light which is the image of Christ, Who Himself came from the East. The question of the orientation of churches was an important one in Christian architecture from the fourth-twelfth centuries.

In the catacombs the tomb of a martyr could be used as an altar. When, lest their relics should be profaned, the bodies of the martyrs had been brought from the cemeteries in the Roman "campagna "into the churches of the city, they were usually placed beneath the altar. In any case, the altar was henceforth a sacred object. The word "mensa" (table) recalled the Last Supper of the Lord; it was an image of Calvary where Christ was sacrificed for us; frequently it was a martyr's tomb; upon it was accomplished the tremendous Eucharistic Mystery, and thus it was dear to the devotion of the faithful. The liturgy ordains that the priest shall kiss it at the beginning and during the course of Mass; that he shall cover it with a "Corporal," the image of that winding-sheet in which Our Lord was buried; that he shall surround it with honour. All this was not instituted in the same detail during the earliest centuries, but it is a legitimate development of Catholic piety whose growth in intensity throughout the ages which followed we are now about to contemplate.

At the time we are now considering (seventh century) there were neither crosses nor candles, neither tabernacle or retable; nor were there any of these things till the ninth, or even the eleventh, century[11] But the "ciborium," a kind of dome, or dais, usually supported by four columns, was in use from the fourth century onwards, and sometimes at Rome it was made of precious metal. The marbles, mosaics, chandeliers, and candelabras, the lamps hanging from the vaulted roof and other ornaments in use from the time of Constantine, show us that the Church has come out of the catacombs, and that to primitive austerity has succeeded the desire to surround Divine worship with splendour, upheld by the generosity of Christians.

Let us return to the church where the faithful assembled and whence they started in procession, with the clergy and all those holding ecclesiastical office up to the Pope himself. for the church where the Station was to be held.

During the march of the procession they sang a prayer which resembles neither the Collects nor Prefaces- which is neither an Anthem, a Responsory, a Tract, nor a Psalm, like those to be found in the Mass. It is a "Supplication," as the Greek etymology indicates. A cantor, or perhaps the priest himself, said an invocation, which all the people repeated, or to which they responded by an acclamation The most ancient memorial of this which we possess is the litany, which is said before the Mass of Holy Saturday

At an early date (fourth century) Rome adopted the principal invocation of the Eastern liturgy, the "Kyrie Eleison" (Lord, have mercy upon us). But Rome added the "Christe Eleison," and thus we have that chant to the Trinity with wh"with which in future all litanies were to begin:

The "Kyrie Eleison" is thus borrowed from the Greek liturgy, but marked with the seal of Rome. When St. Gregory was reproached for having introduced it into the Roman liturgy he could not deny the fact that he had done so, but he pointed out that he had modified its form. Among the Greeks it was sung by all- at Rome it was sung by clerics, the people repeating the words after them (or, according to the correct expression, responding). Furthermore, says the Pope, the people confine themselves to these acclamations at the daily Masses, while at others (probably at the stational Masses) other words are added. What are these words? Other invocations, probably, such as we see in those litanies preserved to us, like that of Holy Saturday.

Apart from the Mass the litany was frequently used in processions and in the canonical office, and St. Benedict remarks this in the sixth century.[12]

(Lat. "introire," enter) is really the commencement of the Mass. It is a chant sung while the Pontiff proceeded solemnly from the sacristy to the church. It was usually sung by cantors, and as was customary for all psalms from the fourth century onwards, closed with a doxology, "Gloria Patri et Filio et Spsritui Sancto." Our "Introits "have preserved but one verse of the psalm and the doxology. Sometimes the words are chosen from other books of Scripture than the Psalter; they are even occasionally taken from the Apocryphal books. The Roman liturgy, usually so severe, shows itself accommodating upon this point. The "Accipite jucunditatem" of the Tuesday after Pentecost is taken from IV book of Esdras (apocryphal), which has also furnished the "Introit" for the Mass of the Dead, "Requiem aeternasn dona eis Domine." That "Introit" of many Feasts, "Gaudeamus in Domino," is also extra-scriptural; while the "Salve Sancta Parens" of Masses of Our Lady is taken from Sedulius, a poet of the fifth century.

We have already said (Chap. IV, note) what must be thought of the text which attributes the introduction of the "Introit" to Pope Celestine (422-
432). But its presence is noted in the Gelasian Sacramentary and in "Ordo Romanus I". From this Mgr. Batiffol concludes that it is a Roman creation of the sixth century--at least, under the form described. One of St. Gregory's successors, Hadrian (772-795) attributes the composition, or at least the arrangement, of the Roman Antiphonary to the former Pope; and tells us at the same time that this book began with "Ad Te levavi," the first words of the Advent "Introit." The Gelasian books began with the Feast of Christmas: the celebrated lines are as follows:

Elsewhere (Excursus, ii. Chap. XII) we shall speak of the music composed for the "Introit." It is enough to say here that it has not preserved the characteristics of a processional chant any more than it has the primitive form of a psalm.

At the Pontifical ceremony on Good Friday the prelate with his ministers leaves his throne at the beginning of the office, goes to the altar, kisses it, and returns to his place. This is an act of the most remote antiquity; a mark of devotion to that altar which is sacred; and which when the church was consecrated was blessed with so great solemnity. Mgr. Batiffol rightly reminds us that this act is peculiarly Roman (loc. cit., p. 117). It is repeated many times during Mass (cf. Excursus, "Liturgical Acts," p. 232).

At certain Masses, after the "Kyrie," the "Gloria in Excelsis" is sung. It has no relation to the "Kyrie," and is not sung or said in the ancient Masses for Vigils, nor in those of Holy Week, nor of Lent, nor of ferials, and in reality its proper place is not in the Mass any more than in any other office. Indeed, at the beginning, it was not, as it is to-day, consecrated to the Mass alone.[14] It is a doxology in honour of the Father and the Son. The Holy Spirit only comes in at the end; and this is perhaps an addition. It is thus very probably anterior to the fourth century, for from the time of the Arian disputes the doxology was almost always trinitarian.[15] This is confirmed by its presence in the "Apostolic Constitutions." It was early adopted by Rome, with many other Greek formulas; but, to begin with, only at the first of the three Christmas Masses, where its place is admirably justified.

Pope Symmachus extended its use to every Sunday and to the Feasts of the martyrs; but only for episcopal Masses; it was said by priests only at Easter. Then, little by little, as was the way with so many other chants and ceremonies, the reserves were done away with, and its use became much more frequent. It is almost unnecessary to say that it is an admirable prayer; that it is the expression of a very beautiful mysticism, and that it is of great Christological importance. It has been the subject of many works, to which we can only refer.[16]

The Pontiff arrived at the church to the singing of litanies if there was a Station, or to that of the "Introit" when the procession came from the sacristy. He greeted the people, as St. Augustine has told us, with the "Pax vobis," or "Dominus vobiscum," to which they responded "Et cum spiritu tuo;" after which the celebrant said a prayer of a very special nature, called the "Collect." The general term is "oratio." There are three of these prayers in the Mass--the first that just mentioned; the second the "oratio super oblata," or Secret; and, lastly, the "oratio ad complendum," or Post-Communion. The Collect is the "oratio prima." As it was said at the moment when the faithful were assembling for Mass, some have thought that this was the origin of its name, "oratio ad collectam," prayer at the moment of meeting. Others have thought it was derived from the fact that the celebrant here collects and expresses the intentions of all those present. The term is not exclusively Roman; in the Gallican liturgies we find prayers called "collectiones."

We have a large number of such prayers in the Roman missal. Their character is easily recognised, especially that of the most ancient, which are really of Roman origin, and which are distinguished by the clearness of their style, and the elegance and symmetry of their composition. Such is the following, chosen haphazard:

The old Roman books, such as the "Leonine," "Gelasian," and "Gregorian Sacramentaries" contain a great number of these prayers, which are of equal interest from the literary and theological standpoints.

The character of these prayers in the Roman liturgy has been much praised; they are always short, precise, elegant, and of a scholarly rhythm. Those of the other Latin liturgies, such as the Gallican and Mozarabic, are, on the contrary, much longer and more diffuse, clearly betraying a time when the Latin tongue was scarcely spoken except by the barbarians, and was falling into decadence.

We see that there was at that period no question of the prayers now said at the foot of the altar (Psalm xlii., the "Confeteor" and the rest). It was only later that these were added to the Mass (cf. Chapter IX). Not only, however, have we preserved the use of the Collects, but the greater part of them are very ancient, dating from the seventh and even from the fifth century. Originally there was only one Collect; now we have often a sequence of several--memorials of another Feast, prayers to the Holy Ghost, to Our Lady, or for other intentions.

The "Collect" is followed by a reading or lesson from Holy Scripture (Old or New Testament) called the "Epistle," because it is often taken from the Epistles of St. Paul. It was read from the pulpit by one of the ministers, usually a Lector. To-day it is reserved for the sub-Deacon. It is usually contained in a special book called the "Epistolary." The most ancient of those copies, which have come down to us under the title of "Lectionaries," go back to the eighth century, or to an even earlier epoch, that of the seventh century. In some ancient copies of the Bible these lessons are marked. The study of the "Lectionaries" is most useful for the right understanding of the liturgy.[17]

We have seen that in Africa (fourth and fifth centuries) there were sometimes three lessons--one from the Old Testament (Prophecy), one from the Epistles or Acts of the Apostles (Apostolic reading), and finally the Gospel. On certain days like vigils or the Ember Days we have several Lessons in the Roman Mass; on the vigil of Pentecost there are six; on that of Easter, twelve. But these are exceptional cases, and these vigils were really night offices, each with their own special characteristics.

The custom in the Mozarabic and Gallican liturgies is to have three lessons--the Prophecy, the Apostolic Lesson, and the Gospel. It is also, though not without exceptions, the Eastern custom.

Liturgiologists have asked whether, at a certain epoch --say, before the fifth century--the Roman Mass had not also its three Lessons, of which the first was omitted later on. In any case, the reading of the Old Testament during Lent has taken the place of the Apostolic Lesson. With the three Lessons we can better understand a certain gradation in the form of the Pre-Mass--Old Testament, New Testament (from the Apostolic part), and, lastly, the Gospel, which in solemn Masses is surrounded with great solemnities. It has also been pointed out that in the Roman Mass the "Alleluia" follows the "Gradual." Two consecutive chants are not according to the ancient and normal custom, in which a reading should be followed by a chant or responsory. The psalmody or singing of a psalm alternates with the reading. This would be another indication of the presence of three Lessons--the "Gradual" after the "Prophecy," the "Alleluia" after the "Epistle."

As a matter of fact, the "Gradual" to-day follows the "Epistle," as also, according to circumstances, does the "Alleluia" or the "Tract." The "Prose," when there is one, follows the "Alleluia," on which it originally depended.

The "Gradual" was thus styled at Rome because it was sung from the pulpit on the altar steps, "Gradus." Its generic name is "Psalmus responsorius," as St. Augustine tells us. This particular way of singing a psalm in responses differs from the Anthem. It was executed by a cantor, the choir answering with a refrain or "Response" taken from the same psalm. Our own "Gradual" has kept these general characteristics; it is sung by a cantor, or a "schola," the choir taking up part of the verse; but the rest of the psalm has been suppressed. The "Gradual" is one of the chief elements of the Pre-Mass; we have seen the importance attached to it by St. Augustine, who sometimes commented on it in his homilies, and regarded it as one of the Lessons. At Rome until the time of St. Gregory it was, like the Gospel, sung by a Deacon. St. Gregory, however, doubtless found some inconvenience attached to this practice, and withdrew this privilege from the Deacons. But the "Gradual" kept its place of honour among the chants of the Mass, while the singing of the Anthems "Introit," "Offertory "and "Communion," which are, chronologically, later than the "Gradual," was carried out by the "schola," or by the people themselves, since these chants were instituted to occupy the faithful during the course of a procession.[18]

The "Alleluia" is a chant of a special character. Of Hebraic origin, like "Amen" and "Hosanna," it was adopted by the Christians, and is found in the Apocalypse. It is frequently used, like the "Sanctus" and other acclamations; but not at first in the Mass. The word means "Glory to God," and often occurs in the Psalms, some of which are called "alleluiatic" for this reason. The time and occasion of its introduction into the Mass are not very well known. But the custom existed from the days of St. Augustine, who speaks of the "Jubilus," a kind of prolonged "melopeia" on the last "a" of "Alleluia;" but he does not say whether it was followed by a psalm, as it is to-day. It was chiefly sung on Easter Day and in Paschal time.

Sozomenus tells us that it was only sung at Rome on that day, but is his information accurate? The real custom was to sing it during the whole of Paschal time. And St. Gregory, again inspired by the Greek custom, extended its use beyond Paschal time, probably to every Sunday and Feast day of the year. Doubtless through its analogy with the "Gradual" a verse of Scripture was sung after it, but this verse is not always taken from the Psalter.

The "Alleluia" is omitted on vigils, on certain ferials, at the Office of the Dead, and from Septuagesima till Holy Saturday. In some countries in the Middle Ages this suppression of the "Alleluia" was marked by a ceremony called the "Burial of the Alleluia," held on the Saturday before Septuagesima. It is needless to say that this ceremony was not observed in Rome, nor any others which appeared contrary to the austerity of the liturgy. Tropes, Proses, and the Mysteries which were derived from them did not originate in Rome. It was by no means at an early date, and even then, as it would seem, almost against her will, that she adopted four of the most beautiful of the Proses: "Victimae pascali laudes," "Veni Sancte Spiritus," "Dies Irae," "Lauda Sion," and much later, the "Stabat."

But at the time of which we speak (fifth-seventh centuries) there was no question of these compositions. We shall speak of them in Chapter IX, and shall then see how they were attached to the "Jubilus" of the "Alleluia." To-day, when the "Alleluia "is omitted, its place is taken by a much more ancient chant, the Tract.

The "Tract" (Tractus) is also rather obscure in its origin. What is certain is that the manner of its singing (it has no refrain nor is it repeated, hence its derivation from "tractim," meaning with a single stroke) is of the highest antiquity. St. Benedict refers to it in his Rule, but in connection with the Omce, in which it was probably used before its introduction into the Mass. In the Roman antiphonary it has preserved its original character better than the other chants; it is almost always a psalm, or at least several verses of a psalm, and even the tone to which it is sung recalls more faithfully its psalmodic origin.

The reading of the Gospel is the end of the Mass of the catechumens; in a certain sense it is its crown and fulfilment. This gradation observed between the reading of the Prophecy, that of the Epistle, and finally of the Gospel, is more marked, as we have noted, in certain other liturgies than in the actual Roman Mass; but, on the other hand, Rome has always surrounded the singing of the Gospel with great solemnities. The function was reserved for the Deacon, who was accompanied to the pulpit by acolytes bearing candles and incense, and the book was kissed by the celebrant. All that was the custom in St. Gregory's time; and this Roman practice is the same as that of the church of Jerusalem in the fourth century, as Etheria tells us. St. Benedict too, at the end of the fifth century, in the office for vigils (matins) for Sundays and Feast days, which he has so carefully composed, seems to have been inspired by the same principles and to follow the same lines as those of the Pre-Mass, with its singing of psalms, readings from the Old and New Testaments accompanied by responses, the "Te Deum," and lastly the solemn reading of the Gospel. Those Gospels to be read at Mass at that time, as also to-day, were usually contained in a special book called the "Evangeliarium." The richness of its binding, the perfection of the penmanship, and the beauty of the illumination of some of these books is a urther proof of the devotion of Christians to the Gospel. As to this the "Ordo Romanus I," which we are analysing here, tells us that the "Evangeliarium" used at the Papal Mass was enriched with jewels; and that in order that these jewels should not be stolen it was enclosed in a casket sealed with the seal of the "Vestararius," and only opened at the moment of the reading of the Gospel.

Another Roman custom of the eighth-twelfth centuries was that the Deacon reading the Gospel should turn to the south, and not to the north, as he does to-day.

The "Credo" was neither read nor sung in the Roman Mass until much later (see Chap. VI).

The dismissal of the catechumens and others outside the fold customary in the fifth century, and which was maintained much longer in some other liturgies, was suppressed at Rome, probably in the sixth century. The diaconal prayer at this juncture was also suppressed and the Mass of the catechumens closed with the reading of the Gospel. But the Gallican, Mozarabic, and Celtic liturgies have preserved this diaconal prayer which formerly had its place in the Roman Mass (cf. Chap. IV).

It is still the custom for the celebrant to turn towards the people after the Gospel and to say: "Dominus vobiscum, Oremus." This salutation is generally followed by a prayer. Here, after this solemn announcement, the priest reads the Offertory and carries out certain functions, but no prayer follows. Something has evidently been suppressed here, and the anomaly has naturally intrigued the liturgiologists. Mgr. Duchesne thinks that the "Prayer of the Faithful" used to be in this place, and this hypothesis has secured widespread approval. It is certainly specious, for that prayer had its own place, and that an important one, in most of the ancient liturgies. After the departure of the catechumens and others outside the fold, who were not allowed to assist at Mass, the faithful were invited to pray for several intentions: the Church, The Pope, Bishops and other ministers, the Emperor, the sick, travellers, etc. This prayer is no longer found in the Roman Mass, but during Holy Week (since it is there that we must always seek the traces of the most ancient customs) we have in Good Friday's morning office certain solemn prayers which are nothing less than the "Prayer of the Faithful," and which may be considered as one of the jewels of the Roman liturgy. Was it a prayer of this kind which was announced by the "Dominus vobiscum" and "Oremus "mentioned above? It would certainly be possible, but another conjecture has been made, and this appears to be better founded. We may first remark that the "Prayer of the Faithful" has not entirely disappeared. The "Te igitur "recalls it, and sums up its principal features. Lastly, the Ambrosian, so near a neighbour of the Roman liturgy, has at this very place an "Oratio super sindonem;" this linen cloth is the "Corporal," which at this moment is placed upon the altar. The Roman Mass has the same ceremony, but of the prayer has only retained the "Dominus vobiscum "and "Oremus." The "Gelasian Sacramentary" has also preserved traces of this prayer.[19]

At the Roman Mass, after the Deacon had spread the Corporal presented by the acolyte upon the altar, the Pope descended from his throne, and went to receive the offerings, those of the men first, the order of precedence being sedulously observed, according to Roman tradition. It may perhaps be said here that St. Benedict, who was very faithful to the Roman spirit and often draws his inspiration from the Roman liturgy of his day (sixth century), has a whole chapter, "De ordine congregationis," in which he too insists on the order of precedence for the Kiss of Peace, the Communion, and for the whole choir office. After the men's offering came that of the women, who occupied the other side of the nave, the congregation at that time being divided in two parts.

The offering was made in the following way: each person offered a small flagon of wine and a loaf; the wine was emptied into a great chalice, and the bread placed in a white cloth held by two acolytes. It goes without saying that as yet there was no question of unleavened bread; that offered here is the usual leavened bread. This distinction between leavened and unleavened did not then exist; it was only much later, and especially about the eleventh century, that a quarrel, which in our own opinion was unnecessary, arose between the Eastem and Westem churches on this subject.[20]

The most important thing to notice is that the offering as we have just described it is a Roman custom, also followed in Africa and at Milan. In the Gallican, Mozarabic, and Greek liturgies the preparation of the offering was made before Mass.

After the offering had been made the Pope retumed to his throne and washed his hands in preparation for the Sacrifice; after which he went to the altar, where the oblations had been placed, the bread on one side, the chalice into which the wine had been poured on the other. Mgr. Batiffol aptly recalls a fresco at Ravenna, and also the famous chalice of Gourdon (sixth century), preserved in the Cabinet of Medals. A reproduction of the latter is given in DACL, at the word "calice."

All the time that this was going on--doubtless rather a long time--the "schola" had sung the "Offertory "psalm; and when the Pope arrived at the altar he made a signal for the singing to stop, whether the psalm were finished or not. This "Offertory" chant, as well as those of "Introit"and "Communion," had not, we repeat, the importance of the "Gradual," which formed a whole apart; the former might be interrupted or abridged without difficulty. If the "Introit "is a Roman creation of the sixth century, as Mgr. Batiffol declares, the "Offertory" and "Communion "chants are older, and were probably first instituted in the church of Carthage. We may remember that St. Augustine was obliged to write a book to defend this custom of chanting a psalm during the Oblation and the Communion.[21]

What, first of all, does this word mean? More than any other it has given rise to discussions. Is it a substantive or an adjective? Very naturally it has been compared with analogous terms like "Missa"for "Missio," "Oblata" for "Oblatio." Thus, it is asked, is not "Secreta" for "Secretio?" Bossuet, who was the first to risk this interpretation, did so with circumspection; the "Secretio," or "separation," meaning the separation of the oblations. Others have taken it to be an adjective qualifying the word "Oratio" understood; thus it would mean a secret prayer, or one said in a low voice. Each interpretation presents serious difficulties. In our own opinion, and that of others, "Secreta"is a substantive synonymous with "Mysteria." Thus we sometimes find the expression "Oratio super Secreta;" aud again, the whole canon is called "Secreta," the "Mysteries."[22]

At the epoch of which we are speaking this was the only prayer made over the oblations, "super oblata." The Offertory prayers in the present Missal, "Suscipe sancte Pater" and the rest (cf. Chap. IX), are of more recent introduction, and probably of Gallican origin. There was then no question of censing the "oblata"at Rome. Doubtless at the "Introit" and the "Gospel" a golden censer was carried (thymiamaterium aureum), but this was merely a vase of perfume which was not used for censing; it was not the "thuribulum." This custom is of Gallican origin, and was not introduced at Rome until after the eleventh century.[23]

The "Secret," the only "Offertory "prayer, had thus at that time a special importance; and its formulas should be carefully studied in our Missal. In its composition, and it may be said in its functions, it corresponds to the "Collect" and the "Post-communion." Each of the three, as the principal prayers of the Romau Mass, has its own "role," but all three correspond; they are fashioned in the same mould and follow the same laws of composition and rhythm. Attention has often been called to the sobriety, simplicity, firmness, and elegance of the purely Roman style, which has so well preserved the chief qualities of the best classical manner. These characteristics will be noted all the more clearly if we compare these prayers with the corresponding composition of the other Latin liturgies, of which some examples are quoted in Chapters VI and VII. But what is especially remarkable is less the literary quality than the depth and certainty of the teaching given us in these Roman prayers. Here, above all, appear the mastery and the superiority of the liturgy of that Church which is Mother and Mistress. To speak only of the "Secrets," we find that more than one affirms the faith of the Roman Church in Transubstantiation; and Bossuet has made good use of this fact against the Protestants in his explanations of the prayers of the Mass.

The adoption of the "Sanctus" as well as other circumstances have led the Roman and the other Churches, both Greek and Latin, to divide into several parts that Eucharistic prayer which, in the second and third centuries, forms a single uninterrupted whole up to the final doxoiogy (before the "Pater") (cf. Chap. IV).

The first part of this Eucharistic prayer has become what is called at Rome the "Preface," "Praefatio" (a word in use at Rome from the sixth century, and already mentioned at the Council of Carthage in 407). It was a general term, meaning rather a prayer or blessing than an introduction, in the sense the word is used to-day. There are "Prefaces" for the blessing of fonts and of the holy oils, and for ordinations. The "Exultet" at the blessing of the Paschal Candle is also a "Preface."

That it was an improvised prayer the great number of its formulas would prove. Many of these date back to the fourth century. The Leonine Sacramentary contains a rich collection of "Prefaces," many of which bear the stamp of their time and allude to contemporary events (fourth-fifth centuries). The Gelasian has also a large number, but the Sacramentary of St. Gregory accepted only eleven, to which were added later (eleventh century) the "Preface" of Our Lady, and in our own day that of the Dead, one for St. Joseph, one for Christ the King, and another for the Sacred Heart.

All these "Prefaces" present the same general characteristics; they begin with the same protocol; they are addressed to God the Father Almighty through Jesus Christ Our Lord. On this point the "Preface" is not distinguished from the "Collects" and other Roman prayers. But it has greater scope; it refers to the Feast which is being celebrated, or even to contemporary events (as in the Leonine), or to the blessing about to take place (baptismal fonts, ordinations, Paschal Candle, etc.). At Mass the "Preface" always closes with a formula leading to the "Sanctus."

The Roman "Preface" is composed with the same care and according to those same rules of the "Cursus" as are the "Collects" and other prayers. These "Prefaces" are usually as remarkable for their workmanship as for their theological teaching, as, for example, that for the Holy Trinity and that for Christmas. If our present aim were to comment on the prayers of the Mass, it would be necessary to pause here for some time to underline the importance of the "Prefaces" of our Missal, of the "Communicantes" which on certain days accompany them, and to compare them with the "Illationes" or "Contestationes" of other Latin liturgies, notably with those of the Mozarabic rite, which are sometimes actual theological treatises or biographies of Martyrs and Saints.

The "Sanctus," like the "Gloria in Excelsis" the "Te decet laus" and other chants, goes back to the most ancient Christian antiquity. It is in reality taken from the Old Testament, from Isaias. It must have been in use at other times than in the Mass, as we see by a quotation from Tertullian, and by the Acts of SS. Perpetua and Felicitas. Its introduction into the actual Eucharistic prayer towards the fifth century, or even before it has somewhat modified the form of the latter by dividing it into several parts. It exists in two forms: in the Eastern Church the "Sanctus" is usually read as it exists in the text of Isaias. Rome, however, added to these words the second part: "Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini," the words sung by the multitude at Jerusalem to welcome the Messiah on Palm Sunday. The other Latin liturgies have followed Rome in this custom, and this again is a point on which all these liturgies betray their unity.

The word "Canon," Canon Missae" in our Missal, is the title of all the prayers which follow the "Sanctus." No other indication is furnished in the Missal to show where the "Canon" ends, and it would seem to continue till the Last Gospel inclusively. But according to a text of St. Gregory which we shall quote in connection with the "Pater," and also in accordance with other witnesses, the "Canon" really ends with the solemn doxology which precedes the "Pater," or at the "Fraction." The word "chanon" signifies "rule;" the meaning here is that this is an official prayer, one established by an invariable rule.

Pope Vigilius indeed, in 538, in a text already quoted, remarks that at Rome, contrary to what prevailed elsewhere, this prayer never varies except on certain Feast days, such as Christmas, Epiphany, etc.

The word "Canon" is Roman. In the East the corresponding prayer is called the "Anaphora," from "anaphero," I offer. In the Gelasian Sacramentary the word "Actio" is applied to this part of the Mass. It is the supreme "action," and "agere," "agenda" are taken in the same sense. We even have in our existing "Canon" the terms "Infra actionem," during the action, which recall the ancient word "actio."[24]

To-day it comprehends the following prayers:

This very division of the "Canon" into a dozen prayers which often are not correlated, would in itself be enough to reveal a fragmentary state by no means primitive. Indeed we shall see that, whatever be the antiquity of such and such a formula, the Roman "Canon" as a whole goes back but to a date about the year 400.

The "Canon" corresponds with the most ancient of the Eucharistic prayers as this is described by St. Justin in the second century or at the beginning of the third by St. Hippolytus. It is a prayer with a single inspiration beginning with the "Dominus vobiscum "or "Sursum corda" of the "Preface," continuing with the recital of the Institution, and ending after a doxology with the "Amen" of the faithful. These are the true limits of the "Canon," they are at least the most ancient.

Great is the temptation both for archaeologists and liturgiologists to try whether it be not possible to reconstitute the Roman "Canon" in its primitive form, and to give it a more logical, more homogeneous sequence. To this many have yielded, and in our article "Canon" (DACL) we have mentioned the chief attempts which have been made in this direction. They will also be found in Fortescue's book; and, since his time, other hypotheses have been presented for consideration.

It is discouraging that each critic has a different system, and that none, we may say, has arrived at a really definite result. We may safely disregard such study, and take the Roman "Canon" just as it is; remarking that its actual form is assuredly not primitive, and what we may call the joins are clearly shown by certain signs which will be pointed out in the consideration of each of these prayers.

Nevertheless, whatever be the variety of the sources whence its compiler has drawn it up, the composition as a whole betrays itself as the work of a single hand. That "scholasticus" of whom St. Gregory speaks with some dis dain has certain methods in his style which Brinktrine, I think, was the first to point out. First of all, the use of two parallel terms:

Other similar remarks could be made on the characteristics of this style. But these are sufficient to prove that we have to do with a writer who loves prose that is rhythmical, measured, symmetrical, and occasionally rhymed.[25]

Another question arises with respect to the "Canon:" Has it an "epiclesis," and, if so, what is its place? The "epiclesis" (epikleo I call) is a prayer of invocation to the Holy Ghost to sanctify the gifts offered. Its place is generally among the prayers which follow the Consecration; and some of these formulas indeed declare it is to the virtue of the Holy Ghost and not to the words of the Institution that the miracle of Transubstantiation is due. Many liturgiologists say with Edmund Bishop that there is no "epiclesis" in the Roman Mass. Others, like certain Anglican divines, count it a crime of the Roman Church to have cut it out. Others again recognise the Roman "epiclesis" in such and such a prayer before or after the Consecration. Let us say there is no "epiclesis" in the Roman Mass in the ordinary sense of the word; but that this does not mean there has never been one. 26

"Te igitur."--In our Missal this is the first prayer of the Canon; it does not close with a doxology like all Roman prayers, and seems, if one may say so, sharply interrupted by the "Memento" of the Living. Yet it is an admirable prayer, on all the terms of which it would be easy to comment. But we can only refer to the writers quoted in the Bibliography, whose aim is to explain all the prayers of the Mass. By a simple comparison with the "Prayer of the Faithful" we can see that it is inspired with the most beautiful traditions of Christian antiquity. The mention of the Pope first of all is not due merely to the fact that this prayer was originally compiled at Rome and for Rome; it was an established use in most churches to pray for the Pope, and also for the Bishops with whom they were in communion.

"Memento of the living."--This is composed of the "Memento" proper and of the "Communicantes," which ends with a doxology. The very place of the "Memento" in the "Canon" forbade the mention here of those for whom the Mass was being offered, which in other liturgies is made in an audible voice. In those chapters devoted to these liturgies we shall see the importance given to the reading of the Diptychs (Chapters VI and VII; see also our article "Diptyques" in DACL).

The "Communicantes," beginning as it does with a participle, is a phrase without a verb which it has been vainly tried to explain. This would incline us to adopt the opinion of those who consider that it should be attached to the "Te igitur," from which it must once have been separated, or to another prayer. In any case the list of names given in it is very interesting. First of all Saint Mary the Virgin with her titles, "semper virginis," "genetricis Dei," which takes us back to the time of discussions on the perpetual virginity or the Divine maternity of Our Lady (end of fourth century and Council of Ephesus, 431). Next comes a list of the Apostles, which puts St. Paul beside St. Peter, and which may be compared with the other lists of Apostles found in the New Testament, which differ in many points from the Roman list. (DACL, "Apotres.")

Following the twelve Apostles come twelve Roman martyrs, specially honoured in that city; five Popes; St. Cyprian placed close to St. Cornelius, his presence indicating that the old quarrels between him and that Pope are forgotten. Then St. Laurence, the great Roman martyr; St. Chrysogonus, more obscure, but whose name is well known at Rome and whose Basilica is mentioned in the sixth century; John and Paul, whose Basilica on the Ccelian is celebrated; and, lastly, Cosmas and Damian, with a great reputation in the East and at Byzantium, after whom Pope Felix IV (526-530) named a Basilica at Rome, and to whom Pope Symmachus had already dedicated an oratory. From these and other indications Mgr. Batiffol concludes very ingeniously, and not without reason, that the "Communicantes "dates from this last-named Pope (498-514). Nevertheless, it may be objected to this that certain names in this list may perhaps have been added later.

Attention has already been called to the words Infra actionem which form the title of the Communicantes, and to the alternative "Communicantes" used on certain Feasts.

"Hanc igitur oblationem" is to-day recited while the priest is holding his hands spread out over the oblations; which has led some to believe that we have here the Roman "epiclesis." But nothing in the words of the prayer show this. Moreover, this imposition of the hands is not of ancient date, and would seem to be only a gesture designating the matter which is to serve for the Sacrifice. The "Liber Pontificalis" says that St. Gregory added to this text the "Diesque nostros" with what follows it. In the existing Missal there is an alternative "Hanc igitur," the words of which are the same for Easter and Pentecost, reminding us that on these two Feasts Baptism was given to tbe catechumens. But in the Gelasian Sacramentary a large number of variants to the "Hanc igitur" existed--
nearly fifty; which St. Gregory suppressed when he re-edited the book. All these variants are interesting, though we cannot study them here in detail.[27]The prayer to-day closes with a doxology, after the words added by St. Gregory; but in some of the variants this did not exist, and the "Hanc igitur" is united to the following prayer:

"Quam oblationem;" this might easily have been attached to the "Hanc igitur," of which it seems a continuation. Some liturgiologists consider this prayer as the "epiclesis." To this opinion the same objections may be sustained as in the case of the "Hanc igitur," for it is not an "epiclesis" in the true sense of the term, since there is no invocation of God the Holy Ghost. The signs of the Cross, here so frequent, are intended (as also in the "Te igitur") rather to emphasise the words of the prayer than as a blessing. (See Excursus, "Gestures in the Mass," p. 220.)

With the "Qui pridie" we come to the really central and essential part of the Roman Mass. It is not only the recital of the Eucharistic Institution, reproducing the actions and the very words of Our Lord at the Last Supper; it is a prayer which completes the preceding prayers; its aim is really to work the Mystery of Transubstantiation just as it was accomplished by the actual words of Christ on the eve of His Passion. It would be easy to prove it, but it is enough to refer our readers to a chapter of Mgr. Batiffol's book on the Eucharist. "Saint Ambroise et le Canon Romain."[28]

We can only, as before, make a few remarks on the text. First of all we notice that, if the words used follow the story of the synoptic Gospels, they do not reproduce it literally. The "sanctas ac venerabiles manus suas" repeated in both Consecrations is not in the Gospel. Nor are the words, "pro nostra omniumque salute pateretur," said on Holy Thursday. It has been thought that these are additions made in the fifth century, against predestinationists.[29] The "Mysteriurn fidei" is also an addition. not yet satisfactorily explained. But with many exegetists the tendency on the contrary is to discover in the Gospel text the influence of ritual practices existing previous to the compilation of the Gospels.[30]

The other Latin liturgies are in agreement with the Roman Church in beginning this recital with the words "Qui pridie;" while the Greek and Eastern rites follow the text of St. Paul: "In qua nocte." This agreement of the Latin liturgies on so important a point is no feeble argument in favour of the division made in Chapter II between Eastern and Western liturgies.[31]

Another and even more essential divergence between East and West is this: if it is clear that the liturgies of the latter group, headed by the Church of Rome, teach by this importance given to the recital of the Institution that the Consecration of the bread and wine takes place at this moment, it is also true that in certain Eastern liturgies the text of some of the "epicleses," which are placed after the Consecration, seems to mean that the Mystery of Transubstantiation is, according to them, wrought by the virtue of God the Holy Ghost.[32]

Who can refuse to see the true bearing of this difference and, from the dogmatical point of view, to admit the advantages of the Roman compilation?

"Unde et memores," "Supra quae," "Supplices Te."--We may consider these three prayers of the Canon as forming a single whole, especially as they end with a single doxology. The technical name of this whole is "anamnesis," because according to the Greek etymology it "recalls" the different Mysteries associated with the Sacrifice of Our Lord; His Passion, Death, Descent into hell, Resurrection, and Ascension. It is thus the history of our redemption summed up in a few words.

It has a mysterious sense not always understood, and which we must try to explain. It is the real meaning of the Mystery of the Mass. We, servants of God and His holy people, offer to God a pure, holy, spotless Host, the blessed Bread of Eternal Life and the chalice of Eternal Salvation. There can be no doubt, whatever may have been said by certain Protestant interpreters, that in this we must see that the elements have become the Body and Blood of Christ, as is said in the prayer "Supplices Te: the Body and the Sacrosanct Blood of the Son of God."

The "De tuis donis ac datis" is found in analogous terms in other liturgies, notably in the Eastern. It contains a profound meaning. It is a thought often expressed in the Old Testament, especially in the Psalms, that all that he has, man holds from God, who created the world to be his domain: the rain from the skies which waters the earth, plants and the fruits of trees, animals, birds, fish--all these are subject to man, "omnia subjecisti sub pedibus ejus." Of this universe God constituted him the king. Hence man has laid on him a strict duty to worship God by praise and sacrifice. In offering Him the fruits of the earth, or animals, he only, as it were, performs a work of restitution; he offers that which he has received, "hostiam de tuis donis ac datis." This is specially true of that Sacrifice which has supplanted all the rest, where the Victim pure and holy above all others is offered, the Son Whom the Father sent to save man. Thus we offer our sacrifice to the Father, praying Him to accept it as He did those of Abel, of Abraham, of Melchisedech, types of the One True and Complete Sacrifice; that He will transport it by the hands of His "Holy Angel" to His Divine Throne; and that all those who have partaken of the Body and Blood of Christ may be filled with His Benediction and Grace.

It is a mysterious prayer, as has been said, and it has given rise to many interpretations. Besides that of those who, deceived by the simplicity of the expressions, have misunderstood the lofty bearing of the whole, and thus failed to see anything more than an earthly sacrifice and earthly gifts, previous to a Consecration which according to them did not take place at the "Qui pridie," or of others who suppose that one or other of these prayers formerly preceded the recital of the Last Supper and is thus included in the zone of the "Offertory," there is another difficulty: that of the intervention of the "Holy Angel." Some take this to mean the Holy Spirit; others, the Word Himself, the "Angel of Great Counsel." But for the largest number a mere Angel is here meant; perhaps St. Michael, the "Angel of the Sacrifice." However, the text of "De Sacramentis," already quoted (Chap. IV), decides this question clearly by putting the plural, "Angelorum Tuorum." It must also be remembered that in certain prayers of the Roman liturgy mention is made of the "Holy Angel" sent by God, who is not the Word. But, on the whole the meaning of this "anamnesis" can be compared without much difficulty with certain ancient "anaphorae," notably with that of Hippolytus, which joins the Eucharistic prayer to the "epiclesis" and calls down the blessing of God upon those about to partake of the Body and Blood of Christ. Thus we have here an echo of the most ancient Eucharistic traditions.

The "Memento of the Dead," following the "anamnesis," is surprisingly placed. This prayer has all the characteristics of a later insertion--a statement difficult to deny. To find it in this particular place is unexpected; nor is it announced by anything which goes before.

The "Nobis quoque" which comes after it is not less astonishing. But the apparent incoherence is explained by those who admit that this "Memento" is an addition subsequent even to the time of St. Gregory. It was at least not said primitively (or so it would seem), except in Masses for the Dead. Numerous examples of Sacramentaries or Missals in which the Mass does not contain this addition are mentioned by Dom Cagin, Ed. Bishop Batiffol, and others.

It is really the Diptych of the Dead, just as we have had the Diptych of the Living before the Consecration; the natural place of both being in most liturgies, at the "Offertory."[33] However this may be, the text of the prayer itself is none the less interesting. In the "locum refrigerii," lucis et pacis the proof is clear that some of the Dead, in their place of waiting, do not yet enjoy those blessings which were asked for them, and this again proves the belief in Purgatory.

The list of fifteen names mentioned in the "Nobis quoque peccatoribus" has, like that of the "Memento of the living," been studied wisely by Mgr. Batiffol, who arrives at the same result in both cases: he believes this prayer to have been drawn up under Pope Symmachus (498-514). We find here the Roman Martyr St. Alexander, a son of that other Roman Martyr, St. Felicity, whose tomb that Pope restored; and Agnes of Rome, whose Basilica in the city he restored from its ruins; and St. Agatha, Martyr of Catania, for whom Symmachus built a Basilica on the Aurelian Way. Besides these Saints we have St. John (Baptist), who is at the head of all the lists of Saints, and whose absence here in the Mass might have caused surprise ;[34] St. Stephen, the first Martyr, whose presence is not less justified; SS. Matthias and Barnabas, whom we were less likely to expect to find here, but who complete the list of the Apostles given in the "Memento of the Living," for Matthias took the place of Judas in the Apostolic College, and Barnabas is frequently attached to it by a special title.

Then follows St. Ignatius, the great Martyr thrown to the wild beasts in the amphitheatre of Rome; Marcellinus and Peter, two Roman Martyrs, buried in the catacomb "Ad duas Lauros," St. Perpetua, one of the group of the great Martyrs of Carthage; St. Lucy, a Sicilian Martyr always connected with St. Agatha; and, lastly, three more Roman Martyrs, Agnes and Cecilia, both well known, and Anastasia, titular of a church in Rome, who at that time was also an object of popular devotion.[35] Discussions have latterly arisen as to the name of St. Felicity. At first sight the name Perpetua, which immediately follows, would lead us to believe that she was that Felicity who suffered martyrdom in company with Perpetua. But when everything is taken into consideration it seems that here it is rather a question of the Roman Martyr, mother of seven other Martyrs, of whom St. Alexander was one.[36]

"Per Quem haec omnia."--After the two prayers of the "Memento of the Dead" we have next the "Per Quem," as unexpected in this place as they themselves in theirs, and a "crux" for liturgiologists. Without going through all the various interpretations of this text, let us simply say that Per Quem seems to have been inserted here to make a transition between the close of the "Memento of the Dead," which already broke into the Eucharistic prayer, and the final doxology of the "Canon," Per Ipsum."

Hence we must not be too much surprised at the terms of this prayer, which is really but the close of another; nor must we seek to explain its bearing too strictly. The "Haec omnia," which has always been a difficulty, originally designed in this prayer (whatever was the place it then occupied) all the gifts offered by the faithful, not excepting those supreme Gifts which are the Body and Blood of Christ.

But we must insist on the doxology which issues from these difficulties, and takes us up to a very high level. As has been seen already in the texts of SS. Justin and Hippolytus, the Eucharistic prayer of the second and third centuries ended with a doxology to which the people responded "Amen." This was a solemn act of Faith in the whole Eucharistic Mystery just unfolded before their eyes. Therefore this doxology is clothed with importance and unaccustomed solemnity, as it should be. It is first an act of Adoration to the Trinity in Whom and by Whom the Mystery is accomplished. It is also a formula admirably summing up the whole of Christian worship: Glory and honour rendered to the Father, by the Son, in the Holy Ghost. The gestures added later to this doxology still further emphasise its dignity. At the "Per Quem haec omnia" the celebrant has taken the Host and the chalice; then with the prescribed signs of the Cross he uncovers the chalice, takes the Host in his right hand to make with it the sign of the Cross thrice above the chalice and twice before it, after which he elevates chalice and Host. "Elevans parum," says the rubric; for this Elevation, once not merely the principal but the only one in the Mass, has become secondary since the great Elevation has taken place after the Consecration.[37] The signs of the Cross, multiplied here, are not intended as blessings, since these would not be suitable over the consecrated elements; but rather symbols to remind us of the Mystery of our Redemption with the Mystery of the Trinity, which to-day is the true meaning of the Sign of the Cross.[38]

Before St. Gregory s day the Fraction took place before the "Pater." Dom Cagin even thinks that the "Per Quem haec omnia" was the primitive form of the Fraction in the Roman Mass.[39] What is certain is that St. Gregory here introduced another considerable change; he himself tells us why and how he did it, in a well-known and much-discussed text, upon which it would seem that most are agreed to-day. Thus, before St. Gregory, the order was: after the prayers Per Quem haec omnia" and "Per Ipsum" the Fraction, a rather complicated ceremony, took place. After that the prelate regained his seat and said the "Pater." To St. Gregory this appeared shocking. To the Bishop of Syracuse he wrote emphatically: "It does not seem to me decent that we say the "Pater" after the prayer of the "Canon "(post precem), for we say that prayer, composed by some writer (scholasticus), over the oblation (the Body and Blood of Our Lord), while we do not say over that Body and Blood the prayer (Pater) composed by Our Redeemer Himself. For it was the custom of the Apostles to consecrate with that prayer."[40] Light is thrown on this text if we remember that during the Fraction the Pontiff regained his seat, and thus did not say the "Pater," as he did the other prayers of the "Canon," over the Body and Blood of Christ. By putting the "Pater' before the Fraction, as it is to-day, it is said over the consecrated elements. What St. Gregory does not say in this letter is that there really were two customs about the "Pater." In its primitive place, after the Fraction and connected with the Communion, it was a kind of preparation for the latter; and the words "Panem nostrum quotidianum" may well apply to the Bread Supersubstantial, as it is sometimes called, which was then received. This was the custom in Africa as it was at Rome and in other churches. But in the Greek churches this was not so; and the "Pater" formed part of the prayers of the "Canon." St. Gregory, who had been a witness of this practice, wished to transport it, like the "Kyrie," into the Roman Mass. It would seem as though the Bishop of Syracuse had accused the Pope of following the Greek custom too easily. St. Gregory defends himself, as he had about the use of the "Kyrie," by saying in this case that among the Greeks the "Pater" is recited at Mass by all the people, while at Rome the celebrant alone said it (just as to-day); while the people responded: "Sed libera nos a malo."

From this text two other conclusions are sometimes drawn: that the "Pater" was not said at the Roman Mass and that it was St. Gregory who introduced it there; and that the Pope's idea was that the Apostles consecrated the bread and wine by the Lord's Prayer alone. These two assertions cannot be discussed here, but both seem to us equally erroneous. It is very difficult to believe that the "Pater" was not recited in Mass at Rome at the end of the sixth century, when this use was that of all other churches; would not St. Jerome or St. Augustine have pointed out this fact? The text of St. Gregory's letter, moreover, does not allow us to suspect it.

As to the prayer used by the Apostles in Consecration, we may say that St. Gregory knew what it was no more than we ourselves.[41]

The "Pater" is preceded by a short prelude and followed by an intercalation; both are invariable in the Roman liturgy, while in Gaul and Spain they changed at almost every Mass. Both are characteristic of the universal litllrgy, especially of the Latin liturgies. The Roman prelude is very simple; it would seem to be indicated by an expression of St. Jerome. The embolism, or intercalation, is a commentary on the last petition: libera nos a malo. Here the name of Our Lady is invoked with all Her titles, "Beata et gloriosa semper virgine Dei Genitrice Maria," as in the "Memento of the Living," then the great patrons of the Roman Church, Peter and Paul. The name of St. Andrew, alone mentioned among all the other Saints, has caused it to be supposed with reason that its insertion here is due to St. Gregory, whose monastery on the Ccelian was dedicated to St. Andrew. In other places the name of St. Ambrose was added, that of St. Patrick, and other popular patrons.

At the words "Da propitius pacem" the pricst to-day signs himself with the paten and kisses it before slipping it beneath the Host. This gesture must be interpreted by the rites of the Papal Mass, of which it is now but a memory. The paten, with the chalice, is one of the most important vessels used in the service of the Mass. Like the chalice it is usually made of precious metal, generally silver; both are consecrated with special prayers. In certain museums ancient and priceless patens are preserved, like that of Gourdon, or the glass paten of Cologne. At present the paten has lost some of its attributes, and thoroughly to understand the ceremonies of which it is the object (especially at Solemn Masses) we must go back to the ancient rites. At the Papal Masses the paten, or patens, were confided to the sub-Deacon. The "Sancta" (Eucharistic Species) consecrated at a previous Mass were received and preserved on it, until the moment of Communion, when the Pope placed the Sacred Species in his chalice, as a sign of the perpetuity of the Sacrifice. The rites of the "Sancta" and of the "Fermentum" have now been dropped, but some of the attendant ceremonies have been preserved. At Solemn Masses to-day the sub-
Deacon has charge of an empty paten, which he covers with a veil. At the end of the "Pater" he passes it to the Deacon, who in his turn carries it to the Priest, who, at the words "Da propitius pacem," signs himself with the paten and kisses it, as already stated. This ceremonial is observed even at Low Masses. The celebrant makes the Fraction upon the paten, first dividing the Host into two parts, and then putting a fragment of one part into the chalice with the words "Haec commixtio." Thus the two rites of the "Fraction" and the "Immixtion" are still closely united, or, as it might be called, confounded in one rite. That of the "Pax" itself has come to be incorporated in the rite of the Fraction, for it is with the words "Pax Domini sit semper vobis cum" that the Priest proceeds to the "Immixtion." In the Papal Mass they were clearly separated, as will be seen.

The Breaking of Bread by Our Lord at the Last Supper had so impressed itself upon their minds that two of the disciples recognised Him by the way He broke the bread; and for a long time the words "Fractio Panis" meant the Mass. At Rome, during the period we are now considering, the ceremonies were resplendent, but in our own days many have been retrenched. Moreover, there is no doubt that St. Gregory's innovation as to the "Fraction" had brought about important changes in this part of the Mass. But before these changes were made, the procedure was as follows: the Pontiff made three signs of the Cross over the chalice before he put the "Sancta" into it. As has been explained, these "Sancta" are a portion of the Eucharist consecrated at the preceding Mass, and kept to be used at the next in order to assure the continuity of the Sacrifice. Then the Pontiff detached a portion of the Host, which he left upon the altar until the end of the Mass; these portions probably served as Sancta for the next celebration. He then left the altar and returned to his throne.

We must not forget that at that time the Hosts were whole loaves. They were distributed to the Bishops and Priests surrounding the Pope, and when a signal was given they broke the consecrated bread so that it might be distributed to the faithful in Holy Communion. All this time the "schola" sang the chant of the "Fraction" (called at Milan the "Confractorium;" these chants can be studied in the old books there). At Rome, Pope Sergius (687-701) prescribed the singing of the "Agnus Dei," which thus became a chant of the "Fraction." It was rcpeated as often as was necessary while the "Fraction" was taking place. After the ceremony of the Breaking of Bread had been simplified the "Agnus Dei" was only twice repeated, "dona nobis pacem" being substituted for the words "Miserere nobis" at the third and last repetition. The "Agnus Dei" is thus later than St. Gregory's time, but there was always a chant of the "Fraction" in this place; many can be found in the ancient Roman liturgical books.[42] One of the finest is the "Venite populi," still preserved in certain liturgies.

Beside the "Fraction" we have mentioned another rite, the "Immixtion," or "Commixtion." This is accomplished now when the Priest puts part of the Host into the chalice with these words: "May this mingling and hallowing of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ avail us that receive it unto life everlasting, Amen." This mixture, which now takes place immediately before the "Agnus Dei," is intended to show that the Body and Blood of Christ remain united, in spite of the apparent separation of the elements. The "Immixtion" was more strongly marked in St. Gregory's time. The formula quoted is in "Ordo I." By tlhese words and this action the Roman Church affirms anew that Christ is not divided, but entire under both Species. Certain formulas of "Immixtion" point this out more clearly than the formula now in use.[43]

The "Kiss of Peace," like the "Fraction" and "Commixtion," has lost much of its solemnity in our own days. Before placing the third portion of the Host in the chalice the Priest, holding it in his right hand and signing with it three times upon the chalice, says: Pax Domini sit semper vobis cum." "Et cum spirit tuo." After the first Communion prayer, "Domine J. C. qui dixisti...." "Pacem relinquo vobis," he gives (at High Mass) the Kiss of Peace to the Deacon, who gives it to the sub-Deacon who in his turn "carries the Peace" to the members of the clergy in the choir. In the time of St. Gregory and till the time of Innocent III the "Kiss of Peace" was not merely exchanged amongst the clergy as it is to-day, but amongst all the faithful; for at that time the people were still divided into two parts--men on one side, women on the other--all being expected to receive Holy Communion. Thus the "Kiss of Peace" after the words of the "Pater" on the forgiveness of offences and before partaking of the Body and Blood of Our Lord was an act of deep meaning.

The Roman liturgy is almost alone in putting the "Kiss of Peace" in this place. In the Mozarabic, Gallican, and Eastern liturgies it takes place at the "Offertory." This conveys quite another idea. The Mass of the catechumens is finished; they, with the uninitiated and others who would not communicate at the Mass, had been sent away. Only the faithful remained; the Prayer of the Faithful was then recited, after which the "Kiss of Peace" was given. The rite in such a place is justified. Nevertheless this difference between the liturgies has naturally been much remarked upon; and it is one of the reasons for which the Gallican liturgies have been classed in a different order from our own (cf. Chapter II), and their origin sought in the East. We may, however, ask whether this difference may not be otherwise explained.[44]

The rites of the "Pater," "Fraction," and "Kiss of Peace" in the Roman Mass may be considered as a preparation for Communion. This part of the Mass has suffered more change than any other since St. Gregory's time. The Pontiff communicated first, under both Species ù then he distributed to the faithful, first the consecrated Bread, which they still received in their hands, as in primitive times, after having kissed the Bishop's hand. The Deacon then presented the chalice to them, and they drank of it through a tube, "pugillaris," "fistula." Later, in the tenth-
twelfth centuries, it was thought sufficient to steep the consecrated Bread in the Precious Blood, and to present it thus to the faithful, as is still the custom in the East. When receiving the Communion the faithful responded "Amen." The whole of this ceremonial goes back to the most ancient period, and Mgr. Batiffol has many texts on this subject--an inscription at Autun of the second century, a passage from St. Cyprian, a passage from the life of St. Melanie in the fifth century, etc.[45] At Rome, Communion under both kinds was maintained until the fourteenth century. The difficulty which Communion with the chalice presented, the fear of any risk of profanation and a tendency to simplify all rites, brought about many modifications from the tenth century onwards, and finally Communion was given under only one kind. We know what discussions have arisen from the suppression of Communion under both kinds in the time of John Hus (fifteenth century). But at bottom there was here nothing but a precaution of a practical order. Throughout all time it had been believed that Christ was present Whole and Entire under the Species of Bread, and we have examples of Communion under one kind only in the most ancient times.[46]

On the other hand, the recital of the "Confiteor," "Agnus Dei," "Domine non sum dignus," as well as the three prayers after the "Agnus Dei," are later than St. Gregory, and hardly appear before the thirteenth century. It has been thought, and not without reason, that this group of prayers must have constituted at first the ritual of the Communion distributed outside Mass; for example, to the sick.[47]

During the distribution of the Communion the Communion anthem was sung. Primitively this was a psalm, modulated, like those of the "Introit" and "Offertory" on the antiphonic mode. Here again only the anthem has been retained. Psalm xxxiii. was for a long time the one chiefly used, as we have already seen in Africa in St. Augustine's time.[48]

After the Communion the Priest recited a prayer, called in ancient times "oratio ad complendum," or finished prayer, it is the third of that category of prayers, the first of these being the "Collect," and the second the "Secret." This third prayer is now called the "Post-communion." It is of the same style and character as the first two. Many of them are of high dogmatic meaning and affirm the faith of the Roman Church in the Eucharist.[49]

In the time of St. Gregory the Mass ended after the "Communion" and "Post-communion." The Deacon dismissed the people with the words "Ite missa est," and the Pontiff withdrew, giving his blessing.[50] Here there is another difference between the Roman and the other Latin liturgies. The blessing given by the Priest in a special formula before the Communioll does not exist at Rome, and that given as the Pontiff withdrew is quite another thing (as we explain in connection with the Gallican liturgy; cf. Chap. VII). This blessing, moreover, was at first reserved for Bishops, then in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries ordinary Priests were allowed to bestow it. It originally consisted of these simple words: "Benedicat vos Dominus. Amen."

On weekdays in Lent, however, there is a prayer, "super populum," which follows the "Post-communion." The Priest says "Oremus," the Deacon "Humiliate capita vestra Deo," and the Priest then pronounces the fonnula, which is one of blessing. It was St. Gregory, or one of the compilers of the "Gregorian Sacramentary," who assigned this form of blessing to Lent, Sundays a.lways excepted. The formulas themselves, however, have not a penitential character. Some are borrowed from the Leonine, others from the Gelasian Sacrarnentary, both of which have on certain days an "oratio ad populum." There is the same custom in the liturgy of St. Mark, with the "Humiliate capita vestra Deo," and also in that of St. James. Lastly, as has been remarked, the Gallican liturgies also had an episcopal blessing, but this was given before Communion. Several collections of formulas for those blessings exist, forming a special liturgical book, the "Benedictional," and some of these are magnificently illustrated.[51]

This Roman Mass in the seventh century is remarkable for its simplicity, the austerity of its forms, especially if compared with the magnificence and pomp of the Byzantine liturgy, and even with the Mozarabic and Gallican Masses. Edmund Bishop loved to remark that this Papal Mass was both logical and rational. There is little syrnbolism, there are no useless rites, but great order and sequence in the ritual. He gave a celebrated conference on this subject on 8th May 1899. But what it is chiefly necessary to point out (thouglh Bishop could not say all he wished on this subject in a single conference) is the excellence of the prayers and the Prefaces of this Missal; the choice of the Epistles, the Gospels, and the other fonnulas which make of the Roman Missal the most beautiful book of prayer in existence.

May we be allowed to refer our readers to an article written on this subject: "The Excellence of the Roman Mass," in "The Clergy Review," 1931, PP. 346-368.