Liturgy

The various Christian liturgies are described each under its own name. (See ALEXANDRINE LIT R!"# A$%R&'IAN LIT R!"# ANTI&C(ENE LIT R!"# CELTIC RITE# Clementine Liturgy, treated in CLE$ENT I# RITE &) C&N'TANTIN&*LE# !ALLICAN RITE# LIT R!" &) +ER 'ALE$# $&,ARA%IC RITE# 'AR $ RITE# '"RIAN RITE# '"R&-+AC&%ITE LIT R!".. In this article the/ are considered onl/ 0rom the 1oint o0 view o0 their relation to one another in the most general sense2 and an account is given o0 what is 3nown about the growth o0 a 0i4ed liturg/ as such in the earl/ Church.

I. DEFINITION
Liturg/ (leitourgia. is a !ree3 com1osite word meaning originall/ a 1ublic dut/2 a service to the state underta3en b/ a citi5en. Its elements are leitos (0rom leos = laos2 1eo1le. meaning public, and ergo (obsolete in the 1resent stem2 used in 0uture erxo2 etc..2 to do. )rom this we have leitourgos2 6a man who 1er0orms a 1ublic dut/62 6a 1ublic servant62 o0ten used as e7uivalent to the Roman lictor; then leitourgeo2 6to do such a dut/62 leitourgema2 its 1er0ormance2 and leitourgia2 the 1ublic dut/ itsel0. At Athens the leitourgia was the 1ublic service 1er0ormed b/ the wealthier citi5ens at their own e41ense2 such as the o00ice o0 gymnasiarch, who su1erintended the g/mnasium2 that o0 choregus, who 1aid the singers o0 a chorus in the theatre2 that o0 the hestiator, who gave a ban7uet to his tribe2 o0 the trierarchus, who 1rovided a warshi1 0or the state. The meaning o0 the word liturg/ is then e4tended to cover an/ general service o0 a 1ublic 3ind. In the 'e1tuagint it (and the verb leitourgeo. is used 0or the 1ublic service o0 the tem1le (e.g.2 E4odus 89:;<# 8=:>;2 etc... Thence it comes to have a religious sense as the 0unction o0 the 1riests2 the ritual service o0 the tem1le (e.g.2 +oel >:=2 ;:><2 etc... In the New Testament this religious meaning has become de0initel/ established. In Lu3e >:;82 ,achar/ goes home when 6the da/s o0 his liturgy6 (ai hemerai tes leitourgias autou. are over. In (ebrews 9:?2 the high 1riest o0 the New Law 6has obtained a better liturgy62 that is a better 3ind o0 1ublic religious service than that o0 the Tem1le. 'o in Christian use liturg/ meant the 1ublic o00icial service o0 the Church2 that corres1onded to the o00icial service o0 the Tem1le in the &ld Law. @e must now distinguish two senses in which the word was and is still commonl/ used. These two senses o0ten lead to con0usion. &n the one hand2 liturg/ o0ten means the whole com1le4 o0 o00icial services2 all the rites2 ceremonies2 1ra/ers2 and sacraments o0 the Church2 as o11osed to 1rivate devotions. In this sense we s1ea3 o0 the arrangement o0 all these services in certain set 0orms (including the canonical hours2 administration o0 sacraments2 etc..2 used o00iciall/ b/ an/ local church2 as the liturg/ o0 such a church -- the Liturg/ o0 Antioch2 the Roman Liturg/2 and so on. 'o liturg/ means rite# we s1ea3 indi00erentl/ o0 the %/5antine Rite or

the %/5antine Liturg/. In the same sense we distinguish the o00icial services 0rom others b/ calling them liturgical# those services are liturgical which are contained in an/ o0 the o00icial boo3s (see LIT R!ICAL %&&A'. o0 a rite. In the Roman Church2 0or instance2 Com1line is a liturgical service2 the Rosar/ is not. The other sense o0 the word liturg/2 now the common one in all Eastern Churches2 restricts it to the chie0 o00icial service onl/ -- the 'acri0ice o0 the (ol/ Eucharist2 which in our rite we call the $ass. This is now 1racticall/ the onl/ sense in which leitourgia is used in !ree32 or in its derived 0orms (e.g.2 Arabic al-liturgiah. b/ an/ Eastern Christian. @hen a !ree3 s1ea3s o0 the 6(ol/ Liturg/6 he means onl/ the Eucharistic 'ervice. )or the sa3e o0 clearness it is 1erha1s better 0or us too to 3ee1 the word to this sense2 at an/ rate in s1ea3ing o0 Eastern ecclesiastical matters# 0or instance2 not to s1ea3 o0 the %/5antine canonical hours as liturgical services. Even in @estern Rites the word 6o00icial6 or 6canonical6 will do as well as 6liturgical6 in the general sense2 so that we too ma/ use Liturgy onl/ 0or the (ol/ Eucharist. It should be noted also that2 whereas we ma/ s1ea3 o0 our $ass 7uite correctl/ as the Liturg/2 we should never use the word Mass 0or the Eucharistic 'acri0ice in an/ Eastern rite. Mass (missa. is the name 0or that service in the Latin Rites onl/. It has never been used either in Latin or !ree3 0or an/ Eastern rite. Their word2 corres1onding e4actl/ to our Mass2 is Liturgy. The %/5antine Liturg/ is the service that corres1onds to our Roman $ass# to call it the %/5antine (or2 worse still2 the !ree3. $ass is as wrong as naming an/ other o0 their services a0ter ours2 as calling their Hesperinos Bes1ers2 or their Orthros Lauds. @hen 1eo1le go even as 0ar as calling their boo3s and vestments a0ter ours2 sa/ing $issal when the/ mean Euchologion2 alb when the/ mean sticharion2 the con0usion becomes ho1eless.

II. THE ORIGIN OF THE LITURGY

At the outset o0 this discussion we are con0ronted b/ three o0 the most di00icult 7uestions o0 Christian archColog/2 namel/: )rom what date was there a 0i4ed and regulated service such as we can describe as a 0ormal Liturg/D (ow 0ar was this service uni0orm in various ChurchesD (ow 0ar are we able to reconstruct its 0orms and arrangementD @ith regard to the 0irst 7uestion it must be said that an A1ostolic Liturg/ in the sense o0 an arrangement o0 1ra/ers and ceremonies2 li3e our 1resent ritual o0 the $ass2 did not e4ist. )or some time the Eucharistic 'ervice was in man/ details 0luid and variable. It was not all written down and read 0rom 0i4ed 0orms2 but in 1art com1osed b/ the o00iciating bisho1. As 0or ceremonies2 at 0irst the/ were not elaborated as now. All ceremonial evolves graduall/ out o0 certain obvious actions done at 0irst with no idea o0 ritual2 but sim1l/ because the/ had to he done 0or convenience. The bread and wine were brought to the altar when the/ were wanted2 the lessons were read 0rom a 1lace where the/ could best be heard2 hands were washed because the/ were soiled. &ut o0 these obvious actions ceremon/ develo1ed2 Eust as our vestments develo1ed out o0 the dress o0 the 0irst Christians. It 0ollows then o0 course that2 when there was no 0i4ed Liturg/ at all2 there could be no 7uestion o0 absolute uni0ormit/ among the di00erent Churches.

And /et the whole series o0 actions and 1ra/ers did not de1end solel/ on the im1rovisation o0 the celebrating bisho1. @hereas at one time scholars were inclined to conceive the services o0 the 0irst Christians as vague and unde0ined2 recent research shows us a ver/ stri3ing uni0ormit/ in certain salient elements o0 the service at a ver/ earl/ date. The tendenc/ among students now is to admit something ver/ li3e a regulated Liturg/2 a11arentl/ to a great e4tent uni0orm in the chie0 cities2 bac3 even to the 0irst or earl/ second centur/. In the 0irst 1lace the 0undamental outline o0 the rite o0 the (ol/ Eucharist was given b/ the account o0 the Last 'u11er. @hat our Lord had done then2 that same thing (e told (is 0ollowers to do in memor/ o0 (im. It would not have been a Eucharist at all i0 the celebrant had not at least done as our Lord did the night be0ore (e died. 'o we have ever/where 0rom the ver/ beginning at least this uni0orm nucleus o0 a Liturg/: bread and wine are brought to the celebrant in vessels (a 1late and a cu1.# he 1uts them on a table -- the altar# standing be0ore it in the natural attitude o0 1ra/er he ta3es them in his hands2 gives than3s2 as our Lord had done2 sa/s again the words o0 institution2 brea3s the %read and gives the consecrated %read and @ine to the 1eo1le in communion. The absence o0 the words o0 institution in the Nestorian Rite is no argument against the universalit/ o0 this order. It is a rite that develo1ed 7uite late# the 1arent liturg/ has the words. %ut we 0ind much more than this essential nucleus in use in ever/ Church 0rom the 0irst centur/. The Eucharist was alwa/s celebrated at the end o0 a service o0 lessons2 1salms2 1ra/ers2 and 1reaching2 which was itsel0 merel/ a continuation o0 the service o0 the s/nagogue. 'o we have ever/where this double 0unction# 0irst a s/nagogue service Christiani5ed2 in which the hol/ boo3s were read2 1salms were sung2 1ra/ers said b/ the bisho1 in the name o0 all (the 1eo1le answering 6Amen6 in (ebrew2 as had their +ewish 0ore0athers.2 and homilies2 e41lanations o0 what had been read2 were made b/ the bisho1 or 1riests2 Eust as the/ had been made in the s/nagogues b/ the learned men and elders (e.g.2 Lu3e F:>?-;<.. This is what was 3nown a0terwards as the Liturg/ o0 the Catechumens. Then 0ollowed the Eucharist2 at which onl/ the ba1ti5ed were 1resent. Two other elements o0 the service in the earliest time soon disa11eared. &ne was the Love0east (agape. that came Eust be0ore the Eucharist# the other was the s1iritual e4ercises2 in which 1eo1le were moved b/ the (ol/ !host to 1ro1hes/2 s1ea3 in divers tongues2 heal the sic3 b/ 1ra/er2 and so on. This 0unction -- to which > Corinthians >F:>->F2 and the Didache2 >G:<2 etc.2 re0er -- obviousl/ o1ened the wa/ to disorders# 0rom the second centur/ it graduall/ disa11ears. The Eucharistic Aga1e seems to have disa11eared at about the same time. The other two 0unctions remained Eoined2 and still e4ist in the liturgies o0 all rites. In them the service cr/stalli5ed into more or less set 0orms 0rom the beginning. In the 0irst hal0 the alternation o0 lessons2 1salms2 collects2 and homilies leaves little room 0or variet/. )or obvious reasons a lesson 0rom a !os1el was read last2 in the 1lace o0 honour as the 0ul0ilment o0 all the others# it was 1receded b/ other readings whose number2 order2 and arrangement varied considerabl/ (see LE''&N' IN T(E LIT R!".. A chant o0 some 3ind would ver/ soon accom1an/ the entrance o0 the clerg/ and the beginning o0 the service. @e also hear ver/ soon o0 litanies o0 intercession said b/ one 1erson to each clause o0 which the 1eo1le answer with some short 0ormula (see ANTI&C(ENE LIT R!"# ALEXANDRINE LIT R!"# A"RIE ELEI'&N.. The 1lace and number o0 the homilies would also var/ 0or a long time. It is in the second 1art

o0 the service2 the Eucharist itsel02 that we 0ind a ver/ stri3ing cr/stalli5ation o0 the 0orms2 and a uni0ormit/ even in the 0irst or second centur/ that goes 0ar be/ond the mere nucleus described above. Alread/ in the New Testament -- a1art 0rom the account o0 the Last 'u11er -- there are some inde4es that 1oint to liturgical 0orms. There were alread/ readings 0rom the 'acred %oo3s (> Timoth/ F:>8# > Thessalonians H:;<# Colossians F:>?.2 there were sermons (Acts ;G:<.2 1salms and h/mns (> Corinthians >F:;?# Colossians 8:>?# E1hesians H:>=.. > Timoth/ ;:>-82 im1lies 1ublic liturgical 1ra/ers 0or all classes o0 1eo1le. *eo1le li0ted u1 their hands at 1ra/ers (> Timoth/ ;:9.2 men with uncovered heads (> Corinthians >>:F.2 women covered (> Corinthians >>:H.. There was a 3iss o0 1eace (> Corinthians >?:;G# ; Corinthians >8:>;# > Thessalonians H:;?.. There was an o00ertor/ o0 goods 0or the 1oor (Romans >H:;?# ; Corinthians =:>8. called b/ the s1ecial name 6communion6 ( oinonia.. The 1eo1le answered 6Amen6 a0ter 1ra/ers (> Corinthians >F:>?.. The word Eucharist has alread/ a technical meaning (> Corinthians >F:>?.. The 0amous 1assage2 > Corinthians >>:;G-;=2 gives us the outline o0 the brea3ing o0 bread and than3sgiving (!ucharist. that 0ollowed the earlier 1art o0 the service. (ebrews >8:>G (c0. > Corinthians >G:>?-;>.2 shows that to the 0irst Christians the table o0 the Eucharist was an altar. A0ter the consecration 1ra/ers 0ollowed (Acts ;:F;.. 't. *aul 6brea3s bread6 (I the consecration.2 then communicates2 then 1reaches (Acts ;G:>>.. Acts ;:F;2 gives us an idea o0 the liturgical '/na4is in order: The/ 61ersevere in the teaching o0 the A1ostles6 (this im1lies the readings and homilies.2 6communicate in the brea3ing o0 bread6 (consecration and communion. and 6in 1ra/ers6. 'o we have alread/ in the New Testament all the essential elements that we 0ind later in the organi5ed liturgies: lessons2 1salms2 h/mns2 sermons2 1ra/ers2 consecration2 communion. ()or all this see ). *robst: 6Liturgie der drei ersten christl. +ahrhunderte62 TJbingen2 >9<G2 c. i# and the te4ts collected in Cabrol and Leclerc7# 6$onumenta ecclesiC liturgica62 I2 *aris2 >=GG2 11. >-H>.. It has been thought that there are in the New Testament even actual 0ormulC used in the liturg/. The "men is certainl/ one. 't. *aulKs insistence on the 0orm 6)or ever and ever2 Amen6 (eis tous aionas ton aionon amen. -- Romans >?:;<# !alatians >:H# > Timoth/ >:><# c0. (ebrews >8:;># > *eter >:>># H:>># Revelation >:?2 etc.. seems to argue that it is a liturgical 0orm well 3nown to the Christians whom he addresses2 as it was to the +ews. There are other short h/mns (Romans >8:>>-;# E1hesians H:>F# > Timoth/ 8:>?# ; Timoth/ ;:>>-8.2 which ma/ well be liturgical 0ormulC. In the A1ostolic )athers the 1icture o0 the earl/ Christian Liturg/ becomes clearer# we have in them a de0inite and to some e4tent homogeneous ritual. %ut this must be understood. There was certainl/ no set 0orm o0 1ra/ers and ceremonies such as we see in our 1resent $issals and Euchologia# still less was an/thing written down and read 0rom a boo3. The celebrating bisho1 s1o3e 0reel/2 his 1ra/ers being to some e4tent im1rovised. And /et this im1rovising was bound b/ certain rules. In the 0irst 1lace2 no one who s1ea3s continuall/ on the same subEects sa/s new things each time. $odern sermons and modern ex tempore 1ra/ers show how easil/ a s1ea3er 0alls into set 0orms2 how constantl/ he re1eats what come to be2 at least 0or him2 0i4ed 0ormulC. $oreover2 the dialogue 0orm o0 1ra/er that we 0ind in use in the earliest monuments necessaril/

su11oses some constant arrangement. The 1eo1le answer and echo what the celebrant and the deacons sa/ with suitable e4clamations. The/ could not do so unless the/ heard more or less the same 1ra/ers each time. The/ heard 0rom the altar such 1hrases as: 6The Lord be with /ou62 or 6Li0t u1 /our hearts62 and it was because the/ recogni5ed these 0orms2 had heard them o0ten be0ore2 that the/ could answer at once in the wa/ e41ected. @e 0ind too ver/ earl/ that certain general themes are constant. )or instance our Lord had given than3s Eust be0ore (e s1o3e the words o0 institution. 'o it was understood that ever/ celebrant began the 1ra/er o0 consecration -- the Eucharistic 1ra/er -- b/ than3ing !od 0or (is various mercies. 'o we 0ind alwa/s what we still have in our modern 1re0aces -- a 1ra/er than3ing !od 0or certain 0avours and graces2 that are named2 Eust where that 1re0ace comes2 shortl/ be0ore the consecration (+ustin2 6A1ol.26 I2 4iii2 l4v.. An intercession 0or all 3inds o0 1eo1le also occurs ver/ earl/2 as we see 0rom re0erences to it (e.g.2 +ustin2 6A1ol.26 I2 4iv2 l4v.. In this 1ra/er the various classes o0 1eo1le would naturall/ be named in more or less the same order. A 1ro0ession o0 0aith would almost inevitabl/ o1en that 1art o0 the service in which onl/ the 0aith0ul were allowed to ta3e 1art (+ustin2 6A1ol.62 I2 4iii2 l4i.. It could not have been long be0ore the archet/1e o0 all Christian 1ra/er -- the &ur )ather -- was said 1ublicl/ in the Liturg/. The moments at which these various 1ra/ers were said would ver/ soon become 0i4ed2 The 1eo1le e41ected them at certain 1oints2 there was no reason 0or changing their order# on the contrar/ to do so would disturb the 0aith0ul. &ne 3nows too how strong conservative instinct is in an/ religion2 es1eciall/ in one that2 li3e Christianit/2 has alwa/s loo3ed bac3 with unbounded reverence to the golden age o0 the 0irst )athers. 'o we must conceive the Liturg/ o0 the 0irst two centuries as made u1 o0 somewhat 0ree im1rovisations on 0i4ed themes in a de0inite order# and we reali5e too how naturall/ under these circumstances the ver/ words used would be re1eated -- at 0irst no doubt onl/ the salient clauses -- till the/ became 0i4ed 0orms. The ritual2 certainl/ o0 the sim1lest 3ind2 would become stereot/1ed even more easil/. The things that had to be done2 the bringing u1 o0 the bread and wine2 the collection o0 alms and so on2 even more than the 1ra/ers2 would be done alwa/s at the same 1oint. A change here would be even more disturbing than a change in the order o0 the 1ra/ers. A last consideration to be noted is the tendenc/ o0 new Churches to imitate the customs o0 the older ones. Each new Christian communit/ was 0ormed b/ Eoining itsel0 to the bond alread/ 0ormed. The new converts received their 0irst missionaries2 their 0aith and ideas 0rom a mother Church. These missionaries would naturall/ celebrate the rites as the/ had seen them done2 or as the/ had done them themselves in the mother Church. And their converts would imitate them2 carr/ on the same tradition. Intercourse between the local Churches would 0urther accentuate this uni0ormit/ among 1eo1le who were ver/ 3eenl/ conscious o0 0orming one bod/ with one )aith2 one %a1tism2 and one Eucharist. It is not then sur1rising that the allusions to the Liturg/ in the 0irst )athers o0 various countries2 when com1ared show us a homogeneous rite at an/ rate in its main outlines2 a constant t/1e o0 service2 though it was subEect to certain local modi0ications. It would not be sur1rising i0 0rom this common earl/ Liturg/ one uni0orm t/1e had evolved 0or the whole Catholic world. @e 3now that that is not the case. The more or less 0luid ritual o0 the 0irst two centuries cr/stalli5ed into di00erent liturgies in East and @est# di00erence o0

language2 the insistence on one 1oint in one 1lace2 the greater im1ortance given to another 0eature elsewhere2 brought about our various rites. %ut there is an obvious unit/ underl/ing all the old rites that goes bac3 to the earliest age. The medieval idea that all are derived 0rom one 1arent rite is not so absurd2 i0 we remember that the 1arent was not a written or stereot/1ed Liturg/2 but rather a general t/1e o0 service.

III. THE LITURGY IN THE FIRST THREE CENTURIES

)or the 0irst 1eriod we have o0 course no com1lete descri1tion. @e must reconstruct what we can 0rom the allusions to the (ol/ Eucharist in the A1ostolic )athers and a1ologists. +ustin $art/r alone gives us a 0airl/ com1lete outline o0 the rite that he 3new. The Eucharist described in the 6Teaching o0 the Twelve A1ostles6 (most authorities now 1ut the date o0 this wor3 at the end o0 the 0irst centur/. in some wa/s lies a1art 0rom the general develo1ment. @e have here still the 0ree 61ro1hes/ing6 (>G:<.2 the Eucharist is still Eoined to the Aga1e (>G:>.2 the re0erence to the actual consecration is vague. The li3eness between the 1ra/ers o0 than3sgiving (=->G. and the +ewish 0orms 0or blessing bread and wine on the 'abbath (given in the 6%era3oth6 treatise o0 the Talmud# c0. 'abatier2 6La Didache62 *aris2 >99H2 1. ==. 1oints obviousl/ to derivation 0rom them. It has been suggested that the rite here described is not our Eucharist at all# others (*aul Drews. thin3 that it is a 1rivate Eucharist distinct 0rom the o00icial 1ublic rite. &n the other hand2 it seems clear 0rom the whole account in cha1ters = and >G that we have here a real Eucharist2 and the e4istence o0 1rivate celebrations remains to be 1roved. The most natural e41lanation is certainl/ that o0 a Eucharist o0 a ver/ archaic nature2 not 0ull/ described. At an/ rate we have these liturgical 1oints 0rom the boo3. The 6&ur )ather6 is a recogni5ed 0ormula: it is to be said three times ever/ da/ (9:;-8.. The Liturg/ is a eucharist and a sacri0ice to be celebrated b/ brea3ing bread and giving than3s on the 6LordKs Da/6 b/ 1eo1le who have con0essed their sins (>F:>.. &nl/ the ba1ti5ed are admitted to it (=:H.. The wine is mentioned 0irst2 then the bro3en bread# each has a 0ormula o0 giving than3s to !od 0or (is revelation in Christ with the conclusion: 6To thee be glor/ 0orever6 (=:>2 F.. There 0ollows a than3sgiving 0or various bene0its# the creation and our sancti0ication b/ Christ are named (>G:>-F.# then comes a 1ra/er 0or the Church ending with the 0orm: 6$aranatha. Amen6# in it occurs the 0orm: 6(osanna to the !od o0 David6 (>G:H-?.. The )irst E1istle o0 Clement to the Corinthians (written 1robabl/ between =G and >GG. contains an abundance o0 liturgical matter2 much more than is a11arent at the 0irst glance. That the long 1ra/er in cha1ters H=-?> is a magni0icent e4am1le o0 the 3ind o0 1ra/ers said in the liturg/ o0 the 0irst centur/ has alwa/s been admitted (e.g.2 Duchesne2 6&rigines du Culte62 F=-H>.# that the letter2 es1eciall/ in this 1art2 is 0ull o0 liturgical 0orms is also evident. The writer 7uotes the 'anctus ((ol/2 hol/2 hol/ Lord o0 'abaoth# all creation is 0ull o0 his glor/. 0rom Isaiah ?:82 and adds that 6we assembled in unit/ cr/ (this. as with one mouth6 (8F:<.. The end o0 the long 1ra/er is a do4olog/ invo3ing Christ and 0inishing with the 0orm: 6now and 0or generations o0 generations and 0or ages o0 ages. Amen6 (l>>:8.. This too is certainl/ a liturgical 0ormula. There are man/ others.

%ut we can 0ind more in I Clem. than merel/ a 1romiscuous selection o0 0ormulC. A com1arison o0 the te4t with the 0irst 3nown Liturg/ actuall/ written down2 that o0 the 6Eighth %oo3 o0 the A1ostolic Constitutions6 (written long a0terwards2 in the 0i0th centur/ in '/ria. reveals a most startling li3eness. Not onl/ do the same ideas occur in the same order2 but there are whole 1assages -- Eust those that in I Clem. have most the a11earance o0 liturgical 0ormulC -- that recur word 0or word in the 6A1ost. Const.6 In the 6A1ost. Const.6 the Eucharistic 1ra/er begins2 as in all liturgies2 with the dialogue: 6Li0t u1 /our hearts62 etc. Then2 beginning: 6It is trul/ meet and Eust62 comes a long than3sgiving 0or various bene0its corres1onding to what we call the 1re0ace. (ere occurs a detailed descri1tion o0 the 0irst bene0it we owe to !od -- the creation. The various things created -- the heavens and earth2 sun2 moon and stars2 0ire and sea2 and so on2 are enumerated at length (6A1ost. Const.62 BIII2 4ii2 ?-;<.. The 1ra/er ends with the 'anctus. I Clem.2 442 contains a 1ra/er echoing the same ideas e4actl/2 in which the ver/ same words constantl/ occur. The order in which the creatures are mentioned is the same. Again 6A1ost. Const.62 BIII2 4ii2 ;<2 introduces the 'anctus in the same wa/ as I Clem.2 444iv2 H-?2 where the author actuall/ sa/s he is 7uoting the Liturg/. This same 1re0ace in 6A1ost. Const.6 (loc. cit..2 remembering the *atriarchs o0 the &ld Law2 names Abel2 Cain2 'eth2 (enoch2 Noah2 'odom2 Lot2 Abraham2 $elchisedech2 Isaac2 +acob2 $oses2 +osue. The 1arallel 1assage in I Clem. (i4 4ii. names Enoch2 Noah2 Lot2 'odom2 Abraham2 Rahab2 +osue: we ma/ note at once two other 1arallels to this list containing again almost the same list o0 names -- (ebrews >>:F-8>2 and +ustin2 6Dialogue62 4i42 c4i2 c444i2 c444viii. The long 1ra/er in I Clem. (li4-l4i. is 0ull o0 ideas and actual 1hrases that come again in 6A1ost. Const.62 BIII. Com1are 0or instance I Clem.2 li42 ;-F2 with 6A1ost. Const.62 BIII2 X2 ;;-4i2 H (which is 1art o0 the celebrantKs 1ra/er during the litan/ o0 the 0aith0ul: %rightman2 6Eastern Liturgies62 1. >;.2 and 4iii2 >G (1ra/er during the litan/ that 0ollows the great intercession. %rightman2 1. ;F.. &ther no less stri3ing 1arallels ma/ be seen in Drews2 6 ntersuchungen Jber die sogen. clement. Liturgie26 >F-F8. It is not onl/ with the Liturg/ o0 6A1ost. Const.6 that I Clem. has these e4traordinar/ resemblances. I Clem.2 li42 F2 echoes e4actl/ the clauses o0 the celebrantKs 1ra/er during the intercession in the Ale4andrine Rite (!ree3 't. $ar3. %rightman2 >8>.. These 1arallel 1assages cannot all be mere coincidences (Light0oot reali5ed this2 but suggests no e41lanation.6The A1ostolic )athers62 London2 >9=G2 I2 II2 1. <>.. The 7uestion then occurs: @hat is the relation between I Clement and -- in the 0irst 1lace -- the Liturg/ o06A1ost. Const.6D The suggestion that 0irst 1resents itsel0 is that the later document (6A1ost. Const.6. is 7uoting the earlier one (I Clem... This is (arnac3Ks view (6 !esch. der altchristl. Litteratur62 I2 Lei15ig2 >9=82 11. F;-F8.2 but it is e4ceedingl/ unli3el/. In that case the 7uotations would be more e4act2 the order o0 I Clem. would be 3e1t# the 1ra/ers in the Liturg/ have no a11earance o0 being 7uotations or conscious com1ositions o0 0ragments 0rom earlier boo3s# nor2 i0 the 6A1ost. Const.6 were 7uoting I Clem.2 would there be redu1lications such as we have seen above (BIII2 4i2 ;;-4i2 H2 and 4iii2 >G.. "ears ago )erdinand *robst s1ent a great 1art o0 his li0e in tr/ing to 1rove that the Liturg/ o0 the 6A1ostolic Constitutions6 was the universal 1rimitive Liturg/ o0 the whole

Church. To this endeavour he a11lied an enormous amount o0 erudition. In his 6Liturgie der drei ersten christlichen +ahrhunderte6 (TJbingen2 >9<G. and again in his 6Liturgie des vierten +ahrhunderts und deren Re0orm6 ($Jnster2 >9=8.2 he e4amined a vast number o0 te4ts o0 the )athers2 alwa/s with a view to 0ind in them allusions to the Liturg/ in 7uestion. %ut he overdid his identi0ications ho1elessl/. (e sees an allusion in ever/ te4t that vaguel/ re0ers to a subEect named in the Liturg/. Also his boo3s are ver/ involved and di00icult to stud/. 'o *robstKs theor/ 0ell almost entirel/ into discredit. (is ubi7uitous Liturg/ was remembered onl/ as the monomania o0 a ver/ learned man# the rite o0 the 6Eighth %oo3 o0 the A1ostolic Constitutions6 was 1ut in what seemed to be its right 1lace2 merel/ as an earl/ 0orm o0 the Antiochene Liturg/ (so Duchesne2 6&rigines du Culte62 HH-?.. Latel/2 however2 there has come again to the 0ore what ma/ be described as a modi0ied 0orm o0 *robstKs theor/. )erdinand Aattenbusch (6Das a1ostolische '/mbol62 TJbingen2 >=GG2 II2 8F<2 etc.. thought that a0ter all there might be some 0oundation 0or *robstKs idea. *aul Drews ( ntersuchungen Jber die sogen. clementinische Liturgie2 TJbingen2 >=G?. 1ro1oses and de0ends at length what ma/ well be the germ o0 truth in *robst2 namel/ that there was a certain uni0ormit/ o0 t/1e in the earliest Liturg/ in the sense described above2 not a uni0ormit/ o0 detail2 but one o0 general outline2 o0 the ideas e41ressed in the various 1arts o0 the service2 with a strong tendenc/ to uni0ormit/ in certain salient e41ressions that recurred constantl/ and became insensibl/ liturgical 0ormulC. This t/1e o0 liturg/ (rather than a 0i4ed rite. ma/ be traced bac3 even to the 0irst centur/. It is seen in Clement o0 Rome2 +ustin2 etc.# 1erha1s there are traces o0 it even in the E1istle to the (ebrews. And o0 this t/1e we still have a s1ecimen in the 6A1ostolic Constitutions6. It is not that that rite e4actl/ as it is in the 6Constitutions6 was used b/ Clement and +ustin. Rather the 6Constitutions6 give us a much later (0i0th centur/. 0orm o0 the old Liturg/ written down at last in '/ria a0ter it had e4isted 0or centuries in a more 0luid state as an oral tradition. Thus2 Clement2 writing to the Corinthians (that the letter was actuall/ com1osed b/ the %isho1 o0 Rome2 as Dion/sius o0 Corinth sa/s in the second centur/2 is now generall/ admitted. C0. %ardenhewer2 6!esch. der alt3irchl. Litteratur62 )reiburg2 >=G;2 >G>-;.2 uses the language to which he was accustomed in the Liturg/# the letter is 0ull o0 liturgical ideas and reminiscences. The/ are 0ound again in the later cr/stalli5ation o0 the same rite in the 6A1ostolic Constitutions6. 'o that boo3 gives us the best re1resentation o0 the Liturg/ as used in Rome in the 0irst two centuries. This is con0irmed b/ the ne4t witness2 +ustin $art/r. +ustin (d. about >?F.2 in his 0amous account o0 the Liturg/2 describes it as he saw it at Rome (%ardenhewer2 o1. cit.2 ;G?.. The o0ten 7uoted 1assage is (I A1olog/ ?H-?<.: ?H. @e lead him who believes and is Eoined to us2 a0ter we have thus ba1ti5ed him2 to those who are called the brethren2 where the/ gather together to sa/ 1ra/ers in common 0or ourselves2 and 0or him who has been enlightened2 and 0or all who are ever/where. . . . @e greet each other with a 3iss when the 1ra/ers are 0inished. Then bread and a cu1 o0 water and wine are brought to the 1resident o0 the brethren2 and he having received them sends u1 1raise and glor/ to the )ather o0 all through the name o0 his 'on and the (ol/ !host2 and ma3es a long than3sgiving that we have been made worth/ o0 these things b/

him# when these 1ra/ers and than3sgivings are ended all the 1eo1le 1resent cr/ KAmenK. . . . And when the 1resident has given than3s (eucharistesantos2 alread/ a technical name 0or the Eucharist. and all the 1eo1le have answered2 those whom we call deacons give the bread and wine and water 0or which the Kthan3sgivingK (Eucharist. has been made to be tasted b/ those who are 1resent2 and the/ carr/ them to those that are absent. ??. This 0ood is called b/ us the Eucharist6 (the well-3nown 1assage about the Real *resence 0ollows2 with the 7uotation o0 the words o0 Institution.. ?<. &n the da/ which is called that o0 the 'un a reunion is made o0 all those who dwell in the cities and 0ields# and the commentaries o0 the A1ostles and writings o0 the 1ro1hets are read as long as time allows. Then2 when the reader has done2 the 1resident admonishes us in a s1eech and e4cites us to co1/ these glorious things. Then we all rise and sa/ 1ra/ers and2 as we have said above2 when we have done 1ra/ing bread is brought u1 and wine and water# and the 1resident sends u1 1ra/ers with than3sgiving 0or the men2 and the 1eo1le acclaim2 sa/ing KAmenK2 and a share o0 the Eucharist is given to each and is sent to those absent b/ the deacons. This is b/ 0ar the most com1lete account o0 the Eucharistic 'ervice we have 0rom the 0irst three centuries. It will be seen at once that what is described in cha1ter ?< 1recedes the rite o0 ?H. In ?< +ustin begins his account o0 the Liturg/ and re1eats in its 1lace what he had alread/ said above. *utting it all together we have this scheme o0 the service:

>. Lessons (l4vii2 8.. ;. 'ermon b/ the bisho1 (l4vii2 F.. 8. *ra/ers 0or all 1eo1le (l4vii2 H# l4v2 >.. F. Aiss o0 1eace (l4v2 ;.. H. &00ertor/ o0 bread and wine and water brought u1 b/ the deacons (l4vii2 H# l4v2 8.. ?. Than3sgiving-1ra/er b/ the bisho1 (l4vii2 H# l4v2 8.. <. Consecration b/ the words o0 institution (D l4v2 H# l4vi2 ;-8.. 9. Intercession 0or the 1eo1le (l4vii2 H# l4v2 8.. =. The 1eo1le end this 1ra/er with "men. (l4vii2 H# l4v2 8.. >G. Communion (l4vii2 H# l4v H..

This is e4actl/ the order o0 the Liturg/ in the 6A1ostolic Constitutions6 (%rightman2 6Eastern Liturgies62 8-F2 =->;2 >82 >F-;>2 ;>-82 ;H.. $oreover2 as in the case o0 I Clement2 there are man/ 1assages and 1hrases in +ustin that suggest 1arallel ones in the 6A1ost. Const.6 -- not so much in +ustinKs account o0 the Liturg/ (though here too Drews sees such 1arallels2 o1. cit.2 H9-=. as in other wor3s in which +ustin2 li3e Clement2 ma/ be su11osed to be echoing well-3nown liturgical 1hrases. Drews 1rints man/ such 1assages side b/ side with the corres1onding ones o0 the 6A1ost. Const.62 0rom which com1arison he concludes that +ustin 3nows a dismissal o0 the catechumens (c0.6I A1ol.62 4li42 H# 4iv2 >#44v2 ;2with 6A1ost.Const.62 BIII2 vi2 9# 42 ;. and o0 the Energumens (Dial.2 444# c0.

6A1ost. Const.62 BIII2 vii2 ;. corres1onding to that in the Liturg/ in 7uestion. )rom 6I A1ol.62 l4v2 ># 4vii2 8# 4iv2 8# deduces a 1ra/er 0or all 3inds o0 men (made b/ the communit/. o0 the t/1e o0 that 1ra/er in 6A1ost. Const.62 BIII2 4.6I A1ol.62 4iii2 >-82 l4v2 8# v2 ;2 and Dial.2 4li2 l442 c4vii2 give us the elements o0 a 1re0ace e4actl/ on the lines o0 that in 6A1ost. Const.6 BIII2 4ii2 ?-;< (see these te4ts in 1arallel columns in Drews2 6o1. cit.62 H=-=>.. @e have2 then2 in Clement and +ustin the 1icture o0 a Liturg/ at least remar3abl/ li3e that o0 the 6A1ostolic Constitutions6. Drews adds as stri3ing 1arallels 0rom (i11ol/tus (d. ;8H.2 6Contra Noetum62 etc. (o1. cit.2 =H->G<. and Novatian (third cent.. 6De Trinitate6 (ibid.2 >G<-;;.2 both Romans2 and thin3s that this same t/1e o0 liturg/ continues in the 3nown Roman Rite (>;;-??.. That the Liturg/ o0 the 6A1ostolic Constitutions6 as it stands is Antiochene2 and is closel/ connected with the Rite o0 +erusalem2 is certain. It would seem2 then2 that it re1resents one 0orm o0 a vaguer t/1e o0 rite that was in its main outline uni0orm in the 0irst three centuries. The other re0erences to the Liturg/ in the 0irst age (Ignatius o0 Antioch2 died about >G<2 6E1h.62 4iii2 442 6*hil.62 iv2 6Rom.62 vii2 6'm/rn.62 vii2 viii# IrenCus2 died ;G;2 6Adv. hCr.62 IB2 4vii2 4viii# B2 ii2 Clement o0 Ale4andria2 died about ;>H2 6*Cd.62 I2 vi# II2 ii2 in *. !.2 BIII2 8G>2 F>G# &rigen2 d.;HF2 6Contra Cels.62 BIII2 444iii2 6(om. 4i4 in Lev.62 4viii2 >8# 6In $att.62 4i2 >F# 6In Ioh.62 4iii2 8G. re1eat the same ideas that we have seen in Clement and +ustin2 but add little to the 1icture 1resented b/ them (see Cabrol and Leclerc72 6$on. Eccles. Liturg.62 I2 1assim..

IV. THE PARENT RITES, FROM THE FOURTH CENTURY

)rom about the 0ourth centur/ our 3nowledge o0 the Liturg/ increases enormousl/. @e are no longer de1endent on casual re0erences to it: we have de0inite rites 0ull/ develo1ed. The more or less uni0orm t/1e o0 Liturg/ used ever/where be0ore cr/stalli5ed into 0our 1arent rites 0rom which all others are derived. The 0our are the old Liturgies o0 Antioch2 Ale4andria2 Rome2 and !aul. Each is described in a s1ecial article. It will be enough here to trace an outline o0 their general evolution. The develo1ment o0 these liturgies is ver/ li3e what ha11ens in the case o0 languages. )rom a general uni0ormit/ a number o0 local rites arise with characteristic di00erences. Then one o0 these local rites2 because o0 the im1ortance o0 the 1lace that uses it2 s1reads2 is co1ied b/ the cities around2 drives out its rivals2 and becomes at last the one rite used throughout a more or less e4tended area. @e have then a movement 0rom vague uni0ormit/ to diversit/ and then a return to e4act uni0ormit/. E4ce1t 0or the !allican Rite the reason o0 the 0inal survival o0 these liturgies is evident. Rome2 Ale4andria2 and Antioch are the old 1atriarchal cities. As the other bisho1s acce1ted the Eurisdiction o0 these three 1atriarchs2 so did the/ imitate their services. The Liturg/2 as it cr/stalli5ed in these centres2 became the t/1e 0or the other Churches o0 their 1atriarchates. &nl/ !aul and north-west Euro1e generall/2 though 1art o0 the Roman *atriarchate2 3e1t its own rite till the seventh and eighth centuries.

Ale4andria and Antioch are the starting-1oints o0 the two original Eastern rites. The earliest 0orm o0 the Antiochene Rite is that o0 the 6A1ostolic Constitutions6 written down in the earl/ 0i0th centur/. )rom what we have said it seems that this rite has best 1reserved the t/1e o0 the 1rimitive use. )rom it is derived the Rite o0 +erusalem (till the Council o0 Chalcedon2 FH>2 +erusalem was in the Antiochene *atriarchate.2 which then returned to Antioch and became that o0 the 1atriarchate (see ANTI&C(ENE LIT R!" and LIT R!" &) +ER 'ALE$.. @e have this liturg/ (called a0ter 't. +ames. in !ree3 (%rightman2 6Eastern Liturgies62 8>-?9. and in '/riac (ibid.2 ?=->>G.. The Ale4andrine Rite di00ers chie0l/ in the 1lace o0 the great intercession (see ALEXANDRINE LIT R!".. This too e4ists in !ree3 (%rightman2 >>8-F8. and the language o0 the countr/2 in this case Co1tic (ibid.2 >FF-99.. In both cases the original 0orm was certainl/ !ree32 but in both the 1resent !ree3 0orms have been considerabl/ in0luenced b/ the later Rite o0 Constantino1le. A reconstruction o0 the original !ree3 is 1ossible b/ removing the %/5antine additions and changes2 and com1aring the !ree3 and '/riac or Co1tic 0orms. %oth these liturgies have given rise to numerous derived 0orms. The Roman Rite is thought b/ Duchesne to be connected with Ale4andria2 the !allican with Antioch (&rigines du Culte2 1. HF.. %ut2 0rom what has been said2 it seems more correct to connect the Roman Rite with that o0 Antioch. %esides its derivation 0rom the t/1e re1resented b/ the Liturg/ o0 the A1ostolic Constitutions there are reasons 0or su11osing a 0urther in0luence o0 the Liturg/ o0 't. +ames at Rome (see CAN&N &) T(E $A''2 and Drews2 6,ur Entstehungsgesch. des Aanons in der rLmischen $esse62 TJbingen2 >=G;.. The !allican Rite is certainl/ '/rian in its origin. There are also ver/ stri3ing 1arallels between Antioch and Ale4andria2 in s1ite o0 their di00erent arrangements. It ma/ well be2 then2 that all 0our rites are to be considered as modi0ications o0 that most ancient use2 best 1reserved at Antioch# so we should reduce DuchesneKs two sources to one2 and restore to a great e4tent *robstKs theor/ o0 one original rite -- that o0 the 6A1ostolic Constitutions6. In an/ case the old Roman Rite is not e4actl/ that now used. &ur Roman $issal has received considerable additions 0rom !allican sources. The original rite was sim1ler2 more austere2 had 1racticall/ no ritual be/ond the most necessar/ actions (see %isho12 6The !enius o0 the Roman Rite6 in 6Essa/s on Ceremonial62 edited b/ Bernon 'tale/2 London2 >=GF2 11. ;98-8G<.. It ma/ be said that our 1resent Roman Liturg/ contains all the old nucleus2 has lost nothing2 but has additional !allican elements. The original rite ma/ be in 1art deduced 0rom re0erences to it as earl/ as the 0i0th centur/ (6Letters o0 !elasius I6 in Thiel2 6E1istolC Rom. *onti0icum62 I2 cdl444vi2 6Innocent I to Decennius o0 Eugubium62 written in F>?2 in *.L.2 XX2 HH># *seudo-Ambrose2 6De 'acramentis62 IB2 H2 etc..# it is re1resented b/ the Leonine and !elasian 6'acramentaries62 and b/ the old 1art o0 the !regorian boo3 (see LIT R!ICAL %&&A'.. The Roman Rite was used throughout Central and 'outhern Ital/. The A0rican use was a variant o0 that o0 Rome (see Cabrol2 6Dictionnaire dKarchMologie chrMtienne62 s.v. A0ri7ue2 Liturgie 1ostnicMenne.. In the @est2 however2 the 1rinci1le that rite should 0ollow 1atriarchate did not obtain till about the eighth centur/. The 1o1e was *atriarch o0 all @estern (Latin. Euro1e2 /et the greater 1art o0 the @est did not use the Roman Rite. The North o0 Ital/ whose centre was $ilan2 !aul2 !erman/2 '1ain2 %ritain2 and Ireland had their own Liturgies. These Liturgies are all modi0ications o0 a common t/1e# the/ ma/ all be classed together as

0orms o0 what is 3nown as the !allican Rite. @here did that rite come 0romD It is obviousl/ Eastern in its origin: its whole construction has the most remar3able con0ormit/ to the Antiochene t/1e2 a con0ormit/ e4tending in man/ 1arts to the actual te4t (com1are the $ilanese litan/ o0 intercession 7uoted b/ Duchesne2 6&rigines du Culte62 1. >9=2 with the corres1onding litan/ in the Antiochene Liturg/# %rightman2 11. FF-H.. It used to be said that the !allican Rite came 0rom E1hesus2 brought b/ the 0ounders o0 the Church o0 L/ons2 and 0rom L/ons s1read throughout North-@estern Euro1e. This theor/ cannot be maintained. It was not brought to the @est till its 1arent rite was 0ull/ develo1ed2 had alread/ evolved a com1licated ceremonial2 such as is inconceivable at the time when the Church o0 L/ons was 0ounded (second centur/.. It must have been im1orted about the 0ourth centur/2 at which time L/ons had lost all im1ortance. $gr Duchesne there0ore suggests $ilan as the centre 0rom which it radiated2 and the Ca11adocian %isho1 o0 $ilan2 Au4entius (8HH-<F.2 as the man who introduced this Easter Rite to the @est (&rigines du Culte2 9?-=.. In s1reading over @estern Euro1e the rite naturall/ was modi0ied in various Churches. @hen we s1ea3 o0 the !allican Rite we mean a t/1e o0 liturg/ rather than a stereot/1ed service. The $ilanese Rite still e4ists2 though in the course o0 time it has become considerabl/ romani5ed. )or !aul we have the descri1tion in two letters o0 't. !ermanus o0 *aris (d. H<?.2 used b/ Duchesne 6&rigines du Culte62 ch. vii: La $esse !allicane. &riginal te4t in *.L.2 LXXII.. '1ain 3e1t the !allican Rite longest# the $o5arabic Liturg/ still used at Toledo and 'alamanca re1resents the '1anish use. The %ritish and Irish Liturgies2 o0 which not much is 3nown2 were a11arentl/ !allican too (see ).E. @arren2 6The Liturg/ and Ritual o0 the Celtic Church62 &40ord2 >99># %Numer2 6Das 'towe $issale6 in the 6Innsbruc3 ,eitschri0t 0Jr 3ath. theol.62 >9=;# and %annister2 6+ournal o0 Theological 'tudies62 &ct.2 >=G8.. )rom Lindis0arne the !allican se s1read among the Northern English converted b/ Irish mon3s in the si4th and seventh centuries.

V. THE DERIVED LITURGIES

)rom these 0our t/1es O o0 Antioch2 Ale4andria2 Rome2 and the so-called !allican Rite -- all liturgies still used are derived. This does not mean that the actual liturgies we still have under those names are the 1arents# once more we must conceive the sources as vaguer2 the/ are rather t/1es subEect alwa/s to local modi0ication2 but re1resented to us now in one 0orm2 such as2 0or instance2 the !ree3 't. +ames or the !ree3 't. $ar3 Liturg/. The Antiochene t/1e2 a11arentl/ the most archaic2 has been also the most 1roli0ic o0 daughter liturgies. Antioch 0irst absorbed the Rite o0 +erusalem ('t. +ames.2 itsel0 derived 0rom the 1rimitive Antiochene use shown in the 6A1ostolic Constitutions6 (see LIT R!" &) +ER 'ALE$.. In this 0orm it was used throughout the 1atriarchate till about the thirteenth centur/ (see ANTI&C(ENE LIT R!".. A local modi0ication was the se o0 Ca11adocia. About the 0ourth centur/ the great %/5antine Rite was derived 0rom this (see RITE &) C&N'TANTIN&*LE.. The Armenian Rite is derived 0rom an earl/ stage o0 that o0 %/5antium. The Nestorian Rite is also Antiochene in its origin2 whether derived directl/ 0rom Antioch2 or Edessa2 or 0rom %/5antium at an earl/ stage. The Liturg/ o0 $alabar is Nestorian. The $aronite se is that o0 Antioch

considerabl/ romani5ed. The other Eastern 1arent rite2 o0 Ale4andria2 1roduced the numerous Co1tic Liturgies and those o0 the daughter Church o0 Ab/ssinia. In the @est the later histor/ o0 the Liturg/ is that o0 the gradual su11lanting o0 the !allican b/ the Roman2 which2 however2 became considerabl/ gallicani5ed in the 1rocess. 'ince about the si4th centur/ con0ormit/ with Rome becomes an ideal in most @estern Churches. The old Roman se is re1resented b/ the 6!elasian 'acramentar/6. This boo3 came to !aul in the si4th centur/2 1ossibl/ b/ wa/ o0 Arles and through the in0luence o0 't. CCsarius o0 Arles (d. HF;-c0. %Numer2 6 eber das sogen. 'acram. !elas.6 in the 6(istor. +ahrbuch der !Lrres-!esellscha0t62 >9=82 ;F>-8G>.. It then s1read throughout !aul and received !allican modi0ications. In some 1arts it com1letel/ su11lanted the old !allican boo3s. Charles the !reat (<?9-9>F. was an4ious 0or uni0ormit/ throughout his 3ingdom in the Roman use onl/. (e there0ore 1rocured 0rom *o1e Adrian I (<<;-<=H. a co1/ o0 the 6Roman 'acramentar/6. The boo3 sent b/ the 1o1e was a later 0orm o0 the Roman Rite (the 6'acramentarium !regorianum6.. Charles im1osed this boo3 on all the clerg/ o0 his 3ingdom. %ut it was not eas/ to carr/ out his orders. The 1eo1le were attached to their own customs. 'o someone (1ossibl/ Alcuin -c0. %Numer2 loc. cit.. added to AdrianKs boo3 a su11lement containing selections 0rom both the older !elasian boo3 and the original !allican sources. This com1osition became then the service-boo3 o0 the )ran3ish Aingdom and eventuall/2 as we shall see2 the Liturg/ o0 the whole Roman Church. In '1ain %isho1 *ro0uturus o0 %raga wrote in H89 to *o1e Bigilius (H8<-HH. as3ing his advice about certain liturgical matters. The 1o1eKs answer (in +a00M2 6Regest. Rom. *ont.62 no. =G<. shows the 0irst in0luence o0 the Roman Rite in '1ain. In H?> the national '/nod o0 %raga im1osed BigiliusKs ritual on all the 3ingdom o0 the 'uevi. )rom this time we have the 6mi4ed6 Rite (Roman and !allican. o0 '1ain. Later2 when the Bisigoths had con7uered the 'uevi (H<<-H9F.2 the Church o0 Toledo reEected the Roman elements and insisted on uni0ormit/ in the 1ure !allican Rite. Nevertheless Roman additions were made later# eventuall/ all '1ain acce1ted the Roman Rite (in the eleventh centur/. e4ce1t the one corner2 at Toledo and 'alamanca2 where the mi4ed ($o5arabic. Rite is still used. The great Church o0 $ilan2 a11arentl/ the starting-1oint o0 the whole !allican se2 was able to resist the in0luence o0 the Roman Liturg/. %ut here too2 in later centuries the local rite became considerabl/ romani5ed ('t. Charles %orromeo2 died >H9F.2 so that the 1resent $ilanese (Ambrosian. use is onl/ a shadow o0 the old !allican Liturg/. In %ritain 't. Augustine o0 Canterbur/ (H=<-?GH. naturall/ brought with him the Roman Liturg/. It received a new im1etus 0rom 't. Theodore o0 Canterbur/ when he came 0rom Rome (??9.2 and graduall/ drove out the !allican se o0 Lindis0arne. The English Church was ver/ de0initel/ Roman in its Liturg/. There was even a great enthusiasm 0or the rite o0 the mother Church. 'o Alcuin writes to Eanbald o0 "or3 in <=?: 6Let /our clerg/ not 0ail to stud/ the Roman order# so that2 imitating the (ead o0 the Churches o0 Christ2 the/ ma/ receive the blessing o0 *eter2 1rince o0 the A1ostles2 whom our Lord +esus Christ made the chie0 o0 his 0loc36# and again: 6(ave /ou not 1lent/ o0 boo3s written according to the Roman useD6 (7uoted in Cabrol2 6LKAngleterre terre chrMtienne avant les Normans62 *aris2 >=G=2 1. ;=<.. %e0ore the Con7uest the Roman

service-boo3s in England received a 0ew !allican additions 0rom the old rite o0 the countr/ (o1. cit.2 ;=<-;=9. 'o we see that at the latest b/ the tenth or eleventh centur/ the Roman Rite has driven out the !allican2 e4ce1t in two sees ($ilan and Toledo.2 and is used alone throughout the @est2 thus at last veri0/ing here too the 1rinci1le that rite 0ollows 1atriarchate. %ut in the long and gradual su11lanting o0 the !allican Rite the Roman was itsel0 a00ected b/ its rival2 so that when at last it emerges as sole 1ossessor it is no longer the old 1ure Roman Rite2 but has become the gallicani5ed Roman se that we now 0ollow. These !allican additions are all o0 the nature o0 ceremonial ornament2 s/mbolic 1ractices2 ritual adornment. &ur blessings o0 candles2 ashes2 1alms2 much o0 the ritual o0 (ol/ @ee32 se7uences2 and so on are !allican additions. The original Roman Rite was ver/ 1lain2 sim1le2 1ractical. $r. Edmund %isho1 sa/s that its characteristics were 6essentiall/ soberness and sense6 (6The !enius o0 the Roman Rite62 1. 8G<# see the whole essa/.. &nce these additions were acce1ted at Rome the/ became 1art o0 the (new. Roman Rite and were used as 1art o0 that rite ever/where. @hen was the older sim1ler use so enrichedD @e have two e4treme dates. The additions were not made in the eighth centur/ when *o1e Adrian sent his 6!regorian 'acramentar/6 to Charlemagne. The original 1art o0 that boo3 (in $uratoriKs edition# 6Liturgia romana vetus62 II2 Benice2 ><F9. contains still the old Roman $ass. The/ were made b/ the eleventh centur/2 as is shown b/ the 6$issale Romanum Lateranense6 o0 that time2 edited b/ A5evedo (Rome2 ><H;.. Dom 'uitbert %Numer suggests that the additions made to AdrianKs boo3 (b/ Alcuin. in the )ran3ish Aingdom came bac3 to Rome (a0ter the/ had become mi4ed u1 with the original boo3. under the in0luence o0 the successors o0 Charlemagne2 and there su11lanted the older 1ure 0orm (Pber das sogen. 'acr. !elas.2 ibid...

VI. LATER MEDIEVAL LITURGIES

@e have now arrived at the 1resent state o0 things. It remains to sa/ a word about the various medieval uses the nature o0 which has o0ten been misunderstood. Ever/one has heard o0 the old English uses -- 'arum2 Ebor2 etc. *eo1le have sometimes tried to set them u1 in o11osition to what the/ call the 6modern6 Roman Rite2 as witnesses that in some wa/ England was not 6Roman6 be0ore the Re0ormation. This idea shows an astonishing ignorance o0 the rites in 7uestion. These medieval uses are in no sense reall/ inde1endent rites . To com1are them with the !allican or Eastern Liturgies is absurd. The/ are sim1l/ cases o0 what was common all over Euro1e in the later $iddle Ages2 namel/ slight (o0ten ver/ slight. local modi0ications o0 the 1arent Rite o0 Rome. As there were 'arum and Ebor2 so there were *aris2 Rouen2 L/ons2 Cologne2 Trier Rites. All these are sim1l/ Roman2 with a 0ew local 1eculiarities. The/ had their own saintsK da/s2 a tri0ling variet/ in the Calendar2 some e4tra E1istles2 !os1els2 se7uences2 1re0aces2 certain local (generall/ more e4uberant. details o0 ritual. In such insigni0icant details as the se7uence o0 liturgical colours there was diversit/ in almost ever/ diocese. No doubt2 some rites (as the Dominican use2 that o0 L/ons2 etc.. have rather more !allican additions than our normal Roman Liturg/. %ut the essence o0 all these late rites2 all the 1arts that

reall/ matter (the arrangement2 Canon o0 the $ass and so on. are sim1l/ Roman. Indeed the/ do not di00er 0rom the 1arent rite enough to be called derived 1ro1erl/. (ere again the 1arallel case o0 languages will ma3e the situation clear. There are reall/ derived languages that are no longer the same language as their source. Italian is derived 0rom Latin2 and Italian is not Latin. &n the other hand2 there are dialectic modi0ications that do not go 0ar enough to ma3e a derived language. No one would describe the modern Roman dialect as a language derived 0rom Italian# it is sim1l/ Italian2 with a 0ew slight local modi0ications. In the same wa/2 there are reall/ new liturgies derived 0rom the old ones. The %/5antine Rite is derived 0rom that o0 Antioch and is a di00erent rite. %ut 'arum2 *aris2 Trier2 etc. are sim1l/ the Roman Rite2 with a 0ew local modi0ications. (ence the Eusti0ication o0 the abolition o0 nearl/ all these local varieties in the si4teenth centur/. (owever Eealous one ma/ be 0or the reall/ inde1endent liturgies2 however much one would regret to see the abolition o0 the venerable old rites that share the allegiance o0 Christendom (an abolition b/ the wa/ that is not in the least li3el/ ever to ta3e 1lace.2 at an/ rate these medieval develo1ments have no s1ecial claim to our s/m1ath/. The/ were onl/ e4uberant in0lations o0 the more austere ritual that had better not have been touched. Churches that use the Roman Rite had better use it in a 1ure 0orm# where the same rite e4ists at least there uni0ormit/ is a reasonable ideal. To conceive these late develo1ments as old com1ared with the original Roman Liturg/ that has now again ta3en their 1lace2 is absurd. It was the novelties that *ius B abolished# his re0orm was a return to anti7uit/. In >H<G *ius B 1ublished his revised and restored Roman $issal that was to be the onl/ 0orm 0or all Churches that use the Roman Rite. The restoration o0 this $issal was on the whole undoubtedl/ success0ul# it was all in the direction o0 eliminating the later in0lations2 0arced A/ries and !lorias2 e4uberant se7uences2 and ceremonial that was sometimes almost grotes7ue. In im1osing it the 1o1e made an e4ce1tion 0or other uses that had been in 1ossession 0or at least two centuries. This 1rivilege was not used consistentl/. $an/ local uses that had a 1rescri1tion o0 at least that time gave wa/ to the authentic Roman Rite# but it saved the $issals o0 some Churches (L/ons2 0or instance. and o0 some religious orders (the Dominicans2 Carmelites2 Carthusians.. @hat is much more im1ortant is that the 1o1eKs e4ce1tion saved the two remnants o0 a reall/ inde1endent Rite at $ilan and Toledo. Later2 in the nineteenth centur/2 there was again a movement in 0avour o0 uni0ormit/ that abolished a number o0 surviving local customs in )rance and !erman/2 though these a00ected the %reviar/ more than the $issal. @e are now witnessing a similar movement 0or uni0ormit/ in 1lainsong (the Batican edition.. The $onastic Rite (used b/ the %enedictines and Cistercians. is also Roman in its origin. The di00erences between it and the normal Roman Rite a00ect chie0l/ the Divine &00ice.

VII. TABLE OF LITURGIES

@e are now able to draw u1 a table o0 all the real liturgies used throughout the Christian world. The various *rotestant *ra/erboo3s2 AgendC2 Communion-services2 and so on2 have o0 course no 1lace in this scheme2 because the/ all brea3 awa/ altogether 0rom the continuit/ o0 liturgical develo1ment# the/ are merel/ com1ilations o0 random selections 0rom an/ o0 the old rites imbedded in new structures made b/ various Re0ormers.

In th Fir!t Thr

C nturi !

A 0luid rite 0ounded on the account o0 the Last 'u11er2 combined with a Christiani5ed s/nagogue service showing2 however2 a certain uni0ormit/ o0 t/1e and graduall/ cr/stalli5ing into set 0orms. &0 this t/1e we have 1erha1s a s1ecimen in the Liturg/ o0 the second and eighth boo3s o0 the 6A1ostolic Constitutions6.

Sin" th F#urth C ntury

The original indetermined rite 0orms into the 0our great liturgies 0rom which all others are derived. These liturgies are: Anti#"h >. *ure in the 6A1ostolic Constitutions6 (in !ree3.. o $odi0ied at +erusalem in the Liturg/ o0 't. +ames. o The !ree3 't. +ames2 used once a /ear b/ the &rthodo4 at ,ac/nthus and +erusalem. o The '/riac 't. +ames2 used b/ the +acobites and '/rian niats. o The $aronite Rite2 used in '/riac. ;. The Chaldean Rite2 used b/ Nestorians and Chaldean niats (in '/riac.. o The $alabar Rite2 used b/ niats and 'chismatics in India (in '/riac.. o The %/5antine Rite2 used b/ the &rthodo4 and %/5antine niats in various languages. o The Armenian Rite2 used b/ !regorians and niats (in Armenian.. A$ %&n'ri& >. The !ree3 Liturg/ o0 't. $ar32 no longer used. ;. The Co1tic Liturgies2 used b/ niat and schismatical Co1ts. 8. The Ethio1ic Liturgies2 used b/ the Church o0 Ab/ssinia. R#( >. The original Roman Rite2 not now used. ;. The A0rican Rite2 no longer used. 8. The Roman Rite with !allican additions used (in Latin. b/ nearl/ all the Latin Church. F. Barious later modi0ications o0 this rite used in the $iddle Ages2 now (with a 0ew e4ce1tions. abolished. G&u$ >. sed once all over North-@estern Euro1e and in '1ain (in Latin.. ;. The Ambrosian Rite at $ilan. 8. The $o5arabic Rite2 used at Toledo and 'alamanca.

Bi)$i#gr&*hy
CA%R&L AND LECLERCQ2 Monumenta !cclesi# Liturgica. I2 $eli%ui# Liturgic# &etustissim# (*aris2 >=GG-;.# %RI!(T$AN2 Liturgies !astern and 'estern, I. !astern Liturgies (&40ord2 >9=?.# DANIEL2 Codex Liturgicus !cclesi# uni(ers# (F vols.2 Lei15ig2 >9F<-H8.# RA 'C(EN2 )lorilegium *atristicum, BII. Monumenta eucharistica et liturgica (etustissima (%onn2 >=G=.# ) NA2 *atres "postolici (; vols.2 TJbingen2 >=G>.2 and +idascalia et Constitutiones "postolorum (*aderborn2 >=GH.2 the 7uotations in this article are made 0rom these editions# *R&%'T2 Liturgie der drei ersten christl. ,ahrh. (TJbingen2 >9<G.# IDE$2 Liturgie des (ierten ,ahr. u. deren $e-orm ($Jnster2 >9=8.# DRE@'2 .ntersuchungen /ber die sogenannte clementin. Liturgie (TJbingen2 >=G?.# D C(E'NE2 Origines du Cuite chr0t. (*aris2 >9=9.# RA 'C(EN2 !ucharistie und 1uss-sa rament in den ersten sechs ,ahrh. der 2irche ()reiburg2 >=G9.# CA%R&L2 Les Origines liturgi%ues (*aris2 >=G?.# IDE$2 3ntroduction aux !tudes liturgi%ues (*aris2 >=G<.. )or 0urther bibliogra1h/ see articles on each liturg/. )or liturgical languages2 as well as liturgical science2 treating o0 the regulation2 histor/2 and dogmatic value o0 the Liturg/2 see RITE'.