Handbook For Liturgical Studies Introduc

All content available from the Liturgical Press website is protected by copyright
and is owned or controlled by Liturgical Press.
You may print or download to a local hard disk the e-book content for your
personal and non-commercial use only equal to the number of copies purchased.
Each reproduction must include the title and full copyright notice as it appears
in the content.
UNAUTHORIZED COPYING, REPRODUCTION, REPUBLISHING, UPLOADING,

DOWNLOADING, DISTRIBUTION, POSTING, TRANSMITTING OR DUPLICATING
ANY OF THE MATERIAL IS PROHIBITED.
ISBN: 978-0-8146-6286-1
HANDBOOK
FOR LITURGICAL STUDIES
Introduction to the Liturgy

THE PONTIFICAL LITURGICAL INSTITUTE
HANDBOOK
FOR LITURGICAL STUDIES
VOLUME I
Introduction to the Liturgy
ANSCAR J. CHUPUNGCO, O.S.B.
E D I TO R
A PUEBLO BOOK
The Liturgical Press Collegeville Minnesota
A Pueblo Book published by The Liturgical Press
Design by Frank Kacmarcik, Obl.S.B.
© 1997 by The Order of St. Benedict, Inc., Collegeville, Minnesota. All rights
reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any
means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, taping,
or any retrieval system without the written permission of The Liturgical
Press, Collegeville, Minnesota 56321. Printed in the United States of America.
The Library of Congress has cataloged the printed edition as follows:
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Handbook for liturgical studies / Anscar J. Chupungco, editor.

p. cm.
“A Pueblo book.”
Includes bibliographical references and index.
Contents: v. 1. Introduction to the liturgy.
ISBN 0-8146-6161-0
1. Liturgics—Study and teaching. 2. Catholic Church—Liturgy-
-Study and teaching. I. Chupungco, Anscar J.
BV176.H234 1997
264—dc21 97-20141
CIP
Contents
Introduction vii
Anscar J. Chupungco, O.S.B.
Abbreviations x
PA R T I : P R E L I M I N A R Y N O T I O N S
1. A Definition of Liturgy 3
2. Liturgical Families in the East 11
Ephrem Carr, O.S.B.
3. Liturgical Families in the West 25
Gabriel Ramis
translated by Lisa Twomey
4. Bible and Liturgy 33
Renato De Zan
translated by Edward Hagman, O.F.M. Cap.
5. Liturgy and the Fathers 53
Basil Studer, O.S.B.
6. Liturgy and Ecumenism 81
Patrick Lyons, O.S.B.
PA R T I I : H I S T O R I C A L O V E RV I E W O F T H E L I T U R G Y
7. History of the Liturgy Until the Fourth Century 95
8. History of the Eastern Liturgies 115
Manel Nin, O.S.B.
9. History of the Roman Liturgy Until the Fifteenth Century 131
v
10. History of the Roman Liturgy from the Sixteenth until the
Twentieth Centuries 153
Keith F. Pecklers, S.J.
11. History of the Liturgies in the Non-Roman West 179
Jordi Pinell i Pons, O.S.B.
translated by Colette Joly Dees
PA R T I I I : L I T U R G I C A L S O U R C E S
A. Documents and Books
12. Liturgical Documents of the First Four Centuries 199
13. Byzantine Liturgical Books 225
Elena Velkova Velkovska
translated by Edward Hagman, O.F.M.Cap.
14. Other Liturgical Books in the East 241
Manel Nin, O.S.B.
translated by Edward Hagman, O.F.M. Cap
15. Liturgical Books of the Roman Rite 245
Cassian Folsom, O.S.B.
16. Liturgical Books of the Non-Roman West 315
Gabriel Ramis
translated by Lisa Twomey
B. Interpretation of Liturgical Sources
17. Criticism and Interpretation of Liturgical Texts 331
Renato De Zan
translated by Edward Hagman, O.F.M. Cap
18. Liturgical Textual Criticism 367
Renato De Zan
translated by Paul L. Duggan
19. The Translation of Liturgical Texts 381
20. Liturgical Law 399
Frederick R. McManus
Index 421
vi
Introduction
This handbook, in five volumes, represents a complete course of

liturgical studies which the Pontifical Liturgical Institute offers to
professors and students of liturgy in universities and seminaries and
to other persons engaged in liturgical ministry. It is offered as model,
source, and reference.
The handbook is marked by the following traits. First, its orienta-
tion is theological, though not in the style of systematic or dogmatic
treatise. Rather, the materials contained in the liturgical ordo, history,
and tradition are examined as sources and components of the the-
ology of liturgy. Second, the handbook pays greater attention to the
role played by human sciences in the liturgy. These sciences include
psycho-sociology, anthropology, linguistics, and the arts. Third, in the
handbook pastoral and spiritual considerations are given appropriate
treatment in the light of liturgical principles. A handbook with an
international readership cannot pretend to provide concrete pastoral
application, but it can suggest general models based on the meaning
and purpose of the liturgy. Fourth, the materials from the East and
the non-Roman West are integrated with the Roman, thus allowing
the reader to acquire a comprehensive vision of Christian worship.
And fifth, the contents of the handbook are arranged in such a way
that the entire work can serve as a model for a complete liturgy
course in theological faculties.
These traits differentiate the handbook from its predecessor
Anamnesis (its volume on oriental liturgies is lacking), which the
Pontifical Liturgical Institute published in the course of several years.
The five volumes cover all the basic themes that should form part
of liturgical study.
Forty-two authors have contributed to this handbook. They come
from Asia, Africa, Latin America, North America, and Eastern and
Western Europe. A good number are professors and alumni of the
Pontifical Liturgical Institute. The rest are authors with whom the
institute shares the same approach to the study of liturgy. There are
vii
of course many more who could have been invited to contribute to
this handbook.
In a common project such as this handbook the reader will note
differences in the method and style of exposition. It is to be expected
that each author who specializes in an area will stress points of par-
ticular and personal interest in his or her research. Such differences
are a welcome trait of the handbook: varietas delectat. Yet the differ-
ences have not endangered the basic cohesiveness of each volume
and of the entire handbook. On the contrary they, like inlaid bits of
materials in a mosaic, present a cohesive view of the meaning,
purpose, and actualization of Christian worship. Every author in the
handbook draws her or his material from liturgical tradition and
from ancient, medieval, and modern sources. The method of inter-
preting and explaining such material may of course differ from one
author to another, but the reader should realize that there is no single
method for a scientific study. Finally, amidst differences among
authors in method, style of exposition, and sensitivity to topics the
reader will sense an underlying spirit of fidelity to the Church, to its
doctrine, to its traditions, and to its mission in today’s world.
Authors may expound their personal opinions, but the parameter is
always fidelity to the Church.
Through editorial work unnecessary repetitions have been avoided
and lacunae have been minimized. In reading these volumes one
should keep in mind that they are not intended to serve as a diction-
ary of liturgy or a quick-reference manual, but a handbook for a
liturgy course. And a liturgy course should not only hand out infor-
mation but also form the attitude and mind of the student. Formation
more than mere information should be the aim of liturgical study.
Thus, it is important to pay attention to the gradual unfolding of the
material from volume I to volume V as well as to the methodology,
historical setting, theological and spiritual doctrines, and the pastoral
concerns present in the handbook. In truth the study of these volumes
should lead not only to a scientific understanding of the liturgy but
also and above all to a deeper appreciation of its theological and
spiritual riches. Or perhaps one can rephrase this by saying that the
scientific study of the liturgy should lead to that active and spiritu-
ally fruitful participation in the ecclesial celebration of Christ’s
mystery desired by Vatican II.
viii
A special word of gratitude goes to Fr. Adam Somorjai, O.S.B., for
his competent and patient assistance in the difficult work of editing
the materials.
The following also contributed to the shaping of the idea of the
new handbook: Prof. Adrien Nocent, O.S.B., Prof. Crispino
Valenziano, Prof. Matias Augé, C.M.F., Prof. Cassian Folsom, O.S.B.,
and Fr. Mario Ravizzoli, O.S.B.
Editor
ix
Abbreviations
A Ambrosius. Milan, 1925–.

AAS Acta Apostolicae Sedis. Rome, 1909–.
AB Analecta Bollandiana. Brussels, 1882–.
ACC Alcuin Club Collections. London, 1899–.
ACW Ancient Christian Writers. New York, 1946–.
A.Dmitr A. Dmitrievskij, Opisanie liturgiceskich rukopisej hransjascih-
sja v bibliotekach pravoslavnago Vostoka, I–II. Kiev, 1895, 1902.
AGreg Analecta Gregoriana. Rome, 1930–.
AL Analecta liturgica. Rome (see SA).
ALW Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft. Regensburg. 1950–.
AMS Antiphonale Missarum Sextuplex
Anàmnesis Anàmnesis: Introduzione storico-teologica alla liturgia. Edited
by the professors at the Pontificio Istituto Liturgico S.
Anselmo, Rome, under the direction of S. Marsili and others.
Casale Monferrato, 1974ff. Vol. 1, La liturgia: Momento nella
storia della salvezza. Turin, 1974. Vol. 2, La liturgia: Panorama
storico generale. Casale, 1978. Vol. 3/1, La liturgia: I sacra-
menti. Teologia e storia della celebrazione. 1986. Vol. 3/2:
La liturgia eucaristica: Teologia e storia della celebrazione.
Casale Monferrato, 1983. Vol. 5, Liturgia delle ore. 1990.
Vol. 6, L’anno liturgico: Storia, teologia e celebrazione. Genoa,
1988. Vol. 7, I sacramentali e le benedizioni. 1989.
ASE Annali di storia dell’esegesi. Bologna.
AST Analecta sacra Tarraconensia. Barcelona, 1925–.
BA Bibliothèque Augustinienne. Oeuvres de S. Augustin. Paris,
1949–.
BAR S. Parenti and E. Velkovska, L’eucologio Barberini gr. 336
(BELS 80). Rome, 1995.
BEL Bibliotheca Ephemerides liturgicae. Rome, 1932–.
BELS Bibliotheca Ephemerides liturgicae Subsidia. Rome, 1975–.
Bugnini A. Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy: 1948–1975.
Collegeville, Minn., 1990.
ButLitEc Bulletin de littérature ecclésiastique. Toulouse, 1899–1936.
CAO Corpus antiphonalium officii. Rome, 1963–1979.
x
CBL Collectanea biblica Latina. Rome.
CCL Corpus Christianorum. Series Latina. Turnhout, 1954–.
CCCM Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Mediaevalis. Turnhout,
1971–.
CL Communautés et liturgies. Ottignies, Belgium.
CLLA Codices liturgici Latini antiquiores. Freiburg/Schweiz, 1968.
Conc Concilium. Edinburgh.
CPG Clavis Patrum Graecorum. Turnhout, 1974–.
CSEL Corpus scriptorum ecclesiasticorum Latinorum. Vienna,
1886.
CSIC Consejo superior de investigaciones científicas. Madrid,
1940–1941.
DACL Dictionnaire d’archeologie chrétinne et liturgie. Paris, 1907–
1953.
DB Rituale Romanum: De benedictionibus (Kaczynski). Vatican
City, 1984.
DMP Directorium de Missis cum pueris—Directory for Masses with
Children (EDIL1 ##3115-3169, pp. 968–980; DOL ##2134-
2188, pp. 676–688).
DOL International Commission on English in the Liturgy,
Documents on the Liturgy 1963–1979: Conciliar, Papal and
Curial Texts. Collegeville, Minn., 1982.
DPAC Dizionario patristico e di antichità cristiane. 3 vols. Casale
Monferrato, 1983–1988.
DS H. Denzinger and A. Schönmetzer, Enchiridion symbolorum.
32nd ed. Freiburg, 1963.
DSp Dictionnaire de spiritualité ascétique et mystique. Paris, 1932–.
DSPB Dizionario di spiritualità biblico-patristica. Turin, 1993.
DV Vatican II, Dei Verbum (Dogmatic Constitution on Divine
Revelation)
EDIL1 Enchiridion documentorum instaurationis liturgicae 1 (1963–
1973). Ed. R. Kaczynski. Turin, 1976.
EDIL2 Enchiridion documentorum instaurationis liturgicae 2 (1973–
1983). Ed. R. Kaczynski. Rome, 1988.
EO Ecclesia Orans. Rome, 1984–.
EP 1961 A.-G. Martimort, L’Église en prière: Introduction à la liturgie.
Paris, 1961.
EP 1983 L’Église en prière, 1983.
EphLit Ephemerides liturgicae. Rome, 1887–.
EstTrin Estudios trinitarios
FCh Fontes Christiani. Freiburg.
xi
FOP Faith and Order Papers. Geneva.
FS Festschrift
GCS Die griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der ersten drei
Jahrhunderte. Leipzig.
GeV Sacramentarium Gelasianum Vetus
GrH Sacramentarium Gregorianum Hadrianum
HBS Henry Bradshaw Society. London, 1891–.
HDG Handbuch der Dogmengeschichte
HGK Handbuch der Kirchengeschichte
HJ Heythrop Journal. Oxford, 1960–.
HS Hispania sacra. Madrid, 1948–.
IEHE Instituto español de historia eclesiástica. Rome.
IGMR Institutio generalis Missalis Romani—General Instruction of the
Roman Missal (EDIL1, ##1381-1736, pp. 469–546; DOL
##1376-1731, pp. 465–533).
Irén Irénikon. Chevetogne, 1926–.
Jungmann J. A. Jungmann, Missarum sollemnia. 2 vols. Casale
Monferrato, 1963.
JAC Jahrbuch für Antike und Christentum. Münster, 1958–.
JLw Jahrbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft. Münster, 1921–1941, 1973–
1979.
JThS Journal of Theological Studies. London, 1900–1905; Oxford,
1906–1949; n.s. Oxford, 1950–.
LeV Lumière et vie. Lyon, 1951–.
LJ Liturgisches Jahrbuch. Münster, 1951–.
LL A. Nocent, “I libri liturgici.” Anàmnesis 2: La liturgia:
Panorama storico generale.
LO Lex Orandi. Paris, 1944–.
LQF Liturgie- (until 1957: geschichtliche) wissenschaftliche
Quellen und Forschungen. Münster, 1909–1940; 1957–.
LThk Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche. Freiburg, 1957–1965.
MD La Maison-Dieu. Paris, 1945–.
MEL Monumenta Ecclesiae liturgica. Paris, 1890–1912.
MGH Monumenta Germaniae historica. Berlin, 1826.
MHS Monumenta Hispaniae sacra. Madrid, 1946–.
ML C. Vogel, Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources.
Washington, 1986.
MR1570 Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini
restitutum Pii V Pont. Max. iussu editum (various editions;
here Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Concilii
xii
Tridentini restitutum Summorum Pontificum cura recogni-
tum. Editio XIX iuxta typicam. Turin–Rome, 1961).
MR1975 Missale Romanum ex decreto Sacrosancti Oecumenici
Concilii Vaticani II instauratum auctoritate Pauli Pp. VI
promulgatum. Editio typica altera. Vatican City, 1975.
MS Medieval Studies. Toronto–London, 1938–.
MuS Musicam sacram. EDIL1 ##733-801, pp. 275–291; DOL
##4122-4190, pp. 1293–1306.
NBA Nuova biblioteca Agostiniana. Rome.
NDL Nuovo dizionario di liturgia. Rome, 1984.
NHL Neues Handbuch der Literaturwissenschaft. Frankfurt-am-
Main.
Not Notitiae. Vatican City, 1965–.
NRT Nouvelle revue théologique. Louvain, 1869–.
OCA Orientalia christiana analecta. Rome, 1935–.
OCP Orientalia christiana periodica. Rome, 1935–.
OE Vatican II, Orientalium ecclesiarum (Drecree on the Catholic
Oriental Churches)
OLM Ordo lectionum Missae—Lectionary for Mass: Introduction,
2nd ed. EDIL2 ##4057-4181, pp. 337–370; LD, pp. 135–176.
PDOC Petit dictionnaire de l’Orient chrétien
PG Patrologia Cursus Completus: Series Graeca. Paris, 1857–
1866.
Ph Phase: Revista de pastoral liturgica. Barcelona, 1961–.
PL Patrologia Cursus Completus: Series Latina. Paris, 1844–
1855.
PRG Pontificale Romano-Germanicum
QL Questions liturgiques. Louvain, 1911–.
RAC Reallexikon für Antike und Christentum. Stuttgart, 1950–.
RB Revue biblique. Paris, 1892–.
RBén Revue bénédictine. Maredsous, 1884–.
RCT Revista catalana de teología. Barcelona, 1976–.
RED Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta. Rome, 1954.
RET Revista Española de teología. Madrid, 1940–.
Rev Lit et
Monastique Revue de liturgie e monastique. Maredsous, 1911–1940.
RG Revue grégorienne. Paris, 1911–.
RHE Revue d’histoire ecclésiastique. Louvain, 1900–.
Righetti Manuale di storia liturgica. Vol. 1 (2nd ed., 1950); vol. 2
(2nd ed., 1955); vol. 3 (1949); vol. 4 (1953). Milan.
RL Rivista liturgica. Praglia-Finalpia, 1914–.
xiii
RSPT Revue des sciences philosophiques et théologiques. Paris, 1907–.
RSR Recherches de science religieuse. Paris, 1910–.
SA Studia Anselmiana. Rome, 1933–.
SAEMO Sancti Ambrosii Episcopi Mediolanensis Opera
SC Vatican II, Sacrosanctum Concilium (Constitution on the
Sacred Liturgy)
ScC Scuola cattolica. Milan, 1873–.
SCA Studies in Christian Antiquity. Washington, 1941–.
SCh Sources chrétiennes. Paris, 1941–.
SE Sacris erudiri. Steenbruge, 1948–.
SF Spicilegium Friburgense. Freiburg, 1957.
SFS Spicilegii Friburgensis Subsidia
SL Studia liturgica. Rotterdam, 1962.
ST Studi e testi. Vatican City, 1900–.
StudPad Studia patavina. Padua, 1954.
ThS Theological Studies. Woodstock, 1940–.
TQ Theologische Quartalschrift. Tübingen, 1819–.
TRE Theologische Realenzyklopädie. Berlin, 1947–.
TS Typologie des sources du moyen âge occidental
TTZ Trierer theologische Zeitschrift. Trier, 1945–.
TU Texte und Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der altchristli-
chen Literatur. Berlin, 1882–.
TuA Texte und Arbeite. Beuron, 1917–.
UR Vatican II, Unitatis redintegratio (Decree on Ecumenism)
VC Vigiliae Christianae. Amsterdam, 1947–.
Ve Sacramentarium Veronense
ViSpi Vie spirituelle. Paris, 1947–.
WUNT Wissenschaftliche Untersuchungen zum Neuen Testament.
Tübingen, 1950.
Wor Worship. Collegeville, Minn., 1951–. Formerly Orate Fratres,
1926–1951.
ZAW Zeitschrift für Alttestamentliche Wissenschaft. Berlin, 1881–.
ZRG RA Zeitschrift der Savigny-Stiftung für Rechtsgeschichte
(Romantische Abteilung). Weimar.
xiv
Part I
Preliminary Notions
A Definition of Liturgy
EVOLUTION OF THE WORD “LITURGY”

The word “liturgy” is etymologically derived from the Greek words
laov" (people) and e[rgon (work). Thus the immediate meaning of the
compound word leitourgiva is public works or state projects.
Indirectly it also refers to the public office one undertakes. In the
course of time, during the Hellenistic period, the word acquired a
broader meaning to include the work done by slaves for their
masters and even the small acts of service one did for one’s friends.
The Septuagint employs the word leitourgiva as many as 170 times
to designate the levitic cult. It is not easy to explain how a secular
word came to be used for the sacred rites of Israel. Perhaps this had
something to do with the classical meaning of the word which signi-
fies official function held by society’s nobility. It fits the definition of
the levitic cult as a divine institution entrusted to the care of Israel’s
nobility, the levitic priests.
The words leitourgiva, leitourgei≈n, and leitourgov" appear fifteen
times in the New Testament and refer variably to a secular function
of magistrates (Rom 13:6), the Old Testament priestly office of
Zechariah (Luke 1:23), Christ’s sacrificial or priestly offering whereby
he became the leitourgov" of the sanctuary (Heb 8:2), the spiritual
sacrifice of Christians (Rom 15:16), and the cultic celebration of the
Christians who “made liturgy to the Lord” at Antioch (Act 13:2).1
The early Christian writers retained this cultic meaning of liturgy.
This seems to be the sense of Didaché 15,1 which affirms that bishops
1 S. Marsili, “Liturgia,” 33–44.
3
and deacons also perform the leitourgiva of prophets and teachers.
The Apostolic Tradition 10 claims that clerical ordination is propter
liturgiam. For the Churches in the East, which have consistently kept
this usage, leitourgiva means the sacred rites in general and the
eucharistic celebration in particular. This second meaning is referred
to when we speak of the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, of St. Basil,
of St. James, of St. Mark, etc. The Latin Church, on the other hand,
used terms like officia divina, opus divinum, and sacri or ecclesiae ritus.
The use of the word liturgia in the context of the Mass did not appear
in the Latin West until the sixteenth century, thanks to renaissance
writers like G. Cassander, J. Pamelius, and J. Bona. For the other
forms of worship the old Latin terms continued to be employed.
The word appeared for the first time in official Latin documents
during the pontificate of Gregory XVI (+1846).
L I T U R G Y I N M E D I AT O R D E I A N D
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
The encyclical Mediator Dei, no. 25, defines liturgy as “the public
worship which our Redeemer as head of the Church renders to the
Father, as well as the worship which the community of the faithful
renders to its Founder, and through him to the heavenly Father. In
short, it is the worship rendered by the Mystical Body of Christ in the
entirety of its head and members.”2 This definition has profoundly
influenced SC 7 which speaks of the liturgy as “an exercise of the
priestly office of Jesus Christ,” as “the whole public worship per-
formed by the Mystical Body of Jesus Christ, that is, by the Head and
his members,” and as “an action of Christ the Priest and of his Body
which is the Church.”
A more comprehensive definition of the liturgy by SC 7 includes
the basic concept of the presence of Christ in the celebrations of the
Mass, the sacraments, the word of God, and the divine office. At
Mass Christ himself “now offers through the hands of the priests,
who formerly offered himself on the cross.” Quoting a saying from
St. Augustine, the Constitution affirms that “when a person baptizes,
it is really Christ himself who baptizes.” He is present in the procla-
mation of the word and “when the Church prays and sings.” All
2 AAS 39 (1947) 528–9; see A. Adam, Foundations of Liturgy, 3–11; A. Vagaggini,
Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy, 21–34.
4
these affirmations underline the active role played by Christ in the
exercise of his priestly office, an office which he performed as he
preached the good news, healed the sick, freed those in bondage,
and culminated by his death on the cross, resurrection from the dead,
and bestowal of the Holy Spirit.
Another element of the definition is the role of the Church which
Christ associates with himself in a capacity of minister. The phrases
“through the hands of the priests,” “when a person baptizes,” “when
the holy Scriptures are read,” and “when the Church prays and
sings” indicate the Church’s ministerial role in the liturgy. Being an
action of Christ and the Church, the liturgy “is a sacred action sur-
passing all others: no other action of the Church can equal its effec-
tiveness by the same title and to the same degree.”
An essential component of the liturgy is the Sacred Scripture. SC 24
states that “it is from Scripture that the readings are given and ex-
plained in the homily and that psalms are sung; the prayers, collects,
and liturgical songs are scriptural in their inspiration; it is from the
Scriptures that actions and signs derive their meaning.” In conse-
quence the celebration of the liturgy, whether of the Mass, sacra-
ments, sacramentals, or the liturgy of the hours, always includes the
proclamation of God’s word.
According to SC 7, the ultimate aim of the liturgy is the perfect
glorification of God and the sanctification of those who celebrate it.
These are signified and brought about “by means of signs perceptible
to the senses.” Signs or symbols give to the liturgy a sacramental
dimension, that is, they contain and reveal the presence of Christ and
of the mystery which the Church celebrates. In the liturgy signs or
symbols consist of words like sacramental formularies, gestures like
handlaying, and material elements like water, bread, wine, and oil.
The difference that exists among signs gives rise to the different
forms of liturgical celebrations and thus to the various ways whereby
sanctification is realized in the liturgy.3
To complete the definition of the liturgy it is useful to refer to the
other articles of SC. A. Bugnini lists them as fundamental principles.4
SC 10, inspired by Mediator Dei, calls the liturgy culmen et fons: “the
liturgy is the summit toward which the activity of the Church is
3 C. Vagaggini, 32–124; A. Verheul, Introduction to the Liturgy, 102–16.
4 The Reform of the Liturgy 1948–1975 (Collegeville, 1990) 39–48.
5
directed; at the same time it is the fount from which all the Church’s
power flows.” SC 14, on the other hand, considers full, conscious,
and active participation as the aim of the conciliar reform and pro-
motion of the liturgy. Active participation is the right and duty of the
faithful “by reason of their baptism.” This brings us to SC 26 which
declares that “liturgical services are not private functions, but are
celebrations belonging to the Church.” They manifest the whole Body
of Christ, though “they concern the individual members in different
ways, according to their different orders, offices, and actual participa-
tion.”
Two other notions complete the conciliar definition of the liturgy.
SC 38 speaks of “substantial unity” of the liturgy in opposition to
“rigid uniformity.” The liturgy is celebrated in the concrete situation
of the worshiping community and hence takes into consideration
their culture and traditions. This explains the need to adapt or incul-
turate the liturgy. SC 63b calls for the preparation of particular rituals
based on the typical edition of liturgical books; “these rituals are to
be adapted, even in regard to the language employed, to the needs of
the different regions.” In this connection SC 23 issues the reminder
that a careful theological, historical, and pastoral investigation should
always be made into each part of the liturgy to be revised, in order
“that sound tradition may be retained and yet the way remain open
to legitimate progress.”
LITURGY AS ENCOUNTER WITH GOD

The liturgy can be defined also from the angle of encounter between
the faithful and God.5 This implies that through the Church’s wor-
ship the faithful both as a body and as individual members enter into
the presence of the triune God. Such encounter is personal on the
part of the faithful as well as on the part of God. In the liturgy the
Church offers worship to the Father, through Jesus Christ, in the
unity of the Holy Spirit. The ancient doxological formulary expresses
this succinctly: Ad Patrem, per Filium, in Spiritu Sancto. The formulary
is patterned after the trinitarian activity in the history of salvation.
The Father is the origin and hence the end of all creation and salva-
tion; Jesus Christ is the sacrament who reveals the Father and the
mediator who reconciles humankind with God; the Holy Spirit is
5 A. Verheul, 21–34.
6
the power whereby Christ lifts up the fallen and leads them to the
Father.
For this reason in the liturgy the Church normally addresses the
Father, through Christ, in the unity of the Holy Spirit. The central
prayers, like the Eucharistic Prayer, are directed to the person of the
Father. Prayers are concluded invoking the mediation of Christ. The
power of the Holy Spirit is called upon the people and sacramental
elements.
The liturgy is personal encounter in the sense that human persons
meet the three divine persons according to the particular role each of
these plays in the history of salvation. The liturgy thus perpetuates
God’s actions and interventions in human history. In this sense
S. Marsili calls the liturgy “the final moment in the history of salva-
tion,” in as much as it continues in our time what Christ in his time
accomplished by his paschal mystery.6
The trinitarian dimension of the liturgy has given rise to such basic
liturgical concepts as anamnesis and epiclesis. In the rites composed of
words, gestures, and sometimes material elements the Church recalls
or makes an anamnesis of what the Father has completed through
Christ in human salvation. The act of recalling, of calling to mind, of
making present is basic to the definition of the liturgy. It is through
anamnesis that God’s marvellous deeds, the magnalia Dei, are recalled
by the liturgical assembly and are made present in their midst.
Through anamnesis the worshipers are enabled to experience in their
lives God’s work of salvation. The celebration of the Mass and sacra-
ments is thus always an anamnesis of God’s saving work, a presence
in ritual form, and an experience of faith.
Epiclesis, on the other hand, completes the action of anamnesis. The
two concepts are related to each other in much the same way as the
paschal mystery and the mystery of Pentecost. Just as the bestowal of
the Holy Spirit on the Church on the day of Pentecost culminates
Christ’s saving work in his death and resurrection, so does the prayer
of epiclesis culminate the action of anamnesis. When the Church recalls
God’s marvellous deeds in Christ, it also prays for the bestowal of
the Holy Spirit who will consecrate or make holy the people and the
sacramental elements used in worship. Anamnesis leads to epiclesis,
just as the paschal mystery led to Pentecost. In the liturgy we not
6 S. Marsili, “La liturgia della Liturgia nel Vaticano II,” Anamnesis I, 91–2.
7
only recall the paschal mystery of Christ, we also receive the Holy
Spirit.
Thus the definition of the liturgy as encounter with God involves
the ad extra working of the Trinity in salvation history. This trinitarian
dimension is expressed by the liturgy through its basic components
of anamnesis and epiclesis, whereby the different roles of the three
persons are recalled and their saving presence is invoked.
T H E VA R I O U S L I T U R G I C A L A C T I O N S
The conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy makes it clear that liturgical
actions are those which the Church recognizes as part of its public
worship. Thus it dedicates chapters and articles on the Mass, the
sacraments, sacramentals and blessings, the liturgy of the hours, and
the feasts in the course of the liturgical year. All these are considered
liturgical and the Church claims them as its official form of worship.7
The definition of the liturgy given above applies to each one, though
in different ways. Christ is present in each celebration, because the
liturgy is always the exercise of his priestly office. The Holy Spirit is
bestowed in every liturgical celebration. Every liturgy is anamnesis of
the paschal mystery and a pentecostal epiclesis.
The constitution reminds us, however, that “the liturgy does not
exhaust the entire activity of the Church” (SC 9) and that “the spiri-
tual life is not limited to participation in the liturgy” (SC 12). For this
reason the Church highly endorses the popular devotions of the
Christian people, which should be so fashioned “that they harmonize
with the liturgical seasons, accord with the sacred liturgy, are in some
way derived from it, and lead the people to it” (SC 13).
The distinction between what is liturgical and what is non-
liturgical depends on what the Church claims as its official form of
worship. S. Marsili’s distinction between the cult of the Church
(liturgy) and the cult in the Church (private devotions) is helpful.8
This is so, because the Church has approved certain devotions, like
the rosary, stations of the cross, and several novena prayers, for
public use without granting them the status of liturgical worship.
7 For the liturgical actions in the Oriental Churches, see A. Schmemann,
Introduction to Liturgical Theology, 150–220.

8 S. Marsili, “Liturgia e non-liturgia,” Anamnesis I, 137–56.
8
The Constitution on the Liturgy limits itself to popular devotions.
Today we speak more broadly of popular religiosity which includes
also such acts as pilgrimages, religious drama and dance, and proces-
sions. Several of these forms of religiosity have their roots in the
liturgy. In places where popular religiosity is vibrantly practiced it is
important to balance it with the liturgy. It is also useful to examine
ways whereby they can mutually enrich each other, in order that
popular religiosity can share the doctrinal content of the liturgy,
while the liturgy itself can acquire a more popular character.9
M U S I C , A R T, A N D F U R N I S H I N G S
The definition of the liturgy is incomplete without music, art, and
furnishings. For these are integral parts of the liturgical celebration.
Although the liturgy can, strictly speaking, be celebrated without
music, it is in the interest of active participation and the solemn form
of divine worship to sing parts of the liturgy. Although the liturgy
can make use of any decent and suitable space, it is fitting to cele-
brate it in the ambience of beauty, nobility, and dignity.
SC 112 requires that song be closely bound to the liturgical text and
to the rite, in order to “add delight to prayer, foster oneness of spirit,
or invest the rites with greater solemnity.”10 The arts, too, have an
important function in divine worship.11 SC 122 asks that fine arts set
apart for the liturgy should be “truly worthy, becoming, and beauti-
ful, signs and symbols of the supernatural world.” In this connection
the same article of the Constitution declares that “the Church has
been particularly careful to see that sacred furnishings worthily and
beautifully serve the dignity of worship.”
From these conciliar statements it appears that music, art, and fur-
nishings are more than cosmetic elements of the liturgy. Each has a
ministerial role to play; each possesses a sacramental and symbolic
character.
CONCLUSION
The liturgy can be defined in many ways, depending on what one
wishes to stress: the priestly office of Christ, its ecclesial dimension,
9 A. Chupungco, Liturgical Inculturation. Sacramentals, Religiosity, and Catechesis
(Collegeville, 1992) 95–133.
10 J. Gelineau, Voices and Instruments in Christian Worship (Collegeville, 1964).
11 C. Valenziano, Architetti di Chiese (Palermo, 1995).
9
its symbolic nature, its component elements. In a sense there is no
single definition of the liturgy that encompasses all its various
aspects. Often one should be satisfied with a description of its
components and with a general notion that emerges therefrom.
This and the other volumes of the handbook aim to unfold the
richness and beauty of the liturgy as seen from its various angles.
Bibliography
Adam, A. Foundations of Liturgy: An Introduction to Its History and Practice.
Trans. M. J. O’Connell. Collegeville, Minn., 1992.
Kavanagh, A. On Liturgical Theology. New York, 1984.
Lathrop, G. Holy Things: A Liturgical Theology. Minneapolis, 1993.
Marsili, S. “Liturgia.” Anàmnesis 1:33-45. Turin, 1974.
Schmemann, A. Introduction to Liturgical Theology. New York, 1986.
Vagaggini, C. Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy. Collegeville, Minn., 1976.
Trans. L. J. Doyle and W. A. Jurgens. Collegeville, Minn., 1976.
Verheul, A. Introduction to the Liturgy: Towards a Theology of Worship. Trans. M.
Clarke. Collegeville, Minn., 1968.
Wainwright, G. Doxology: A Systematic Theology. New York, 1980.
10
Ephrem Carr, O.S.B.
Liturgical Families in the East
INTRODUCTION
This introductory description of the different liturgical families in the
East necessarily touches on the basic elements of each family, namely
history, liturgical books and languages, and particular theological
and ritual features. Although elsewhere in the handbook these ele-
ments are treated at greater length, a certain amount of repetition is
unavoidable at this point.
The liturgical families in the East are the descendants of the litur-
gies that developed and became standard either in the major cities
which were centers of civil administration and subsequently of eccle-
siastical jurisdiction within the Roman Empire or in the first churches
founded outside the confines of that empire. The ecumenical council
of Nicea (325) already acknowledged a pre-eminent status in the
East for the churches of Alexandria, of Antioch, and of the “other
provinces” (canon 6). It also grants a position of honor to Aelia
(Capitolina), i.e., Jerusalem (canon 7). The “other provinces” were
specified by the second canon of the ecumenical council of
Constantinople (381) as the Asian diocese (capital: Ephesus), the
Pontic diocese (capital: Caesarea in Cappodocia) and Thrace (capital:
Heraclea).
The same council (canon 3) conferred a primacy of honor in the
East on Constantinople, the new imperial capital, which Constantine
officially inaugurated on May 11, 330. Later the Pontic, Asian, and
Thracian dioceses were made dependent on Constantinople, New
Rome, and it was named equal in privileges with the elder Rome at
the ecumenical council of Chalcedon (451) in its canon 28. Thus by
11
the mid-fifth century the principal ecclesiastical and eminent litur-
gical centers in the Eastern Roman Empire were Alexandria, Antioch,
Constantinople, and Jerusalem. Outside this empire during the epoch
of the formation of the above patriarchates, the church in Persia, with
its center at Seleucia-Ctesiphon, the Armenian church, and the church
in the Ethiopian Kingdom of Axum were likewise developing their
own ecclesial and liturgical structures. The liturgical families in the
East, the Alexandrian, the Antiochene or West Syrian, the Byzantine,
the Armenian, and the Persian or East Syrian, correspond basically
with the territorial organization of the Church in the fifth century.
Due to the vicissitudes of history no separate Jerusalem rite has
survived and the Ethiopians were subject to Alexandria until
recently.
I . T H E A L E X A N D R I A N FA M I LY
1. The Coptic Rite

The basis of the Coptic rite is the ancient liturgical observance of
Alexandria, capital city of Roman Egypt. The name Coptic comes
from the Greek aijguvptio" (“Egyptian”) by way of Arabic (qipt or
qubt). Although the liturgy was celebrated in Greek in the Hellenized
cities, the rural areas began using some Coptic as early as the fourth
century. In the fifth century the church in Egypt was split into two
opposing factions by the theological decisions of Chalcedon, i.e. the
Melkites (“partisans of the King”), the mainly Greek-speaking popu-
lation which accepted the council, and the Copts who spurned the
council and defended monophysite christology. The division became
permanent in the sixth century. The Melkites gradually embraced the
Byzantine rite like their counterparts in the patriarchates of Jerusalem
and Antioch. Among the Copts the old Alexandrian liturgy under-
went marked Antiochene influence when it was reorganized in the
sixth century in the monasteries of Scetis with their contingent of
Syrian monks. The exclusive use of Sahidic Coptic with a few short
formulas left in Greek was legislated by Patriarch Benjamin
(626–665). In a period of liturgical renewal sponsored by patriarchal
authority in the eleventh and twelfth centuries, some Byzantine ele-
ments were introduced into the sacraments. Bohairic replaced Sahidic
as the liturgical language by the twelfth century although Arabic was
12
already being used and prevailed after the fourteenth century. The
Coptic liturgy takes its final shape from the canonical-liturgical legis-
lation of Abu>l Barakat († 1327) and the liturgical regulations of
Patriarch Gabriel V (1409–1427).
Patriarch Gabriel II (1130–1144) restricted the number of anaphoras
to three. Although the ancient Alexandrian anaphora of St. Mark is
still used in its Coptic recension under the name of St. Cyril of
Alexandria, the normal anaphora is now St. Basil in a shorter recen-
sion than its Byzantine namesake. The anaphora of St. Gregory
Nazianzen is employed for the solemn feasts of the Lord. The latter
two eucharistic prayers had their origin in Cappadocia.
Proper to the Coptic eucharistic celebration is the use of four New
Testament readings (Paul, Catholic Epistles, Acts, Gospel) and the
prayers of the faithful in the form of solemn intercessions similar to
the Roman rite of Good Friday. Within the service there are two
rituals of reconciliation with the solemn formulas of absolution ad-
dressed respectively to the Son and to the Father as in the sacrament
of Penance. Another form of reconciliation is found in the cathedral
evening and the morning Offices of Incense whereby the incense
offering becomes a rite of reconciliation with absolution.
2. The Ethiopian Rite

The Ethiopian rite also derives from the ancient Alexandrian liturgy.
The establishment of the church in the Ethiopian Kingdom of Axum
is traced to the evangelizing zeal of two brothers of Syrian origin,
Frumentius and Edesius. The former was consecrated bishop about
340 by Athanasius of Alexandria and the Ethiopian church remained
hierarchically dependent on the Egyptian church until 1951. In the
course of time the liturgical books brought from Egypt were trans-
lated from Greek, then from Coptic or Arabic into Ge>ez and enriched
by elements gathered from other sources. It was a work carried out
largely in the monasteries, the intellectual centers of Ethiopian
Christianity from the sixth century onwards. Because the bishops
were foreigners who seldom spoke the language, the evolution of the
Ethiopic rite went on without any central direction that could create a
unified liturgical observance.
Among the materials that influenced the developing Ethiopian
liturgy in its rites and euchology are three early Church Orders: the
13
Testament of our Lord Jesus Christ, which was translated into Ge>ez at
an early stage and has supplied, among other things, the anaphora of
our Lord Jesus Christ; the Apostolic Tradition, put into Ge>ez in the
fourteenth century from the Arabic version of the Coptic Sinodos and
the origin of the anaphora of our Holy Fathers, the Apostles; and the
so-called Ethiopic Didascalia, which is actually a version via the
Arabic of the first six books of the Apostolic Constitutions.
Waves of liturgical renewal came in the fifteenth and seventeenth
centuries. Abba George Saglawi († 1426 ca.) composed a new Liturgy
of the Hours that has come into general use in monasteries and par-
ish churches. Reform of the liturgy formed part of the program of
Emperor Zar>a Yaqob (1434–1468) after he reestablished the unity of
the Ethiopian church. Under his patronage the feasts of the calendar
were reorganized and canonical-rubrical instructions were issued for
the administration of the sacraments and the celebration of the
Eucharist. Further revisions in the eucharistic liturgy and in the
sacraments of penance, anointing of the sick, and matrimony came
two hundred years later.
The order of the eucharistic celebration corresponds largely to the
Coptic usage, but the Creed has a form proper to the Ethiopic church
and the use of drums, sistra, proper music and hymns gives the cele-
bration its particular Ethiopian character. The Ethiopian rite has a
rich collection of twenty anaphoras, some from the Alexandrian or
Coptic tradition, two adapted from ancient Church Orders, others of
Antiochene origins, and some indigenous Ethiopian compositions.
In the Eucharist as well as in other liturgical services there is an
abundant hymnography that is the product of generations of dabtara,
the traditional singers-teachers of the Ethiopian church.
I I . T H E A N T I O C H E N E O R W E S T S Y R I A N FA M I LY
1. The Syrian or Syro-Antiochene Rite

The Syrian rite is the liturgy used by the present Syrian Orthodox
and Syrian Catholic churches. Its base is the ancient liturgy of
Antioch, capital of Roman Syria. The shape of the rite in the late
fourth century can be gathered from the Apostolic Constitutions, the
writings of John Chrysostom as presbyter at Antioch (386–398), and
the Baptismal Catecheses of Theodore of Mopsuestia († 428). The
liturgy of Jerusalem, part of the same imperial diocese, had an influ-
14
ence on the further evolution of the rite. It witnessed the assimilation
of the liturgy of St. James whose anaphora became a model for the
composition of later texts. The liturgical celebrations were in Greek in
the cities, but they gradually took on a Syriac form in the countryside
where the Syriac language and culture predominated.
As in Egypt, Syrian Christians became divided by reason of the
council of Chalcedon into Melkites, who were loyal to the council and
the emperor (malko = “ruler” or “king”), and the anti-chalcedonians.
The Melkites gradually accepted also the liturgy of the imperial
capital and became by the twelfth century part of the Byzantine rite.
The Syrian faithful who rejected the council slowly formed their own
church, a move fostered by Jacob Baradai († 578) and his establish-
ment of an independent hierarchy from 543 onward. Thus the
Asyrian church came to be called Jacobite. During the upheavals over
christology in the fifth and sixth centuries the Antiochene liturgy was
revised and augmented. An important role was played by Patriarch
Severus (512–518, † 538), who reformed the ritual of baptism and
composed a Hymn Book (ojktwvhco") with some of his own liturgical
poetry.
The rite of the Syrian patriarchate of Antioch took on a different
character with the predominant use of Syriac as the liturgical lan-
guage by way of translations and adaptations realized mostly in the
monasteries. One prominent translator and reformer of the liturgy
was Jacob of Edessa († 708). The result was a melding of original
Syriac material, especially poetic compositions of Ephrem († 373),
Jacob of Serug († 521), his contemporary Simeon Quqoyo (“the
potter”) and others, with texts translated or adapted from the Greek.
The Syrian rite reached its classic shape with Patriarch Michael the
Great (1166–1199). With the aid of Bishop Dionysius bar Salibi († 1171)
he compiled the Pontifical and oversaw the revision of some sacra-
mental rites, e.g., penance and orders.
For the eucharistic liturgy the Syrian church has produced up to
eighty anaphoras,1 some as recent as the sixteenth century. Among
the most ancient are the Antiochene anaphora of the Twelve Apostles,
which is related to the Byzantine anaphora of St. John Chrysostom,
1 An incomplete list of seventy anaphoras with their manuscript sources and
editions is provided by Alphonse Raes in Anaphorae syriacae, vol. 1 (Rome, 1939)
xxxix–xlvi.
15
and the anaphora of St. James from the Jerusalem tradition. As in the
Apostolic Constitutions, the liturgy of the Word has six readings (Law,
Wisdom, Prophets, Acts or Catholic Epistles, Paul, Gospel). An
original Syrian ritual form in the Eucharist and other liturgical
services is the incense rite with the priestly sedro (“order”) prayer
which consists in an introduction (Prooemion), the sedro prayer proper,
burning incense with the hymn (qolo) of incense, and the prayer for
acceptance of the incense offering (etro). The rich and varied poetic
compositions that have accumulated in the Liturgy of the Hours have
in large measure supplanted the psalms.
2. The Maronite Rite

The Maronite Rite stems from the liturgical observance of the monas-
teries and Christian communities within the sphere of influence of
the monastery of St. Maron († 410) near Apamea in Syria. The Syriac
Christians there were firm supporters of Chalcedon and thus targets
of anti-Chalcedonian neighbors. They also came into conflict with
local Melkites because of their disavowal of the dyothelite (“two
wills”) formulas of the Third Council of Constantinople (680–681).
Faced with the hostility of Moslems on the one side and of Jacobites
and Melkites on the other, the Maronite nation migrated to the
mountains of Lebanon in the eighth century and there formed an
autonomous church. The Maronite liturgy, formed within a monastic
environment, maintained many ancient Syriac usages and thus has
features in common with both East Syrian and West Syrian traditions.
Some euchological texts derive from the ancient rite of Jerusalem.
After centuries of virtual isolation, the Maronites came under Latin
influence with the Crusades. In 1182 the Maronite nation confirmed
its unbroken communion with Rome. A progressive Latinization of
liturgical observances began in the thirteenth century. With the
Ottoman conquest of the region in the sixteenth century, increased
dependence on Rome accentuated the process. New Latinisms were
introduced into the two missals printed in Rome in 1592–1594 and
1716. The latter included for the first time the anaphora of the Holy
Roman Church, broadly based on the Roman Canon, which became
the anaphora ordinarily used until recently. The high point of
Latinization came in the provisions of the Synod of Mount Lebanon
(1736). The different forms of consecration in the various anaphoras
16
were replaced by one standard text for all in 1755. The twentieth
century has brought a movement of liturgical renewal among the
Maronites. A restored ritual was published in 1942 and a missal in
1992 as part of a liturgical reform still in progress.
The Maronite eucharistic liturgy is basically a version of the Syriac
liturgy of St. James. Today the liturgical language is Arabic with
some parts, e.g., the consecration, in Syriac, but the monasteries
maintain the use of Syriac. In contrast with the Syro-Antiochene Rite,
the Maronite Eucharist has only two readings: Paul and the Gospel.
Of the twenty-two anaphoras in Maronite manuscripts, only six are
included in the newest missal. Together with the texts of many
anaphoras, the Maronite rite shares with the Syrian tradition the
basic structure of the sacraments, though it uses a formula in the first
person for baptism and absolution. The organization of the liturgical
hours is similar in both, but the Maronite version is simpler with
fewer variable texts.
3. The Malankara Rite

The Malankara Rite is the liturgy shared by the Malankara Orthodox
and Catholic churches in India. The Antiochene liturgy reached South
India with the Syrian Orthodox bishops sent in the seventeenth and
eighteenth centuries in response to the request of the Thomas
Christians who repudiated the juridical and liturgical Latinization
imposed on the Malabar Rite. The Malankara liturgical usages follow
the Syrian Rite with local variations that sometimes represent an ear-
lier stage of the Syrian tradition, e.g., the Liturgy of the Presanctified
Gifts on Lenten weekdays and Friday of Passion week. Malayalam has
largely replaced Syriac as the liturgical language.
I I I . T H E B Y Z A N T I N E FA M I LY
The liturgy of the Byzantine Rite is used with some local variations
in the world-wide communion of autonomous Eastern Orthdox
churches which accept the pre-eminence of the patriarch of
Constantinople and the authority of Byzantine canonical, theological,
and liturgical sources. Since the new imperial capital, Constantinople,
was only founded in the fourth century by Constantine on the site of
Byzantium, it had no ancient liturgical tradition of its own. At the
beginning it presumably followed the liturgical usages of the metro-
politan see, Heraclea.
17
Quickly, however, the consciousness of its role as imperial city and
the presence of the court with its solemn ceremonial led the church of
Constantinople to begin to create an independent liturgy of equal
splendor and majesty by assimilation and elaboration of elements of
court ceremony and of liturgical observances of the major centers
along the axis from Constantinople to Jerusalem, i.e., Caesarea in
Cappadocia, Antioch, and Jerusalem. From Cappadocia came the old-
est Eucharistic liturgy, attributed to St. Basil, elements of the prayer
of the Hours, e.g., Fw≈" iJlarovn, and other observances in common
with the old Armenian liturgy. The influence of Antioch, the great
center of Syrian and Palestinian Christianity, was reinforced by the
bishops who came from that district, Nectarius of Tarsus (381–397),
John Chrysostom (398–407), and Nestorius (428–431). The elements
from the Antiochene tradition in the structure of the Office and the
administration of the sacraments and the adoption of the anaphora
attributed to St. John Chrysostom are the reason why the Byzantine
rite is often considered a branch of the Antiochene family. The contri-
bution of Jerusalem can be noted especially in the Liturgy of the
Hours, in the rituals of the Great Week, and in hymnody. The
Byzantine liturgy took its classic shape between the sixth and the
ninth century in the Cathedral of Hagia Sophia and in the Stoudion
monastery at Constantinople. The oldest extant witness is the
Barberini Euchologion, copied in the late eighth century in Magna
Graecia (Southern Italy).
From the end of the eighth century and especially through the
mission of Cyril († 869) and Methodius († 885), Apostles of the Slavs,
the Byzantine liturgy was diffused among the Slavic peoples in the
Balkan Peninsula, then among the Romanians, and finally among the
Russians with the conversion of Vladimir in 988. The older Byzantine
Rite of the tenth to twelfth centuries was maintained in the Old
Slavonic books until the reforms of the Russian Patriarch Nikon
(1652–1666) to correspond to the liturgical usages of the contempo-
rary patriarchate of Constantinople in the standard printed editions.
The Old Believers who went into schism under Nikon still preserve
the older forms.
After the radical disruption of normal liturgical and ecclesial life at
Constantinople with the Fourth Crusade (1204), the restoration of the
Paleologue emperors (1261) also brought a renovation of the liturgy.
18
The destruction of numerous liturgical books by the Latins necessi-
tated a reconstitution of many rites. The tupikovn (Ceremonial and
Ordo-Calendar) of the Palestinian monastery of St. Saba and its form
of the Liturgy of the Hours became standard. The definitive shape of
the Byzantine liturgy was fixed by the Greek liturgical books printed
in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries.
The Byzantine eucharistic celebration is particularly solemn in its
sumptuous vesture and stately ceremonial with frequent use of
incense and two entrance processions. The element of mystery in the
celebration is reinforced by the iconostasis adorned with splendid
icons between nave and sanctuary. Of the two traditional eucharistic
liturgies that of St. John Chrysostom has superseded the more elabo-
rate one of St. Basil as the ordinary celebration since the eleventh cen-
tury. The Greek liturgy of St. James is also used in some Byzantine
traditions on the feast of St. James (October 23). In all the anaphoras
there is an emphasis on the solemn epiclesis. The participation of the
faithful in the Eucharist is promoted by the frequent litanies (10)
throughout the celebration. Hymnody has a minor part in the eucha-
ristic rite, but in the Office it plays a predominant role even to replac-
ing the Biblical psalms and canticles.
I V. T H E A R M E N I A N FA M I LY
The Armenian liturgy was formed and flourished in the Armenian
nation in the region around Lake Van. The first missionaries came
from northern Mesopotamia in the second and third centuries and
brought along their Syriac variety of the Antiochene Rite that origi-
nated in Edessa. But it was the mission of Gregory the Illuminator
(† 325) connected with the church of Caesarea that effected the con-
version of King Tiridates III and of the Armenian nation in 301 and
that carried the Cappadocian liturgy to Armenia.
The increasing drive for an independent and indigenous
Christianity was advanced by the creation of the Armenian alphabet
by Mesrob Mashtoc> († 439) in 405–406. With the backing of
Catholicos Sahak the Great († 438), Mesrob and his schools of
scholar-translators turned the Scriptures and the liturgical texts in
current use into Armenian. In the fifth and sixth centuries this liturgy
was enriched and to an extent modified significantly by the introduc-
tion of extensive materials translated from the Jerusalem tradition,
19
e.g., the Jerusalem Lectionary in Armenian (ca. 417–439). Between the
seventh and the eleventh century the Armenian Rite also underwent
several stages of Byzantine influence. Some ceremonies and euchol-
ogy thus repeat or imitate the usages of Constantinople, e.g., in the
Eucharist and some of the sacraments. This melding of various tradi-
tions often led to the reduplication or multiplication of prayers and
rituals. Liturgical celebrations were enhanced by the hymns com-
posed by Gregory of Narek († 1010) and Catholicos Nerses IV
Shnorhali († 1173). During the period of Latin influence in Little
Armenia (Cilicia) in the twelfth to the fourteenth century, some
secondary Latinization in external forms, e.g., bishop’s miter, and
rituals, e.g. prayers at the foot of the altar with Confiteor and Psalm
42(43), became part of the Armenian Rite.
For the Eucharist unleavened bread is used and the Orthodox
Armenians do not mix water with the wine. Communion is given
under one species only. The Liturgy of the Word has three readings
(Old Testament, Epistle, and Gospel) and the Creed follows immedi-
ately after the Gospel as was the Latin usage. Of the eight anaphoras
of the Armenian tradition, the most ancient is the early form of the
Cappadocian anaphora of St. Basil, known in Armenian under the
name of St. Gregory the Illuminator. Only one anaphora, St.
Athanasius, is employed today. In the Eucharistic Prayer there is a
hymn to the Father after the anamnesis and a hymn to the Holy
Spirit after the epiclesis. The Armenian calendar celebrates the
Nativity and the Epiphany as one feast on January 6; it never incor-
porated the western feast of Christmas.
V. T H E P E R S I A N O R E A S T S Y R I A N FA M I LY
1. The Assyrian or Chaldean Rite

The liturgy of the Church in the Persian Empire (which included
areas of ancient Assyria and Chaldea) evolved from the liturgy devel-
oped in Edessa, the cradle of Syriac Christian culture and center of
missionary endeavors in the Fertile Crescent. Edessa was within the
Roman diocese of the East (Oriens), which had its headquarters in
Antioch. Because of the animosity between the two empires, the
Christian church, to which the Roman emperors belonged, under-
went in Persia a lengthy period of persecution (344/345–399) which
left it in complete disarray. Under the King of Kings Yezdegerd I
20
(399–420), it was able to elect a new Catholicos, Isaac, and hold a
national synod at Seleucia-Ctesiphon (410) to reorganize its ecclesial
and liturgical life. With the aid and counsel of Bishop Marutha of
Maipherqat, ambassador of the Syrian church, the renewal was done
in accordance with the usages of the “Western Fathers,” i.e., of the
patriarchate of Antioch. Shortly thereafter, however, for political
expediency the church in Persia declared itself independent of the
western patriarchs at the Synod of Markabta (424) under Catholicos
Dadisho> and underlined its difference theologically at the Synod of
Seleucia-Ctesiphon (486) under Catholicos Acacius by adopting the
christology of Nestorius, who had been condemned at the imperial
council of Ephesus (431).
The present Assyrian or Chaldean liturgy is basically the rite as
codified under the direction of Catholicos Isho >yahb III (647–648 ca.–
657–658) after the Arab conquest. The extensive ritual reforms
credited to him included the standardization of the pre-anaphoral
prayers, the approval of only the anaphoras of the Holy Apostles
Addai and Mari, of Mar Theodore and of Mar Nestorius, the adapta-
tion of the rites of Christian initiation for the baptism of children, the
compilation of the Hudra with offices for Sundays, feasts and fasts,
the rearrangement of the liturgical year and calendar, the systemati-
zation of the cathedral Offices of Vespers, Matins, dominical, and
festal Vigils, and the establishment of norms for the lectionary system
on the basis of which a lectionary was produced shortly thereafter at
the Upper Monastery near Mosul.
In the Middle Ages additions were made to the Liturgy of the
Hours. Psalm prayers for Vigils and Matins were inserted by
Catholicos Elias III Abu Halim (1176–1190) and his successor
Yahballaha (1190–1222) compiled the Gazza (“Treasure”), a liturgical
book of poetic hymns and antiphons for festal Nocturns. The Warda
(“Rose”) collects the poetical antiphons of George Warda († 1300) for
liturgical use. From the sixteenth century sections of the Assyrian
Church of the East have established union with Rome. These
Chaldean Catholics use rituals translated from the Latin for confir-
mation, auricular confession, and the anointing of the sick.
The Syriac liturgy of the Assyrian and Chaldean churches exhibits
a sober simplicity that maintains many archaic features and ancient
structures in the Eucharist, the celebration of the sacraments, and the
21
semitic pentecostade form (fifty-day period of seven weeks and one
day) of the liturgical year.2 The normal anaphora, Addai and Mari,
which in its earliest form — without the cushapa prayers — may go
back to the third century, is unusual in that it does not include the
words of institution in any of the ancient manuscripts or in present
Assyrian usage. The archaic Syriac hymn Lakhumara (“To you,
O Lord”) is a characteristic feature of the eucharistic celebration and
the Offices of Vespers and ferial Matins. Although Syriac remains the
liturgical language, Arabic is sometimes used in the liturgy of the
Word for the prayers and the four readings (Law, Prophets, Apostle,
Gospel). The liturgical use of the hymns of Ephrem († 373) is shared
with the West Syrian family.
2. The Malabar Rite

The Malabar Rite takes its name from the southwest coast of India in
Kerala State. Christianity is held to have come to the region with the
evangelizing mission of St. Thomas the Apostle. Whatever the litur-
gical usages of the earliest generations of Thomas Christians may
have been, the Christian communities in South India were linked to
the Persian church from the fourth century until the arrival of the
Portuguese in the sixteenth century. The liturgy that the Latin mis-
sionaries found there was a form of the East Syrian Rite with some
Christianized Hindu practices, e.g., the use of the thali, a braided
cord, in the ritual of marriage.
The effort to purge the Malabar liturgy of any trace of
Nestorianism eventually led the archbishop of Goa with the aid of
the Jesuit missionaries to convoke the Synod of Diamper (1599)
which resulted in a wholesale imposition of Latin usages on the
Thomas Christians. About all that remained of the original rite was
the Syriac language, the Divine Office, and the fundamental shape of
the eucharistic liturgy into which many Latinisms were introduced.
Only one anaphora, Addai and Mari, was approved with any
possible heterodoxy eliminated and with the words of consecration
added at the end. Unleavened bread was prescribed for the Eucharist
and communion under only one species. For use in the celebration of
2 For the pentecostade calendar see E. Carr, “The Liturgical Year in the Syriac
Churches: Adaptation to Different Ecclesial-Liturgical Ambients,” in L’adattamento

culturale della liturgia: Metodi e modelli. SA 113 (Rome, 1993) 47–59.
22
the sacraments a sixteenth-century Portuguese Rituale was translated
into Syriac. A Syriac version of the Pontificale Romanum was also pro-
duced. The manuscripts of the old liturgical books were destroyed to
prevent their use. A new calendar was issued to remove any and all
Nestorian saints. Although the Synod was not officially approved by
Rome, its regulations were enforced in India.
Opposition to the synodal decisions reached a peak with the
solemn oath at the Kunan Cross in 1653, but many of the rebels were
gradually persuaded to change their mind. The Thomas Christians
who refused to yield to the Latinization eventually succeeded in con-
tacting the patriarch of the Syrian Orthodox church who agreed to re-
ceive them under his jurisdiction and to give them a bishop provided
that they accepted the theology and liturgy of his church. This gave
rise to the Malankara Rite in India.
Liturgical reform to restore the oriental character of the Malabar
Rite began with Pope Pius XI in 1934. The restored Syriac Qurbana
(“Offering” = Eucharist) approved by Pope Pius XII in 1957 was in-
troduced in 1962. The eucharistic liturgy has undergone further revi-
sions since then, but the reformed liturgy has met continued
resistance in some sectors of the Malabar church. Since the 1960s
Malayalam has supplanted Syriac as the liturgical language.
Bibliography
Dalmais, I.-H. “The Eastern Liturgical Families.” In The Church at Prayer: An
Introduction to the Liturgy. Ed. A.-G. Martimort and others. Vol. 1,
Principles of the Liturgy, 27–43. Collegeville, Minn., 1987.
. Les liturgies d’Orient. 2nd ed. Rites et symboles 10. Paris, 1980.
Federici, T. “Le liturgie dell’area orientale.” Anàmnesis 2:110–128.
Gelsi, D. “Orientali, liturgie.” NDL 983–1007.
Janin, R. Les églises orientales et les rites orientaux. 4th ed. Paris, 1955.
King, A. A. The Rites of the Eastern Churches. 2 vols. Rome, 1947–1948.
Reprinted under the title The Rites of Eastern Christendom, London, 1950.
23
Macomber, W. F. “A Theory on the Origins of the Syrian, Maronite and
Chaldean Rites.” OCP 39 (1973) 235–242.
Madey, J., ed. The Eucharistic Liturgy in the Christian East. Kottayam, 1982.
Raes, A. Introductio in liturgiam orientalem. Rome, 1962.
Salaville, S. An Introduction to the Study of Eastern Liturgies. Trans. J.M.T.
Barton. London, 1938.
24
Gabriel Ramis
Liturgical Families in the West
The liturgies that were formed in the West are the Roman, the
Ambrosian, the Hispanic, the Gallican, and the Celtic. Of these litur-
gies, the only ones that have survived until our time are the Roman
and the Ambrosian. The Roman is celebrated in all of the West and in
Africa, Latin America, and the Far East; the Ambrosian is limited to
the Archdiocese of Milan.
The Hispanic, although it has survived until our day, is only cele-
brated in the Chapel of the Corpus Christi in the cathedral of Toledo
and in some parishes of that city. It is also occasionally celebrated in
other dioceses of Spain.
The Gallican liturgy and the Celtic liturgy, however, have stopped
being used completely. But even though they are not celebrated, they
have left us with a considerable liturgical documentation that de-
scribes their development.
Besides these liturgies that either have survived until today or
have already fallen into disuse, we should mention some other litur-
gies whose documentation we do not possess. There are some that
did not reach a high degree of development, and thus we are not able
to call them “liturgies,” nor distinguish them from the other Western
liturgies already mentioned.
Among these liturgies we should name the African, a liturgy that,
in spite of having evolved and having acquired a great development
as well as a high level of consolidation, has not left us any document
of its liturgical life. This is due in great part to the fact that with the
invasion of the Vandals and Moslems, the churches of northern
Africa disappeared.
25
We also must mention the Italian liturgies: the beneventana and cam-
pana, and those celebrated in the exarchy of Ravenna and in Aquileia.
In Portugal the liturgy of Braga was practiced.
All of these are incorrectly called liturgies because they do not
have the kind of structure that enables them to be differentiated from
the other Western liturgies. They are rites that either were created as
Roman or that have romanized themselves completely, conserving
some characteristics of their own respective churches.
THE ROMAN LITURGY

There is no doubt that Rome by being the see of Peter had major
importance among all the churches. Consequently the liturgy that
was formed in Rome, starting in the eighth century, slowly became
important throughout the West. Its importance grew until it came to
be almost the only liturgy that was celebrated in all the Church,
except for the Eastern Churches and the Church of Milan.1
The Roman liturgy refers to the liturgy that began and developed
itself in the city of Rome, in the environment of the pope and of the
tituli, which were the churches governed by a priest.
After the fourth century, with the definitive adoption of Latin in
the Roman liturgy, began a great production period of Office books,
and of later codification of the Sacramentaries. It is above all the age
that passes from Leo the Great (440–461) to Gregory the Great
(590–604), the fifth and sixth centuries. The production of these
centuries is crystallized in the Veronese Sacramentary, and in other
Sacramentaries, particularly, the Gelasian and the Gregorian.
Besides Sacramentaries there are also Lectionaries, the books that
contain the readings of the Mass taken from the Bible, with directives
as to which readings are to be read.
This liturgy also spread outside Rome: For example, Charlemagne
accepted the Roman books in his kingdom and introduced this
liturgy in his empire.
Outside of Rome the sacramentaries and the liturgy in general as-
sumed formulas and rites that were not exactly Roman. Thus began
the Romano-Frankish liturgies or the Romano-Germanic liturgies,
1E. Cattaneo, Il culto cristiano in Occidente. Note storiche = BEL. Subsidia 13

(Rome, 1992); C. Vogel, Introduction au sources de l ’histoire de culte chrétien au
Moyen Age = Biblioteca degli Studi Medievali 1 (Spoleto, 1966).
26
which were basically Roman liturgies that had assimilated some ele-
ments of the countries and cultures in which they were being used.
This liturgy slowly started imposing itself on other Western litur-
gies, except for the Ambrosian. It was with Gregory VII (1073–1085)
that the liturgical unification of all the West was reached. The discov-
ery of America at the end of the fifteenth century (1492) brought this
liturgy to the new world. The missionaries that preached the Gospel
in both North and South America also introduced the Roman liturgy
to the continent.
The missionary work of the sixteenth century and after brought the
Roman liturgy to the Far East (the Philippines, Japan, and China) and
to the African continent (black Africa).
In the sixteenth century the Council of Trent promoted liturgical
reform. A product of this reform was the edition of the missal and
breviary, which were widely accepted. With the tridentine reform the
Roman liturgy consolidated itself in most of the Catholic world.
After the tridentine reform followed a period of liturgical stability
until the reforms of Pius X, Pius XII, and John XXIII, and these were
followed by the liturgical reform of the Vatican Council II.
AFRICAN LITURGY
By African liturgy we understand the liturgy celebrated in Northwest
Africa, from the time that Christianity was preached in this area until
its disappearance due to the invasions of the Vandals and the
Moslems.2 This liturgy developed in Northwest Africa in the area of
the three, and later four, Roman provinces that existed in Africa in
the fourth century.
This phenomenon of the restriction of Christianity in Roman Africa
to only the Romans or the Afro-Romans without reaching to the
lower levels of society, the actual “African” levels, explains the dis-
appearance of the church of Africa. Once the Roman Empire disap-
peared, the Church vanished as well.
Although we do not have any direct liturgical documentation of
this church, from the information that the Fathers of the African
church have given us, we can deduce that in Africa a liturgy of great
2 B. Botte, “Liturgie dell ‘Occidente,” in A-G. Martimort, La Chiesa in preghiera
(Rome, 1963) 28–36; J. B. Thibaut, “La liturgie romano-africaine,” in AA.VV.

La liturgie romaine (Paris 1924) 81–96.
27
personality was developed and structured. This liturgy probably
exercised its influence in other Western liturgies, such as the Hispanic
and the Gallican.
This liturgy was celebrated in Latin, whereas in Rome the liturgy
was still celebrated in Greek. It also had the entire sacramental cele-
bration clearly structured: Mass, sacraments, liturgical year, and
Divine Office.
AMBROSIAN LITURGY
Although this liturgy is called the Ambrosian, this name does not
imply that the liturgy was all the work of Ambrose, nor does it even
mean that he began it. Without a doubt Ambrose had influence in the
development of this liturgy, and due to the fame of this bishop of
Milan, the liturgy adopted his name.3
Scholars have different opinions regarding the origin of the
Ambrosian liturgy: some advocate an Eastern origin, while others
argue for a Roman origin. Although the Roman liturgy has exercised
a great influence over the liturgy of Milan, its Eastern influences can-
not be ignored.
Throughout its history this liturgy, which still is used today, has
passed through diverse stages: assimilation of elements of other litur-
gies, shedding elements inappropriate to the character of this liturgy,
self-conservation before Charlemagne’s attempts of Romanization,
adjustment to the norms of the tridentine liturgical reforms, and
those of Vatican II, and the revision and edition of the Missale
Ambrosianum, which has, with limitations, reevaluated the authentic-
ity of the rite.
GALLICAN LITURGY
The liturgy that was formed in the southern half of Gaul, or medieval
France, is what we call the Gallican liturgy. This liturgy’s time of
greatest creativity and fruitfulness was the sixth century, but after-
3 P. Borella, Il rito ambrosiano (Brescia, 1964); A. Paredi, Storia del rito ambrosiano
(Milan, 1990); A. M. Triacca, “La liturgia ambrosiana,” in AA.VV. Anamnesis 2, 88–

110.
28
wards it faded away with the adoption of the Roman rite through the
reform of Charlemagne.4
The Gallican liturgy, although being more important, did not
develop completely as the Ambrosian and the Hispanic liturgies did.
The time of splendor for the Gallican liturgy is the sixth century with
Cesarius of Arles.
The Hispanic rite probably began at the same time as the Gallican
and was established with the same foundations and from the same
historical time frame as well.
In the churches of Gaul and Spain there was a heritage of liturgical
traditions proceeding from the East and Italy, but above all from
Latin Africa. With these liturgical materials the Gallican and Hispanic
rites were formed, and they tried to do in their own churches and by
their own means something similar to what occurred in Rome in the
fifth century. In other words, they tried to organize their own rite.
The Gallican rite disappeared at the end of the eighth century be-
cause Charlemagne adopted for his kingdom the liturgical books
brought from Rome.
H I S PA N I C L I T U R G Y
The Hispanic liturgy was created and developed in the Iberian penin-
sula from the beginning of Christian preaching until its suppression
by Pope Gregory VII in the year 1080.5 This liturgy has three different
names: the Hispanic, the Visigothic, and the Mozarabic. Since the
time of Cisneros, the third qualifier has normally been used. In fact,
these three qualifiers correspond to three historical periods in which
the liturgy has lived and developed. The Hispanic corresponds to the
Roman period; the Visigothic to the time of the Visigoth kingdom; the
Mozarabic to the period of Moslem domination.
The most appropriate name is the Hispanic, the simple reason
being that this liturgy already existed in the Roman period. To call it
only Visigothic or Mozarabic is to deny a period, the first one of its
4 F. Cabrol, Les origines de la liturgie gallicane, RHE 26 (1930), 951–62; H. Leclerq,
Liturgie Gallicane, DACL VI/1 (Paris, 1924) 473–596; J. B. Thibaut, L ‘ancienne

liturgie gallicane. Son origine et sa formation en Provnce aux Ve et VIe. siècles sous l
‘influence de Cassian et saint Cesaire d ‘Arles (Paris, 1929).
5 J. Pinell, “Liturgia Hispánica,” in Liturgia: Diccionario de Historia Ecclesiástica de
España II (Madrid, 1972) 1303–20; id., “La liturgia ispanica,” in AA.VV. Anamnesis
2, 70–88.
29
existence. It is also true that for historical reasons we cannot deny the
other two names that this liturgy has been called.
There is no common agreement among scholars regarding the
origin of the Hispanic liturgy. At times their opinions contrast greatly.
Surely the most plausible opinion is that of Pinell, who affirms that
the Hispanic liturgy, as with the Gallican, could have been formed
from a common liturgical patrimony proceeding from Latin Africa.
This liturgy, in spite of the suppression by Gregory VII in 1080,
continues to be celebrated even today in the Chapel of the Corpus
Christi in the cathedral of Toledo and in some parishes of that city.
It is celebrated above all for those who are descendants of the old
Mozarabs.
The euchological schools of Tarragon, Seville, and Toledo were
very important to the formation of this liturgy. It is also possible that
Cartagena and Mérida have contributed more than a little to the
publishing of office books. The names of Leander, Isidore, Eugenius,
Ildefonse, and Julian are associated with these schools.
Following the decisions of Vatican II, this liturgy has been revised
and reformed. Between 1991 and 1995 the Missale Hispano-
Mozarabicum and the Liber Commicus were published.
C E LT I C L I T U R G Y
The Celtic liturgy developed in Ireland, and it is represented through
the sources that have survived until our time. There are few existing
sources and those we have are very old, dating back to the seventh
century.6 We cannot call this a liturgy in a strict sense, as we have re-
ferred to the other western liturgies. The Celtic liturgy never reached
a full development. It is fundamentally a Roman liturgy with influ-
ences of the Gallican, Ambrosian, and Hispanic liturgies. The sources
of this liturgy give us an outline of ordo missae and of the monastic
Office.
OTHER WESTERN LITURGIES

Some other liturgies also existed in the West, although they did not
acquire a full structure and little documentation regarding them
remains.
6 F. E. Warren, The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church (Oxford, 1881).
30
The most important of these is the liturgy of Aquileia, for which
we have some proof of its existence. Scholars do not agree on its
origin. Some say that it simply came from Rome, others from
Constantinople or from Alexandria, still others say it is from Milan.
From this liturgy the Capitularia Evangeliorum of the manuscripts
Forojuliensis and Rehdigeranus developed, the first from the end of the
seventh century or beginning of the eighth, the second from the
eighth century. In addition to these capitularia, we know that Paulinus
of Aquileia († 802) wrote hymns, but documentation of this fact is
very vague. The Synods of Aquileia and Como of the sixteenth cen-
tury tell us of the Aquileian missal and breviary.
There is no doubt that the church of Ravenna had its importance,
but we do not have any documents showing that this church fully
developed its liturgy. There is no doubt that Ravenna, as an imperial
capital (fifth century) and as the Byzantine provincial capital (sixth–
seventh centuries), had its influence, whether it was through the
Arianism introduced with the conquest of Theodoric, or through the
influences of the Byzantine Empire after being reconquested by
Belisarion the Byzantine until it fell to the Lombards in 751.
Regarding the area of Naples, we have some fragments of Pauline
readings from the church of Capua in the sixth century, as well as
some capitularia evangeliorum, the oldest of these probably being from
the second half of the sixth century, while the others are from the
eighth.
Bibliography
Baumstark, A. Comparative Liturgy. Rev. B. Botte. Trans. F. L. Cross.
Westminster, Md., 1958.
Bishop, W. C. “The African Rite.” JThS, o.s. 13 (1912) 250–277.
Borella, P. Il rito ambrosiano. Brescia, 1964.
Botte, B. “Liturgie dell’Occidente.” In La Chiesa in preghiera. Ed. A.-G.
Martimort, 28–36. Rome, 1963.
Cabrol, F. “Afrique.” DACL 1 (1907) 576–657.
. “Les origines de la liturgie gallicane.” RHE 30 (1930) 951–962.
. “Mozarabe (La Liturgie).” DACL 12/2 (1935) 390–491.
31
Cattaneo, E. Il culto cristiano in Occidente: Note storiche. 3rd ed. BELS 13 Rome,
1984.
Goagoud, L. “Celtiques (Liturgies).” DACL 2/2 (1907) 2969–3032.
King, A. A. Liturgies of the Primatial Sees. London, 1957.
Leclerq, H. “Liturgie gallicane.” DACL 6/1 (1924) 473–596.
Lejay, P. “Ambrosienne (Liturgie).” DACL 1 (1907) 1373–1442.
Martimort, A.-G., ed. The Church at Prayer. Vol. 1, Principles of the Liturgy.
Metzger, M. Histoire de la liturgie: Les grandes étapes. Paris, 1944.
Paredi, A. Storia del rito ambrosiano. Milan, 1990.
Pinell i Pons, J. “Liturgia Hispánica.” In Liturgia: Diccionario de historia ecle-
siástica de España 2:1303–1320. Madrid, 1972.
. “La liturgia ispanica.” In Anàmnesis 2:70–88.
. “La liturgia gallicana.” In Anàmnesis 2:62-67.
. “La liturgia celtica.” In Anàmnesis 2:67–70.
. “Liturgie locali antiche (origine e sviluppo).” NDL 776–783.
Thibaut, J.-B. “La liturgie romano-africaine.” In La liturgie romaine, 81–96.
Paris, 1924.
. L’ancienne liturgie gallicane, son origine et sa formation en Provence aux Ve
et VIe siècles sous l’influence de Cassien et de saint Cèsaire d’Arles. Paris,
1929.
Triacca, A.-M. “La liturgia ambrosiana.” In Anàmnesis 2:88–110.
. “Le liturgie occidentali.” DPAC 2:1985-1990.
Vogel, C. Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources. Trans. and rev. W.
Storey and N. Rasmussen. Washington, 1986.
Warren, F.-E. The Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Church. Oxford, 1881.
32
Renato De Zan
Bible and Liturgy
I. INTRODUCTION
The link between Bible and liturgy is a complete and natural relation-
ship, unfortunately not always correctly appreciated.1 Granted, there
is a relationship between Bible and liturgy based on use, in which
“the liturgy . . . is the perfect actualization of the biblical texts, for it
places the proclamation in the midst of the community of believers,
gathered around Christ so as to draw near to God.”2 In other words,
the two terms Bible/liturgy emphasize the presence of the Bible in
the liturgy. Not stressed is the fact that these two terms also imply
other relationships. The sacred text bears witness, with various
nuances, to the cultic experience of the Jews and the Christian com-
munity. The biblical witness not only preserves detailed descriptions
of ritual practices; it also preserves accounts of how these practices
developed and at times even gives prayer texts (unfortunately these
are usually separated from the ritual practices). In this case the rela-
tionship between Bible and liturgy is taken to be the same as the
presence of the liturgy in the Bible. It seems, then, the two terms
1 An important place is given to the liturgy in the document of the Pontifical
Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church (Vatican City,
1993). After presenting the methods, approaches, various hermeneutic questions
and characteristic aspects of Catholic interpretation, the document deals with the
interpretation of the Bible in the life of the Church. The paragraph is divided into
two parts: actualization and use of the Bible. In the second part there is a short
section on the use of the Bible in the liturgy, immediately followed by a section on
the use of the Bible in lectio divina, pastoral ministry and ecumenism.
2 Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation, n. 110–1.
33
Bible/liturgy can be explained in two phases, neither of which is
exhaustive: the liturgy in the Bible and the Bible in the liturgy.
This view of the subject presents certain weaknesses. The first is
the difference of reciprocity. Studying Jewish and Christian liturgical
data is not the same as studying how much Scripture there is in the
liturgy. In the first case (liturgy in the Bible) the biblical text pre-
serves, as a memory, information3 about the Jewish and Christian
liturgy in the same way it preserves much other information about
the various Jewish institutions and the newborn community.4 In the
second case (Bible in the liturgy) the relationship between the two
elements is completely different. The Bible is not one of many ele-
ments that make up the liturgy; rather it is the essential and sustain-
ing element.5 The liturgy is the Bible transformed into Word
proclaimed, prayed, and actualized: the liturgy is Word that is cele-
brated. Thus the link between Bible and liturgy, when the latter is
seen as present in the former, is not the link between Bible and
liturgy when the former is seen as present in the latter. This leads to a
second observation. The link between Bible and liturgy is present not
only in our celebrations today. It is present in its own way at the be-
ginning of salvation where the foundational saving Event took place.
In the Old Testament as in the New, both the primitive celebration
and the Word are situated in the foundational saving Event, for the
foundational saving Event is at the same time a primitive (original)
celebration and Word. The primitive celebration presents itself as a
model to be repeated in later celebrations and as guardian of the
Word. The Word presents itself, on the one hand, as an interpretation
and memory of the founding event, and on the other as a memory
and ritual practice providing a norm for later celebrations. Thus the
3 The information about the Jewish and Christian liturgy preserved in the Bible
is incomplete. Missing is a whole series of data that can be only partially recon-
structed from rabbinic and patristic writings.
4 See R. de Vaux, Le istituzioni dell’Antico Testamento (Turin, 1973); Maier, Il
giudaismo del secondo tempio (Brescia, 1991); E. Schürer, Storia del popolo giudaico al
tempo di Gesù, vols. I–II (Brescia, 1987).
5 “Sacred scripture is of the greatest importance in the celebration of the liturgy.
For from it are drawn the lessons which are read and which are explained in the
homily; from it too come the psalms which are sung. It is from Scripture that the
petitions, prayers and hymns draw their inspiration and their force, and that ac-
tions and signs derive their meaning” (SC 24).
34
two terms Bible/liturgy can be linked in three ways: (1) the liturgy in
the Bible, (2) the intratextual continuum “Bible and liturgy”6 (founda-
tional saving Event) and (3) the extratextual continuum “Bible and
liturgy” (the Bible in the liturgy).
In these pages, necessarily brief, it is impossible to spend time
examining the biblical text to show how many liturgical elements it
preserves.7 Instead, more by way of statements than explanations, we
shall touch upon the main themes linked to the other two relation-
ships: the intratextual continuum “Bible and liturgy” (foundational
saving Event) and the extratextual continuum “Bible and liturgy”
(the Bible in the liturgy).
I I . B I B L E A N D L I T U R G Y A S I N T R AT E X T UA L
C O N T I N U U M ( F O U N D AT I O N A L S AV I N G E V E N T )
To examine this theme means to undertake a study that is rich and
complex by reason of its various unexplored aspects. This is because
the Bible and the liturgy are not approached — as is often the case —
as two autonomous realities, alike in some ways and opposite in
6 The adjective “intratextual” is used to indicate that the elements of the subject
are all found in Scripture. The adjective “extratextual” is used to indicate that the
elements are found outside the biblical text and within the liturgical ritual prac-
tice, and later in the celebration.
7 Biblical studies dealing with the liturgy in the Bible are numerous. But it
should be noted that equal sensitivity is not always found in the Bibliography. In
Nober’s Elenchus Bibliographicus Biblicus some paragraphs in chapter 15 (“Biblical
Theology”) are devoted to liturgical aspects of Bible. This sensitivity has been
gradually lost under North’s new editorship (see general index in R. North,
Elenchus of Biblica 1988 [Rome 1991], and R. North, Elenchus of Biblica 1991 [Rome,
1994]). We find a completely different mentality in the volumes of the
Internationale Zeitschriftenschau für Bibelwissenschaft und Grenzgebiete, Düsseldorf.
Langevin’s extensive biblical bibliography is equally sensitive: P. E. Langevin,
Bibliographie Biblique 1930–1970, (Québec, 1972); P. E. Langevin, Bibliographie
Biblique 1930–1975 (Québec, 1978); P. E. Langevin, Bibliographie Biblique 1930–1983,
(Québec, 1985). In its index of principal topics (Rubrical Index) we find many
entries and bibliographical references of liturgical interest: new Adam, adoption,
advent, agape, agony, altar, ark of the covenant, ascension, assembly, baptism,
blessing, circumcision, community, contrition, covenant, conversion, cult, Day of
Yahweh, diaconate, episcopate, Eucharist, expiation, extreme unction, fasting,
feast, goat, Holy Thursday, horn, incubation, jubilee, lamb, Levites, liturgy, medi-
ation, Mass, sacred places, Sunday, water etc.
35
others, but rather as a single reality in which, in the order of salva-
tion, the liturgy complements the Bible and vice versa.
Scripture preserves the memory of the foundational saving Event.8
This Event is essentially Word. The author of the Letter to the
Hebrews9 begins his work with a summary that makes our present
statement of the theme easier: “In times past God spoke (lalhvsa") in
partial and various ways (polumerw≈" kai; polutrovpo") to our ancestors
through the prophets; in these last days (ejp jejscavtou), he spoke
(ejlavlhsen) to us through the son” (Heb 1:1-2a). The entire Letter to
the Hebrews shows what Jesus accomplished. The offering he made
by his death and resurrection is presented in a special way, for these
are the events by which he is made High Priest. God speaks through
what the person of the Son is, does, and says (person as Word-event).
Since there is a parallel between the Word of God “in these last days”
and the Word of God “in times past” and “in various ways,” it be-
comes clear that in the Old Testament world the divine Word, before
it was spoken, was an event.10 The Bible is an inspired guarantee that
God wished to communicate himself in a manner and in a history
that are distinctive and unique — yesterday, today, and in the future.
They are at the same time a “measure” and a “locus” of salvation for
all believers of all times; a “measure” and a “locus” of salvation that
bind, commit, and determine the Church.
Proceeding in summary fashion, we can find in the two experi-
ences of the Old and New Testament (in the unity provided by the
category of promise-fulfillment and in the difference provided by the
category of “transcendence”) certain common elements that show the
continuum to which Scripture testifies (intratextual continuum).
A. Scripture presents at the beginning the primordial-original sav-
ing Event, already experienced as celebration by a group of people.11
8 For the Jews this was the Passover, for Christians the paschal mystery of
Jesus.
9 See H. Luz, Der alte und der neue Bund bei Paulus und Hebräerbrief, in “Evangel.
Theol.” 27 (1967) 318–6; A. Vanhoye, La structure littéraire de l’Epître aux Hébreux

(Paris, 1963); H. Zimmermann, Das Bekenntnis der Hoffnung. Tradition und
Redaktion im Hebräerbrief (Cologne, 1977).
10 For a summary, see G. Gerleman, Dabar-parola, in Jenni-Westermann,
Dizionario Teologico dell’Antico Testamento, vol. I (Turin, 1978) coll. 375–83.

11 For the OT, see Exod 12:1-13, 16; for the NT see 1 Cor 11:23 (Matt 26:26-28;
Mark 14:22-24; Luke 22:19-20) in connection with the accounts of the Lord’s pas-
sion, death, and resurrection.
36
B. There is a profound relationship between the foundational saving
Event, experienced by a group of people that have become a primitive
assembly, and subsequent celebrations by the same people, no longer
as primitive but as a subsequent assembly. This relationship has two
dimensions. The first links the primitive celebration (foundational
saving Event) to the assembly that is celebrant and protagonist of the
Event, the assembly that in time celebrates no longer as mere witness,
but as custodian and first interpreter of the Event. The second dimen-
sion links the primitive celebration (foundational saving Event),
through the celebrating assembly, to subsequent celebrations, all of
which are linked to the definitive and eschatological fulfillment of the
salvation begun in the foundational saving Event itself.
C. There is also a profound link between the first assembly, his-
torical protagonist of the foundational saving Event, and subsequent
assemblies, separated from the first by time and space. These subse-
quent assemblies, sprung from the first assembly, faithfully receive
the memory of the Event, its first interpretation and the laws for cele-
bration. Moreover, as its custodians, they transcend and enrich the
first interpretation, and by reason of the dynamics inherent in human
celebrations (anthropology) they add to the laws for celebration,
respecting their original spirit.
D. The first assembly, while it fulfills subsequent celebrations,
recalls and interprets the foundational saving Event. This is the oral
phase of the memory-interpretation that will later be written down.
The written text will contain the memory of the foundational saving
Event, its primitive interpretation, its fundamental laws for celebra-
tion, an essential explanation of the various links (identity between
the protagonist group and the first celebrating assembly; succession-
belonging between the first celebrating assembly and subsequent
celebrating assemblies; tension between the foundational saving
Event and subsequent celebrations) the reinterpretations and subse-
quent changes in celebration.
E. There is also the biblical text, a memory and interpretation of the
event, filled with a divine, saving power that transcends pure memory
and interpretation. Indeed, the text is a bearer of salvation, and for the
Christian liturgy it forms an essential part of post-biblical celebrations.
F. Finally, there is a celebration that cannot be autonomous with re-
spect to the text that produced it. The liturgy is born from the Word
37
and is shaped by it, even though a contributing part is also played by
the theological and cultural understanding of different times and
places where the celebrating community lives. But at the same time
the liturgy takes the Bible from a situation of Word as memory to a
situation of Word as agent of salvation, a maximum expression of
identity for the Word itself. Indeed, we may recall the words of
Deutero-Isaiah (Isa 55:10-11).
At the end of this summary showing the intratextual continuum
between liturgy and Bible, two brief additions are still necessary:
(1) there is an intimate relationship between belief, celebration, and
transmission, and (2) there is integral relationship between the lit-
urgy and the birth of the Bible.
In light of what we have said, there is obviously an inseparable
link between belief, celebration, and transmission. The pair of terms
“believe/celebrate” are especially evident in the Gospel of John,
where the expression “so that through believing you may have life in
his name”12 links faith and celebration inseparably. The short series
of Johannine texts that contain the expression (John 3:15, 16; 6:40)
belong to texts that are typically liturgical. The first two quotations
are from Jesus’ discourse with Nicodemus (John 3:1-21) whose basic
theme is “rebirth from above,” clearly baptismal in nature (see v. 5).
The third is part of Jesus’ so-called discourse on the Eucharist in the
synagogue at Capernaum (John 6:22-58), where eternal life is ex-
pressly linked to the experience of eating Christ’s flesh and drinking
his blood (see vv. 53-54). The pair of terms “believe/celebrate” are
inseparably linked to the statement: “For as often as you eat this
bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until he
comes” (1 Cor 11:26).13
Many biblical texts originated in the liturgy, but many others origi-
nated in other contexts such as catechesis, law, prophecy, etc.14 They
12 The paradigm of this expression is made up of the verb pisteuvw + the verb
e[cw + the noun zwhv. This paradigm is found in John 3:15, 16; 6:40.
13 In the OT, the pair of terms “believe/celebrate” were also linked to tradition.
See, for example, the literary genre of “Kinderfrage” in Exod 12:26; 13:18; com-
pare 12:14 (as a perpetual institution), 12:17 (as a perpetual institution) and 12:24
(for yourselves and your descendants).
14 See A. Lamaire, Le scuole e la formazione della Bibbia nell’Israele antico (Brescia,
1981).
38
continued to be transmitted in these contexts. But when it came to
editing the text, we can almost say that at the editorial level the Bible
was intended for the liturgy. While we cannot prove conclusively
that it was intended solely for the liturgy, we have enough evidence at
present based on the data to say that it was intended also for the lit-
urgy.15 Scripture is for faith that celebrates. Only in faith that cele-
brates does the Bible reach its highest level of expression. This fact
was immediately seen by the ancients: among the requisites for
acceptance into the biblical canon, a writing had to display not only
apostolic origin, but it also had to be read at liturgical celebrations.
I I I . B I B L E A N D L I T U R G Y A S E X T R AT E X T UA L
CONTINUUM (THE BIBLE IN THE LITURGY)
Leaving the biblical text and turning our attention to the celebration,
we may note that the continuum between Bible and liturgy assumes
two different forms. The first pertains to the underlying structure of
the Celebration;16 the second consists in the reformulation of
Scripture in the celebration.
A. The Underlying Structure of the Celebration

When Sacrosanctum Concilium says that the prayers draw their inspi-
ration and their force from Scripture, there is much more to this state-
ment than might appear at first glance. The texts, after all, are made
up not only of expressions, sentences, and pericopes. They also have
a consequentiality that follows certain logical patterns or structural
schemes. Beneath the succession of texts lies a recurring “model,” an
“archetypye,” a “plan,” an “example to imitate” that transforms and
orders both the individual prayers and the entire celebration. Indeed,
15 See Sanders, Identité de la Bible, Torah et Canon (Paris, 1975); Ph. Bêguerie, La
Bible née de la liturgie, in MD 126 (1976) 10–116; K. P. Jörns, Liturgie: berceau de
l’Écriture, in MD 189 (1992) 55–78.
16 See the studies that have looked for the roots of Christian liturgy in the
Jewish expression of the biblical data. Among the many classic works, we may re-
call the following: W.O.E. Oesterley, The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy
(Oxford, 1925); H. Lietzman, Messe und Herrenmahl (Bonn, 1926); F. Gavin, The
Jewish antecedents of the christian sacraments (London, 1928); G. Dix, The Shape of the
Liturgy (London, 1945); L. Ligier, Autour du sacrifice eucharistique. Anaphores orien-
tales et anamnèse juive de Kippur, in NRT 82 (1960); J. P. Audet Esquisse historique du
genre littéraire de la “bénédiction” juive et de l’ “eucharistie” chrétienne, in RB 65 (1958)
371–99.
39
the structure for celebration and the structuring of liturgical texts are
derived from certain prayer and celebration schemes that are biblical
in nature.
The fundamental structure linking the foundational saving Event
to Celebration, Scripture, and Fulfillment, is an overall framework
within which every subsequent celebration is inserted and from
which it derives meaning. Various elements make up this fundamen-
tal structure, the most important being the covenant, the passover
meal, and blessings.
1. The covenant is the legal structure that regulated the life of the
ancient Semites. It is also the theological structure employed by
Scripture to signify the relationship between God and his people.
Jesus himself points to the new covenant as the basic structure for
celebration: “This cup is the new covenant in my blood” (Luke 22:20;
1 Cor 11:25; see also Matt 26:28; Mark 14:24). The allusion to OT bibli-
cal texts (compare Exod 24:8 and Zech 9:11 with Matt and Mark; Jer
31:31 with Luke and 1 Cor) shows that Jesus is using the term “cove-
nant” in the theological sense of pact, which is the meaning the term
berîth assumed in the Bible.17 In the celebration of the biblical cove-
nant we find two ritual moments, distinct yet closely related: the
sacrificial rite and the proclamation of the covenant document.
Structurally speaking, the Christian Celebraton is built upon the two
inseparable moments of Word and Sign. This twofold division is
found above all in the celebration of the Mass (see Praenotanda Ordo
Lectionum Missae 1981, n. 10).
2. The Passover meal18 began as a family celebration (Egyptian
Pasch) and became a feast of the people, taking on a national char-
acter (feast of the temple). By the time of Jesus the feast had assumed
an ambivalent character: the lamb was slaughtered in the temple but
consumed liturgically during a family meal (late Jewish feast). The
Passover meal is another biblical element that becomes a structure for
the Christian Celebration.
17 See V. Korosec, Hethitische Staatsverträge. Leipziger rechtswissenschaftliche
Studien (Leipzig, 1931); G. Mendenhall, Law and Covenant in Israel and the Ancient
Near East (Pittsburgh, 1955); K. Baltzer, Das Bundesformular (Neukirchen, 1960);
D. McCarthy, Treaty and Covenant (Rome, 1963); P. Buis, La notion d’alliance dans
l’AT (Paris, 1976).
18 See N. Füglister, Die Heilsbedeutung des Pascha (Munich, 1963).
40
3. The Jewish blessing is another religious structure that is biblical
in origin.19 Despite the need for certain qualifications,20 we can say in
general that the Jewish cultic blessing21 is subdivided into three
phases (invitation to bless, anamnesis of the mirabilia Dei, concluding
doxology) and has a threefold importance: as anamnesis, as thanks-
giving, and as prayer. Thus we have the link between berakah (bless-
ing) and Eucharist, which is by no means exhaustive, still less
identical,22 since there is no sacrifice associated with blessing.23
Within these divisions there is another group of fundamental reali-
ties that play an important structuring role, for example sacrifice and
anamnesis.
4. Sacrifice is one of the centers of OT worship that becomes a
paradigm for understanding the saving death of Jesus within the
category of cultic sacrifice. Together with his saving resurrection, it
becomes the center, cause, model, and content of every Celebration.24
5. Jesus expressly commanded his disciples to make anamnesis25
(see 1 Cor 11:24, 25). Although it is difficult to understand fully the
meaning of this expression, we can say that anamnesis is a biblical
structure for celebration that has passed over into the Celebration.
Through the anamnesis the action of the Spirit “makes Christ’s
saving act present in an effective and dynamic manner.”
19 J. P. Audet, Genre littéraire et formes cultuelles de l’Eucharistie. “Nova et vetera,”

in Eph.Lit. 80 (1966) 353–85. This is a mature and expanded version of an article
that appeard in RB 65 (1958) 371-99, which in turn was an expanded version of a
paper given in 1957 at the International Congress on the Four Gospels held in
Oxford.
20 See T. J. Talley, De la “Berakah” à l’Eucharistie. Une question à reéxaminer, in MD
125 (1976) 1–39.

21 There is a second type of short blessing called “spontaneous” which consists
of two parts: the invocation with the epithet “blessed” addressed to God, and the
explanation of the reason for this “blessing.”
22 See R. J. Ledogar, Acknowledgment: Praise Verbs in the Early Greek Anaphoras.
(Rome, 1968).
23 See H. Caselles, Eucharistie, bénédiction et sacrifice dans l’Ancien Testament, in
MD 123 (1975) 7–28.

24 See B. Neunheuser, Sacrificio, in NDL, 1285–1303.
25 F. Chanderlin, Do This as My Memorial, (Rome, 1982). See especially the excel-
lent article by B. Neunheuser, Memoriale, in NDL, 820–38, with ample bibliography.
41
Finally there are other structuring elements whose influence is felt in
various ways in the Celebration. Among them are the rîb and the todah.
6. The rîb26 is a Semitic legal structure used by the prophets to
make the experience of pardon come alive for the people of God. Its
form is very simple: first God accuses with his Word,27 and then the
people, in light of the Word, acknowledge their sin. The rîb normally
ends with full pardon on the part of God. The Word precedes conver-
sion, reproving and enlightening, guiding it and granting pardon.
7. The todah28 is a prayer that arose after the exile in a fundamen-
tally penitential context. Through it the people confessed their own
unfaithfulness and at the same time the superiority of their ever-
faithful partner (God). Confession of sin was part of the confession of
faith: the Word-Event was “remembered” in order to confess God’s
goodness and faithfulness and to acknowledge the people’s negative
response.29
B. The Reformulation of Scripture in the Celebration

Scripture is present in the Celebration not only at the level of under-
lying structure but also at a more immediate level. There are signs-
symbols and gestures in the Celebration that are derived directly
from Scripture. But we must show in particular how the Celebration
prays Scripture, reformulates it in its prayer texts, and proclaims it in
26 See J. Vella, La giustizia forense di Dio, (Brescia, 1964); J. Harvey, Le Plaidoyer

prophétique contre Israël après la rupture de l’Alliance, (Montréal, 1967); K. Nielsen,
Yahweh as Prosecutor and Judge. An Investigation of the Prophetic Lawsuit (Rîb-
Pattern), (Sheffield, 1978).
27 Usually it is a question of some negative event, reinterpreted by the prophets
as a divine and accusing word.

28 See H. Grimme, Der Begriff von hebräischem hôdâ und tôdâ, in ZAW 17 (1940–
1941) 234–40; C. Westermann, jdh - esaltare, in Jenni-Westermann, Dizionario

Teologico dell’Antico Testamento, vol. I, (Turni, 1978), coll. 584–91.
29 Giraudo has advanced the thesis that some anaphoras would have originated
from the todâh (C. Giraudo, La struttura letteraria della preghiera eucaristica. Saggio
sulla genesi letteraria di una forma, [Rome 1981]). This thesis has been partly chal-
lenged by Mazza, who has shown that Giraudo’s study, although well docu-
mented and stimulating, does not take into account the fact that the Eucharist is
situated within a Passover meal and is linked to the Birkat ha-mazon (E. Mazza,
L’anafora eucaristica. Studi sulle origini, [Rome 1992]). This prayer has a threefold
structure: blessing, narrative, and intercession. This structure is found in the
Christian anaphoras.
42
the Liturgy of the Word. In these few pages we shall emphasize espe-
cially reformulation and proclamation.
1. The reformulation of Scripture. Twofold attention to Scripture and
the celebrating assembly immediately gave rise in the Church’s liturgy
to a special language: prayer from the biblical text. This characteristic
has always been a feature of the prayers of the liturgy of the Church.
Scripture is present in prayer either as a citation or as an allusion.
As an example of citation we can consider text 1333 of the
Sacramentarium Veronense. It amplifies a seemingly very poetic expres-
sion (splendor gloriae tuae) in order to refer to the person of the Savior
and the event of the incarnation. Taking as its point of departure the
words splendor gloriae understood as a person, this expression is a lit-
eral citation of Hebrews 1:3: “. . . qui [Filius] cum sit splendor gloriae et
figura substantiae eius, portansque omnia verbo virtutis suae, purgationem
peccatorum faciens sedet ad dexteram maiestatis in excelsis. . . .” By using
the expression splendor gloriae, the biblical passage intends to prove
the divinity of Jesus by showing the strict unity between Father and
Son. The Greek term underlying the word splendor means emanation
and image in the book of Wisdom (Wis 7:25-26). This theme (unity of
Father and Son: the Son as “revealer” of the Father) is typically
Johannine, but for the author of the liturgical text there is no succinct
expression in John like this one from the Letter to the Hebrews
(splendor gloriae) to express such a rich and complex reality. On the
other hand, if the expression splendor gloriae is understood as an
event, it is a literal citation of Ezekiel 10:4: Et levata est gloria Domini
desuper cherub ad limen domus, et repleta est domus nube, et atrium
repletum est splendore gloriae Domini. This text from Ezekiel depicts the
final moments of God’s presence in the temple in Jerusalem. He is
withdrawing his presence, splendor gloriae, from the temple in order
to punish the people for their sins. Since the incarnation of the Son
means the return of the splendor gloriae among the people, it means
that God is newly present among his creatures and that punishment
is removed. Salvation is no longer a reality to be hoped for; being
present, it needs only to be accepted.30
30 This mention of the divine glory as the concrete presence of God among his
people leads us to consider the desperate plea of Moses, who asked God to show
him the divine glory (Exod 33:18-23). But here it is no longer a question of a bibli-
cal citation in a liturgical text, but rather of a biblical allusion in a liturgical text.
43
As an example of allusion31 we can consider the text of the
Opening Prayer32 for the Second Sunday of Lent in the Missal of Paul
VI. It is easy to see that the elaboration (nobis dilectum filium tuum
audire praecepisti) contains a clear reference to the words spoken by
the Father at the transfiguration of Jesus as recorded by Matthew and
Mark (Matt 17:5; Mark 9:7; see also Deut 18:15 and Ps 2:7). There is
also a clear reference to the theme of God as shepherd in the petition
of the same prayer (verbo tuo interius nos pascere digneris) with an
obvious reference to Psalm 23; Sirach 18:13; Isaiah 40:11 (see also Eccl
12:11; Jer 31:10, Ezek 34; Zech 9:16; 10:3; John 10:1-21; Heb 13:20; etc.).
Much more interesting is the petition’s conclusion (ut, spiritali purifi-
cato intuitu, gloriae tuae laetemur aspectu). The vocabulary is typically
patristic-liturgical, and at first glance the liturgical text seems to have
no connection at all with the biblical text and its respective theology.
The verb laetor expresses joy at the experience in time of the world to
come. Moreover, the ablative absolute (spiritali purificato intuitu) and
the complementary ablative at the end of the petition (aspectu) em-
phasize the experience of seeing. The text of the final part of the peti-
tion explicitly says several things: our interior world is called upon to
purify itself so as to enjoy — in time — the vision (neither total nor
exhaustive) of something that pertains to the world of God. If, among
the many possibilities, we turn our attention to the link between the
themes of “glory” and “seeing,” we find that they are linked by two
underlying OT texts: Psalm 69 (68):33 (Videant pauperes et laetentur . . .)
and Psalm 107 (106):42 (Videbunt recti et laetabuntur . . .). Those who
“see” and “rejoice” are the pauperes and the recti, inasmuch as they
are the only ones according to biblical tradition who are able to
detect God’s work in history. We also find these two traits in the
apostles, who socially speaking were nobodies, yet were justified by
Jesus. Scripture says of the apostles: “Gavisi sunt ergo discipuli, viso
31 Our task is one of onomasiology (which means that a biblical concept may be
expressed by various prayer terms). An example of such work can be found in A.

Blaise and A. Dumas, Le vocabulaire latin des principaux thèmes liturgiques,
(Turnhout, 1966).
32 The source is the Liber Mozarabicus Sacramentorum, n. 385 (M. Ferotin, Liber
Mozarabicus Sacramentorum [Paris, 1912]). The text may be even older than the
Liber if the expression spiritali purificato intuitu goes back to St. Leo the Great
(Sermones, 26, 1).
44
Domino . . .” (John 20:20). The disciples, who embody the image of
the humble and the just, are protagonists of eschatological joy be-
cause they saw the risen Lord. The praying assembly, like the
apostles, begs for a foretaste — in time — of the encounter with the
glorious and transfigured Christ. This can take place only through
inner purification (spiritali purificato intuitu) since today the assembly
can experience heavenly realities only per speculum in aenigmate. Only
in the eschaton will it see God face to face and know him perfectly
(see 1 Cor 13:12). What does the phrase “with our inner eyes puri-
fied” mean? The liturgical text recalls Ezekiel 8:2 (Et vidit: et ecce
similitudo quasi aspectus ignis, ab aspectu lumborum eius et deorsum igni,
et a lumbis eius et sursum quasi aspectus splendoris, ut visio electri . . .).
The prophet suggests that inner contemplation is to be identified
with a “luminous” inner experience. But this luminous inner experi-
ence is already somehow recalled in the petition of the Opening Prayer
itself, which reads: verbo tuo interius nos pascere digneris . . . . In the
Word that purifies interiorly the assembly is prepared to receive what
the Word reveals in our hearts: the face of the transfigured Christ.
These two brief examples do justice to the words of SC 24: “It is
from scripture that the petitions, prayers and hymns draw their
inspiration and their force.” But we have seen how Scripture is not
only reformulated in the prayer texts; it is also proclaimed in the
Liturgy of the Word.
2. The proclamation of Scripture.33 Scripture is fully actualized in the
Liturgy of the Word. “In principle, the liturgy, and especially the
sacramental liturgy, the high point of which is the Eucharistic cele-
bration, brings about the most perfect actualization of the biblical
texts, for the liturgy places the proclamation in the midst of the com-
munity of believers, gathered around Christ so as to draw near to
God. Christ is then ‘present in his word, because it is he himself who
speaks when sacred Scripture is read in the church’ (SC 7). Thus the
written text becomes again a living word.”34 If this is the theological
33 There are numerous studies on this topic. See La Parole dans la Liturgie, (Paris,
1970); M. Lessi-Ariosto, Parola di Dio, pane di vita. Ordinamento delle Letture della
Messa, (Cinisello Balsamo, 1986); A. Milano, La Parola nella Eucaristia. Un approccio
storico-teologico, (Rome, 1990).
34 Pontifical Biblical Commission, The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church,
(Vatican City, 1993), 110–1.
45
dimension of the proclaimed biblical text, it remains a matter of some
complexity to understand the biblical-liturgical reading as pro-
claimed in the celebration. Since a full discussion is impossible in a
few lines, in order to provide a discussion that is sufficiently com-
plete although necessarily brief, it is better if we limit ourselves to a
few important considerations on the Lectionary for Sundays and
feasts.
Our first observation on the proclamation of Scripture in the
Liturgy of the Word concerns the outward appearance of the peri-
cope. The biblical passage is lifted from its original context in the
Bible and placed within a new context, that of celebration. In some
ways this change of context changes the text’s meaning. Therefore, an
exegetical interpretation35 of the passage is no longer enough when
that same passage is placed in the context of a celebration made up
of specific biblical and prayer texts. The Praenotanda Ordo Lectionum
Missae of 1981 (note 7 to number 3) says: “The same text may be read
or used for diverse reasons on diverse occasions and celebrations of
the liturgical year; this has to be remembered in the homily, pastoral
exegesis, and catechesis. The indexes of this volume will show, for
example, that Romans 6 or 8 is used in various liturgical seasons and
celebrations of the sacraments and sacramentals.”
The change, then, is not merely a change of context. Very often it
extends to other changes that are smaller, yet not without conse-
quences. Biblical texts in the Lectionary are frequently modified in
three distinct ways.
a. Opening Words. In the Lectionary, the gospel for the Thirtieth
Sunday of the Year, Cycle B, (Mark 10:46-52) begins with these words:
“As Jesus was leaving Jericho . . . .” But in the original biblical text
this passage begins as follows: “They came to Jericho. And as he
[Jesus] was leaving Jericho . . . .” In the original context the account is
situated within Jesus’ great journey to Jerusalem, where the paschal
mystery is to be accomplished. But cutting the opening words serves
to isolate the episode and make it important in its own right. The
result is clear. The concluding verse (“Immediately he received his
sight and followed him on the way”) loses all its meaning of imitating
35
Exegetical interpretation of a passage means the way a scripture scholar
would normally interpret the passage in its original biblical context.
46
Jesus by following him to Calvary and the resurrection. Instead it be-
comes a following based on attraction and gratitude.
b. Closing Words. In the Lectionary, the gospel for the Twenty-
Sixth Sunday of the Year, Cycle B, (Mark 9:38-48) begins with an in-
explicable change: “John said to Jesus . . .” (the original biblical text
has “John said to him . . .”). John is raising the question of the exorcist
who is not one of the Twelve (original biblical text), not responding
to Jesus (biblical-liturgical text). In fact we do not know to which
words of Jesus John is reacting. But what limits the meaning of the
text is the final cut made by the Lectionary, dubious from a literary
point of view. Instead of continuing all the way to Mark 9:50, it breaks
off immediately after Mark 9:48. In this way the biblical-liturgical pas-
sage joins the theme of the outsider (Mark 9:38-41) to that of scandal
(Mark 9:42-48), removes the exegetical problem of the last two verses
(vv. 49-50), and points up the contrast between Jesus and John.
c. Omission of Certain Verses. In the Lectionary, the text of the first
reading for the Fourth Sunday of Easter, Cycle C, (Acts 13:14, 43-52)
is missing the passage that contains Paul’s address in the synagogue
at Antioch in Pisidia (vv. 15-42). In his homily, beginning with the
Law and the Prophets, Paul proclaims the kerygma of Jesus. Only in
the light of this can v. 43 (where the biblical-liturgical text resumes)
be understood: “Many Jews and worshipers who were converts to
Judaism followed Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them and urged
them to remain faithful to the grace of God.” No doubt the biblical-
liturgical text is a bit problematic: “[In those days, Paul and
Barnabas] continued on from Perga and reached Antioch in Pisidia.
On the sabbath they entered the synagogue and took their seats.
Many Jews and worshipers who were converts to Judaism followed
Paul and Barnabas, who spoke to them and urged them to remain
faithful to the grace of God.” Exegetically speaking, we cannot
understand precisely why many Jews followed Paul and Barnabas.
Liturgically speaking, even though the text is awkwardly stitched
together, we understand that the reason many Jews followed the
apostles is linked to the authority of their exhortation to perseverance.
Besides the new context and modifications, other factors lead to an
understanding of the biblical-liturgical text that is much different
from one based on an exegetical reading. We are speaking basically
of four elements.
47
a. There is a hierarch among the biblical-liturgical texts. “The read-
ing of the gospel is the high point of the Liturgy of the Word. For this
the other readings, in their established sequence from the Old and
New Testament, prepare the assembly.”36 Every gospel passage pro-
vides an explanation and viewpoint from which to reinterpret and
understand the paschal mystery of Jesus celebrated in that liturgical
moment. If the other texts are fundamentally oriented toward the
gospel, clearly their understanding depends on their link with the
gospel and on the basic christological interpretation of the readings.
b. The Christological interpretation37 of the OT reading.38 The
words of DV 15 and 16 are clear: “The primary objective of the plan
and lay-out of the Old Testament was that it should prepare for and
declare in prophecy the coming of Christ, universal redeemer, and of
the messianic kingdom (see Luke 24:44; John 5:39; 1 Pet 1:10), and
should indicate it by means of various foreshadowing signs and
symbols (see 1 Cor 10:11). . . . For although Christ founded the new
Covenant in his blood (see Luke 22:20; 1 Cor 11:25), nevertheless the
books of the Old Testament, all of them given a place in the preach-
ing of the Gospel, attain and display their full meaning in the New
Testament (see Matt 5:17; Luke 24-27; Rom 16:25-26; 2 Cor 3:14-16)
and, in their turn shed light on it and explain it.” The logical conse-
quence of these statements is clear: “Christ himself is the center and
fulness of all of Scripture, as he is of the entire liturgy.”39 The liturgy,
then, remains faithful to the tradition of the Christological reading of
the OT, despite certain attempts that tend to go in other directions.40
c. The relationship between the first reading and the gospel. The
link between the first reading and the gospel is normally thematic:
“The best instance of harmony between the Old and New Testament
readings occurs when it is one the Scripture itself suggests. This is
36 Praenotanda Ordo Lectionum Missae, n. 13.

37 This follows immediately from this statement: “Christ himself is the center
and fulness of all of Scripture, as he is of the entire liturgy” (Praenotanda Ordo
Lectionum Missae, n. 5), a statement that fully respects DV 15.
38 On the Sundays of Easter the first reading is taken from the Acts of the
Apostles and not from the OT (Praenotanda Ordo Lectionum Missae, n. 100).
40 See J. L. McKenzie, A Theology of the Old Testament (New York, 1974).
48
the case when the teaching and events recounted in the texts of the
New Testament bear a more or less explicit relationship to the teach-
ing and events of the Old Testament.”41 But it can also be prophetic
(promise-fulfillment), typological (anticipation-fulness), or pedagogi-
cal (mentality, wisdom, etc.): “The primary objective of the plan and
lay-out of the Old Testament was that it should prepare for and de-
clare in prophecy the coming of Christ, universal redeemer, and of
the messianic kingdom (see Luke 24:44; John 5:39; 1 Pet 1:10), and
should indicate it by means of various foreshadowing signs and
symbols (see 1 Cor 10:11). For in the context of the human situation
before the era of salvation established by Christ, the books of the Old
Testament provide an understanding of God and humanity and make
clear to all how a just and merciful God deals with humankind.
These books, even though they contain matters which are imperfect
and provisional, nevertheless contain authentic divine teaching”
(DV 15). Finally, there is the most elementary kind of relationship,
that which is suggested directly by the headings prefixed to the indi-
vidual readings of the Ordo Lectionum.42
d. The interpretation of the second reading during the major litur-
gical seasons. We know that in ordinary time the second reading fol-
lows the rule of lectio semicontinua,43 a rule that was followed during
most of the liturgical year in the early Church.44 For the major litur-
gical seasons, certain indications45 lead us to regard the second reading

42 Ibid., n. 106.
43 Ibid., n. 107.
44 T. Federici, La Bibbia diventa Lezionario. Storia e criteri attuali, in R. Cecolin
(ed.), Dall’esegesi all’ermeneutica attraverso la celebrazione. Bibbia e Liturgia I (Padua,

1991) 192–222.
45 The Praenotanda Ordo Lectionum Missae contains suggestions for each major li-
turgical season. For Advent “the readings from an apostle serve as exhortations
and proclamations, in keeping with the different themes of Advent” (n. 93). For
Christmas the second readings have been chosen from the Roman tradition and
have special connotations for the feast of the Holy Family — the virtues of family
life — and for Epiphany — the call of all people to salvation (see n. 95). For Lent
“the readings from the letters of the apostles have been selected to fit the gospel
and the Old Testament readings and, to the extent possible, to provide a connec-
tion between them” (n. 97). Finally, for the Easter season “the [second] reading
from St. Paul concerns the living out of the paschal mystery in the Church” (n. 99).
49
as an element suggesting “witness.” The texts tend to suggest values
and behaviors that fit in with the point of view from which the
paschal mystery is being celebrated.
We have finished our excursion into hermeneutics by attending to
the biblical-liturgical passages and their relationships. Full discussion
calls for a final observation: the biblical-liturgical texts of the
Lectionary are situated within a celebration of which they form an
integral part. Therefore, the biblical texts of the Lectionary must be
understood in light of the celebration. In other words, all the biblical
themes that have emerged from our attempt at understanding need
to be clarified through thematic dialogue with the prayer texts of the
celebration itself.
I V. E P I L O G U E
The two terms Bible/liturgy reveal all their wealth if we understand
them as a continuum. This statement, still not fully investigated, tran-
scends the statement “liturgy in the Bible” and “Bible in the liturgy”
because it enables us to uncover and confront themes that in different
ways would remain hidden. Moreover, it gives us the opportunity to
articulate them in a way that is new and more pertinent to the
Celebration. The brief discussion just finished did not intend to be
complete, given the natural limitations of a handbook. However, the
more important data and major emphases have been presented so
that the underlying link between Bible and liturgy might become
clearer. While this process helps us approach the Mystery respect-
fully, at the same time it could initiate a deeper dialogue: between
liturgical scholars and the Mystery of Scripture, between biblical
scholars and the Mystery of the Celebration. What originated as a
continuum should be experienced and understood as such.
Bibliography
Cecolin, R., ed. Dall’esegesi all’ermeneutica attraverso la celebrazione. Bibbia e
liturgia 1. Padua, 1991.
Daniélou, J. The Bible and the Liturgy. Notre Dame, Ind., 1956.
De Zan, R., ed. Dove rinasce la Parola. Bibbia e liturgia 3. Padua, 1993.
50
Gavin, F. The Jewish Antecedents of the Christian Sacraments. London, 1928.
Reprint New York, 1969.
Grelot, P. L’Introduction à la Bible: Le Nouveau Testament. Vol. 8, Homélies sur
l’Ecriture à l’époque apostolique. Paris, 1989. Vol. 9, La liturgie dans le
Nouveau Testament. Paris, 1991.
Hahn, F. The Worship of the Early Church. Philadelphia, 1973.
Jörns, K. P. “Liturgie: Berceau de l’Ecriture.” MD 189 (1992).
Le Déaut, R. Liturgie juive et Nouveau Testament: le témoignage des versions ara-
méenes. Scripta Pontificii Instituti Biblici 115. Rome, 1965.
Moule, C.F.D. Worship in the New Testament. 3rd ed. London, 1964.
Oesterly, W.O.E. The Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy. Oxford, 1925.
Terrin, A. N. Scriptura crescit cum orante. Bibbia e liturgia 2. Padua, 1993.
Vezzoli, O. “Bibbia e liturgia.” In La Bibbia, 3223–3242. Casale Monferrato,
1995.
51
Liturgy and the Fathers
In their discussions and acceptance of the faith of Nicaea (325),

fourth-century bishops and theologians began to appeal not only to
Sacred Scripture, but also to the Fathers.1 At first this name was used
with reference to those who had taken part in the first ecumenical
council. Later it was extended to all who had joined their colleagues
in testifying to and defending the Catholic faith defined by that coun-
cil. From the fifth century on, the name “Fathers” was also given to
all ecclesiastical writers, whether bishops or not, who had been
acknowledged as witnesses of the true faith. Following in the wake
of Augustine, Vincent of Lérins referred to the holy Fathers “who in
their times and places persevered in the unity of communion and
faith and were regarded as approved teachers.”2 Today when
scholars speak of the “Fathers of the Church,” they no longer mean
only those writers who were conspicuous for their antiquity, ortho-
doxy, holiness of life, and approval by the Church — as was said in
Catholic circles after the Council of Trent. Instead they include in this
name all Christian writers of the first five or eight centuries. It is in
this broad sense that we speak here of the Fathers, patristic theology,
and the patristic age. Those writers who lived more or less outside
the Great Church or were considered — rightly or wrongly — as
marginal by later writers, testified in their own way to the acceptance
of the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Even though they were dissenters, they
can often help us understand better the testimony of those who are
1 See DPAC, s.vv. “Argomentazione patristica,” “Padre” and “Padri della
Chiesa.”
2 Vincent of Lérins, Common 29, 1.
53
usually acknowledged as authentic witnesses of the faith and
Christian life.3
1. PRIVILEGED TESTIMONY
No doubt the existence of post-apostolic communities and their con-
ditions can be known by people today chiefly through the written
documents left by early Christian writers. It was they who bore wit-
ness to the faith and life of the first generations of believers. Following
Augustine, who distinguishes between fides historica and fides religi-
osa,4 their testimony can be considered as historical or theological.
On the one hand, early Christian writers furnish a wealth of infor-
mation on the spread of Christianity in the area around the
Mediterranean, on the history of the growing number of communi-
ties, and on the gradual Christianization of the Roman provinces and
even the surrounding regions. Thus it is not surprising that the origin
and evolution of liturgical life are known primarily through their
writings, handed down from age to age even to the present. Thanks
to this evidence, which is certainly abundant, modern readers can get
an idea of the organization of liturgical celebrations, especially
Christian initiation, study the origin of sacred times, especially the
feast of Easter, learn about the evolution of ecclesial ministries, and
understand the symbolic meaning Christians attached to their acts of
worship.
But believers today are not satisfied with a purely historical study
of the Church’s liturgy. They are trying to grasp the deeper meaning
of Christian worship. Thus they look at the early liturgy within the
framework of the secular dialogue about belief in God. They see that
it is at the heart of the ongoing conversation between the first
Christians and their God. People who believe in Christ are convinced
that their dialogue with God must be apostolic, that is, based on ap-
ostolic tradition as handed down especially in Sacred Scripture. They
are also convinced that their dialogue of faith is truly apostolic only
to the extent that it takes place within the wake of the tradition of the
post-apostolic Churches — especially those closer to the origins of
3 For criteria to ascertain the degree of trustworthiness of Christian writers, see
B. Studer, in J. Feiner and M. Löhrer (ed.), Mysterium Salutis I (Einsiedeln, 1965)

588–99.
4 Augustine, De Civit. 15, 9; 18, 38.
54
Christianity. With these two premises in mind, Christians today also
know that their liturgical dialogue with God will be apostolic only if
it recovers the voice of those who in the beginning celebrated the
liturgy of the Church of God. More concretely, the faithful and espe-
cially liturgical theologians who wish to be nourished by the faith of
their fathers and mothers and share the faith of the early liturgical
assemblies, need the theological witness of the early Church’s writers.
Only by knowing these writings and recognizing their theological
value, will they be guaranteed a share in the spirit that inspired the
liturgy of the patristic age, itself based on the liturgy of the apostolic
communities.5
This twofold witness, historical and theological, is found first of all
in the Church Orders that date back to the first four centuries.6 These
documents were written by private individuals whose names are
unknown. But since they were issued under apostolic authority, they
were accepted by most of the patristic Churches. They include the
Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, called simply the Didache (late 1st
century), the Traditio Apostolica, once attributed to Hippolytus of
Rome (early 3rd century), the Didascala (3rd century), and the
Apostolic Constitutions (late 4th century).7 Since they contain not only
information about the development of the sacramental rites, but also
models of liturgical prayer, they enable us to reconstruct to a large
extent the origin and historical development of the various liturgical
traditions.
In order to reconstruct the history of Christian initiation, we must
also turn to the mystagogical catecheses. These include explanations
of baptism and the Eucharist given to the newly baptized at Easter
and during the following week. Most of them are from very famous
bishops of the fourth and fifth century: Cyril of Jerusalem, John
Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia, Ambrose of Milan, and
5 The earliest documentary evidence for the history of the liturgy will be pre-
sented, along with pertinent bibliography, in the chapter entitled “Liturgical

Books in the First Four Centuries.”
6 G. Schöllgen, Zur Entstehung und Entwicklung der frühchristlichen
Kirchenordnungen: FCh 1 (1991) 13–21; A. Faivre, Ordonner la fraternité: pouvoir

d’innover et retour à l’ordre dans l’Église ancienne (Paris, 1992).
7 See the edition of the Apostolic Constitutions edited by M. Metzger in SCh and
also DPAC, s.vv. The individual documents will be treated in part IIIA, chapter 1.
55
Augustine. Since they were given in Jerusalem, Antioch, and Milan,
they reflect traditions that are of prime importance for the history of
liturgy. Although Hippo did not give birth to a liturgical family, the
catecheses of Augustine greatly influenced Latin sacramental the-
ology, thanks to their extraordinary spread.
With regard to the liturgical year, most of our information comes
from the preaching that took place on the various feasts. First of all,
we should mention the 2nd-century Easter homilies of Melito of
Sardis, Pseudo-Hippolytus, and others. They clarify the meaning of
the most important Christian feast.8 They are also the most important
witness to the first developments of Christian exegesis, based on li-
turgical theology. Later developments in the sacred times are known
chiefly from the feast day sermons of the great bishops of the impe-
rial Church. The discourses of Gregory of Nyssa are worth special
mention for they enable us, perhaps better than others, to understand
the meaning of the Christian feast.9 Also interesting are the sermons
of Leo I, which emphasize the sense of hodie, that is to say, the pres-
ence of the mysteries of Jesus in the celebrations of Christmas,
Epiphany, Easter, Ascension, and Pentecost.10
The last thing to be considered as primary evidence in the history
of liturgy is church history. In this area Eusebius of Caesarea obvi-
ously holds first place. His Historia Ecclesiastica is our chief source for
the history of Christianity during the first three centuries, including
the liturgical life of the early Christian communities. It contains infor-
mation on the cult of the martyrs, the Easter controversy and the first
buildings for worship, along with details on the history of baptism
and the Eucharist, as well as the meaning of the Christian feast and
the Christian use of mystery language. This priceless information can
be supplemented by the historical writings of Eusebius’s successors,
as well as by the hagiographic literature, for example, the martyrdom
of Polycarp.
8 R. Cantalamessa, La Pasqua nella Chiesa antica = Traditio christiana 4 (Turin,
1978).
9 B. Studer, “Das christliche Fest, ein Tag der gläubigen Hoffnung,” SA 95
(Rome, 1988) 517–29.

10 B. de Soos, Le mystère liturgique d’après saint Léon le Grand (Münster i.W., 1958)
22–7.
56
In addition to these major sources for liturgical history, almost all
of early Christian literature contains more or less important evidence
about the development and meaning of Christian worship in the
patristic age. We should mention especially the theological treatises
on baptism,11 the Eucharist,12 and prayer.13 Also of interest are the
biblical commentaries. In them great early Christian exegetes such as
Origen, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Augustine, and many others, often
comment on biblical texts related to the Christian rites (John 3; Matt
28:19f; Rom 6; 1 Cor 11, etc.). But that is not all. They also develop
some of the basic concepts of patristic liturgical theology, such as
musthJrion, sacramentum, salvation history, the unity of the Old and
New Testaments, etc. Then we should add the synodal documents
insofar as they have to do with worship14. In addition, there are the
collections of letters of bishops, popes, and even emperors, such as
the letters of Constantine the Great.15 Finally, there are the poetic
works of Ambrose, Prudentius, and Paulinus of Nola.16
All of this rich and varied evidence allows us to see how the
Christian liturgy, beginning with the worship of the apostolic com-
munities, took shape in a quasi-definitive manner during the first
centuries. In particular we can understand the factors in its historical
development: its Jewish matrix, the positive and negative influences
of Greco-Roman cults, the philosophy of the Logos, the Roman legal
mentality. We can also sense the deeper meaning the Fathers gave to
the liturgy of their communities and consider the pro nobis aspect of
early Christian worship, that is, the perennial timeliness of the faith
that inspired it.
11 Tertullian, De baptismo; Cyprian, Epist. 69–75; Augustine, Opere antidonatiste:
BA 28–32.
12 Cyprian, Epist. 63.
13 Tertullian, De oratione; Origen, De oratione; Cyprian, De oratione. See A.
Hamman, La prière. Les trois premiers siècles; for Augustine, see M. Vincent,
Augustin, maître de prière d’après les Enarrationes in Psalmos = Théologie historique
84 (Paris, 1990).
14 C. Munier, Collezioni Canoniche: DPAC 729–34.
15 A. di Berardino, L’imperatore Costantino e la celebrazione della Pasqua: G.
Bonamente and F. Fuso (eds.) Costantino il Grande (Macerata, 1992) 362–84.

16 J. Fontaine, Naissance de la poésie dans l’Occident chrétien, (Paris, 1981).
57
2 . L I T U R G Y, A S O U R C E O F T H E C H R I S T I A N L I F E
We know that all the Fathers’ theological activity was strongly influ-
enced by practical concerns. They were pastors and heads of
Christian communities. Above all they were anxious to arouse and
nourish the faith of the souls entrusted to them. They never ceased to
exhort and encourage their faithful. They constantly tried to make
Sacred Scripture real for them, to make the gospel of Christ part of
their daily lives. They were committed to orthodoxy and the freedom
of the Church; in these cases their arguments were always ad hominem,
respecting the positions of their interlocutors. This statement is true
especially, though not exclusively, of their preaching and letter writ-
ing — indeed of most of their writings. Very few works are “uncon-
cerned.” Perhaps Augustine’s De Trinitate is such a work, although it
was meant to be used for the exercitatio mentis.17 The extent to which
the Fathers were always pastorally concerned is perhaps clearer in the
literary works of Ambrose of Milan. In fact, most of his dogmatic,
exegetical, and spiritual writings are discourses and homilies.18
If we carefully consider this pastoral orientation found in all patris-
tic writings, we see that the testimony of the Fathers confirms one of
the most conspicuous features of the early liturgy: its connection with
the daily life of Christians. Liturgical celebrations at that time went
well beyond mere cult. They were not only a proclamation of the
magnalia Dei, a commemoration of the mysteries of Jesus Christ, or
the adoration and thanksgiving due to the three Persons in one
God. They were also inspired by an interest in asceticism and spiritu-
ality. They flowed into a life of faith, hope, and love. It is precisely
this existential dimension of the early Christian liturgy that is re-
vealed to one who reads the writings of the Fathers, which are
mostly homilies or at least parts of sermons given in liturgical assem-
blies. The following facts should convince us of this.
From the beginning — as the Didache (ch. 7) already attests — the
catechumens, with the help of the entire community, were supposed
to prepare themselves for baptism by prayer and fasting. This was
the meaning of conversion (metavnoia, paenitentia), as the Didache
17 B. Studer, Gratia Christi - Gratia Dei bei Augustinus von Hippo (1993) 187-96.
18 See the introduction to Ambrose in the Patrologies, especially T. Graumann,
Christus interpres. Die Einheit von Auslegung und Verkündigung in der Lukaserklärung
des Ambrosius von Mailand (Berlin, 1994).
58
would have us understand it.19 How serious these moral demands
were is shown by the origin and evolution of Lent, which was seen
primarily as the end of the catechumenate, that is, of the preparation
for baptism which was to be administered at the Easter vigil.20
During this “propaedeutic” period, preachers not only explained the
Creed and the Lord’s Prayer; they also insisted in a special way on
the moral demands of the Christian life.21
Catechesis of the newly baptized moved along the same lines.
Unlike Cyril (John?) of Jerusalem and others, Chrysostom did not
spend much time explaining the “mysteries” during Easter Week.
Following the apostle Paul, whom he greatly admired, he empha-
sized instead that “baptism marks the entrance into a new life and is
a new creation that must show itself in new ways of behavior.”22
Augustine, on the other hand, when initiating the neophytes into the
Eucharistic celebration, refers to its rites. But he is more concerned
with teaching them that Christians must identify themselves with the
sacrifice of Christ.23 It is they who are the body that is placed on the
altar.24 Together with Christ the Head and united with their brothers
and sisters, they make up the Christus totus, the entire body of
Christ.25 It is in this sense that their prayer becomes constant and log-
ically translates itself into works. All of this is expressed by Leo the
Great in his usual concise manner. In one of his Easter sermons he
reminds his faithful that in baptism Christians become a new thing,
a caro crucifixi, and that this union with Christ crucified is deepened
in the Eucharist and in all daily life.26
The link between liturgical celebration and daily life is also seen in
the feast-day sermons. The Fathers, when extolling the mystery
which is celebrated on a feast of the Lord, or the greatness of a saint
which is commemorated on his or her dies natalis, never fail to end
their eulogies with an exhortation. Indeed, following the practices of
19 Didache, 1–6: the Two Ways. See also Tertullian, De paenitentia.

20 DPAC 627ff.
21 J. Daniélou, La catechesi nei primi secoli (Turin, 1982) 135–44.
22 J. Daniélou, La catechesi, 144–47, especially 145.
23 See Augustine, Sermo 227.
24 See Augustine, Sermo 272.
25 See Augustine, Sermo 227; Sermo 228B, 2ff.
26 Leo, Tract. 63, 6f.
59
ancient rhetoric, they employ a more solemn language for these
exordia. Here we need only look at the sermons of Leo the Great. In
his sermons for Lent and Holy Week, he invites the faithful to pre-
pare themselves for the feast of Easter and to live the mystery of the
Lord’s resurrection.27 On the feast of the Ascension, he not only
invites them to joy and thanksgiving but also exhorts them to make
their life a pilgrimage toward heaven.28 The natale apostolorum and
the feast of St. Lawrence give him a chance to speak to the Roman
faithful about the praesidium and exemplum of all the saints, even as
he recommends in a special way the excellentia of Rome’s patrons.29
These few examples — which could easily be multiplied — show
that, according to the Fathers of the Church, liturgical prayer must be
prolonged through daily good works; that the reason Christian com-
munities celebrate rites and feasts is to direct and sustain their mem-
bers on their earthly pilgrimage toward the heavenly homeland; in a
word, that the liturgy is the principal source of the life of faith, the
clothing without which faith would remain naked, as Tertullian says
of baptism.30
3 . L I T U R G Y, A N E X P R E S S I O N
AND NORM OF RIGHT BELIEF
The link between the liturgy and the daily life of the Christian also
includes faith. This aspect deserves special attention. When the
Fathers spoke of faith, they meant by this term not only an attitude of
trust in God, a continuous orientation to eternal life. For them, as for
the authors of the New Testament, belief also meant acceptance of the
Word of God. There was a content to faith; it had to be correct and
sound.
This basic given of Christianity can be seen above all in the context
of baptism.31 It is not without reason that baptism was called the
sacramentum fidei.32 We know that from the very beginning the baptis-
27 See Leo, Tract. 47, 3; 50, 3; 65, 5 etc.
28 Leo, Tract. 74, 5.
29 Leo, Tract. 82, 7; 85, 4.
30 Tertullian, De baptismo 13, 2.
31 L. Villette, Foi et sacrements. I. Du Nouveau Testament à s. Augustin (Paris, 1959).
32 Augustine, Epist. 98, 10; Epist. 157, 4, 34; Bapt. I 8, 11; Fulgentius, De fide ad
Petrum 73; Hilary, Trin. XI, 1; see also Y. Congar, in Mysterium Salutis IV/1
(Einsiedeln, 1972) 479, with the indicative studies.
60
mal washing was preceded by a profession of faith.33 Along with the
renunciation, this profession of faith very soon became an integral
part of the baptismal rite.34 Christian writers never ceased to stress
the basic demand for conversion to the Christian religion. They did
this first in their baptismal instructions, either in the initial catechesis
or in the sermons on the Creed.35 Dealing with various aspects of
baptism during the baptismal controversies, they insisted on the need
to profess the faith. Augustine stressed the importance of baptismal
faith when discussing the case of children who could not make a pro-
fession of faith.36 Obviously the Fathers did not accept any faith but
always demanded the orthodox faith. We see this in their discussions
on the validity of baptism. Even those who were opposed to repeat-
ing the baptism administered by heretics did not consider any bap-
tism whatsoever as valid. For them, the legitimacy of the baptismal
rite depended upon profession of faith in the Holy Trinity.37 It is
significant in this regard that Cassian reminded Nestorius of the
profession of faith he had once made in the Church of his birth. Leo
did the same in his polemic against Eutyches.38
There is a second aspect worth considering. The profession of faith,
according to the Fathers, was more than just a necessary condition
for admission to the ecclesial community. For them the baptismal
profession of faith, as well as other rites or liturgical prayers, consti-
tuted a theological criterion. In other words, they were applying the
saying, lex orandi-lex credendi, more or less explicitly. This principle
was enunciated by Prosper of Aquitane, a disciple of Augustine. In
order to prove to the so-called semi-Pelagians the need for the initial
grace of faith, he stated unequivocally: Praeter has autem beatissimae et
apostolicae Sedis inviolabiles sanctiones . . ., obsecrationum quoque sacerdo-
talium sacramenta respiciamus, quae ab Apostolis tradita in toto mundo
33 Acts 8:37; Justin, Apol. I, 61.
34 Trad. Apost. 21.
35 J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds, and especially C. Eichenseer, Das
Symbolum Apostolicum beim Heiligen Augustinus (St. Ottilien, 1960).

36 Augustine, Epist. 98, 6.
37 Augustine, Bapt. VI, 25, 47; VI 36, 70. See also J. Finkenzeller, Ketzertaufe: LThk
6 (1961) 131ff, with reference to canons 8 and 19 of Nicaea.

38 Leo, Tomus ad Flavianum: Epist. 28, 1. See also J. P. Jossua, La salut. Incarnation
ou mystère pascal chez les Pères de l’Église de s. Irénée à s. Léon le Grand (Paris, 1968)
269ff, which emphasizes the importance of the Creed in Leo’s preaching.
61
atque in omni Ecclesia catholica uniformiter celebrantur, ut legem credendi
lex statuat supplicandi.39 In reality the principle had been in effect long
before the fifth century. Irenaeus had criticized the Gnostics for cele-
brating the Eucharist without believing in the salvation of the entire
human being (salus carnis).40 Tertullian had likewise criticized the
Marcionites, for although they used the sign of the cross, the sacra-
ments of the Church, and the purifying of sacrifices, they were un-
willing to recognize that the Spirit of the Creator was speaking for
Christ through them.41 Origen had shown the real distinction be-
tween the divine Persons by appealing to the Eucharistic Prayer in
which the community called upon God the Father through his Son.42
The baptismal order attributed by Matthew to the risen Christ (Matt
28:19) had become one of the chief arguments in favor of the true
divinity of the Son and Holy Spirit during the Arian controversy.43
This argument had acquired even greater force in Basil of Caesarea’s
De Spiritu Sancto.44 The great defender of the divinity of the Holy
Spirit had not only considered the Trinitarian doxologies;45 he had
also stressed the baptismal experience, which involved not only obe-
dience to the Lord’s command and recitation of the gospel formula,
but was above all an expression of faith in the Father, Son, and Holy
Spirit.46 Augustine himself (from whom Prosper obviously drew
inspiration) had concluded to the general existence of original sin
from the exorcisms said over children.47 In reply to various questions
raised by his friend Januarius, the bishop of Hippo had already
39 Prosper, Capitula 8: DS 246, with reference to De vocatione gentium I, 12 (ML
51, 664Cs). See also Capitula 9: DS 247, where Prosper also refers to the baptismal
exorcisms, which were said over children.
40 Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. V 2, 2.
41 Tertullian, Adv. Marcionem III 21, 7, with the entire context.
42 Origen, Dial. Heracl. 4: SCh 67, 62ff. See P. Nautin, Origène (Paris, 1977) 115–8.
43 B. Studer, Dio Salvatore, 334f; J. Pelikan, The Emergence of the Catholic Tradition
(Chicago, 1971).
44 B. Studer, Dio Salvatore, 211–6; B. Pruche (ed.), Basile de Césarée, Sur le Saint
Esprit: SCh 17bis (Paris, 1968).

45 Basil, Spir. Sanct. 19–24.
46 Ibid. 27 and 29. See J. Verhees, Pneuma. Erfahrung und Erleuchtung in der
Theologie des Basilius des Grossen: Ostk. Studien 25 (1976) 43–59.

47 Augustine, Pecc. mer. rem. I 34, 63. See A. Trapé (ed.), Agostino, Natura e grazia,
introduzione generale: NBA 17/1, XCII–CIII.
62
developed a significant liturgical methodology by the year 400.
According to his theory, liturgical practices are to be judged by the
following criteria: biblical origin, apostolic tradition, authority of
plenary councils, observance by all the Churches in the case of feasts
and universal rites,48 and observance by a local Church, simplicity,
and conformity with faith and good morals in the case of particular
rites.49 But if we stop to think of it, this last rule overturns the
principle lex orandi-lex credendi. It makes right belief precede correct
liturgical practice. But in any case it confirms the close link between
faith and liturgy. Thus there is no question that for the Fathers of the
Church the liturgy is not only an expression, but also a norm of
authentic Christian belief.
4 . L I T U R G Y A N D PAT R I S T I C E X E G E S I S
The Christian liturgy took shape in the apostolic communities upon
the matrix of Jewish worship. Thus its foundation is essentially bibli-
cal. But its later development, like its origins, cannot be considered
apart from Sacred Scripture. Liturgical celebrations included the
reading of biblical texts; moreover, they came to be in light of the
passages that were chosen for them. The language of prayer reflected
that of the sacred writers. The cavri" or sacramentum of the feast being
celebrated coincided with what the historia sacra (as Augustine calls
the Bible)50 tells of the saving deeds of Israel’s God, fulfilled through
Jesus Christ, Son of God, in the power of their Spirit.
For a better understanding of this close link between Bible and
liturgy, we must consider some of the more typical features of the
exegesis of the Fathers. The distinctive note of patristic interpretation
of Scripture can be summarized by the word “actualization.” The
major concern of early Christian exegetes was to actualize the sacred
texts by bringing them into the daily lives of their hearers and read-
ers. They were attempting to make the biblical narratives a vision of
faith, as St. Leo says.51 They wanted, as Basil tells us, to lead the
faithful to admire the beauties of creation as described in the Bible, so
48 Augustine, Epist. 54, 1, 1.

49 Augustine, Epist. 54, 1, 1–2, 2.
50 Augustine, De Civit. XV 12, 2, as well as other texts in De Civit. XV and XVI.
51 Leo, Tract. 66, 1; 70, 1. See B. Studer, Die Einflüsse der Exegese Augustins auf die
Predigten Leos des Grossen, Miscell. M. Pellegrino (Turin, 1975) 915–30.
63
as to make alive in them the memory of God.52 They were convinced,
as Athanasius says in his letter to Marcellinus, that Christians must
appropriate the prayers of the Bible, especially the psalms, as their
own.53 As Augustine put it, they were guided by the idea that Bible
reading must be useful, in other words, it must serve to promote love
of God and neighbor.54
In actualizing the sacred texts, Christian exegetes did not spend
much time on passages that were clear. Often they were content to
paraphrase what seemed obvious. Instead they devoted themselves
with great diligence (ajkrivbeia, diligentia) to ambiguous or difficult
texts. To clarify the obscura, they turned to parallel texts they thought
were evident. If this was impossible, they attributed a figurative
sense to the biblical words. But we must not think that the allegorical
or typological meaning, as we say today, was the most important. On
the contrary, what mattered was the literal sense. The figurative sense
was called for only when the obvious meaning created problems for
a Christian reader. The first commandment was taken literally, even
though it may have been seen in the light of Jesus’s love, the model
of all Christian love. On the other hand, circumcision or other Jewish
rites no longer practiced by Christians, were objects of a more pro-
found interpretation, as the Fathers often said. But we should note
that Origen, considered an allegorist and often looked down upon as
such, regarded even the text’s literal sense as a sensus interior.55 Two
things need to be stressed. On the one hand, the Fathers often ex-
plained biblical texts without giving them a figurative meaning. For
example, commenting on the creation of the fish, Basil presented a
whole chapter of natural science, with obvious references to profane
sources.56 On the other hand, so-called typological exegesis — in
which a person (Moses) or event (the Exodus) in Israel’s history is
seen as prefiguring a person (Jesus/Peter) or event (baptism) in
Christianity — should not be reduced to a kind of figurative sense.
Also emphasized were examples from historia magistra, models of life.
52 Basil, Hexaem. V, 2; PG 29, 97C. See I, 1: PG 29, 5C; PG 29, 117BC.

53 Athanasius, Epist. Ad Marcellinum, 11–26.
54 Augustine, Doct. chr., I 36, 40–37, 41.
55 Origen, Com. Rom. 5, 1: FCh 2/III, 40–82, especially 40, 13; 2, 5: FCh 2/I, 190–
4. See T. Heither, in FCh 2/I, 21ff.

56 Basil, Hexaem. VII, 1f: SCh 26, 390–402.
64
Moreover, Christians compared the realities of the Old Testament
with those of the New because they assumed a similarity between
two religious experiences, two prophetic roles,57 two ways of encoun-
tering God.58
The importance of these statements becomes even clearer in light
of what we might call double exegesis.59 Quite soon, in fact, Christian
writers were interpreting the words of the Bible and liturgical data in
the same manner. Origen understood the temple, altar, and statues —
realities which did not exist for the faithful at that time — in a purely
figurative or “moral” sense.60 On the other hand, he explained reli-
gious gestures that were in use — such as genuflecting or turning
toward the East to pray, along with the sacred times, especially the
feast of Easter — either literally or in a figurative (“moral” and “mys-
tical”) sense.61 Augustine perfected this type of double exegesis.62 He
applied the concept of sacramentum to the words of Scripture as well
as to liturgical realities. He noted that in both cases there is no sacra-
mentum unless there is a similitudo.63 Two other considerations should
be added. On the one hand, a comparison between biblical exegesis
and liturgical interpretation helps us to understand better the sym-
bolism dominating all Christian liturgy. The words of Scripture were
understood as signs of eternal realities, of the “Word” revealed by
God; similarly, liturgical rites and feasts were celebrated as sacred
signs that allowed a person to encounter Christ. Even though all
Christian exegetes did not share Origen’s thinking, nevertheless his
Logos Christology expressed the basic conviction of all, namely, that
believers encounter Christ in the reading of the Bible and in the
liturgy. Both contain the mystery of the Logos. If Jerome could say
that ignoratio scripturarum ignoratio Christi est,64 surely this well-
known programmatic expression could be completed with another:
ignoratio liturgiae ignoratio Christi est. On the other hand, based on a
57 See the themes of Elijah/John, Jeremiah/Jesus, Moses/Peter.
58 For example, Gregory of Nyssa, De vita Moysis (CPG 3159), who presents the
religious experience of Moses as a model of the search for God.
59 B. Studer, L’esegesi doppia in Origene: ASE 10 (1993) 427–37.
60 Origen, C. Celsum VIII, 17–20.
61 Origen, Orat. 31f; C. Celsum 8, 21ff; Com. Io. XIII 18, 111f.
62 Augustine, Epist. 55, especially 55, 7, 13.
63 See Augustine, Epist. 98, 9.
64 Jerome, Com. Is. I, 1.
65
careful study of double exegesis, we can conclude that the liturgical
use of mystery language — which was so important beginning with
Eusebius of Caesarea — did not originate from contact with the so-
called mysteries. Its beginnings, already seen in Origen, and its grow-
ing importance are due instead to the decisive influence of the
exegesis into which such language had already been introduced by
Philo of Alexandria, who was not at all interested in the “mysteries.”65
Moreover, proper evaluation of patristic exegesis demands that we
recognize its apostolic origin. It is true, of course, that biblical
hermeneutics underwent further development in a Hellenistic envi-
ronment, especially in Alexandria.66 This result of modern research is
beyond question. But in essence patristic exegesis goes back, as the
apostle Paul attests in his letters, to the beginnings of Christianity.
Although it would be difficult to prove historically, we might even
say it was Jesus himself who initiated Christian exegesis. While his
Qumran contemporaries were applying biblical prophecies to their
own community, using the method of pesher, Jesus went even further.
He identified the coming of the kingdom of God with his own
person. He presented himself as one sent from heaven, as a represen-
tative of the God of Israel. Thus he gave a new meaning to all of
Scripture. If Paul, borrowing the principles of rabbinic exegesis,
would later maintain that everything the Bible has to say about the
people of God is useful for Christians, he did not stop there. Like the
other New Testament authors — and certainly under the decisive
influence of Jesus himself — he viewed all these accounts in the light
of Christ. But this statement involves a unique paradox. According to
modern exegesis, the fact that the Christian interpretation of the Bible
goes back to Jesus seems more certainly proven than the origins of
Christian worship. The role of the post-Easter community appears to
have been more important in the formation of the baptismal rite and
the commemoration of the Lord’s passion than in the Christian use of
Sacred Scripture. But for the Fathers, who did not distinguish be-
tween the historical Jesus and the risen Christ, it was obvious that
65 B. Studer, Der christliche Gottesdienst, eine Mysterienfeier: SA 113 (Rome, 1993)

27–45, especially 39–43.
66 B. Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe, (Basilea, 1987); C. Schäublin, Zur paganen
Prägung der christlichen Exegese: J. van Oort and U. Wickert (eds.), Christliche
Exegese zwischen Nicäa und Chalcedon (Kampen, 1992) 148–73.
66
Christ was the auctor sacramentorum.67 Justin strongly insists on the
institution of the Eucharist by Jesus.68 Tertullian loves to speak in this
context about the forma prescribed by the Lord.69 For Cyprian,
institution by Jesus is the basis of a proper understanding of the
Eucharistic sacrifice.70 Ambrose and Augustine after him would
speak of the auctor sacramentorum.71 Moreover, the common exegesis
of John 19, according to which the blood and water that flowed from
the pierced side of Christ symbolized baptism and the Eucharist, is
simply one more proof of this conviction shared by the Fathers. But it
is far less certain that Christian exegetes believed their interpetation
of the Bible went back to Jesus himself. Surely they were referring to
the exegesis of Paul. It seems they did not pay much attention to the
rabbi of Nazareth. They saw Christ not so much as an interpreter of
the Bible but as its author.72 In the wake of the Letter to the Hebrews
and the Johannine prologue, they extolled the Logos through whom
God spoke in the writings of the Old Testament, then in the words
and deeds of Jesus, and who continues to speak in the reading of
Scripture and in the liturgy.73
As mentioned before, patristic actualization of the Bible through
exegesis took place primarily in the liturgical assembly. Origen him-
self, who used to explain the Scriptures to his hearers each day, is
apparently no exception. He often ended his homilies with a prayer;
indeed it is clear that he delivered them in a spirit of prayer.74 This
67 The expression auctor sacramentorum goes back to Ambrose. See Ambrose, De
sacram. IV 4, 13.
68 Justin, Apol. I, 66, 3.
69 Tertullian, Bapt. 13, 3: Lex enim tinguendi imposita est, et forma praescripta: Ite,
inquit, docete . . . (Matt 28:19); Orat. 1; 4; 29 (it should be noted that prayer also
includes the Eucharist).
70 Cyprian, Epist. 63, especially 63, 1 and 14.
71 Ambrose, De sacram. IV 4, 13; Augustine, Contra Litt. Petriliani II 34, 57. See
BA 28.88.
72 Ambrose, Exp. Lc.VII, 50, has certainly created the most beautiful expression:
scripturae verus interpres Christus. However, he understands this formula to mean

the orthodox exegesis of the defenders of Nicaea. See T. Graumann, Christus inter-
pres, 200ff.
73 B. Studer, in Storia della Teologia, 438–41: “Auctoritas Dei Verbi in Ecclesia.”
74 W. Schültz, Der christliche Gottesdienst bei Origenes (Stuttgart, 1984) 73–119,
and especially H. Crouzel, Les doxologies finales des homélies d’Origène, selon le texte
grec et les versions latines: Augustinianum 20 (1980) 95–107.
67
fact is perhaps more important for understanding patristic exegesis
than for understanding the liturgy. In the context of the liturgy, actu-
alization of the sacred texts became, so to speak, even more actualiz-
ing. To celebrate the mysteries of salvation as recounted in the Bible
meant to experience the saving presence of God. The exhortations
and scriptural words of encouragement, emphasized by the preacher,
were even more convincing in a liturgy celebrated with full participa-
tion. Melito who proclaims the paschal mystery,75 Gregory of Nyssa
who speaks of each feast’s cavri",76 Augustine who on the feast of
Christmas extols the dies,77 Leo who from time to time develops the
hodie78 — all these merely confirm how much Christians of the patris-
tic age perceived in the liturgy the ever-provocative timeliness of the
Bible. Although the liturgy illustrates better the chief goal of patristic
exegesis, which is to edify the community, the link uniting liturgy
and patristic exegesis is nonetheless evident.
Lastly, anyone who wishes to grasp the full meaning of patristic
exegesis must never forget that Christians interpreted the Bible ac-
cording to the scholastic practices of the time.79 Without wishing to
take back what we have said about the apocalyptic and rabbinical
origins of Christian exegesis, we would admit that at least from the
second century — and in a certain sense even before — interpreters
of the Bible approached it as they had learned in school. Recent pa-
tristic research has stressed this basic fact by referring to the works of
the most famous exegetes. There is an important study on Origen as
a philologist.80 Acceptance of the ancient literary genre of quaestiones
et responsiones has been particularly studied.81 Much attention has
been paid to cultural background in the exegesis of Jerome and
75 Melito of Sardis, Sur la Pâque: SCh 123.

76 B. Studer, Das christliche Fest, ein Tag der gläubigen Hoffnung, 517–29.
77 Augustine, Sermo 189, 3; 190, 1, 1; 226, 1. See M. Pellegrino, L’influsso di s.
Agostino su s. Leone nei sermoni sul Natale e sull’Epifania: Annali del P. Istituto “S.
Chiara” 11 (Naples, 1961) 101–32.
78 M. B. de Soos, Le mystère liturgique d’après s. Léon le Grand (Münster, W., 1958)
22–27; 133–34, with texts.

79 B. Studer, Eruditio veterum, in Storia della Teologia I, 333–71.
80 B. Neuschäfer, Origenes als Philologe (Basel, 1987).
81 See the various studies in ASE 9/2 (Bologna, 1992).
68
Theodoret, to give just two examples.82 Monographs have shown
special concern for the hermeneutic theories developed in the pro-
logues to the commentaries.83 In this regard we need only recall the
many important studies published on Augustine’s De doctrina chris-
tiana.84 The link between patristic exegesis — at least as it developed
in the imperial Church — and Greco-Roman literary culture is per-
haps more clearly seen in what we might call the schola Christi. This
idea was first developed by Augustine, professor of rhetoric and the
greatest expert on the tractatores catholici or traditional exegesis.
According to him, reading of the classics was replaced in Christian
schools by reading of the Bible. Just as students in contemporary
secular schools drilled themselves on the famous writings of the past
— reading them, interpreting them, meditating on them, memorizing
them so as to enjoy their beauty and imitate their ideals — so
Christians did the same when they read or listened to the texts of
Scripture together. Augustine stresses that these new interpretations
of the texts took place especially in liturgical assemblies.85 Of course
we must not over-generalize the Augustinian ideal of the schola
Christi. However, it is significant that the idea of the Christian
didaskalevion is also found in Basil.86 In the West, this Augustinian
theme was already suggested in Tertullian87 and was later taken up
by some of Augustine’s disciples: Quodvultdeus, Facundus of
Hermiane, and Cassiodorus.88
82 P. Jay, L’exégèse de saint Jérôme (Paris, 1985), and J. N. Guinot, L’exégèse de
Théodoret de Cyr (Paris, 1995).

83 T. Graumann, Christus interpres, 29–96, especially 33–36; I. Hadot, Les intro-
ductions aux commentaires exégétiques chez les auteurs néoplatoniciens et les auteurs
chrétiens: M. Tardieu (ed.), Les règles de l’interprétation (Paris, 1987) 99–122.
84 C. Ceriotti (ed.), De doctrina christiana = Lectio Augustini (Rome, 1995),
K. Pollmann, De doctrina christiana, Diss. habil. (Constance, 1995).

85 Augustine, Disc. chr. 5, 5.
86 Basil, Hexaem. V 5, 4; II 1, 2.
87 Tertullian, Scorpiace 9, 1; CCL 2, 1084: alia in Christo et divinitas et voluntas et
schola. In a context that is clearly anti-philosophical we have the question of

pracepta et exempla as well as disciplina.
88 Quodvultdeus, Sermo 11, 1, 6: CCL 60, 441: Haec est schola, ad quam parvuli
spiritu deducuntur, ut discant a caelesti magistro non alta sapere, sed humilibus consen-
tire (compared to grammar and rhetoric); s. 2, 7, 27: CCL 60, 297; s. 13, 4, 1: CCL
60, 475. Facundus of Hermiane, Pro defensione XII 1, 4 CCL 90A, 365 (anti-heretical
69
5 . L I T U R G Y, A N A C T I O N O F T H E C O M M U N I T Y
“The Church makes the Eucharist and the Eucharist makes the
Church.” This well-known axiom might be expanded to say: “The
Church makes the liturgy and the liturgy makes the Church.” At any
rate, this statement appears in an even clearer light when examined
in the context of patristic theology. The following facts show this.
When they refer at different times to Christian initiation, either in
catechesis or in theological treatises, the Fathers of the Church stress
its community significance. They not only emphasize that baptism
means admission to the community. They also point out the commu-
nity aspects of the celebration, the common prayer and fasting that
were part of the preparation for baptism,89 the profession of faith in
the presence of all, the kiss of peace shared by all,90 and in particular
the responsibility of the sponsors before the community.91 A sense of
community is also found in texts that discuss second penance.
Penitents, it was said, should not be ashamed in the presence of the
others but rather trust in their prayers.92 As for the Eucharist, it is
helpful to recall how Christian writers described the Sunday assem-
bly. See, for example, the description found in Justin’s Apology,93 or
that provided by the Apostolic Constitutions.94 Gregory of Nyssa also
has a beautiful description of the crowd that had gathered to cele-
brate the feast of Theodore the Martyr.95 Van der Meer’s chapter, “A
Sunday in Hippo,” which is a mosaic of many pieces from the writ-
ings of Augustine, is also instructive.96 Nor should we forget litur-
gical forms expressing the communion of all the Churches, such as
the collegial ordination of bishops, prescribed by the Council of Nicaea
context). Cassiodorus, De anima 17: CCL 96, 572 (“scholastic” context); Exp. Ps 15,
11: CCL 97, 142: Schola caelestis, eruditio vitalis, auditorium veritatis, disciplina certis-
sime singularis. . . .
89 Didache 7, 4; Justin, Apol. I 61, 2.
90 Justin, Apol. I 65, 2; Augustine, Conf. VIII 2, 3. For other texts, see A. di
Berardino, “Bacio”: DPAC I, 466f.

91 Trad. Apost. 20; Tertullian, Bapt. 18, 4. See H. Erharter: LThk 8 (1963) 166.
92 Tertullian, Paenit. 10.
93 Justin, Apol. I 67, 3–8.
94 Apostolic Constitutions II, 57, especially n. 10–13: SCh 320, 314ff. See SCh 329,
42, with other studies on the liturgical assembly.

95 Gregory of Nyssa, De s. Theodoro (CPG 3183).
96 F. van der Meer, Augustinus der Seelsorger (Cologne, 1951) 454–70.
70
(can. 4). The following facts are also worth noting: election by the clergy
and people of the bishop who is to be ordained, concelebration by the
local bishop with visiting bishops, and the exchange of diptychs.
But it is not enough to mention these external facts. We also need
to take into account the ecclesiologies underlying the community
liturgy. During the patristic era, we find a whole range of models of
community or Church, depending on the various times and places.
The idea of fraternity prevailed at first. Quite soon we find the con-
cept of the Ecclesia, Domina et Mater.97 Beginning in the fourth cen-
tury, influenced by Athanasius and Ambrose, this ecclesiological
ideal was combined with that of Mary, virgo et mater.98 The Church is
also presented as a body. This is important because it not only took
up the Pauline theology of the body of Christ, but also — at least in
the context of the imperial Church — the socio-political concept of
the corpus christianorum.99 The ecclesiology of the City of God is at the
same time biblical and political. As mentioned before, Basil, and
especially Augustine and his followers presented the Church as a
school. The image of a house is also interesting. This was developed
above all by Augustine, but it is already found in Origen and others.
Finally, the theme of the communio sanctorum deserves mention. At
first this expression referred to participation in the holy things, the
“sacraments.” But around the year 400 it began to mean the com-
munion of saints, both living and dead. This idea was not entirely
new. Origen had already explained the holiness of the place of
prayer, referring to the presence of Christ, the angels, and the de-
parted.100 Beginning with the Revelation of John, the entire patristic
concept of the Church was dominated by the presence of the angels,
in other words, communion with the Church in heaven, realized
above all in the liturgical assembly. Perhaps its most magnificent
expression is found in Augustine’s De Civitate Dei.
97 K. Delahaye, Ecclesia Mater. Chez les Pères des trois premiers siècles (Paris, 1964).
98 A. Müller, Ecclesia - Maria. Die Einheit Marias und der Kirche (Fribourg, 1955).
99 A. Hamman, Corpo mistico: DPAC I, 788f (theological concept); E. Herrmann,
Ecclesia in Re Publica (Frankfurt, 1980), especially 201f and 183f; A. Ehrhardt,

Das Corpus Christi und die Korporationen im spätrömischen Reich: ZRG RA 70 (1953)
299–347.
100 Origen, De oratione, 31, 4–7.
71
Clearly these ways of conceiving the Church reflected an ideal
more or less charismatic, more or less institutional. The fraternal
community of the early days must not be confused with Cyprian’s
institutum salutare.101 But it is equally clear that the different ways of
picturing the ecclesial community were reflected in the different
ways of celebrating the liturgy. People would gather with the broth-
ers and sisters to offer together the sacrifice of praise, or they would
enter a building set aside for worship to attend a liturgy celebrated
by the clergy and to receive the gifts of Mother Church. To say gratias
tibi agentes quia nos dignos habuisti adstare coram te et tibi ministrare,102 is
not the same as to say gratias agentes tibi quia nos dignos habuisti coram
te et tibi sacerdotium exhibere.103
To understand fully the community liturgy of the Fathers, we must
add a thought on one consequence of this community approach —
what some refer to as “objective piety.” What mattered in the liturgy
of an early Christian community was not the individual believer’s
feelings or affections of the heart, but rather the common expression
of faith. Those who attended the liturgical celebration shared the
same experience. Together they repented; together they felt the joy of
the whole community. Personal feelings, of course, were not absent.
Augustine wept when he heard the psalms and hymns sung in the
basilicas of Milan; but what impressed him most was the singing of
the entire community.104 This was just how Athanasius had first rec-
ommended that the psalms be sung, as long as the cantor was able to
edify the faithful.105 Personal prayer was certainly not absent. There
is abundant evidence of the intimate conversations that more fervent
Christians held with their God, or with Jesus, their master. But as
Benedict admonishes his monks, personal prayer should be brief.106
The “objectivity” of the patristic liturgy is also due to the fact that
Christians celebrated on the same occasions. The feasts, or rather the
festive times with their ascetical and spiritual preparation and the
weeks that followed, involved everyone together. The sermons for
101 B. Studer, Soteriologie der Kirchenväter, 99f.

102 Trad. Apost. 4 (Version L): FCh 1, 226.
103 Trad. Apost. 4 (Version E): FCh 1, 226.
104 Augustine, Conf. X 33, 50. See Conf. IX 7, 15.
105 Athanasius, Epist. ad Marcellinum, 27ff.
106 Benedict, Regula Monasteriorum 20, 4f.
72
Eastertime attest to this, for example, Augustine’s discourses on the
singing of the alleluia107 or the Lenten sermons of Leo the Great.108
Finally we must note the importance of the word.
Here it is not enough to point out that liturgical celebrations in-
volved common listening to the Scriptures, that all the members of a
community were nourished by the same spiritual food. We must also
remember that the early liturgy was celebrated in a culture of the
Word. People did not read silently but aloud, and as a result they
could always hear the words read. They were also attentive to the
meaning of the word. They loved wordplays. The preachers’ com-
ments on the readings they had heard together reminded them of the
public declamationes of great orators. These statements are certainly
true above all for the golden age of patristics. But we should not for-
get that this period was decisive for the literary creation of liturgical
prayer. Moreover, we cannot underestimate the culture of the word
operative in the imperial Church. In fact, the beauty of the liturgical
language, still admired today by people who are sensitive to the
esthetic values of human communication, goes back to it.
Perhaps not everyone understood it as did Augustine. In his
Confessions, inspired by the psalms he heard read in common, his
language reaches heights that are indeed worthy of God, although it
is too bold to speak of praise worthy of the unspeakable God.
Moreover, in his hermeneutic work De doctrina christiana, he dealt es-
pecially with elocutio, showing its limits but also its value. J. Fontaine,
concluding his reflection on these writings of Augustine, did not
hesitate to say: “In other words, literary beauty retains a higher use-
fulness in the service of the Christian mission.”109 Although not
everyone was as open to ancient esthetics as the bishop of Hippo,
who was a former professor of rhetoric, there were many who spoke
of the sweetness of the psalms as sung and heard during the celebra-
tion of the mysteries of Christ, the incarnate Word of God.110
107 Augustine, Sermo 210, 8, with S. Poque, in SCh 116, 50f.
108 Leo, Tract. 39–50, with R. Dolle, L’entrée dans le Carême avec saint Léon le
Grand: Assemblées du Seigneur 26 (1962) 69–80.
109 J. Fontaine, Des écrivains à part entière: Présence des Sources Chrétiennes =
Connaissance des Pères de l’Église, 51 (1995) 12f.

110 Basil, Hom. Ps. 1: PG 29, 209A - 213C; Theodoret, Com. Ps. preface: PG 80,
857A–865 B. See also J. Fontaine, Naissance de la poésie dans l’Occident chrétien

(Paris, 1981) on the liturgical poetry of Ambrose, Prudentius, and others.
73
6 . L I T U R G Y A N D PAT R I S T I C P I E T Y
The Gospel of Jesus Christ, Son of God, can never be exhausted —
by no generation, culture, or time. It is too rich, too varied, too pro-
found. On the other hand, the men and women who hear the good
news proclaimed are too dissimilar in mentality, culture, and sensibil-
ity to understand it in the same way. This statement, perhaps too
summary, is also true of the liturgy of the patristic age. The very fact
that different liturgical traditions began to take shape quite soon
proves it. Based on the evolution we observe beginning in the fourth
century, we can speak of liturgical families, that is, liturgies that took
shape around the major episcopal sees of Antioch, Alexandria, Rome,
Milan, etc.
As a first explanation of this basic fact, we would point out that the
bishops and theologians who were the driving force behind the
development of the various liturgical traditions were of different
cultures and experienced Christian realities in different ways. Cyril of
Jerusalem could not help being deeply impressed by the holy places
in the life of Jesus. Chrysostom, bishop of the imperial capital, was
always open to the life of his city. Ambrose of Milan could not forget
his past as a magistrate or the obligations of an ecclesiastical orga-
nizer. Leo the Great always felt that he was bishop of the Eternal City,
center of the orbis terrarum. But explaining the variety of liturgical
traditions by the characteristics of place or the talents of individuals
does not yet lead us to the heart of the matter. We must also keep in
mind the richness of the gospel, mentioned at the beginning of this
section. Let us consider the piety of the Fathers and its diversity.
It is no exaggeration to say the piety of Paul and John is clearly
trinitarian. For Paul we need only refer to chapters 6–8 of the Letter
to the Romans, and for John to the so-called farewell discourse (John
14–17). It is no surpise, then, that as soon as the Pauline Letters and
Fourth Gospel were accepted as authoritative, theological reflection
was at once dominated by a trinitarian thrust. This is attested, first of
all, by Irenaeus of Lyons. According to him, salvation comes to us
from the Father through the Son and Holy Spirit, and we return in
the Spirit through Christ to the Father. In Origen this trinitarian
vision took on a coloring that was perhaps too philosophical, but it is
still basic.111 The theology of the image, developed by Athanasius and
111 B. Studer, Dio Salvatore, 94–1–1, 116–30.
74
then by the Cappadocians, continued largely along these lines. A
Christian’s dignity is to be, in the grace of the Spirit, the image of the
image of God. Although Augustine was fond of the saying Per
Christum hominem ad Christum Deum, he remained faithful to the
Pauline ideal of Per Christum in Spiritu Sancto ad Patrem. The persis-
tence of these trinitarian themes is by no means unimportant for an
understanding of the liturgy. Without it, we cannot fully understand
why the Eucharistic Prayers are addressed to the Father. Conscious-
ness of the Trinity perhaps did not gain the same place in the minds
of Christians. But the use of trinitarian doxologies is familiar to all
who attend the liturgy, to say nothing of the fact that believers con-
tinue to make the sign of the cross with which they were baptized:
in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.
Still we cannot deny that trinitarian piety, influenced by the cosmo-
logical formulation of trinitarian theology, which took place during
the second century and became problematic at Nicaea and in the en-
suing debates, gave way to a certain Christocentrism. We see this in
the Christus omnia of Ambrose, in the spirituality of Evagrius, and in
the importance given to Christ in the Rule of St. Benedict. It is also
confirmed by iconography, where in the basilicas Christ is portrayed
as Pantocrator and at the same time president of the liturgical assem-
bly.112 J.A. Jungmann, in his famous work, has thoroughly studied the
degree to which this Christological reduction also influenced litur-
gical prayer.113 It is true that the official prayer remained Trinitarian,
as has been said. But the Christocentric background left its mark on
the liturgy. Christological exegesis of the Bible, as we see in the expla-
nation of 2 Corinthians 5:19 (“God in Christ was reconciling the
world to himself”), is found in the interpretation of Christ’s presence
in the liturgy. Just as Christ our God reconciled the world to himself
in Christ the man, so the virtus divina which was once responsible for
the miracles of Jesus is still at work in the sacraments of the
Church.114 This unequivocal statement by Leo the Great was not new.
It was suggested in the sacramental theology of Ambrose and greatly
112 C. Ihm, Die Programme der christlichen Apsismalerei vom vierten Jahrhundert bis
zur Mitte des achten Jahrhunderts (Wiesbaden 1960) 12–28; A. S. Effenberger,

Frühchristliche Kunst und Kultur (Munich, 1986) 140–43.
113 J. A. Jungmann, Die Stellung Christi im liturgischen Gebet (Münster, 1962).
114 Leo, Tract. 63, 6; 66, 4.
75
developed by Augustine. Ambrose had insisted on the verba caelestia
of the auctor sacramentorum — words by which the transubstantiation
of the bread and wine takes place in the Eucharistic consecration.115
On the other hand, Augustine had defended against the Donatists the
validity of baptism administered by heretics with his Christus baptizat,
where he obviously means Christ as God. Still, this insistence on the
divine action of Christ, which must be seen in the context of the trini-
tarian adage omnia opera ad extra communia sunt, was mitigated to
some extent by these writers insofar as they also continued to speak
of the heavenly intercession of the risen Christ. However, the tension
between faith in the virtus divina at work in the sacraments and faith
in the risen Christ who intercedes at the right hand of the Father
remains even today. Many people repeat every day formulas such as
Kyrie eleison or Exaudi Domine, without thinking much about the
heavenly priesthood of Jesus Christ (Heb 7:26ff), the flesh that is
eaten and the blood that is drunk for eternal life (John 6:54), the
Lamb standing as if slain (Rev 5:6), or the fact that they will reign
with Christ forever (see Rev 11:15).
We must end this consideration by emphasizing a theme that is
closely connected with the Christocentrism of the Fathers. During the
first centuries a priestly spirituality was formed that would later be
summarized in the expression alter Christus.116 As we know, earlier
Christian writings paid little attention to the liturgical functions of
the community’s ministers, and when they did emphasize their litur-
gical role, they did not call them “priests,” a dignity they reserved for
Christ. But ecclesiastical writers gradually became more interested in
the priestly ministry and praised its dignity. Eventually they more or
less identified the ordained priest with Christ the priest. Cyprian, in
his letter on the Eucharist, explains that through him the bishop-
priest takes the place of Christ; by imitating the gestures of Jesus, he
represents Christ himself.117 Ambrose of Milan expressed himself
similarly, saying: . . . etsi nunc Christus non videtur offerre, tamen ipse
115 Ambrose, Sacr. IV 4, 14f; Myster. 52ff.

116 J.M.R. Tillard, Sacerdoce: DSp 14 (1990) 1–37, especially 12f; also P. Fonk, Alter
Christus: LThk 1 (1993) 453f (bibliography).
117 Cyprian, Epist. 63. See O. Perler, L’évêque, représentant du Christ selon les docu-
ments des premiers siècles: L’Épiscopat et l’Église universelle = Unam Sanctam 39

(Paris, 1962) 31–66.
76
offertur in terris, quia Christi corpus offertur, immo ipse offerre manifestatur
in nobis, cuius sermo sanctificat sacrificium quod offertur.118 In his work
on the priesthood which became very famous, John Chrysostom does
not present the bishop as an image of Christ, but he does place him
above the heavenly powers.119
This emphasis on the dignity of the priest can be explained by vari-
ous factors. First, there was the influence of the biblical vision of the
Levitical priesthood which appears already in the Prima Clementis.120
Then there was the change from the Eucharist as a spiritual sacrifice
to the Eucharist as the sacrifice of the cross. Finally, there was the
formation of the presbyterate, centered on one altar in the Christian
basilicas, along with the ever growing social prestige of the priest in
the imperial Church. This relatively late concept of Christian ministry
was bound to influence the structure of liturgical celebrations, espe-
cially the dispositions with which the clergy performed them and the
faithful attended them. In the patristic age the “clericalization” of the
liturgy did not yet reach the point it did in the Byzantine and medi-
eval Churches. But the evolution in that direction is already clear.
In a certain sense we can even speak of an imperial spirituality.
To the extent that Christians identified themselves with the Roman
Empire, they borrowed ideas and terms from the political matrix to
express their faith in Christ. Almost from the beginning the concepts
of salvation and savior entered the Christian vocabulary. But it dis-
played the marks of Roman soteriology much more in the third cen-
tury, as Cyprian attests.121 During the age of Constantine this Roman
reinterpretation of the Gospel of Christ finally gained the upper
hand. More than ever, Jesus Christ was honored with imperial titles
or biblical titles reinterpreted. We see this especially in the spread of
the title Dominus Salvator. His work was described in triumphal
terms. Christians had almost unanimously accepted the idea that
unity of belief was the basis for the political unity of the empire. The
fact that they were rooted in such a mentality had its natural reper-
cussions in the area of liturgy. Rituals for major solemnities were
118 Ambrose, Expl. Ps. 38, 25f.
119 A. Wenger, Jean Chrysostome: DSp 8 (1974) 843ff: Le sacerdoce, with De sacerd.
III, 4: PL 48, 642.
120 1 Clem 40. See A. Jaubert, SCh 167, 48ff.
121 See B. Studer, Soteriologie der Kirchenväter, 99f.
77
adapted to the ceremonial of the court. Political vocabulary found its
way into liturgical language.122 The clearest proof of this is the man-
ner of celebrating feasts introduced in the fourth century. We need
only recall the acceptance of the idea of the adventus salvatoris.123
Moreover, it is clear that if this phenomenon of the imperial Church
changed the sentire cum Ecclesia, it also favored the Christocentrism
mentioned above. The fourth-century Christians’ manner of cele-
brating the liturgy was determined not only by a new concept of the
Christian community, but also by a renewed reverence for Jesus
Christ, the true emperor and king of glory.124 It is obvious that this
“imperial” inculturation of the liturgy is understood first of all
through Christian literature, especially the feastday sermons of the
great bishops such as Chrysostom, Ambrose, Augustine, and Leo.125
CONCLUSION
Anyone ignorant of the wealth of evidence left by the Fathers of the
Church to later generations of Christians, cannot discern the Judaeo-
Christian origins and subsequent development of the Christian
liturgy, cannot fully understand its essential structures, cannot accu-
rately measure its faith foundations, cannot appreciate its biblical and
Greco-Roman forms of expression, cannot grasp the expressive rich-
ness of its symbols, cannot admire all its beauties. Only those who
get in touch with the first fathers and mothers of the Christian faith
can be fully assured of the apostolic authenticity of their dialogue
122 W. Dürig, Pietas liturgica (Regensburg, 1958); H. Büsse, “Salus” in der römi-
schen Liturgie. Ein Beitrag zur Sprache und Theologie liturgischer Gebetstexte (Rome,
1959).
123 G. Hellemo, Adventus Domini. Eschatological Thought in the 4th Century Apses
and Catechesis = Suppl.Vig.Chr. 5 (Leiden, Brill, 1989); P. Dufraigne, Adventus

Augusti, Adventus Christi. Recherches su l’exploitation idéologique d’un cérémoniel dans
l’antiquité tardive (Paris, 1994).
124 P. Beskow, Rex gloriae. The Kingship of Christ in the Early Church (Uppsala,
1962); P. Stockmeier, Theologie und Kult des Kreuzes bei Johannes Chrysostomus. Ein
Beitrag zum Verständnis des Kreuzes im 4. Jahrhundert (Trier, 1966); B. Studer, Die
anti-arianische Auslegung von Psalm 23, 7–10 in De Fide IV, 1–2 des Ambrosius von
Mailand: Y. Duval (ed.), Ambroise de Milan (Paris, 1974) 245–66; F. Heim, Victoire,
135–98; Idem, Gratia Christi - Gratia Dei, 272f, and especially S. Poque, Le langage
symbolique dans la prédication d’Augustin d’Hippone (Paris, 1984) 99–111: “Victoire.”
125 P. A. McShane, La Romanitas et le Pape Léon le Grand. L’apport culturel des insti-
tutions impériales à la formation des structures ecclésiastiques (Paris, 1979).
78
with the God of Israel, the Father of Jesus Christ and source of the
spiritual life.
Bibliography
Brovelli, F. “Fede e liturgia.” NDL 543–555 (bibliography).
Carroll, T. K. Liturgical Practices in the Fathers. Wilmington, Del., 1988.
Di Berardino, A., and B. Studer, eds. History of Theology. Vol. 1, The Patristic
Period. Trans. M. J. O’Connell. Collegeville, Minn., 1997.
Orazzo, A., ed. I padri della Chiesa e la teologia. In dialogo con Basil Studer. Turin,
1995.
Pellegrino, M. “Liturgia e padri.” DPAC 1:1976–1979. Casale, 1983.
. “Padri e liturgia.” NDL 1008–1015.
Triacca, A. M. “Liturgia e padri della Chiesa: Ruoli reciproci.” Seminarium,
n.s. 30 (1990) 508–530.
79
Patrick Lyons, O.S.B.
Liturgy and Ecumenism
INTRODUCTION
To speak of the ecumenical aspect of the liturgy is to draw attention
to the fact that liturgy, both as a science and as a lived experience, in-
fluences the modern ecumenical movement, and to hint too that the
relation is in some way reciprocal, that ecumenism has implications
for liturgy. The ecumenical aspect of the liturgy is exemplified in a
special way when liturgical prayer is celebrated in common by
Christians of the divided Churches and when liturgical studies
undertaken with ecumenical awareness play a rôle in the renewal of
the liturgy of the separated Churches. Both of these situations are in
evidence today.
The ecumenical significance of liturgy emerged in modern times as
a result of the growth, in the West more especially, of two aspects of
renewal of church life which at first appeared unrelated, the liturgical
and ecumenical movements. In the later decades of this century an
inter-relationship has become both clearer and more extensive. The
various Christian traditions in the West have experienced a process
of convergence in liturgical practice which has proved of value in
paving the way towards mutual recognition and reconciliation on the
part of the Churches. Insofar as Christians of different traditions can
celebrate liturgical prayer in common — for the most part, non-sacra-
mental liturgy — there is already an anticipation of this reconcilia-
tion. Liturgy has thus come to be seen as of ecumenical importance,
while conversely, the insights gained from theological dialogue be-
tween the Churches have had a formative influence on the renewal of
81
liturgy within the individual traditions, with the result that ecume-
nism has for its part become significant for liturgy.
HISTORICAL LINKS
The two movements would appear to have arisen from different con-
cerns — and in fact with different chronologies — within the
Churches but they are nonetheless aspects of renewal in Christianity,
and are really two members of a triad of related Christian concerns,
the third of which is mission. This century has seen movements of re-
newal centred on each of these three concerns, with the early stages
belonging in fact to the preceding century, and their essential related-
ness has meant that renewal under one aspect in the end involves the
others. The historical roots of the connection between them are to be
found in the liturgical movement in the Catholic Church from the
mid-nineteenth century. Its influence outside the Catholic Church
was felt at first in Anglicanism when the second generation of the
Tractarian (Oxford) movement sought to express liturgically the in-
sights gained in ecclesiology, especially the central place of the sacra-
ments.1 Anglicanism in the United States (Episcopal Church) was in
turn prominent in the ecumenical movement of the twentieth cen-
tury, which from its earliest phase listed liturgical renewal among its
concerns. This movement had received its initial stimulus from the
pan-Protestant missionary movement of the late nineteenth century
and in particular from the Edinburgh Missionary Conference of 1910.
S C R I P T U R A L WA R R A N T
This historical connection illustrates a teaching already found in
Scripture. There is the well-known scriptural warrant for the connec-
tion between the ecumenical and missionary concerns in the text of
John 17:21: “Father, may they be one in us . . . so that the world may
believe. . . .” But it is also scriptural teaching that the unity of the
community is a pre-requisite for true worship. Along with Christ’s
admonition about the need to be reconciled before participating in
the liturgy (Matt 5:24), there is Paul’s exhortation to be united in
mind and voice so that “you may give glory to the God and father of
our Lord Jesus Christ” (Rom 15:6). “Thus ecumenism’s goal becomes
1 Cf. The Renewal of Worship, ed. R.C.D. Jaspers (London 1965) 4.
82
not only evangelisation but an acceptable doxology.”2 The existence
of this triadic connection between liturgy, ecumenism, and mission is
in fact fundamental for a true discussion of the connection between
the first two and is being more frequently acknowledged today, espe-
cially in documents from the Faith and Order Commission of the
World Council of Churches.
OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS
The ecumenical aspect of liturgy may be conveniently illustrated by
referring to the documents which have emerged in modern times
within the Churches and in agreements between them. Of signifi-
cance here from the Catholic viewpoint are the documents of Vatican
II which show a clear connection between liturgy and ecumenism.
The Constitution on the Liturgy, in its programmatic first paragraph,
saw cogent reasons for undertaking the reform and promotion of the
liturgy because of its declared overall aim, which included among its
components the fostering of “whatever can promote union among all
who believe in Christ” (SC 1). The Decree on Ecumenism in its turn
reckoned the liturgical movement, among other contemporary ex-
pressions of renewal in the church, one of the “promises and guaran-
tees for the future progress of ecumenism” (UR 6). Since the same
phenomenon of liturgical renewal was also in train in other Churches
at that time, the statement, which referred principally to the Catholic
Church, has in fact additional relevance. The decree did go on, in its
practical norms, to issue a warning that worship in common (commu-
nicatio in sacris) was not to be considered as a means to be used indis-
criminately for the restoration of unity among Christians (UR 8).
While the value of prayer in common as a means of promoting unity
was recognized (in the decree), the nature of liturgical prayer presup-
posed the unity of the praying community and therefore imposed
constraints on worship shared by members of divided Churches.
Hence the enigmatic pairing of principles which the council felt had
to sum up its position at that point: “The expression of unity very
generally forbids common worship. Grace to be obtained sometimes
commends it” (UR 8).
2G. Wainwright, “Where liturgy and ecumenism embrace” in Euntes Docete,

Analecta Wenceslao Swierzawski oblata (Kraków, 1993) 190.
83
These were principles concerning the connection between liturgy
and ecumenism issued by Vatican II at the beginning of the Catholic
Church’s involvement in the ecumenical movement and they have
not in essence changed. Subsequent directives, however, especially
the second edition of the Directory on Ecumenism (1993), have taken
account of the significant though far from complete convergence
between the various Christian traditions, including the Orthodox
world, since then and have established norms concerning even
eucharistic sharing, in certain specified situations. The Directory en-
courages shared prayer, including the liturgical kind, as a means of
fostering convergence of the traditions themselves: “Such prayers in
common are certainly a very effective means of petitioning for the
grace of unity, and they are a genuine expression of the ties which
still bind Catholics to these other Christians. Shared prayer is in itself
a way to spiritual reconciliation.”3 In the case of non-sacramental
liturgical prayer, it declares that participation in such celebrations as
Morning or Evening Prayer will enable people of different liturgical
traditions — Catholic, Eastern, Anglican, and Protestant — to under-
stand each other’s community prayer better and to share more
deeply in traditions which have often developed from common
roots.4 Here there is recognition that ecumenical sharing in liturgy
brings not only better understanding but also some unspecified
participation in the life of the other tradition.5
The regulations governing sharing in sacramental worship distin-
guish between the Eastern Churches and “Other Churches and
Ecclesial Communities” — a reference to the traditions arising from
the Reformation. The fact that the Eastern Churches are recognised
(in UR 15) as having true sacraments, above all, the priesthood and
the Eucharist, provides grounds for the Directory’s “allowing or even
encouraging some sharing in liturgical worship even of the eucharist,
3 Pontifical Council for Christian Unity, Directory for the Application of Principles
and Norms on Ecumenism (Vatican City, 1993) no. 108, 63.
4 Ibid. no. 117, 65.
5 The nature of this participation is becoming of interest in the ecumenical
movement because of the prominence now being given to non-sacramental shar-

ing, in the wake of reservations about the appropriateness of intercommunion.
The term “sacrament of presence” has been used. Cf. So We Believe, So We Pray.
Towards Koinonia in Worship, ed. T. F. Best and D. Heller, FOP 171 (Geneva, 1995)
Report of the Consultation, no. 59 (e) 19.
84
with these churches. . . .”6 The grounds for the decision are given as
“ecclesiological and sacramental.” This means in effect that the cele-
bration of the liturgy brings to the fore an ecclesiology which at least
in an episodic manner overcomes the division between the Catholic
and the Eastern Churches. On the basis of the pre-conciliar institu-
tional ecclesiology with its juridical requirements concerning unity in
faith, the sacramental bond of baptism, and the acceptance of
Catholic authority, such sharing would have been considered an
aberration. The ecumenical import of liturgy is so powerful in this
context that the sharing envisaged includes both sacramental “hospi-
tality” extended to Christians belonging to the Eastern churches and
the acceptance of such hospitality by Catholics, if it is offered.
The ecumenical potential of the liturgy is more restricted in the
case of sharing sacramentally with the Reformation Churches
because of the ecclesiological reservations set out in Unitatis
Redintegratio on which the Directory relies. It is recognised that “by
baptism members of other churches and ecclesial communions are
brought into a real, even if imperfect communion with the Catholic
church.”7 But the recognition of ecclesial reality in these communities
of baptised is not the same as that accorded to the Eastern churches;
they are considered to lack the fullness of the means of salvation
belonging to Christ’s Catholic church, especially “the proper reality
of the eucharistic mystery in its fullness” (UR 22), and so liturgical
sharing is more restricted and its effects less clear. The principle that
“eucharistic communion is inseparably linked to full ecclesial com-
munion and its visible expression” (UR 22), which logically applies in
the case of sharing with the Eastern Churches also, here has the effect
of excluding an ecclesial basis on which liturgical sharing can take
place because of this lack of fullness of the means of salvation.
Members of Reformation Churches are then in this context treated as
individual Christians. Accordingly, the approach to sacramental hos-
pitality is one-sided, when compared with the case of the Eastern
Churches. Eucharistic hospitality may in some cases be offered to
members of the Reformation Churches, but reciprocal gestures may
not be accepted. Nevertheless, there is an interesting development in
the Directory (compared with its predecessor of 1967) in that sacra-
6 Directory for the Application of Principles and Norms on Ecumenism, no. 122, 66.
7 Ibid. no. 129, 68. Cf. UR 3.
85
mental hospitality offered may now in certain circumstances include
the sacraments of penance and anointing of the sick. As in the case of
eucharistic hospitality granted to a member of the Eastern Churches,
it may be asked what kind of communion with the Catholic Church
does the eucharist effect in the case of a Western non-Catholic
Christian and “episodic” would seem the only possible description.
But since the sacrament of penance is in essence a rite of reconcilia-
tion — with God and with the church — the description clearly be-
comes problematic when applied to the conferring of this sacrament
on someone not in communion with the Catholic Church. Here, as in
all the cases mentioned of liturgical sharing with members of the
other Churches, liturgy has important implications for ecumenical
theology, in effect, for theology in general.
For its part, the ecumenical movement which had emerged earlier
in the Protestant world, and found expression in the Faith and Order
conferences of 1927 (Lausanne) and 1937 (Edinburgh), took account
at an early stage of liturgy and included the study of it in its agenda.
The 1937 conference set up an international commission to study
patterns of worship (as the liturgy was usually called in those circles)
and their importance in the various Churches.
The Report of this commission, “Ways of Worship,” did not appear
until 1951 and formed the basis for discussion of worship at the Faith
and Order conference at Lund in 1952. This was a time when in the
ecumenical movement studies of the traditions of the different
Churches were of a comparative kind and liturgy was seen as the
symbol of division, the occasion when disunity became most explicit
and the sense of separation most acute. But discussion of the Report
at Lund did bring the participating Churches to a new awareness of
the importance of liturgy in the life of the Christian Church. It was
recognised that “worship, no less than Faith and Order, is essential to
the being of the church” and further that its setting is the mission of
the church to the world.8 This latter conviction was to be developed
at subsequent ecumenical gatherings, helping to highlight the impor-
tance of the inculturation of liturgy.
After Lund a new international commission was established, the
report of which was presented at the Fourth Faith and Order World
8The Third World Conference on Faith and Order: Lund 1952, ed. O. Tomkins
(London, 1953) 39.
86
Conference at Montreal in 1963. At Montreal, worship was no longer
discussed in descriptive and comparative terms but was seen as of
fundamental ecclesiological importance. The Section IV Report,
“Worship and the Oneness of the Church,” described worship as the
central and determinative act of the Church’s life.9 Its study was es-
sential therefore in the quest for unity by the still divided Churches.
“It is of crucial importance that we should investigate its forms and
structures, its language and spirit, in the expectation that this process
may throw new light upon various theological positions and affirma-
tions, perhaps even lend new meaning to them, and thus open new
possibilities in ecumenical dialogue.”10 The emphasis here is on how
the study of liturgy might contribute to dialogue; liturgy as a factor
promoting unity has not yet emerged in Faith and Order while it is
acknowledged in the contemporaneous discussions at Vatican II as
can be observed in the conciliar document. At this point Montreal
does recognize, however, the link between liturgy and mission:
“We heartily agree that mission is integral to worship.”11
These discussions took place at the level of the Faith and Order
Commission, the earlier movement of that name having become part
of the formal structure of the World Council of Churches (WCC)
when that body was created in 1948. In the WCC itself worship was
also becoming an area of interest, especially because Orthodox
churches were becoming members of that body, but by the time of
the Fourth General Assembly of the WCC at Uppsala in 1968 a pre-
occupation with secularization caused worship to be treated as one of
the six main topics but from a limited and somewhat pessimistic per-
spective, with the Orthodox fearing that worship was in fact being
surrendered to secularization. But there was a certain value in the
Uppsala approach in that it brought to the fore the relation between
liturgy and life and recognized that however objective a thing liturgy
is, it has to be related to the culture of the day. The inculturation of
the liturgy remains a concern today and provides continuing evi-
dence that linked with issues of liturgy and ecumenism there is
always that of mission.
9 The Fourth World Conference on Faith and Order: Montreal 1963, eds. P. C.
Rodger & L. Vischer, FOP 42 (London) no. 106, 69.

10 Ibid., no. 107, 70.
11 Ibid. no. 126, 76.
87
A long-standing awareness of the connection between unity and
mission in Protestant ecumenical circles brought with it a tendency to
foster the missionary effort by promoting pragmatic forms of sharing,
extending even to the Eucharist, between Churches which nonethe-
less remained fundamentally divided. The Eucharist became in this
way a means of attaining, rather than the ultimate sign of, unity. In
1963, however, on the recommendation of the Montreal Faith and
Order Conference,12 the WCC arranged that future conferences
should include both a celebration of the liturgy of a Church which
could not conscientiously offer an invitation to members of other
Churches to communicate and also a celebration where an invitation
would be extended to all. Most Churches of the Reformation tradi-
tion have decided since then to allow access to the Eucharist to all the
baptized, on the grounds that baptism itself provides the unity which
is expressed by eucharistic sharing. But the increasing influence of
the Catholic Church (which joined in 1968) and of the Orthodox
Churches in the Faith and Order Commission has led to a more eccle-
siological discussion of the question of eucharistic sharing and a
more cautious attitude. In the course of the Commission’s project on
baptism, Eucharist, and ministry which came to fruition after many
years of discussion, baptism was initially seen as the only require-
ment for eucharistic sharing, but by 1982 at Lima a paragraph on eu-
charistic sharing as one of the implications of baptism had been
removed and replaced by a statement that the one baptism into
Christ constitutes a call to the Churches to overcome their divisions
and visibly manifest their fellowship.
The Faith and Order Commission has continued to show aware-
ness that common prayer and reflection on the ecumenical signifi-
cance of worship and spirituality are fundamental in all ecumenical
efforts.13 The Fifth Faith and Order World Conference at Compostela
in 1993 was on the theme of koinonia. Its section devoted to the litur-
gical aspect of koinonia was concerned with the process of reception
12 Fourth World Conference on Faith And Order: Montreal 1963, Report, no. 142 (b),
(c) 79.
13 Cf. G. Gassmann, “Montreal 1963-Santiago de Compostela 1993: Report of
the Director,” On the Way to Fuller Koinonia, Report of the Fifth World Conference on
Faith and Order: Compostela 1993, ed. T. F. Best, G. Gassmann, FOP 166 (Geneva,
1994) 15.
88
by the Churches of the document issued by the Commission at Lima
in 1982, Baptism, Eucharist and Ministry. The Lima agreement has at-
tracted an attention hitherto unprecedented in the history of the ecu-
menical movement. It points to an emerging agreement which goes
beyond the systematic theology of sacraments to the fundamental
elements of liturgy and the pattern of its celebration. Thus an ecu-
menical liturgy becomes a real prospect and the Lima document ac-
tually includes a specially written anaphora, though it was accepted
that its use on ecumenical occasions would be possible only for those
Churches which already accepted intercommunion.
At Compostela it was felt that the interest focused on this liturgi-
cal-ecumenical document should stimulate reflection in a more ex-
plicit and direct way on the inter-relation between common worship
and the theological efforts towards full communion, and on worship
as impulse and source of strength on the way to koinonia in its full-
ness. This led to a Consultation on the theme “Towards Koinonia in
Worship” held at Ditchingham, England, in 1994. The Report of the
Consultation includes the statement: “Theological convergence, litur-
gical renewal, and the recognition of the indissoluble relationship
between worship and mission in Christ’s way, are all part of the
momentum driving the churches towards koinonia in worship.”14
E C U M E N I C A L L I T U R G I C A L C O L L A B O R AT I O N
The Ditchingham Report noted that liturgical scholars have come
closer to a common sense of how liturgy is ordered. “Working with
these findings, the renewed liturgies of many churches have a com-
mon shape which creates a sense of common heritage of worship
among the churches.” 15 Liturgical renewal in the Churches has thus
become an ecumenical enterprise and the network of relationships
between liturgical texts used in the various Churches has become
extremely complex. This very fact testifies to a shared sense both of
the nature and the centrality of liturgy in the various Churches. There
have been some landmark events in this progressive consensus. The
post-conciliar liturgical reforms in the Catholic Church have been
arguably the most important factor in liturgical renewal considered
14 So We Believe, So We Pray. Towards Koinonia in Worship. Report of the

Consultation, no. 26, 11.
15 Ibid. no. 30, 12.
89
as a movement involving all the Churches. In a remarkable move, the
Vatican Council (SC 36, §2) allowed the use of the vernacular in the
liturgy, thus making a radical concession to popular participation.
This had been a central demand of the sixteenth-century Reformers,
and its refusal by the Council of Trent as a matter of principle,
namely, that the Eucharist is first and foremost the act of Christ him-
self, had come to symbolize a fundamental difference of approach to
liturgy, and in this important respect the difference between the
Catholic and Protestant Churches since then. By allowing the vernac-
ular, the Vatican II, and the General Instruction of the Roman Missal
which followed16 intended that through full active participation the
eucharistic celebration should become the action of the whole people
of God assembled around Christ. To this most ecumenically potent
innovation was added the provision of new Eucharistic Prayers. This
has multiplied the Catholic Church’s ecumenical contribution to
liturgy in that these prayers were based on the earliest anaphoras
and so have been acceptable as models for the eucharistic prayers
which other churches have been inspired in consequence to intro-
duce.17 It can be said that nowhere is the ecumenical aspect of the
liturgy so evident today as in the chief expression of liturgical wor-
ship, the eucharistic prayer.
The influence of the 1969 Catholic Lectionary (Ordo Lectionum
Missae) has also been extensive among the other Churches. In the
United States an adaptation of it was introduced almost immediately
by the Presbyterian Churches, and the Consensus on Church Union
(COCU) — a group of nine Protestant Churches — published its ver-
sion in 1974. Others followed with their own versions and in 1983 the
Consultation on Common Texts (CTT)18 produced the Common
Lectionary, a harmonization of the variants of the OLM already in use.
This is now in its second version. In England, the Joint Liturgical
Group (established on an ecumenical basis on the suggestion of the
16 Cf. General Instruction of the Roman Missal, nos. 11, 12.
17 Cf. J.-M. R. Tillard, “La réforme liturgique et l’unité des Chrétiens,” Liturgia
opera divina e umana, ed. P. Jounel et al. BELS, 26, Rome, 1982, 232: “Plusieurs pro-
jets prévoient, par exemple, l’utilisation quasi littérale d’une des anaphores
catholiques nouvelles.”
18 Begun in 1964 as a result of informal meetings between Catholic and
Protestant liturgists in the U.S., its initial organization was considerably assisted
by ICEL.
90
Archbishop of Canterbury in 1963) has produced independently of
CL and OLM a lectionary characterized by a four-year cycle.
Ecumenical cooperation in the production of liturgical texts in
European languages other than English has been mainly concerned
with the agreed versions of the texts of the Gloria, Creed, Sanctus, etc.,
but there has been some cooperation in relation to Scripture texts
through the use of ecumenical translations of the Bible, though not in
establishing the cycle of readings proper to a lectionary. Thus it is
clear that a further international collaborative effort is needed to pro-
duce a truly ecumenical lectionary.
The collaboration in liturgical renewal and the increasing conver-
gence noted above are directly relevant to the churches’ search for
visible unity. Convergence between the Churches must in the end be
experienced within the context of the community gathered in prayer
and in praise of God. Shared celebrations of a Liturgy of the Word or
the Liturgy of the Hours offer notable opportunities in this regard, as
a stage on the way to mutual recognition and reconciliation. They
point the way to a fully ecumenical liturgy culminating in the cele-
bration of the Eucharist but as yet their potential is insufficiently
availed of in the Churches. This is sometimes due to a failure to dis-
cern the real though limited degree of theological accord which has
entered into the life of the churches through texts developed in the
liturgical renewal. These texts are themselves sometimes dependent
on the agreements formulated by ecumenical theological commis-
sions, international and local, and sometimes precede them, arising
instead from ecumenical relationships of a more experiential nature.
The connection between the lex orandi and the lex credendi is a com-
plex one but it is rooted in a lex vivendi: each celebrating community
is called to recognize and respond to grace offered in the liturgy. The
grace and the challenge of reconciliation which lies at the heart of the
liturgy is in the end the source of its ecumenical significance.
Bibliography
Allen, H. “The Ecumenical Import of Lectionary Reform.” Shaping the English
Liturgy. Ed. P. Finn and J. Schellman, 361–383. Washington, 1990.
Békés, G. J., and V. Vajta. Unitatis redintegratio, 1964–1974: The Impact of the
Decree on Ecumenism. SA 71. Rome, 1977.
91
Best, T., and G. Gassmann. On the Way to Fuller Koinonia: Report of the Fifth
World Conference on Faith and Order: Compostela, 1993. FOP 166. Geneva,
1994.
Best, T. F., and D. Heller, eds. So We Believe, So We Pray: Towards Koinonia in
Worship. FOP 171. Geneva, 1995.
Jordahn, O. “The Ecumenical Significance of the New Eucharistic Prayers of
the Roman Liturgy.” SL 11 (1976) 101–117.
Jounel, P., and others, eds. Liturgia, opera divina e umana. BELS 26. Rome,
1982.
Lanne, E. “The Lima Text: A Contribution to the Unity of the Churches.” SL
(1986–1987) 108–127.
Losky, N., and others, eds. Dictionary of the Ecumenical Movement. Geneva,
1991.
Pontifical Council for Christian Unity. Directory for the Application of Principles
and Norms on Ecumenism. Vatican City, 1993.
Rodger, P. C., and L. Vischer, eds. The Fourth World Conference on Faith and
Order: Montreal, 1963. FOP 42. London, 1964.
Tomkins, O., ed. The Third World Conference on Faith and Order: Lund, 1952.
London, 1953.
92
Part II
Historical Overview of the Liturgy

History of the Liturgy

Until the Fourth Century
THEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL PREMISES

The Constitution Gaudium et spes of Vatican II, art. 58, declares that
“the Church has existed through the centuries in varying circum-
stances and has utilized the resources of different cultures in its
preaching to spread and explain the message of Christ, to examine
and understand it more deeply, and to express it more perfectly in
the liturgy and the various aspects of the life of the faithful.” We ac-
quire a deeper understanding of this conciliar passage when we read
it in the light of Christ’s own incarnation. The Decree Ad gentes, art.
10, teaches that the Church must implant itself among all peoples in
the same way that Christ by his incarnation bound himself to the
particular social and cultural circumstances of the people among
whom he lived.
The history of the liturgy witnesses to the Church’s incarnation in
the culture and traditions of nations. The writings of scholars like
A. Baumstark, E. Bishop, G. Dix, L. Duchesne, O. Casel, J. Jungmann,
and M. Righetti, among several others, have drawn attention to the
cultural underpinning of Christian worship.1 Liturgists have become
1 A. Baumstark, Liturgie comparée: principes et méthodes pour l’étude historique des
liturgies chrétiennes (Chevetogne, 1953); E. Bishop, Liturgia Historica (Oxford, 1918),

O. Casel, Das christliche Kultmysterium (Regensburg, 1960); G. Dix, The Shape of the
Liturgy (London, 1986); L. Duchesne, Les Origines du culte chrétien: Etudes sur la
liturgie avant Charlemagne (Paris, 1925); J. Jungmann, The Early Liturgy to the Time
of Gregory the Great (Notre Dame, 1980); M. Righetti, Manuale di storia liturgica
(Milan-Genoa, 1950–56).
95
increasingly conscious of the fact that Christian worship is so inextri-
cably bound up with culture, that it is not possible to study its his-
tory nor celebrate it outside its cultural context. This is one of the
consequences of the Church’s incarnation, as it has been for Christ
whose words and actions are understood in the context of the time in
which he lived. This type of cultural consciousness has engendered a
new approach to the study of Christian worship. There was a time
when, under the influence of Amalar of Metz, who was active in the
ninth century, liturgists explained rites and symbols in an allegorical
way. Today we no longer make recourse to the passion narrative, as
they did, in order to explain the meaning of such elements of the
Mass as the Gloria, first reading, washing of hands, Eucharistic
Prayer, breaking of bread, and commingling. These are now more
adequately interpreted in the light of their historical origin.
Following art. 21 of the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium, we
may say that there are three approaches to the study of liturgy,
namely theological, historical, and pastoral. Though these three
approaches have their specific areas of interest, they overlap and are
mutually inclusive. The theology of the liturgy, for example, takes
account of both historical developments and pastoral situations.
History, on the other hand, unfolds the factors which underlie the
Church’s theological thinking and liturgical discipline. Lastly, pasto-
ral liturgy builds solidly on theological and historical grounds. The
study of any area of the liturgy should include history. We know that
the postconciliar revision of liturgical books was strongly supported
by historical data. The renewal of the liturgy was launched by
Vatican II with an historical orientation. It is useful to remember,
however, that history is grafted on people’s culture. For this reason
the study of liturgical history will be more integral and beneficial, if
it is approached from the cultural epochs in which the Church lived.
Historical data need to be analyzed and interpreted.2 The liturgical
historian should thus be equipped with a critical mind vis-à-vis the
development of rites. Every development has its historical justifica-
tion, though not necessarily its value. Not every formulary, not every
rite and symbol from the past, and not every feast that has been insti-
tuted has perennial significance for the Church. Thus the reform of
2 A.-G. Martimort, “L’Histoire et le problème liturgique contemporains,” Mens
concordet voci (Tournai, 1983) 177–92.
96
the Roman Missal willed by art. 50 of the Constitution Sacrosanctum
Concilium eliminated many of the medieval accretions which blurred
the meaning and purpose of the Mass. Some formularies, though
venerable in age, had to be modified in order to be more contempo-
rary. The Instruction Comme le prévoit admits that “sometimes the
meaning of a text can no longer be understood, either because it is
contrary to modern Christian ideas (as in terrena despicere or ut inimi-
cos sanctae Ecclesiae humiliare digneris) or because it has less relevance
today (as in some phrases intended to combat Arianism) or because it
no longer expresses the true original meaning as in some obsolete
forms of lenten penance.”3 In the same way some feasts were sup-
pressed, like the Finding of the Cross because of its legendary origin,
or lowered in rank, like the feasts of the Immaculate Heart and
Joseph the Worker because of their decreased political relevance.
Likewise the liturgical historian should be able to critique historical
data in light of the principles of Vatican II. After the promulgation of
the Constitution Sacrosanctum Concilium historians are called to exam-
ine their data in light of this document. Its basic principles include
the following: the central position of the paschal mystery, the role of
the word of God in the liturgy, active participation which involves
the use of the vernacular, congregational singing and acclamations,
and lay ministries, as well as the communal aspect of the sacraments
and sacramentals. These are the conciliar principles with which histo-
rians are to judge whether the data they have at hand are still liturgi-
cally acceptable or not in the postconciliar Church. For example, the
performance of a baroque Mass with choir and orchestra can reduce
the assembly to a mute audience. This is obviously contrary to the
principle of active participation.
In the course of centuries the liturgy has integrated local elements
that still adorn it. Remarkable are the Greco-Roman influences on
Christian worship during its formative stage. These elements need to
be closely examined in order to discover their theological premises.
They also need to be carefully reviewed in order to establish their
relevance to today’s world. Christian liturgy cannot consist merely of
things from the past. In the process of examination and review it is
useful to remember that sometimes the historical background of rites
3 English text in Documents on the Liturgy 1963–1979 (Collegeville, 1982) no. 24,
287.
97
and symbols more than the liturgical formularies accompanying
them can be a more fruitful approach. For example, the rite of com-
mingling at Mass is interpreted adequately by a recourse to its his-
tory rather than to its allegorical meaning.
The historical approach is also a valid way of evaluating and cri-
tiquing the implementation of Vatican II’s liturgical reform. While its
liturgical principles are unassailable, one can always raise questions
on how they have been realized in the postconciliar books.4 Not
everything in the finished product is beyond reproach and ulterior
improvement. In this context one might call into question some
concrete instances of conciliar implementation by the Missal of
Paul VI. Yet the historian may not ignore the fact that art. 50 of the
Constitution on the Liturgy has willed a radical reform of the Missal
of Pius V.
Lastly, the historical approach is useful for the correct interpreta-
tion of the conciliar agenda regarding the retrieval of the classical
form of the Roman liturgy. This is an option that is articulated by the
Constitution in arts. 21, 34, and 50 on the basis of historical studies
done during this century on the Roman rite. By identifying its classi-
cal features the conciliar reformers were able to isolate the medieval
accretions, particularly during the Franco-Germanic period. Critics
have accused this option for being archeological and romantic.
Objectively, however, the romana sobrietas and the practical sense of
the postconciliar liturgy are realistic measures for fostering active
participation and for encouraging local Churches to inculturate the
new typical edition of liturgical books. Something similar happened
from the eighth century onward when the Franco-Germanic
Churches inculturated the classical form of the Roman liturgy.
THE JEWISH ROOTS

The beginnings of Christian worship are firmly grafted on the Jewish
cult in the time of Jesus Christ.5 That is why, the Jewish religion re-
mains a constitutive element of our worship. Christian liturgy is
4 A. Nocent, Le renouveau liturgique. Une rélecture (Paris, 1993).
5 P. Grelot, La liturgie dans le Nouveau Testament (Paris, 1991); W. Oesterley, The
Jewish Background of the Christian Liturgy (Oxford, 1925); R. Beckwith, “The Jewish
Background to Christian Worship,” The Study of Liturgy, C. Jones, ed. (London
1979) 39–51; E. Fisher, ed, The Jewish Roots of Christian Liturgy (New York, 1990)
39–51.
98
unthinkable without the Jewish rites it inherited, without the psalms
which the Church continues to pray, without the Jewish prayerful
memorial of God’s deeds expressed in an attitude of thanksgiving,
praise, and supplications, and without the conviction that our wor-
ship represents the last phase of God’s work in salvation history.
This period can be characterized, in the words of S. Marsili, as
“continuity with the Jewish tradition, on the one hand, and Christian
novelty, on the other.”6 This spirit of continuity and novelty explains
the attitude of Jesus toward the cult of his people, an attitude of fidel-
ity to Jewish traditions combined with the critical spirit of a reformer.
We read in Matthew 5:17: “I did not come to abolish the law and the
prophets but to bring them to perfection.”
Jesus respected the sacrificial practices of his people. He did not re-
ject temple sacrifices, but he taught his followers that such sacrifices
should include reconciliation and communion with one’s brothers
and sisters (Matt 5:23-24). It is not out of place to imagine that as a
faithful Jew he offered sacrifices and oblations, as on the feast of
Passover. As long as the old dispensation lasted, he regarded the
temple of Jerusalem as the “house of God,” as the “house of prayer”
(Matt 21:13; Mark 11:17). His violent reaction to those who defiled
the holiness of the temple is proof of this (Mark 11:15). Yet it would
seem that Jesus associated himself with the synagogue more than
with the temple, perhaps because he did not belong to the priestly
line of Aaron (Matt 4:23; Mark 1:38-39; Luke 4:16; John 5:59). We
know that the prayer he composed for his disciples reflects the syna-
gogal tradition of the Shemoneh Ezreh or Amida.
Like every faithful Jew, Jesus observed the sabbath. But in his argu-
ments with the Pharisees he made it clear that the sabbath was insti-
tuted for people and that people were not made for the sabbath
(Mark 2:27). Sabbath rest does not mean refraining from works of
love toward those who are in need. Thus he healed the sick and
performed miracles on the sabbath. And he declared: “The Son of
man is Lord also of the sabbath” (Mark 2:28).
Lastly Jesus joined his people on their great festivals. He went up
to Jerusalem to celebrate the Passover (Matt 26:17-19). He observed
the day of Pentecost (John 5:1), the feast of the Tabernacles (John
6
S. Marsili, “Continuità ebraica e novità cristiana,” Anamnesis 2 (Casale
Monferrato, 1978) 13–39.
99
7:10), and the Dedication of the Temple (John 10:22-23). Yet he
announced that the time would come when people would no longer
worship in Jerusalem (John 4:20-21), that the temple would be de-
stroyed (Matt 21:1-3), and that true worshipers would worship the
Father “in spirit and truth” (John 4:23-24). By this Jesus signified that
to encounter God there would no longer be a need for the temple be-
cause God could be found in the heart of those upon whom the Holy
Spirit had been bestowed. Perhaps his most astounding declaration
on this matter was that his risen body would be the new temple
(John 2:21), the “place” where all would encounter God in worship.
The reform of the Jewish cult did not consist only of critique and
purification of some of its components. It involved something more
profound. Jesus reinterpreted elements of his people’s religion in the
context of his own doctrine and mission. Thus the paschal meal was
to be a meal in his memory, baptism was to be administered in the
name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, and the
Scriptures were to be read in the light of his person. Jesus did not
eliminate them nor did he change their features, but he gave them a
radically new meaning. In so doing he in fact instituted a new reli-
gion and a new form of worship, though he solidly established them
on Jewish traditions. It is in this sense that we speak of continuity
and novelty.
The disciples of Jesus followed the footsteps of their Master. We do
not have any detailed description of the shape of the liturgy during
the apostolic period, but the basic plan can be gleaned from several
New Testament passages. Luke 24:13-35 reflects the Eucharist of the
Apostolic Church which included the awareness that it was the risen
Lord himself who explained the Scriptures and broke the bread.
Baptism, which meant “washing of water by the word” (Eph 5:26)
was administered “in the name of Jesus Christ” for the remission of
sin and the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). The apostles laid hands
on those who received a ministerial office in the community (Acts
6:6; 13:3; 1 Tim 5:22). The sick of the community were prayed over
and anointed with oil by the presbyters “in the name of the Lord”
(Jas 5:14-15). Christians were exhorted to sing psalms (Col 3:16; Jas
5:13). The first disciples continued to enter the synagogues on the
sabbath (Acts 13:14) and to pray in the temple (Acts 3:1). Though
they observed the sabbath, they gathered on Sunday for the preach-
100
ing of the word and the breaking of bread (Acts 20:7). The apostle
Paul, who was preaching in Asia Minor, hurried back to Jerusalem
for the feast of Pentecost (Acts 20:16).
The actuations of the disciples, in imitation of Christ’s own atti-
tude, were marked by a sense of continuity with the Jewish tradition
side by side the growing awareness of Christian novelty. Even after
the temple of Jerusalem was razed to the ground in the year 70, the
communities of Syria and Palestine continued to observe the Jewish
cult together with Christian practices: sabbath and Sunday, syna-
gogue and Eucharist, circumcision and baptism. Perhaps this was the
context of the criticism by the author of Didaché, written in Syria
around the year 90, against those who still observed the Jewish daily
prayers and days of fasting.7
It is useful at this point to note that the temple, as long as it stood,
was a point of reference to the first disciples. However, the syna-
gogue more than the temple imprinted its mark on their worship
which consisted largely of the preaching of the word. Indeed they
considered the synagogue the nucleus of the Christian community.
Even after they were excommunicated from synagogal fellowship,
they spoke of their community, its leadership, and some of their rites
in words that evoked the synagogue (Jas 2:2; 5:13-15).8 But it was the
domestic tradition in Jewish worship, which consisted mainly of the
sabbath ritual meal, passover meal, and blessings, that had a lasting
influence on Christian worship, particularly the preaching of the word
(Acts 20:8) and the breaking of bread (Acts 2:46). Baptism also, as the
occasion demanded, was administered at home (Acts 9:18; 10:22, 48).
Thus what was distinctive of the Christian liturgy, namely preaching,
baptism, and Eucharist, took place in a domestic environment.
The attitude of critical fidelity should accompany the study of
Christian worship. Jesus did not abolish the traditions of his people,
though he critiqued them in order to bring them to perfection. And
the first disciples kept much of their religious traditions, though they
saw in them the foreshadowing of Christ’s mystery. The shape of
Christian worship which we inherited from the past is part of our
tradition, but its human components need always to be critiqued
7 J. Audet, ed, Didaché (Paris, 1958) 234.

8 S. Bacchiocchi, From Sabbath to Sunday (Rome, 1977) 157–9.
101
and, if necessary, purified. It can happen that liturgical norms and
practices become another form of sabbath that ignores the basic law
of love and service and forgets that it has been instituted to respond
to human needs. It can also happen that in our liturgical celebrations
we lose the sense of continuity with the Church’s history and tradi-
tions or, on the other hand, become so complacent with their actual
shape that we reject anything that looks new. The novelty of Christian
worship is the eternal person and mystery of Christ, but these need to
be reexpressed again and again in different languages, rites, and sym-
bols in order to make the image of Christ in the liturgy more clearly
visible in our time. The history of the liturgy attests to the fact that this
was what the Church has done in the course of centuries.
CHRISTIAN WORSHIP IN THE GRECO-ROMAN WORLD

Coming out of the Jewish environment, the Church in the West had
to face the challenges of evangelization presented by the culture and
religions of Greeks and Romans.9 How did the missionary Church
cope with the new situation and what effect did such an encounter
have on its worship? In many ways this question continues to
present itself in various missionary circumstances. In recent history a
foremost example was the tragic Chinese Rites controversy (1645–
1939) revolving around the relationship between Christian liturgy
and ancestral veneration which the Chinese consider the bedrock of
their civilization.10
A certain tension could still be felt during the Greco-Roman period
between fidelity to Jewish traditions and the Christian sense of inde-
pendence. Such tension was present in the quartodeciman contro-
versy. The Quartodecimans, who lived mostly in Asia Minor, kept the
Easter feast on 14 Nisan, the full moon of springtime, regardless of
whether or not it was Sunday. They based their theology on the ty-
pology of the paschal lamb which the Jews immolated on 14 Nisan.
Easter for them meant Christ’s sacrifice. Polycarp of Smyrna de-
fended its apostolicity against Pope Anicetus who wanted them to
observe Easter only on Sunday, the day of Christ’s resurrection.
9 A. Chupungco, “Greco-Roman culture and liturgical adaptation,” Not 153
(1979) 202–18.
10 F. Bontinck, La lutte autour de la liturgie chinoise aux XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles
(Louvain, 1962); J. Dournes, L’Offrande des peuples (Paris, 1967).
102
Polycrates of Ephesus did the same in his debate with Pope Victor I,
who in 196 threatened to excommunicate the Quartodecimans of Asia
Minor. The controversy was resolved by the Council of Nicea in 325
which fixed Easter on Sunday in order that, as Constantine’s letter on
the Council affirmed, “there will be nothing in common between us
and the hostile race of the Jews.”11
Another trait of this missionary period was the Church’s tenacious
disdain of pagan religions. This attitude obviously originated in
Jewish monotheism which regarded pagan religions as the creation of
the devil. Justin Martyr, for example, accused the Mithraic rites of
counterfeiting the Christian Eucharist with its initiatory meal of
bread and water.12 Tertullian, on the other hand, mocked the initia-
tion baths of Isis and Mithras which, for their extravangance and
expense, accomplished nothing, unlike Christian baptism which puri-
fied and effected salvation with a few words and at no expense.13
This negative attitude seems to be at work in those situations
where the Church lives in a pagan environment. It is a measure of
self-defense and an affirmation of its identity. Even today Christians
in countries where they are a minority tend to avoid contacts with
the rites of other religions, even if they are pertinent and can be suit-
ably integrated into Christian worship. But soon after such a situa-
tion is overcome, as we observe in the fourth century when paganism
began to weaken, the Church puts on a more open and discerning at-
titude toward pagan rites. This is the case with the mystery rites
which exerted much influence on the development of Christian ini-
tiation, especially by the fourth century.14 The Eleusinian rites, the
Egyptian rites of Osiris and Isis, the Phrygian rites of Attis, and the
Persian rites of Mithras all began to wane during the fourth century.
This was the time when Christians began to borrow some of their
linguistic and ritual elements.
11 M. Richard, “La question pascale au IIe siècle,” L’Orient Syrien 6 (1961) 177–
212; W. Huber, Passa und Ostern. Untersuchungenzur Osterfeier der alten Kirche
(Berlin, 1969); A. Chupungco, Shaping the Easter Feast (Washington, D.C., 1992)
43–59.
12 Justin Martyr, 1 Apology, c. 66, L. Pautigny, ed. (Paris, 1904) 140–2.
13 Tertullian, De Baptismo, c. 2, R. Refoulé, ed., SCh 35 (1952) 65–6.
14 Cf. E. Yarnold, “Baptism and the Pagan Mysteries in the Fourth Century,” HJ
XIII (1972) 247–67.
103
The mystery rites influenced the Christian thinking on the sacra-
ment of baptism which in the time of Justin Martyr received the
name fotismov" or enlightenment. The mystery rites were in fact es-
sentially a process of enlightenment. There existed a lexicon for ini-
tiation common to Christians and pagans. Both groups were familiar
with words like loutrovn or washing, muvomeno" or initiate, musthvrion or
the rite, and muvsth" or the person in charge of initiation. There were
also resemblances in the components of initiation rites, like the scruti-
nies, the learning of sacred formulas, fasting, stripping, immersion,
the putting on of white garment, and the meal of initiation. Other
similarities are the disciplina arcani or the discipline of secrecy regard-
ing the elements of initiation rites and the consequent practice of
mystagogy after initiation in order to explain to the initiate what had
taken place during the rite. There is no need to point out that while
Christians and pagans shared in some instances the same vocabulary
and rites, they meant radically different things.
This period is marked also by efforts to integrate into Christian
worship those cultural elements that were not strict components of
the pagan cult. Tertullian, for example, used the legal term eieratio, or
cessation of contractual obligation, and such military terms as sacra-
menti testatio and signaculum fidei or promise of loyalty to the em-
peror, when he spoke about baptismal renunciation and profession of
faith respectively. On the ritual side we have examples like the bap-
tismal anointings, footwashing of neophytes, and the cup of milk
mixed with honey. These rites, though employed also in mystery
rites, were explained by Tertullian, Hippolytus of Rome, and
Ambrose more from their cultural than their cultic context.15 It is use-
ful to note here that in most instances the cultural elements, whether
religious or not, were vested with a new meaning through the
method of biblical typology. We may consider this as the Church’s
way of inserting culture into the framework of salvation history. God
continues to accomplish his saving plan in every age by making use
of people’s cultural heritage.
15 These patristic examples are treated at greater length in section 3 of volume 2
under the heading: Inculturation of the Liturgy.
104
During this period we also observe the development of liturgical
languages.16 Outside Palestine and Syria koinhv, the popular type of
Greek different from the literary or classical, was the language
spoken by a good number of people both in the eastern and western
parts of the Roman Empire. By the year 64, when the Church of
Rome was established, koinhv was prevalent in the imperial city, not
only among the eastern immigrants but also among the Romans
themselves. Consequently the Church of Rome adopted it as its offi-
cial and liturgical language. It will be recalled that during the first two
centuries ten out of fourteen bishops of Rome were Greek-speaking.
The Latinization of the liturgy began in Northern Africa from the
third century, thanks to the efforts of such writers as Tertullian,
Cyprian, Arnobius, Lactantius, and Augustine. From them we inher-
ited liturgical words like plebs, sacramentum, ordo, and institutio. It was
also in Northern Africa around the year 250 that the first authorized
Latin version of Scripture, often quoted by Cyprian, appeared for
liturgical use. Pope Victor I (+203), an African by birth, made the first
attempt to introduce Latin into the liturgy of the Roman Church. The
result was a bilingual liturgy, Greek for the prayer formularies and
Latin for the readings. This situation lasted until the fourth century
during the papacy of Damasus I (+384), when Rome spoke Latin once
again. However, sometime in the seventh century because of a new
wave of migration from the East, the Roman liturgy became bilingual
once more at least for the readings and some rites of
catechumenate.
The shift from Greek koinhv to Latin and the transitional periods of
bilingualism speak highly of the Roman Church’s pastoral sensitivity.
Though the shift to Latin in the fourth century came a hundred years
later and the use of contemporary vernacular languages several hun-
dred years after, one must admire the enterprising courage of the
Roman Church whose veneration of its traditions is proverbial. Most
probably it had not been easy for the Roman Church to abandon the
language it had used in apostolic times and the age of martyrs. But
its pastoral sense spurred it to decide in favor of a language the
people understood. Nor was it without hesitation on the part of
16C. Vogel, Medieval Liturgy: Introduction to the Sources (Washington, D.C., 1986)
294–7; Th. Klauser, A Short History of the Western Liturgy (Oxford, 1979) 18–24, 37–
47.
105
Vatican II to permit the use of the modern languages in the liturgy.
This part of history teaches us that fidelity to tradition means adapt-
ing to the needs of people in every age and of every cultural tradition.
Another feature of this period was the domestic celebration of the
breaking of bread, as Acts 2:46 and 20:7-12 narrate. Domestic liturgy
was the tradition the disciples brought with them to the Greco-
Roman world. The lector Emeritus admitted to the proconsul of
Carthage during the persecution of 304 that “it is in my house that
we hold the dominicum,” that is, the Lord’s meal.17 Converts offered
the use of their homes for the Eucharist. Among the Romans the tra-
ditional house was a four-sided structure built around an open court-
yard with a well of water at the center. In large houses the triclinium
or dining room could be easily rearranged for the Eucharist. Rome
claims several such houses which can still be visited under the
churches of John and Paul, Cecilia, Clement, and Pudentiana. When
there were no persecutions, for these were sporadic, Christians
bought houses and adapted them permanently for liturgical use. A
famous example of such churches is the third-century house at Dura-
Europos on the Euphrates. It had a function room which could con-
tain a large eucharistic assembly and a smaller room for baptism.18
The houses owned or acquired by Christians for liturgical use came
to be known as domus ecclesiae, the house of the Church.
Whether it be for theological reasons or practical considerations,
Christians did not celebrate in temples, whose cella would have been
too narrow and dark and whose open colonnades would have been
unsuitable for the meal. Nor did they celebrate in the dark under-
ground rooms of the catacombs with the prospect of eating the Lord’s
supper amidst entombed bodies. They chose to continue the apostolic
tradition of home Eucharists. Modern attempts to pattern the archi-
tectural design of new churches after temples of other religions seem
to miss the point about the Lord’s supper as a meal. The domus eccle-
siae rather than the temple symbolizes the Christian concept of hospi-
tality toward the strangers and the poor of the community with
whom the Lord’s meal is shared.
17 Acta Saturnini, Datii, etc. PL 710–11.
18 J. Boguniowski, Domus Ecclesiae. Der Ort der Eucharistiefeier in der ersten
Jahrhunderten (Rome, 1986); N. Duval, “L’espace liturgiques dans les églises
paléochrétiennes,” MD 193 (1993) 7–29.
106
Thus the Eucharist, the distinctive celebration of Christians, was
held at home because it is the meal of the household of God. This is a
tradition that the liturgy has lost in the course of time. Its message,
however, should continue to live on in our thinking about the eucha-
ristic assembly as God’s family, in our hospitality toward those who
are strangers to the community, in our search for convivial fellowship
with all regardless of their socio-economic status, and in our effort to
provide people with a liturgical space where they can return to, as to
their home, in order to refresh their tired spirits.
T H E C O N S TA N T I N I A N E R A
The general conditions that prevailed in the Church during the era of
Constantine are well known. Free at last and a grateful recipient of
imperial favors, the Church advanced with giant strides in every as-
pect of its life and mission. This period saw the flowering of patristic
theology and the insertion of the Church into the cultural and socio-
political stream of the Greco-Roman civilization. These factors exerted
a profound influence on the shape of the liturgy. From an intimate
household celebration the liturgy evolved into something both solemn
and regal. Not only the Roman rite but also most of the Oriental rites
at this time flourished within the framework of the imperial culture.19
The effects of the Constantinian benevolence toward the Church
are immediately visible in the liturgy. After Constantine’s conversion
there came a dramatic shift from the simplicity of homes to the splen-
dor of imperial basilicas.20 These roofed structures were rectangular
in shape and divided inside into three or five naves marked by rows
of columns. At the far end was the apse where the emperor had his
throne. Taken over by Christians, the domestic dining room gave
way to the large public halls where there was ample room at the nave
for the assembly and enough space in the sanctuary for the table, the
ambo, the bishop’s chair, and the seats for presbyters and ministers.
The first Christian basilica was the Lateran palace, which Constantine
gave as a gift to Pope Sylvester. The emperor ordered the construc-
tion of new basilicas on the Vatican hill where the apostle Peter was
19 For further characterization, see J. Jungmann, “The Age of Constantine,” The
Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great, 12–198.

20 R. Cabié, The Eucharist, vol. 2, The Church at Prayer (Collegeville, 1986) 7–123;
E. Foley, From Age to Age: How Christians Celebrated the Eucharist (Chicago, 1991).
107
buried, at Ostian Way where the apostle Paul had been martyred, at
the Campo Verano where the deacon Lawrence was buried, and in
several other places outside the City such as Ostia, Albano, Capua,
and Naples. On her part his mother Helena had the basilicas in
Bethlehem, Nazareth, and Jerusalem constructed to commemorate
aspects of Christ’s life.
When Constantine decreed in 321 the observance of Sunday rest
for the empire, the celebration of the Eucharist acquired a more
solemn form.21 The atmosphere and architectural ambience of basili-
cas demanded, at any rate, a more splendid form of celebration. The
prayer formularies were rhetorically enriched in consonance with the
ambient of the imperial hall. Oriental euchologies, like the
Euchologion of Serapion, assimilated the literary traits of Hellenism:
solemn and rhetorical, and a tendency to use abstract terms, like in-
effable and infinite, for God. The Roman canon, which dates around
this period, presupposes an ambient like the basilica. It has all the
flourish of a grand Roman oration: solemn, hieratic, and literary, and
the tendency to use juridical terms. As regards liturgical gestures,
some of these were copied from the ones used in the imperial court,
especially in Byzantium. Lastly, the space and environment of the
basilica strongly influenced the development of liturgical music.
While music in the house church had been rendered practically by
anyone who could sing, it now required a trained choir. In the West,
especially Rome, the choir was composed of clerics who were trained
from youth to a very high technical standard of chant-singing.22
In 318 Constantine conferred on bishops civil jurisdiction over
court litigations which involved Christians. Decisions handed by
bishops were considered final. This implied that they, and to some
extent the presbyters, had to be assigned a corresponding place in the
civil hierarchy. Thus the clergy acquired the titles and insignia that
state dignitaries enjoyed.23 Examples of such insignia for bishops,
21 W. Rordorf, Der Sonntag. Geschichte des Ruhe- und Gottesdiensttages im ältesten

Christentum (Zürich, 1962).
22 J. Quasten, Music and Worship in Pagan and Christian Antiquity (Washington,
D.C., 1983).
23 Th. Klauser, “Bischöfe auf dem Richterstuhl,” Jahrbuch für Antike und
Christentum 5 (Münster, 1962) 129–74; Idem, A Short History of the Western Liturgy,
32–7.
108
particularly the bishop of Rome, are the imperial cappa magna, throne,
lorum or the pallium, ceremonial maniple, camelaucum which devel-
oped into crown or miter, and gold ring. Bishops acquired the privi-
lege to be greeted by a choir as they entered the basilica, to have their
portraits hung in ecclesiastical offices, to be served at the throne with
veiled hands, and to be honored with prostration and kissing of
feet.24
The Constantinian period witnessed other liturgical developments.
Worthy of note are the rites of Christian initiation which received
their most developed ritual shape at this time. Both in the East and
the West these rites were celebrated with great solemnity, especially
during the Easter Vigil. Eusebius of Caesarea reports that Emperor
Constantine, though still a catechumen, ordered huge torches to be
lighted throughout the city on Easter night to honor the neophytes.25
The description of the rites of initiation made by Cyril of Jerusalem
and by Ambrose of Milan in their respective Sees shows such a
solemnity and an organization as would not have been possible a
century earlier.26
The integration of the Church in the socio-political structure of the
Constantinian Empire had its effect also on the liturgical language.
A remarkable case is the type of language used in the ordination
prayers for bishops, presbyters, and deacons. Though these formular-
ies appeared in the Veronese libelli around the year 558, they proba-
bly antedate the libelli themselves. The three formularies constantly
use words borrowed from the socio-political system of the empire.
These words are ordo, gradus, dignitas, and honor which are part of the
ranking system among government officials. Parallel to this Roman
system the clerical hierarchy was defined according to rank and the
corresponding dignity of office and honor. Thus at this early period
the ecclesiastical offices were regarded, in some way, as equivalents
of the Roman institution. The Roman senatus populusque found its
counterpart in the Church’s ordo populusque, that is, the hierarchy and
24 R. Berger, “Liturgische Gewänder und Insignien,” Gottesdienst der Kirche 3

(Regensburg, 1987) 309–46.
25 De Vita Constantini IV, 22, PL XX 1169.
26 Cyril of Jerusalem, Catéchèses mystagogiques, A. Piédagnel, ed., SCh 126 (1966);
Ambrose of Milan, De Sacramentis, De Mysteriis, B. Botte, ed., SCh 25 (1961).
109
the faithful.27 There is, of course, no question that even then the office
of pastoral ministry or shepherding continued to be the basic role of
persons in holy orders, but it was expressed in the socio-political
language, insignia, and ceremonials of the Constantinian era.
Another trait of this period was the trend toward a relative unifor-
mity among Eastern and Western Churches regarding the observance
of some liturgical practices.28 There were two chief reasons for this.
The first was the exchange of liturgical resources among several
Churches, especially in the East. Antioch, for example, played an im-
portant role in the development of the liturgy of Alexandria. Even
after the separation of the Nestorians of the Syro-oriental rite from
the Monophysites of the Syro-western rite, exchanges between the
two groups continued in the area of liturgical rites and texts.
Furthermore, several Syriac and Coptic euchologies were translations
of the Greek formularies. And the Byzantine anaphora of St. Basil is
actually an elaborated form of a shorter anaphora which was used in
Alexandria.
The exchange of resources did not only enrich the liturgical tradi-
tion of the receiving Church; it also brought about a certain sense of
universal communion among the Churches and respect for each
other’s traditions. Relative uniformity in the liturgy attests to the
attitude of veneration with which the smaller local churches held the
prayer formularies and other liturgical practices of such major sees as
Jerusalem, Rome, Alexandria, and Byzantium.
For the Churches in the West the trend toward relative uniformity
is explained by the tendency on the part of bishops to exercise con-
trol over liturgical texts, especially for the Eucharist. The underlying
reason for this was the danger of heresy. We know that until then
there had been greater freedom in composing formularies for use in
the liturgy. The author of Didaché, Justin Martyr, and Hippolytus of
Rome stated this as a fact. Hippolytus himself composed a eucharis-
tic prayer, but he merely offered it as a model that the bishop did not
have to recite from memory. All that Hippolytus required was sound
27 D. Power, Ministers of Christ and His Church (London, 1969).

28 B. Botte, “Le problème de l’adaptation en liturgie,” Revue du clergé africain 18
(1963) 311–6; S. Marsili, “Unità e diversità nella Liturgia delle origini,” Anamnesis
2, 41–5.
110
doctrine.29 But by the time of Augustine of Hippo prayer formularies
were being composed for circulation not only by those who had no
expertise in the matter but also by heretics. He noted that unsuspect-
ing people used them, when in fact they contained doctrinal errors.30
The Council of Carthage decreed in 407 that the prayers to be used
for worship should be those that had been approved by the council.
Fear of heresy was one of the chief factors for the ecclesiastical con-
trol of liturgical texts. Indeed, if these texts proclaim publicly what
the Church believes, there is every reason to ensure their orthodoxy.
The liturgy, after all, cannot be a theological forum where each pre-
sider is free to air his or her personal opinions. This seems to be a
valid reason for the intervention by ecclesiastical authority on mat-
ters concerning the content of certain liturgical formularies.
A final point to consider in connection with the Constantinian era
is the development of the liturgical calendar on the basis of the festi-
vals observed in the empire.31 Much earlier, around the year 120, the
gnostic sect of Basilides already celebrated the Epiphany as the
Christian counterpart of the Alexandrian festival in honor of Aion.
This method of “Christianization” continued to be used in the suc-
ceeding centuries. Around the year 336 the Christians in Rome began
to celebrate on December 25 the birth of Christ. In the Julian calendar
the winter solstice fell on this day and was marked by the Saturnalia
and since 274, also by the Mithraic Natale solis invicti. It is certain that
the introduction of Christmas was part of the Roman Church’s
agenda of counteracting festivals of pagan origin. From the second
half of the fourth century western Churches also kept the birth of
John the Baptist on June 24, the day of the summer solstice. It is
likely that the date was chosen to balance the two solstices. Another
feast coming from this period which was directly influenced by a
pagan festival is St. Peter’s Chair in Rome. The Roman Chronograph of
354 assigns to February 22 the Natale Petri de cathedra. In February the
29 Hippolytus, Traditio Apostolica 9, B. Botte, ed. (Münster, 1989) 28.

30 Augustine, De Baptismo contra Donatistas 6, 47, CSEL 51, 323; A. Nocent,
“Dall’improvvisazione alla fissazione delle formule e dei riti,” Anamnesis 2, 131–5;
A. Bouley, From Freedom to Formula (Washington, D.C., 1981).
31 E. O. James, Seasonal Feasts and Festivals (New York, 1961); A. Adam, The
Liturgical Year (New York, 1981); P. Jounel, Le renouveau du culte des saints (Rome,
1986).
111
Romans celebrated for eight days the festival of Parentalia in honor of
their ancestors. Part of the celebration was a funeral meal called
charistia or cara cognatio during which the ancestors were represented
by an empty chair. This Christian counterpart was a way of honoring
the apostle Peter, the ancestor in faith of the Church of Rome.
In conclusion, it can be said that the religious and socio-political
culture of the era of Constantine has left an indelible mark on the
Church and its liturgy. At this time the Christian liturgy became the
liturgy of the Greco-Roman empire, celebrated in the splendor of the
basilicas. This new form of liturgy was vested with the beauty and
nobility of the imperial culture, with what was considered worthy of
divine cult. Such types of celebration, with all the insignia, though
modified, of the imperial past, can sometimes appear to people of
today as something theatrical. But the basic question is whether we
are able to separate the “imperial” shape from our liturgy without
opening the door to banality, without disregarding the principle that
divine worship deserves all that is beautiful and noble in human
culture.
CONCLUSION
The early centuries in the history of the Christian liturgy can be con-
sidered formative under different aspects. Continuity with those
Jewish traditions which Christ and the first disciples handed over to
the Church will always be a characteristic trait of Christian liturgy.
Underlying this assertion is a theological premise, namely that in the
liturgy Christ, who associates the Church to himself, continues to
exercise his priestly office whereby he fulfilled God’s plan of salva-
tion. In this sense the liturgy should be regarded as the last phase of
God’s interventions in salvation history. The liturgy cannot be under-
stood outside the context of its Jewish origin.
The Greco-Roman period offers historical models to the Church as
a missionary community. In imitation of this period the dialogue be-
tween the Church and the various cultures in the world must go on
in a spirit of openness and, at the same time, critical evaluation.
Furthermore, it should be remembered that our liturgy has inherited
much of the cultural wealth of Greeks and Romans, and that much of
it has passed the test of time. History teaches us to respect and even
venerate sound traditions. At the same time this period tells us that it
112
is part of our tradition as Church to inculturate the liturgy in our
own times and, when called for, also to create new forms that are
able to comunicate faithfully and effectively to the people of today
the message of Christian worship.
The Constantinian era had a dramatic effect on the shape of the
Christian liturgy both in the East and the West, as it had on the entire
life and activities of the Church. The effect can be felt even today, de-
spite centuries of changes in the shape of the liturgy. Again this era
has become a solid pillar in our liturgical tradition. For most litur-
gical families it had a formative role and hence cannot be easily
dismissed. This does not mean, however, that some of the cultural
elements coming from that period, like the socio-political language,
have not in fact outgrown their relevance. They may need to be
reviewed in the spirit of Vatican II’s liturgical renewal.
Bibliography
Adam, A. Foundations of Liturgy: An Introduction to Its History and Practice.
Trans. M. J. O’Connell. Collegeville, Minn., 1992.
Bradshaw, P. The Search for the Origins of Christian Worship. London, 1992.
Jungmann, J. The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great. Liturgical
Studies 6. Notre Dame, Ind., 1959.
Righetti, M. Manuale di storia liturgica. Vol. 1, Introduzione generale. 3rd ed.
Milan, 1964.
Srawley, J. The Early History of the Liturgy. 2nd rev. ed. Cambridge, 1949.
Wegman, H. Christian Worship in East and West: A Study Guide to Liturgical
History. Trans. G. W. Lathrop. New York, 1985.
113
Manel Nin, O.S.B.
History of the Eastern Liturgies
I. INTRODUCTION
The faith life of a Christian community is expressed in a variety of
sacraments and celebrations. The ensemble of gestures, words, and
signs received and accepted by the Church makes up its liturgical
celebration. The liturgy develops over the centuries with forms that
are closely linked to the various cultures; thus the liturgy powerfully
mirrors the cultural, theological, and even ethnic background of the
various Christian communities.1
The liturgies of the Eastern Churches are often called “rites.” The
term is legitimate provided it refers to the entire lived experience —
liturgical and theological — of a specific concrete Church, but it is
inadequate if it simply refers to the possibility of celebrating the
sacraments according to a liturgical usage recognized by the Latin
Church as valid. The concept of rite (Byzantine, Syrian, Armenian,
etc.) must be seen as a Church’s theological-liturgical-cultural reality.
It is not some theological-liturgical-cultural “suit of clothes” worn by
the one Church in order to create an impression of variety and diver-
sity. Accustomed as we are to the Latin Church with its apparent
ritual unity, we may be surprised at the variety of liturgies in the
Eastern Churches.
To understand something of these Churches’ liturgical evolution,
we need to take a quick look at their history. The origin of all Eastern
Christian liturgies is closely linked to the development of the patriar-
chal sees: Rome in the West and in the East primarily Alexandria,
1 R. G. Roberson, The Eastern Christian Churches. A Brief Survey (Rome, 1995).
115
Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem, with Seleucia-Ctesiphon,
Armenia, and Georgia in a secondary position. Moreover, the evolu-
tion of these liturgies was linked to the importance gradually as-
sumed by the various patriarchal sees. The development began with
those episcopal sees that stood out from the others by reason of their
apostolic foundation. The early Churches tended to be clustered
around the important episcopal sees, and as the circle gradually
tightened, around those few sees that would later become what we
call “patriarchates.”
The great patriarchates with their distinctive organization — in-
cluding juridic — slowly took shape over the centuries. The first
mention of an episcopal see with wider jurisdiction comes to us from
the sixth canon of the Council of Nicea (325), which recognized the
much wider jurisdiction of the archbishops of Alexandria, Rome, and
Antioch. Thus the major civil provinces of the empire also became
the major episcopal sees. At the Council of Constantinople (381), the
wider jurisdiction of the Sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch was
recognized; the episcopal sees of Asia Minor, Pontus, and Thrace still
remained separate. Of special importance was the fact that the coun-
cil placed the See of Constantinople, which was also the imperial see,
after Rome.2 From then on, Constantinople would extend its jurisdic-
tion into the neighboring regions of Asia Minor, Thrace, and Pontus;
this was solemnly ratified by the Council of Chalcedon (451). The
council modified the territorial division of the East, accepted the full
and wider jurisdiction of Constantinople over Asia Minor, Thrace,
and Pontus, and enlarged the jurisdiction of Jerusalem, making it a
patriarchate. Chalcedon marks the beginning of the stable arrange-
ment later referred to as the “pentarchy” or five sees that were gov-
erned by patriarchs: Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem.
In the origin and development of the various liturgies of the
Eastern Churches, there has been an evolution that is not always easy
to explain. From the celebration described in the Didaché or the
anaphora found in the Apostolic Tradition to the celebration of the
Divine Liturgy in the Byzantine Rite, there has been a progression —
2 Canon 3 of the Council of Constantinople reads: “The bishop of
Constantinople is to have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, since
this city is the new Rome.”
116
or rather an evolution — which has left no trace in the documents or
manuscripts, seeing that these have often come down to us in an
incomplete state.3
As for the origin of the different Eastern liturgies, we can speak of
two major phases.
1. The Earliest Period

Two great liturgical branches were already quite distinct at the begin-
ning of the fourth century in the East: the Syro-Antiochene and the
Alexandrine. A unity existed in both, centered around the Eucharistic
Prayer.
a. Syro-Antiochene Branch. Liturgical evolution in the region of
Antioch spread to every place where the Patriachal See of Antioch
held authority. The result would be a liturgy that is a mixture of
Semitic and Hellenistic elements. The Syro-Antiochene branch gave
rise to three distinct liturgies:
1. The liturgy of Mesopotamia and Persia.

2. The liturgy of Antioch and Jerusalem.
3. The liturgy of Byzantium.
We find the most ancient Antiochene witnesses in such patristic

texts as the Didaché, the Apostolic Tradition, several anaphoras, the
catecheses of St. John Chrysostom, the Catechetical Homilies of
Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Peregrinatio Egeriae, the catecheses of
Cyril of Jerusalem, and the Homelies of Narsai of Edessa. The two
main languages in this branch are Greek, which would attempt to
dominate in Antioch, Jerusalem, and Constantinople, and Syriac
(Eastern and Western dialects), which would remain the liturgical
language in Persia, Mesopotamia, and at a certain point, in monastic
circles near Antioch. Several anaphoras date from this first period of
formation of the Antiochene liturgy: the Greek Anaphora of St. James,
a text that must go back at least to the fourth century and which
3 Baumstark, Liturgie comparée, 16–32. The author devotes the second chapter to
the laws of liturgical evolution and proposes some rules for the evolution of the
various liturgies: (1) a movement “from diversity to unity,” in other words, from
a diversity of texts, formulas, and rites there is a gradual tendency toward ritual
unity; (2) an evolution “from sobriety to richness”; (3) a “discovery of the pres-
ence of new texts which gradually replaced those that were more ancient.”
117
reflects the Jerusalem liturgy of that period;4 the Syriac Anaphora of
St. James, a Syriac version of the preceding with minor variations; the
Anaphora of Addai and Mari, the Anaphora of St. John Chrysostom as well
as others.
b. Alexandrine Branch. We have very little documentation for
Alexandria compared to Antioch; the patristic texts are much more
theological and much less liturgical.5 The only clearly liturgical
source from this period is the Euchologion of Serapion of Thmuis, a
fourth-century Egyptian bishop. It contains the two parts of the
Eucharist: the Liturgy of the Catechumens, and the Liturgy of the
Faithful. It has two epicleses. The one before the institution asks that
the “power of God” may descend upon the offerings; the one after
asks that the “Logos of God” may descend upon the offerings.6
2. Period of Consolidation
After the fifth century, the various doctrinal and cultural currents led
to a gradual diversification, or rather, mutual estrangement of the
Churches and liturgical families. Antioch, although divided into two
patriarchates (Chalcedonian and anti-Chalcedonian), would still
remain a source of liturgical influence. During the Middle Ages the
Ethiopian liturgy would be reformed based on Antiochene models.
Jerusalem, too, would exercise its influence on the liturgies of
Constantinople, Armenia, and Georgia. The various schisms and
politico-ecclesial developments led to a liturgico-ecclesial situation in
which there was an East Syrian group, an anti-Chalcedonian group,
and a Chalcedonian group. From the fifth century on improvisation
tended to disappear; texts and rites became fixed. After Chalcedon,
the liturgy in Alexandria developed in two directions:
Chalcedonian/Greek, which was to feel the strong influence of the
Byzantine liturgy of Constantinople during the Middle Ages, and
Coptic, which would go its own way, remaining faithful to its
anaphoras of St. Mark, St. Basil the Great, and St. Gregory the
4 Since the twelfth century it has been used only once a year (October 23) in
Jerusalem, Cyprus, and Zakynthos.
5 Alexandria gave the Church great theologians (Clement, Origen, Cyril, etc.),
Antioch great preachers and mystagogues (Diodore, Theodore, John Chrysostom).

See A. Olivar, La predicación cristiana antigua (Barcelona, 1991).
6 Hänggi-Pahl, Prex, 128–33.
118
Theologian.7 These last two are Antiochene in origin and tradition;
however, owing to the anti-Chalcedonian sentiment linking Antioch
with Alexandria, they come from Egypt. From Alexandria came the
Ethiopian Rite, which would borrow elements from the Alexandrine
and Antiochene liturgies and undergo Byzantine influence much
later. The liturgy in Antioch, influenced by the Jerusalem liturgy
through the Anaphora of St. James, developed into three great
branches already mentioned: the liturgy of Antioch and Jerusalem,
which would consolidate around the West Syrian liturgy; the liturgy
of Mesopotamia and Persia, which would consolidate around the
East Syrian liturgy; and the Byzantine liturgy.
The process of liturgical unification would also be slow in
Byzantium; there are no texts prior to the ninth century in the codices
that have come down to us. For a knowledge of the evolution of the
liturgy, we must refer either to the descriptions of the Fathers in their
catecheses and mystagogies, or to those of the liturgical commentators.
On the one hand, Chalcedon and the period following signaled the
isolation or independent liturgical evolution of the non-Chalcedonian
churches. On the other hand, the liturgy of Constantinople gradually
came to dominate the Greek liturgies, that is, the liturgies of those
Churches that accepted Chalcedon. In these episcopal sees, changes
of liturgical texts or books were linked at times to socio-political
changes — usually violent.
This period also marked the development not only of the
Eucharist, but also the Office, mainly around the two centers of
Jerusalem and Constantinople.8 We find the first copies of lectionaries
in Jerusalem around the middle of the fifth century. Around the be-
ginning of the seventh century, the Liturgy of the Hours (wJrolovgion)
developed, in accord with the various hours of prayer during the
day. At the beginning of the eighth century, Constantinople had an
Office for cathedrals and parishes. The cycle of weeks (ojktwvhco") was
already developing around the seventh or eighth century, and there
were tupikav or books to regulate the liturgical usages in different
7 This anaphora is addressed entirely to Christ; see Hänggi-Pahl, Prex, 358–73.

8 Taft, La liturgia delle ore. I. H. Dalmais, “Origine et constitution de l’office,”
MD 21 (1950) 21–39, also summarizes the formation and development of the
Office.
119
places. The most important tupikav were originally associated with
monastic rules9 and come from the chief centers of monasticism.
Let us examine three of them: the tupikovn of St. Sabas in Jerusalem,
the tupikovn of Studion in Constantinope, and the tupikovn of the Great
Church, also in Constantinople.
The tupikovn of St. Sabas reflects the traditions of the Palestinian
monasteries during their most flourishing period (fourth-sixth cen-
turies). It presents a liturgy that is strongly monastic. In the night
vigils, for example, Psalm 118 is given the place of honor. Thanks to
the authority of the founder of the monastery from which it came,
this tupikovn spread to the Melkite Churches of Alexandria and
Antioch, and in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries to the capital,
Constantinople.
The tupikovn of Studion — the monastery of that name founded in
463 in the capital — also reflects a strongly monastic structure. The
Studion monastery was linked to the spiritual tradition of those
monks known as ajkoivmetoi (“sleepless ones”) because they cele-
brated the liturgy twenty-four hours a day. This tupikovn had an influ-
ence on Asia Minor, Mount Athos, Byzantine Italy, and even Russia.
The tupikovn of the Great Church includes the offices celebrated in
the church of the Anastasis in Jerusalem — until it was supplanted by
the tupikovn of St. Sabas — and in the church of Hagia Sophia in
Constantinople. It contains the Divine Liturgy, Vespers, Matins, and
various prayers used during Lent; it also contains the prayers of the
priest and the people, who generally participated in responsorial
form. This monastic influence on the cathedral office derives from the
iconoclast struggles, in which the monks played a major role, and
from the growing choice of monks as candidates for the episcopate.10
II. THE EASTERN CHURCHES AND LITURGIES

The various Christian Churches are often named according to their
profession of faith. However, it would be more appropriate to label
9 We may recall the clear liturgical prescriptions found in monastic rules such
as those of St. Pachomius († 348), St. Basil († 379), and St. Benedict († 543), as well
as the liturgical references in the writings of John Cassian (4th–5th century) and
others.
10 B. Luykx, “L’influence des moines sur l’office paroissial,” MD 51 (1957) 55–
81.
120
them according to their ethnic or geographic situation. In this regard
it is worth recalling the divisions that arose in the Church following
the Councils of Ephesus (431–43) and Chalcedon (451). We must also
remember the gradual estrangement between East and West, an
estrangement already signaled by the Photian Schism (863–879) and
the schism of 1054.11 We may say that the schism was caused over
time by various factors. There was the East’s lack of interest in the
West, on the one hand, and the Crusades and the creation of the
“uniate” Churches on the other.
1. The East Syrian Churches

Those Christian communities situated in Persia and Mesopotamia
that are heirs to the exegetical and theological tradition of the See of
Antioch are called the “East Syrian Churches.” They have also been
called “Nestorian” churches because their formulas of faith cite as
masters such authors as Diodore of Tarsus and Theodore of
Mopsuestia, both regarded by the imperial churches as Nestorius’
teachers. The East Syrian Churches rejected the Council of Ephesus
(431–433) and were the first to separate from the imperial Church.
The founding of these churches probably dates to the beginning of
the second century, but their greatest development took place under
the Sassanid monarchy — from the beginning of the third century
(a period of great development but also great persecution for these
churches)12 until the Arab invasions around 632. The metropolitan
see of these churches was Antioch at first, and after the split,
Seleucia-Ctesiphon. They were churches with a strong missionary
thrust, their missionaries reaching as far as India and China.13 These
churches began to decline especially in the fourteenth century; in
later centuries they suffered persecution from the Turks, Kurds, and
Persians. Today the East Syrian Churches are found in Iraq, Iran,
Syria, India, the former Soviet Republics, and the United States. The
language of these churches was Syriac before the Muslim invasions,
11 F. Dvornik, Le scisme de Photius. Histoire et légende, col. Unam Sanctam 19
(Paris, 1950).
12 J. Labourt, Le christianisme dans l’Empire Perse (Paris, 1904).
13 In 1625 a bilingual Syrian-Chinese stone tablet was found in Siganfu bearing
the date 781. This stone tablet tells us that a fully organized church existed in
China since 635.This church is said to have reached as far as Mongolia. See
PDOC, art., Église nestorienne, 189–91.
121
when it was replaced by Arabic — although the eastern dialect of
Syriac is still used in the liturgy. During the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries, the East Syrian Churches numbered several million faithful
in twenty-three metropolitan jurisdictions in Asia, China, and India.
Today there are two centers, one in the mountains of Kurdistan and
the other in India, the Syro-Malabar Church.14 There is also the
Chaldean Church, which is the East Syrian branch united with Rome.
It is dependent upon the patriarch of Babylon of the Chaldeans,
whose see is in Baghdad. Union with Rome took place under
Yuhannan Sulaka in 1552, after several years of contacts.
The original cultural center of the East Syrian Churches — and
thus of the East Syrian liturgy — was the city of Edessa, the axis of
Semitic Christian culture which opened toward Persia and reached as
far as India. Edessa was the seat of a most important theological
school, one of whose greatest names would be St. Ephrem. The most
important ecclesiastical center, especially after Edessa fell into Persian
hands in 363, was Seleucia-Ctesifon, a city situated on the Tigris
River.15
The East Syrian liturgy can be regarded as a liturgy with distant
origins in the Syro-Antiochene branch, although gradual estrange-
ment from that patriarchal see led this liturgical family to an evolu-
tion of its own.16 Our knowledge of the various stages in the
development of the East Syrian liturgy is based on two sources. For
the early centuries there are the commentaries on the liturgy that we
find in East Syria; for the later centuries we have the manuscripts
(and later, the editions) that transmit the text of the Eucharist, the
other sacraments and the Office.17 Among the chief commentators on
the East Syrian liturgy are Theodore of Mopsuestia († 428), author of
an important body of catechetical homilies which also contains com-
14 B. Vadakkekara, Origins of India’s St. Thomas Christians (Delhi, 1995).

15 P. Youssif, La bibliographie classifiée de la liturgie syrienne orientale (Rome, 1990).
16 PDOC 329–34; C. Moussess, Les livres liturgiques de l’Église chaldéene (Beirut,
1955); F. Y. Alichoran, Missel chaldéen (Paris, 1982). I would also mention the edi-
tion of J.E.Y. de Qelllayta, which contains the texts of the three Eucharistic
Anaphoras, various other blessings, and the consecration of an altar.
17 The texts of the Office will be important in all Eastern liturgies, especially be-
cause of the links between all the Eastern Churches and monasticism. In the East,
the only form of religious life — at least until recently — was monastic life.
122
mentary on the Eucharist;18 Narsai of Edessa (fifth century), author of
a series of metrical homilies rich in theological and liturgical content;
Gabriel Qatraia (seventh century), author of a symbolic explanation
of the Eucharist that provides good liturgical information; Pseudo-
George of Arbela (ninth-tenth centuries), author of a highly symbolic
commentary on the liturgy.
There are three important stages of liturgical evolution in the his-
tory of the East Syrian liturgy:
a) The reform of Catholicos Isho’yahb III (650–658) helped unify

the various rites of the East Syrian Church. He codified the Office,
using the major hours (Vespers, Vigils, and Lauds) almost exclusively
and leaving the other hours to the monasteries. The latter were
allowed to adapt Vigils by distributing the psalms in a way more
suited to their customs.
b) The reform of Elia II (1176–1190) enriched the Office with a
series of prayers after each psalm or group of psalms.
c) The reform of Yahballaha (1190–1223) put together the so-called
Gazza (“treasury”), which is a collection of liturgical hymns.
2. The West Syrian Churches

Those churches that rejected the profession of faith of the Council of
Chalcedon (451) out of faithfulness to the Christology of Cyril of
Alexandria are called the West Syrian Churches. Belonging to this
group is the Syrian Church of Antioch. It was organized by two
important personages: Patriarch Severus of Antioch († 538) and Jacob
Bar Addai († 578). In 543 Jacob declared a state of schism between
this church, which used Syriac, and the church that would remain
faithful to the Emperor Justinian (527–565), which used Greek and
was called the Melkite Church. The Syrian Church, whether
Orthodox or Catholic, is not very large, but there is a significant dias-
pora which is very important. At any rate, there are signs of a grow-
ing awareness of their own tradition and a renewed interest in liturgy
and theology. Today there are about 2.5 million Syrian Orthodox in
Iraq, Syria, Turkey, Lebanon, all parts of Europe, Latin America, and
the United States.
18
R. Tonneau and R. Devresse, Les homélies catéchétiques de Théodore de
Mopsueste. Studies and Texts 145 (Vatican City, 1945).
123
As in the case of the East Syrian Churches, there is a West Syrian
Church that was united with Rome in the seventeenth century. Today
this Church has its own patriarchate and numbers about one hun-
dred thousand faithful. To this tradition belongs the Syro-Malankara
Church of India, whose liturgy is West Syrian.
The West Syrian liturgy is also called the Jacobite liturgy and is
used by the West Syrian Churches, both Orthodox and Catholic, and
to a large extent by the Maronite Church. It is a liturgy that brings
together the theological-liturgical heritage of Severus of Antioch,
patriarch of the city on the Orontes (512–518), who enriched the
liturgy with many hymn-like compositions. We must also mention
St. Ephrem († 373) as a source of many of the texts of this liturgy,
along with Jacob of Sarug (451–521).
3. The Coptic and Ethiopian Churches

The Coptic Church is a non-Chalcedonian church, whose origins are
quite obscure. It claims to have been founded by St. Mark and thus
would be apostolic in origin. What is certain is that in 18019 it had a
well-organized episcopate with a bishop named Demetrius and a
school of theology that would produce great theologians such as
Clement and Origen. The Coptic Church, like the Syrian, also flour-
ished in the centers of monasticism. The development of a Coptic
literature took place at the end of the third century and especially
during the fourth. At first this consisted of translations, but soon it
also became an original body of literature, gradually developing
alongside of and in contrast to the Byzantine Greek literature that
prevailed in the capital, Alexandria. After Chalcedon, most of the
Coptic Church accepted the non-Chalcedonian confession of faith.
Already in 537 Alexandria had two patriarchs: one Chalcedonian and
Melkite, faithful to the emperor, and one anti-Chalcedonian, which
included all the Coptic communities and the chief monastic centers.
The Coptic Church today is limited mostly to Egypt. Monastic life is
flourishing in this church. It has suffered little outside influence, save
for that of Syrian origin, owing to the fact that both Copts and
Syrians are “monophysites.” Today in Egypt there are two Coptic
patriarchates: Orthodox and Catholic. The latter dates only from the
end of the nineteenth century. The Coptic Orthodox number about
19 Eusebius of Caesarea, Historia Ecclesiastica, VI.
124
8.5 million at present and the Coptic Catholics about two hundred
thousand.
Our information about the liturgy in Alexandria is quite vague,
especially for the first millennium.20 As mentioned earlier, the Coptic
Church, being non-Chalcedonian, was strongly opposed to
Byzantium. The greatest development in the Coptic language took
place in the fourth century, especially near monastic centers such as
the White Monastery; associated with it are the names of Pachomius
(† 346), Shenute († 466), and Rufus of Shotep (late sixth century). The
Coptic language develops the literary genre of “homily” (this term
refers to homilies, biblical commentaries, and monastic catecheses)
and includes translations of Greek texts.
Coptic became a liturgical language after the doctrinal controver-
sies with Byzantium in the fifth century; even today it is a much-used
liturgical language, although in many places Arabic has gained the
upper hand. The Coptic liturgy is associated with the phenomenon of
monasticism, and after the break following Chalcedon, especially the
monastery of St. Macarius, which became the non-Chalcedonian pa-
triarchal see, far from the capital, Alexandria.21 The monastic culture
that shaped the liturgy of the Coptic Church was of a popular nature,
not overly learned, anti-Hellenic. It is a liturgy that is long, solemn,
contemplative, and somewhat lacking in variety. The Coptic rite
today is not much different from that celebrated in the monastic com-
munities of Skete. There have been some influences, notably Syrian,
such as those that took place during the patriarchate of Benjamin
(626-655), who was Syrian by birth and promoted the literary devel-
opment of Coptic. There were other reforms in the twelfth century
under Patriarch Gabriel II ibn Turayk (1131–1145), who fixed the
anaphoras in their present three forms. In the fifteenth century,
Gabriel V (1409–1427) fixed the various celebrations in the form that
is still used today.22
20 PDOC 339–41; Hanna Malak, Les livres liturgiques de l’Église copte, in Mélanges
Eugène Tisserant III (Vatican City, 1964) 1–35.

21 H. H. Ayrout, Regards sur le christianisme en Égypte hier et aujourd’hui, in Proche
Orient Chrétien 15 (1965) 3–42.

22 Malak Hanna, “Le rôle de la divine liturgie eucharistique dans la vie de
l’Église copte hier et aujourd’hui,” Proche Orient Chrétien 23 (1973) 266–83.
125
The Ethiopian Church is another non-Chalcedonian church and is
strongly dependent on the Coptic Church. It has always recognized
the authority of the patriarch of Alexandria and was governed by a
metropolitan chosen from among the Coptic monks. In 1959 an
Ethiopian patriarch was elected, and today the authority of the patri-
arch of Alexandria is recognized as exclusively spiritual.
The beginnings of Christianity in Ethiopia are obscure. There were
certainly Christians already in the fourth century, and it seems that
Christianity arrived there via Coptic and Syrian missionaries. The
liturgical documents from the first millenium have not come down to
us since they were destroyed by King Amda Sion (1314–1344) and the
various Islamic invasions.
The liturgical language is Ge’ez, and the liturgy is not a mere re-
production of the Coptic; there are in fact many influences, both
Jewish and Syrian
4. The Armenian Church

Another non-Chalcedonian church is the Armenian Church, which
solemnly condemned Chalcedon at the Synod of Dvin in 506.
Armenia had been evangelized either by missionaries from Syriac
speaking regions or by Greek speaking missionaries from Asia Minor,
the most famous being St. Gregory the Illuminator. In 390, under
Catholicos Sahag the Great, ties with the see of Caesarea in
Cappadocia were definitively broken. The monk Mesrob (360–440)23
invented the Armenian alphabet and translated the Bible and princi-
pal writings of the Fathers. Persecution, which has been the lot of the
Armenian nation, has given rise to numerous diaspora. Today the
Armenian Church is found throughout the world. It recognizes the
patriarchal see or “Catholicosate” of Etchmiadzin in Armenia, to-
gether with two other Armenian Orthodox patriarchates: Jerusalem
and Constantinople. There is also a branch of this Church in union
with Rome, whose patriarch lives in Beirut.
In the realm of liturgy, we can say that the Armenian liturgy has
been greatly influenced by the Churches of Jerusalem and
Cappadocia; thus it is in the Syro-Antiochene tradition with
Cappadocian influences.
23A monk and chorbishop, he received a good formation in Greek and devoted
himself to the task of translating texts into Armenian.
126
5. Byzantine Churches
The various communities that remained faithful to the Christological
teaching of Chalcedon gradually came under the liturgical influence
of the see of Constantinople and became what would be called sim-
ply the Orthodox Churches: Constantinople, Antioch (Melkite),
Alexandria (Melkite), and Jerusalem.
The name Byzantine churches refers to a group of churches depen-
dent on the Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and
Jerusalem — patriarchates that always remained faithful to
Chalcedon. These churches are also called “Melkite” in contradistinc-
tion to the anti-Chalcedonian churches. Those Melkites dependent on
the patriarchate of Antioch have always been very rooted in their
own land, and despite exile and the diaspora (they gravitated to the
regions of Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Turkey), they are among the
most thriving of the Orthodox Churches. The Melkites of the patri-
archate of Alexandria are Greek speaking and have never become
part of the Coptic/Egyptian world. The Melkites of the patriarchate
of Jerusalem, mostly Arabs, are found today in the Holy Land and
are led by a hierarchy that is totally Greek. The primacy of the
patriarch of Constantinople (also called the ecumenical patriarch)
over the other Orthodox Churches is exclusively one of honor. He has
direct jurisdiction over the Orthodox faithful in Turkey, Western
Europe, America, Australia, and Mt. Athos. The Churches of Cyprus
and Greece are autocephalous. As for the Orthodox Churches in the
Slavic world, we may note that Bulgaria became a patriarchate in 927,
Moscow in 1589. The Church of Romania became a patriarchate in
1924.
The term “Byzantine” includes a group of churches that today are
spread throughout the world. They accept the first seven ecumenical
councils and celebrate a common form of liturgy.
For a good knowledge of the history of the Byzantine liturgy, we
must search the tupikav, the collections of norms and descriptions
regarding liturgical celebrations, which we have already mentioned.
The three major tupikav are that of the Great Church of
Constantinople, that of St. Sabas, and that of the Studite monastery
in Constantinople.24 We must also know the history of Byzantium,
24 R. Taft, The Byzantine Rite, 16–21.
127
especially that which is linked to two great centers. For the first cen-
ter, Jerusalem, there are three important periods: the period before
the Persian conquest (614), the time between the Persians and
Moslems (614–638), and the period following the destruction
wrought by Egyptian caliph Hakim (1009). For the second center,
Constantinople, the important periods are these: the pre-iconoclast
period; the time of the iconoclast crisis (eighth-ninth centuries); the
period around the fall of Constantinople to the Crusaders in 1204,
when many things were eliminated, created, or added to the liturgy,
and a large number of hymns were introduced; the period around
the fall of Constantinople to the Turks in 1453; and finally, the period
of the Byzantine renaissance in Russia and Moldavia, when various
editions of the tupikovn of St. Sabas were made (1610, 1633, 1634,
1682). In Russia we have the reform of Patriarch Nikon, who tried to
bring uniformity to the Slav-Byzantine liturgy through the use of
Greek models. This reform would give rise to the schism of the Old
Believers, who rejected it.25
6. The Maronite Church

The Maronite Church was born in, and always remained closely
linked to the monastic circles adjacent to Antioch and Apamea, near
the Orontes River in present-day Lebanon. The Maronite Church
originated between the sixth and seventh centuries near the monas-
tery of St. Maron. More than 530 monks underwent martyrdom in
this monastery in the year 517. It is a church opposed to both the
Melkites and the Syrian Jacobites; in the eighth-ninth century it
became autonomous. The Maronite Church has always wished to be
a bridge between East and West and has always been part of the
Antiochene tradition. Its faithfulness to Rome has often led it to
accept Latinization and has obscured its Eastern appearance to some
extent. It is also a church strongly marked by monasticism; however,
this is a monasticism with a distinctly missionary character.
25 There are still over six million Old Believers (starovieiskii) today.
128
Bibliography
Assfalg, J., and P. Krüger, eds. Petit dictionnaire de l’Orient chrétien (PDOC).
Turnhout, 1991.
Borgia, N. Origine della liturgia bizantina. Grottaferrata, 1933.
Bornert, R. Les Commentaires byzantins de la divine liturgie du VIIe au XVe siècle.
Archives de l’Orient chrétien 9. Paris, 1966.
Botte, B., and others. Eucharisties d’Orient et d’Occident. 2 vols. LO 46–47.
Paris, 1970.
Bouyer, L. Architeturra e liturgia. Bose, 1994.
Dalmais, I.-H. Introduction to the Liturgy. Trans. R. Capel. Baltimore, 1961.
. Le liturgie orientali. Rome, 1982.
. “Quelques grands thèmes théologiques des anaphores orientales.” In
B. Botte and others, Eucharisties d’Orient et d’Occident, 2:179–195. LO 46–
47. Paris, 1970.
De Meester, P. Studi di rito bizantino. Bk. 1, pt. 4, Rituale-benedizionale bizan-
tino. Rome, 1930.
Evdokimov, P. La prière de Église d’Orient: Approches oecumeniques. Paris, 1966.
Gelsi, D. “Liturgie orientali.” NDL 983–1007.
Gonzalez Fuente, A. Preghiere eucaristiche della tradizione cristiana. Padua,
1983.
Hänggi, A., and I. Pahl. Prex eucharistica: Textus e variis liturgiis antiquioribus
selecti. Spicilegium Friburgense 12. Fribourg, 1968.
Hanssens, J. M. Institutiones liturgicae de ritibus orientalibus. Rome, 1930.
Janeras, S. Introductio in liturgias orientales (pro manuscripto).
. Bibliografia sulle liturgie orientali. 1961–1967 (pro manuscripto).
Nin, M. “The Liturgical Heritage of the Eastern Churches.” In Catholic Eastern
Churches: Heritage and Identity. Rome, 1994.
Paprocki, H. Le mystère de l’eucharistie. Paris, 1993.
Salaville, S. An Introduction to the Study of Eastern Liturgies. London, 1938.
Taft, R. Introduzione allo studio delle liturgie orientali: Bibliografia essenziale.
(manuscript). Rome, 1982.
129
. The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: The Origins of the Divine Office
and Its Meaning for Today. 2nd rev. ed. Collegeville, Minn., 1993.
. The Byzantine Rite: A Short History. American Essays in Liturgy.
Tisserand, E. Petit paroisien des liturgies orientales. Harissa (Lebanon), 1941.
Yousif, P., ed. La bibliographie classifiée de la liturgie syrienne orientale. Rome,
1990.
130
History of the Roman Liturgy

Until the Fifteenth Century
T H E E A R LY S H A P E O F T H E L I T U R G Y I N R O M E
The history of the Roman liturgy began with the spread of the Gospel
in the Eternal City around the year 64. We possess significant data al-
lowing us to reconstruct, to a point, the liturgical life of the Roman
Church during the first three hundred years. Justin Martyr has re-
corded for us how the rites of Christian initiation and the Sunday
Eucharist were celebrated in Rome before the year 165.1 His descrip-
tion of the baptismal rite is meager but essential. It consisted of a pre-
baptismal catechesis, prayer and fasting, washing in a pool (?) of
water in the name of the Trinity (with a formulary that is evocative of
an early creed), and Eucharist. His description of the Sunday
Eucharist is more detailed. He mentions the following elements:
readings from the writings of the Apostles and the prophets, homily,
intercessions, presentation of bread and wine with water, a long
prayer (representing the Eucharistic Prayer), Communion, and dona-
tions for the needy and the upkeep of community guests. He also
mentions a presider (the bishop of Rome) and the ministries of lector
and deacon. Justin further informs us that for these Sunday
Eucharists people came from all over the city and the surrounding
areas.
It is useful to note here that the third-century Apostolic Tradition,
attributed to Hippolytus of Rome, offers greater details on liturgical
practices ranging from initiation, Eucharist, and ordination to daily
1 1 Apology, c. 61–62; 65, 67, L. Pautigny, ed. (Paris, 1904).
131
prayers. But we have no assurance that this book represents the lit-
urgy in third-century Rome.
From archeology we know that the Christians of Rome met in the
domus ecclesiae, the houses offered by converts for liturgical use.
Celebrated are those found under the churches of John and Paul,
Cecilia, Clement, and Pudentiana. The plan of these Greco-Roman
houses made them suitable for the Eucharist, baptisms, and probably
for catechetical instructions. In time of peace Christians even bought
buildings and transformed them into domus ecclesiae. We are told that
Emperor Alexander Severus († 235) chose to sell to the Christians a
public building, “for it would be better that a god, of whatever sort,
be adored there rather than to use the building for the sale of drinks.”2
As regards the eucharistic vessels, it seems that in the first century
wicker baskets were used, since these were the normal bread contain-
ers used at home. One of the frescoes in the catacomb of Callixtus
depicts seven baskets containing the eucharistic bread. Wine, on the
other hand, was stored in pitchers or jars. These were often earthen-
ware, though some were made of metal. By the early third century
wicker baskets gave way to glass and metal patens. The Liber
Pontificalis mentions in the notices on Pope Zephyrinus († 217) and
Pope Urban I († 230) that the former required glass patens for the
Eucharist and that the latter donated twenty-five silver patens.3
The language of the liturgy of Rome until the fourth century was
generally the Greek koivnhv, though Pope Victor I († 198) made efforts
to introduce Latin. By the middle of the third century, a Latin version
of the Scriptures was being used for the readings, while the prayer
formularies were still in Greek. Little of this Hellenistic heritage sur-
vived. A brief quotation from the early Roman anaphora in Greek can
be found in a writing of Marius Victorinus in 360.4 It is interesting to
note that while the liturgy did not make a complete transition to
Latin until the papacy of Damasus I († 384), the Roman Church had
already adopted it around the year 250 as its official language.5 From
2 See R. Cabié, History of the Mass (Washington, D.C., 1992) 22.

3 Le Liber Pontificalis, vol 1, L. Duchesne, ed. (Paris, 1955) 139, 143; see E. Foley,
From Age to Age: How Christians Celebrated the Eucharist (Chicago, 1991).
4 Adversus Arium II, 8, SCh 68, 416.
5 C. Vogel, Medieval Liturgy. An Introduction to the Sources (Washington, D.C.,
1986) 293–7.
132
then on until the reform of Vatican II, Latin would be stubbornly
retained as the language of the Roman liturgy. Exceptions are the
Roman liturgy in Slavonic authored in the ninth century by Cyril and
Methodius, the request for vernacular liturgy made by Quirini and
Justiniani in 1513, and the attempt by the Synod of Pistoia in 1786 to
shift to Italian.
As regards the liturgical calendar, the Roman Church concentrated
on Sunday as the day of the synaxis. On the day of the sun, as Justin
Martyr had called it, the faithful gathered in one place for the
Eucharist. It would seem that baptisms also took place on Sunday, as
we can gather from the same writer who ties up baptism with the
second part of the eucharistic celebration, that is, from the kiss of
peace and the intercessions onward. The Quartodeciman controversy
brought to evidence that the predecessors of Pope Victor I forbade for
the Roman Church the celebration of Easter on 14 Nisan. The differ-
ence between them and Pope Victor was that they did not prohibit
the Quartodecimans in Rome to keep their traditional date for
Easter.6 Pentecost as conclusion to Easter did not surface as a litur-
gical feast until the fourth century. However, the cult of martyrs
which probably included the Eucharist and the Christianized form of
refrigerium can be dated at least from the third century.7
The artistic representations in the domus ecclesiae and the catacombs
have special value for the liturgical history of Rome for these murals
reflect the biblical and theological themes of the liturgical celebra-
tions. Examples from Scriptures are the sacrifice of Isaac, Moses
drawing water from the rock, Jonah the prophet, the three young
men in the furnace, Daniel among lions, Mary and the Child, the
adoration of the magi, the baptism of Jesus, the Samaritan woman,
the multiplication of loaves, the resurrection of Lazarus, the healing
of the paralytic and the blind man, and the good shepherd. Other
examples are the woman (Church) at prayer, baskets of bread loaves,
fish, and boat. From these representations we are able to get an idea
of how the Church of Rome based its liturgical rites of initiation and
Eucharist on biblical themes and explained them accordingly. Their
presence in the catacombs does not imply that these sacraments were
6 A. Chavasse, La liturgie de la ville de Rome, 21–25.
7 M. Augé, “I santi nella celebrazione del mistero di Cristo,” Anamnesis 6, 247–
59.
133
celebrated there. Rather, it underlines the relationship between
Christian death and the sacraments.8
In many ways this early shape of the liturgy in Rome was not dis-
tinctive of the city. House churches, the basic plan for Christian initia-
tion and the Eucharist, the liturgical calendar, liturgical furnishings
and arts, and the use of Greek were common at this time to East and
West. Several of these elements were developments of the original
core of Christian worship. The Roman Church was rooted in the
early Christian traditions and showed deep attachment to much of its
Jewish heritage. Indeed the Roman liturgy, which evolved after the
fourth century, was to a large extent a reworking of this original core.
No wonder that as far as the twentieth century the Constitution on
the Liturgy of Vatican II, art. 23, insists on retaining “sound tradi-
tion” while keeping the way open to “legitimate progress.”
The era of freedom under Constantine caused frenetic develop-
ment in every sector of the liturgy, but it did not produce the liturgy
which we know today as the Roman liturgy. It was only toward the
end of the fourth century that the liturgy in Rome acquired the
cultural traits that strongly contributed to the formation of a Roman
liturgy, a liturgy developed by Roman popes for the Roman people.
THE CLASSICAL ERA OF THE ROMAN LITURGY

The study of the Roman liturgy made by E. Bishop at the beginning
of the twentieth century made scholars deeply aware of its original
characteristics. These had been influenced by what he called “the
genius” of the Roman people. Today we would speak of cultural
values, linguistic and ritual patterns, and institutions or, in short, the
components of the Roman culture around the fifth century.9
The adaptations made in the Roman liturgy beginning in the
eighth century when the Franco-Germanic Churches adopted it
obscured the original Roman genius. By the process of eliminating
medieval accretions it became evident that the original core of the
Roman liturgy was not dramatic but sober, not prolix in language
and rites but simple, not symbolic in its gestures but practical and
8 F. Van der Meer - C. Mohrmann, Bildatlas der frühchristlichen Welt (Gütersloh,
1959); A.-G. Martimort, “L’iconographie des catacombes et la catéchèse antique,”

Rivista di Archeologia Cristiana 25 (1949) 105–14.
9 E. Bishop, “The Genius of the Roman Rite,” Liturgica Historica, 2–9.
134
functional. Historians, like B. Neunheuser, would refer to this as the
“pure” shape of the Roman liturgy.10 The underpinning consideration
here is that prior to the introduction of cultural elements from the
Churches across the Alps, the Roman liturgy had possessed texts and
rites that were proper to the people of Rome toward the fifth century.
The nomenclature “pure” Roman liturgy, however, is quite relative.
We know that non-Roman elements had been introduced into the lit-
urgy of Rome before the eighth century. Feasts, like the Hypapante,
known today as the Presentation in the Temple, came to Rome from
the East in the seventh century together with the Nativity of Mary.11
The Agnus Dei for the fraction of bread became part of the Roman
Mass during the papacy of Pope Sergius I († 701) who was of Syrian
origin. Although Rome was celebrated for its auto-sufficiency in
several sectors, it was not totally estranged from developments that
were taking place in other Churches, especially Jerusalem.
Another way to describe this period is to call it “classical.” In an-
cient Rome the word classicus, from classis, referred to the superior
cultural division of the Roman population. The homo classicus was a
person who had been formed in the Greek and Roman philosophical
thought and educated in classical grammar, rhetorics, and arts: in
short, a person of culture. Today we speak of “classic” as the model
or standard and authoritative expression of literature, music, paint-
ing, sculpture, and architecture according to the principles and meth-
ods of ancient Greeks and Romans. By definition “classic” is
synonymous with such qualities as balance, restraint or sobriety,
noble simplicity, orderliness, solemnity, and directness. These quali-
ties define the classical Roman liturgy that began to evolve after the
fourth century, thanks to the creativity of such Roman bishops as
Damasus († 384), Innocent I († 417), Leo the Great († 461), Gelasius
(† 496), Vigilius († 555), and Gregory the Great († 604).
To have a deeper appreciation of the classical shape of the Roman
liturgy it is necessary to examine closely its chief components. B.
Neunheuser distinguishes two: the formal and the theological.12 The
formal components include the ritual elements, like the plan of the
10 Storia della liturgia attraverso le epoche culturali, 55–70; see A. Triacca, “Tra ide-
alizzazione e realtà: liturgia romana ‘pura’?” RL 45 (1993) 413–42.

11 P. Jounel, Le renouveau du culte des saints (Rome, 1986) 100–180.
12 Storia della liturgia attraverso le epoche culturali, 64–6.
135
celebration, gestures, and symbols, as well as the corpus of liturgical
texts, especially the euchological formularies. The theological compo-
nents, on the other hand, embrace the doctrinal and spiritual mes-
sage contained in the ritual elements and texts.
As a preliminary consideration, it is useful to note that upon these
formal and theological components the Roman cultural values,
patterns, and institutions of the fifth century have exerted a remark-
able influence. Simplicity, sobriety, and practical sense are deeply
etched in the rites, while the euchological formularies are marked by
restraint, brevity, and directness. The detailed studies made by
A. Chavasse of the classical shape of the Roman liturgy are most
enlightening.13
As regards the formal components, we note that the classical
Roman “genius” was very much at work in the papal Mass described
by Ordo Romanus I which was compiled in the seventh century,
though it represents an earlier material.14 During the Eucharistic
Prayer the pope stood at the altar alone (surgit pontifex solus in canone)
and recited the prayer with no further ceremonies and without the
assistance of hovering and ubiquitous masters of ceremonies. No
candles were brought into the sanctuary at the words of consecration,
no bells were rung, no incensation of the sacred species was made,
and there were no genuflections and signs of the cross. At the doxol-
ogy the archdeacon alone stood at the altar to raise the cup. During
the entire canon all the “concelebrants” stayed in their places at the
far end of the sanctuary.
Practical sense is present in the rituals of the papal Mass wherein
the entrance, offertory, and Communion songs are regarded as songs
of accompaniment. When the activities they accompanied were over,
no less than the pope himself signaled to the choir master to stop
singing: respiciens ad priorem scolae annuit ei ut dicat Gloriam; et prior
scolae inclinat se pontifici et inponit. Altar cloths were not spread until
the time of the offertory rite, and presumably they were removed
after the celebration, as the Roman rite still does after the Eucharist
on Holy Thursday. The washing of hands at the offertory, which
acquired a symbolic meaning during the early Middle Ages, seems to
have been dictated by table hygiene.
13 A. Chavasse, La liturgie de la ville de Rome du Ve au VIIIe siècle.
14 Ordo Romanus I, M. Andrieu, ed. (Louvain, 1965) nos. 29–50.
136
We gather from the description of Ordo Romanus I that there were
two distinct cultural forces at work in the papal Mass. The entrance
rite has the appearance of an imperial court ceremonial, but there-
after the native Roman quality of sobriety prevails. Thus the nucleus
of the eucharistic liturgy, namely the word and the sacrament, re-
mained practically untouched by the drama and pomp of the impe-
rial court ceremonial.
As regards language we note that from the fourth to the late sixth
century the Roman Church was in the process of developing the
Latin liturgical language.15 Those were centuries of an intense crea-
tivity that produced several classic prayers for eucharistic use, such
as collects, prayers over the gifts, prayers after Communion, and
prayers over the assembly. These texts have come down to us in
medieval sacramentaries. A good number of these compositions are
preserved in the Roman Missal of Paul VI. The chief authors of the
early Roman texts were none other than the bishops of Rome:
Damasus, Innocent I, Leo the Great, Gelasius, Vigilius, and Gregory
the Great. The literary style of the formularies indicates that their
authors received their education from the Roman schools of rhetorics,
arts, and classical studies.
We are able to identify the rhetorical style that adorned these com-
positions.16 One example is the cursus or the rhythmic arrangement of
the final words of an oration with the scope of highlighting the
cadences and thereby producing such sentiments as joy and wonder.
Pope Leo the Great is celebrated for the use of the cursus in his ora-
tions and homilies. A classic example is the Christmas collect pre-
served in the Veronese Sacramentary: Deus, qui humanae substantiae
dignitatem et mirabiliter condidisti et mirabiliter reformasti. . . . The final
words mirabiliter condidisti and mirabilius reformasti are in the cursus
velox which arouses the sentiment of admiration.17 Another example
is the binary succession of sentences, a kind of embolism which
develops the theme of the oration. Pope Vigilius often used it for the
prefaces. The following text is superb: Nullis quippe forinsecus miseriis
adfligemur, si vitia frenemus animorum; nec visibili dedecori subiacebit, qui
15 C. Mohrmann, Liturgical Latin. Its Origin and Character (Washington, D.C.,
1957).
16 M. Augé, “Principi di interpretazione dei testi liturgici,” Anamnesis 1, 159–71.
17 Sacramentarium Veronense, L. Mohlberg, ed. (Rome, 1978) no. 1239, 157.
137
foedis cupiditatibus obviaverit; nulla inquietudo praevalebit extrinsecus, si
agamus corde sincero.18 Another rhetorical style is antithesis which
consists of contrasting concepts, as in a preface for the Ascension: in
caelos ascensio, humilitate discessio.19 A fourth example is concinnitas or
the balance between parts of an oration through the thought or gram-
matical symmetry: Plebs tua, Domine, sacramentis purificata caelestibus;
quod sumit intelligat; quod gustu delibat, moribus apprehendat; quod iustis
orationibus expetit, tua misericordia percipiat.20
A cursory examination of the collects in the early sacramentaries
reveals a language addressed to the intellect rather than to the heart
of the listeners. This is explained by their classical quality of sobriety.
Probably only a few would link the following collect to the Christmas
feast: Deus, qui hanc sacratissimam noctem veri luminis fecisti inlustra-
tione clarescere; da, quaesumus, ut cuius lucis mysteria in terra cognovi-
mus, eius quoque gaudiis in caelo perfruamur.21 This text, composed for
the winter solstice or the victory of light over the darkness of winter,
understandably focuses on the element of light. But it requires special
catechesis to show the association of the feast of Christmas to the
winter solstice. One would have expected words about the child in
the manger, the song of the angels, the shepherds. But the romana
sobrietas preferred to speak of light.
The Roman Canon, which is quoted in part by Ambrose of Milan,
is thoroughly imbued with the culture of classical Rome. Its language
portrays the Roman taste for a certain gravity in speech as well as
simultaneous redundance and brevity. Such phrases as te igitur, hanc
igitur, and unde et memores, at the start of a sentence are elegant,
hieratic, and solemn. The use of the title Clementissime Pater gives to
the Roman Canon an imperial tone, and so does the phrase supplices
te rogamus ac petimus. True to its sacrificial orientation, the Roman
Canon uses pre-Christian sacrificial expressions like accepta habeas. It
has incorporated also a pagan funeral inscription, namely refrigerium
lucis et pacis. The legalistic Roman mentality resonates in the three-
fold declarations haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia inlibata
and hostiam puram, hostiam sanctam, hostiam immaculatam. Lastly, the
18 Ibid., no. 501, 66.
19 Ibid., no. 176, 22.
20 Ibid., no. 1068, 135.
21 Le Sacramentaire grégorien, J. Deshusses, ed. (Fribourg, 1971) 36, 99.
138
Roman Canon observes balance in its structure. Balance, which is
akin to equanimity, was highly prized by the Romans. This is espe-
cially evident in the mementoes of the living and the dead and the
double commemoration of saints before and after the narration of the
Last Supper.22
The foregoing examples reveal how profoundly the Roman “ge-
nius” influenced the corpus of the early Latin texts. The result was an
elevated Latin, a kind of Kulturlatein which was not probably accessi-
ble to people who spoke only the Volkslatein, who did not belong to
the class of the homines classici. In short, the style of these composi-
tions pertained to that segment of the Roman élite, the people of
culture, the homines classici. This is an issue that will continue to vex
historians and pastors alike as they search for a ritual language that
is elevated and noble yet contemporary and accessible to the vast
majority, if not to all.
As regards the theological components we note a certain sobriety
and restraint toward the mystery of the Eucharist. In the Ordo
Romanus I we do not come across external signs of adoration and
reverence directed to the sacred species through such gestures as
incensation, bowing, and genuflection. The one exception is at the
entrance rite when with bowed head the pope or deacon pays respect
to the sacrament which had been consecrated in a previous Mass.
Roman sobriety is even more striking in the language used by the
early sacramentaries for the prayers after Communion. Whereas me-
dieval prayers, often influenced by the eucharistic spirituality of the
period, spoke of the sacramental bread and wine directly as the body
and blood of Christ, the classical Roman prayers rarely mentioned
them. These tended to veil the real presence with such words as cibus
et potus (food and drink), sacramentum, dona caelestia (heavenly gifts),
and munera salutifera (saving gifts).23 It does not mean, of course, that
the Roman Church did not believe in the real presence, but it was not
part of the romana sobrietas to depict the eucharistic mystery with
22 For bibliography and treatment of the Roman Canon, see A. Nocent, “La
preghiera eucaristica del canone romano,” Anamnesis 3/2, 229–45; see also E.
Mazza: The Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite (New York, 1986).
23 Cf., for example, Sacramentarium Veronense, L. C. Mohlberg, ed. (Rome, 1978)
nos. 4, 82, 86, 108. Cf., however no. 16 which speaks of corporis sacri et praetiosi
sanguinis libamine.
139
vivid imagery. The Romans of the classical period would have been
uncomfortable hearing the words “the body of Christ” and “the
blood of Christ” as they received them at Communion time. The
Latin formula for Communion in the Apostolic Tradition is, unlike the
Sahidic version, indirect: panis caelestis in Christo Iesu for the bread,
and In Deo Patri omnipotenti, et Domino Iesu Christo, et Spiritu Sancto et
sancta Ecclesia for the cup.24
Another theological component that characterized the classical era
of the Roman liturgy was the practice of stational Masses in the
major basilicas and the titular churches at which the bishop of Rome
presided. These Masses, celebrated on solemnities and particularly
during Lent, were occasions to gather the clergy and faithful of Rome
around their bishop. Stational Masses expressed the unity of the local
church. And this unity was hightened by celebrations held in various
basilicas and titular churches around the city. By the end of Lent the
four corners of Rome would have been covered. Thus the unity of the
local church was manifested in those places where the bishop and the
people were gathered together for the Eucharist. Roman Lent with its
spirit of penance and almsgiving gave these stational assemblies an
ascetical and social dimension.25
To heighten further the sense of unity, the pope sent on Sundays
the eucharistic fermentum to the presbyters in the titular churches of
the city. Pope Innocent I explains in his letter to Decentius in 415 why
the presbyters received the fermentum: ut se a nostra communione
maxime illa die, non iudicent separatos.26 For on Sundays, due to the
pastoral ministry in their parishes, the presbyters could not join the
pope in the stational church. Medieval writers have sometimes inter-
preted the subsequent commingling as a symbol expressing the
union between Christ’s body and blood, and hence of his resurrec-
tion.27 But such an allegorical interpretation does not suit the
symbolic “genius” of the Roman liturgy.
24 La Tradition Apostolique de Saint Hippolyte, B. Botte, ed. (Münster 1989) no. 21,
56–57. Note that the Sahidic version has: Hic est panis caelestis, corpus Christi Iesu
and Hic est sanguis Domini nostri Iesu Christi.
25 A. Chavasse, La liturgie de la ville de Rome, 231–46.
26 Ibid., 21–6; 60–7; J. Jungmann “Fermentum,” Colligere Fragmenta (Beuron,
1952) 182–90.
27 B. Capelle, “Fraction et commixtion,” MD 35 (1953) 79–94.
140
The classical shape of the Roman liturgy attracted the attention of
the eighth-century Franco-Germanic people who copied or imitated
it and imported its books. In the twelfth century, when the Roman
Church woke up to the realization that it had lost the classical shape
of its liturgy because of Franco-Germanic influences in the city,
efforts were made to recapture it. The postconciliar reform of Trent
tried likewise, though with no appreciable success. It was with some
kind of nostalgia that the eighteenth-century Synod of Pistoia at-
tempted to restore it, except that the synod was condemned by
Rome. Fresh efforts appeared at the beginning of the twentieth cen-
tury in the liturgical movement that is now called “classical.” Thanks
to this movement the recovery of the classical shape of the Roman
liturgy became part of Vatican II’s agenda.
It is this classical shape that the Constitution on the Liturgy speaks
about in art. 34: “The rites should be marked by a noble simplicity;
they should be short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions;
they should be within the people’s powers of comprehension and as
a rule not require much explanation.” The option for the classical
form was taken to task, even during the council, for being somewhat
archeological. A council father advised the conciliar commission on
the liturgy to institute changes for reasons not of archeology but of
pastoral care for which the council had been convened.28 Yet in the
thinking of those who framed the Constitution the pastoral care,
which promotes active and intelligent participation, was addressed
by the classical qualities of the Roman liturgy. Thus art. 50 directs
that for the sake of “devout, active participation” the rites of the
Mass are to be simplified, useless duplications eliminated, and useful
and necessary elements restored to the vigor they had “in the tradi-
tion of the Fathers.”
THE ROMAN LITURGY DURING THE FRANCO-

GERMANIC PERIOD
Several factors tied the history of the Roman liturgy to the Franco-
Germanic Empire and churches which flourished in northern Europe
in the eighth century. If not for these factors the Roman liturgy would
probably have remained a local liturgy for a local church and pre-
served its original classic quality.
28 Schema Constitutionis de Sacra Liturgia, Modi II, 8 (Vatican City, 1963) 8.
141
After the conversion of King Clovis in 496, pilgrims, monks, clergy,
and bishops from the north began to visit Rome. Impressed by the
splendor of the Rome’s liturgical celebrations, they brought home its
usages. Thus the process of importing elements of the Roman liturgy,
though sporadic and on purely private initiative, began. The phe-
nomenon which we call today “inculturation of the Roman liturgy”
has its origin at this time. The Roman classical shape came into con-
tact with the new cultures of the northern people, and this encounter
left profound marks, some of them indelible, on the Roman liturgy.
The process gathered force in the eighth century in the reign of
Pepin III, called the Short (751–768) who tried to impose the Roman
system on his empire. It is useful to note that during this period there
existed in the Franco-Germanic Empire what C. Vogel has quite im-
properly described as “liturgical anarchy.” Liturgical usages varied
from diocese to diocese because the bishops had control of the shape
of worship in their respective local churches.29 The so-called Gallican
liturgies, though sharing common non-Roman traits, were in fact
never uniformly imposed in the empire. There was no central author-
ity, like the post-tridentine Congregation of Rites or today’s
Congregation for Divine Worship, with power to regulate the devel-
opment of the liturgy. The situation encouraged the importation of
the Roman liturgical books, especially by the middle of the eighth
century. These books were adapted, as it was to be expected, to the
liturgical usages of the different churches. The result was the incur-
sion of the Roman liturgy in the empire of Pepin the Short but in the
variety of local adaptations. The Gelasian Sacramentaries of the
eighth century, as they are called today, are the chief witnesses to
this.
The role of Pepin the Short is commemorated by his son
Charlemagne (774–814), who wrote in his Admonitio Generalis of 789
that his father had abolished the gallicanus in favor of the cantus
romanus or the recitation of the Roman orations, in order to show unity
with the Apostolic See. Charles the Bald, the last of the Carolingian
emperors († 877), recalled that until the time of Pepin the churches in
Gaul and Spain celebrated the liturgy differently from the Roman
29 C. Vogel, “Les motifs de la romanisation du culte sous Pépin et
Charlemagne,” Culto cristiano. Politica imperiale carolingia (Todi, 1979) 17–20;

J. Pinell: “La Liturgia gallicana,” Anamnesis 2, 62–7.
142
Church.30 Bishops were also involved in the process of romanization.
Remedius of Rouen went to Rome in 760 and brought back with him
the second cantor of the papal schola cantorum in order to teach the
Roman cantilena to his clergy. Chrodegang of Metz, a great admirer of
the Roman liturgy, visited Rome in 753 and introduced in his diocese
the Roman chant and Order of Mass.31
Of great importance to the development of the Roman liturgy was
the way the books were adapted to the Franco-Germanic situation.
The Gelasian Sacramentary, Vat. Reg. lat. 316, carries two versions of
the same formulary, one (no. 454) original Roman, the other (453)
Gallicanized.32 One notices the shift from the original adoptionis spiri-
tum to the Gallicanized sanctificationis spiritum. This seems to indicate
a new theological stress concerning the effect of baptism. On the
other hand, the change from the original puram servitutem to puram
animam et purum pectus seems to focus attention on the moral rather
than the theological aspect of baptism in line with the people’s
moralistic approach to the sacraments. Finally the distance of these
local churches from the center of Christendom seems to be the reason
for the addition of the phrase per universa mundi spatia to the
Gallicanized form.
Charlemagne, the protector of iustitia Sancti Petri, continued the
reform of romanization and unification initiated by his father with a
more decisive program. In 783 he requested Pope Hadrian I for a
pure (immixtum) Roman sacramentary with the intention of replacing
the mixed Gelasian sacramentaries that circulated in his empire.
Copies were to be made from it as ex authentico. Two years later the
pope sent him a Gregorian, hence papal, type of sacramentary.
Perhaps the pope did not realize the emperor’s intention. Being a
papal book for stational Masses, it did not include several formularies,
such as those of the Sundays after Epiphany and the octaves of
Easter and Pentecost, not to mention things that were integral to the
religious world of the Franco-Germanic people such as funeral
30Capitularia Regum Francorum 1, MGH (1835) 61; Epist. ad Clerum Ravennatis,

Mansi: Concilia XVIIIB, 730.
31 C. Vogel, Medieval Liturgy. An Introduction to the Sources, 119–20.
32 Sacramentarium Gelasianum, ed. L. C. Mohlberg, RED, Fontes IV (Rome, 1981) 75.
143
Masses, votive Masses, and blessings.33 On Benedict of Aniane († 821)
fell the responsibility to fill in the lacunae with local elements at his
disposal. These he collected as a supplement to the Roman sacramen-
tary with the explanatory preface Hucusque. Unwittingly elements of
the mixed Gelasian sacramentaries and the usages of the Franco-
Germanic churches once again entered into the Roman book. Thus
the program of romanization turned out to be a gallicanization of the
Roman liturgy. The rest is part of the history of the liturgical books.
A similar phenomenon occurred in the case of the Roman ordines
the first of which left Rome for the north sometime between 700 and
750. These ordines were eventually elaborated to form the pontificals
in the broad sense of the word. A notable example is the Romano-
Germanic Pontifical composed between 950 and 962 in the
Benedictine Abbey of Mainz.34
This pontifical, which claims a particular interest for the history of
the succeeding Roman pontificals, is a remarkable description of the
liturgical state of the Franco-Germanic Churches. The Masses for en-
ergumens and various exorcisms reflect the spirit world in which
they lived. The numerous sermons and the explanation of various
liturgical items show the need of bishops and clergy for greater infor-
mation. Likewise the blessings ad diversa reveal the people’s religious
attitude toward things and places they used. Practically everything
that could be blessed was blessed: houses, sleeping quarters, kitchen,
food, bath tubs, soap, field, animals, and so on. Startling are the
blessings of the instruments of ordeal like the incandescent gridiron
and boiling or else ice water.35
It was also at this time when the so-called liturgical “apologies”
became a constant companion of priests when they celebrated the
liturgy. These prayers were a form of self-deprecation and recogni-
tion of unworthiness on the part of the presiders. They were ubiqui-
tous and were sometimes inserted even in the canon of the Mass. The
most developed form is exhibited in the Missa Illyrica of 1030, pub-
lished by Flacius Illyricus in 1557. Other examples are found in some
33 J. Deshusses, “L’Evolution du sacramentaire,” Le Sacramentaire grégorien, 61–

74.
34 C. Vogel, “Introduction générale,” Le Pontifical romano-germanique du dixième
siècle III (Vatican City, 1972) 28–55.

35 Ibid. II, nos. 180–245, 333–80; nos. 246–52, 380–414.
144
of the ordines published by E. Martène.36 The “apologies” form part
of the religious moralism that gripped several liturgical formularies
of the Franco-Germanic Churches.
But the Franco-Germanic people will for ever be admired for their
romanesque architecture, hymnody, and miniature arts. The church
edifices in Reims, Hildesheim, Essen, and Fleury, to mention a few
examples, combine the traditional Roman genius for sobriety and
functionality with the Franco-Germanic sense for harmony and dyna-
mism. The hymn Veni, Creator Spiritus and the Easter sequence
Victimae paschali laudes are some of the stupendous compositions that
still resound in today’s liturgical celebrations. The miniatures,
painted in vivid colors and with imagination or fantasy, decorate the
lectionaries and sacramentaries, a tradition that has survived in our
liturgical books.37
What took place at this period was the integration of the artistic,
dramatic, and spiritual genius of the Franco-Germanic people with
the imported classical Roman liturgy. By a turn of events in the tenth
century this gallicanized shape of the Roman liturgy entered the city
of Rome to gradually replace the classical form. The preparatory
liturgy commission of Vatican II proposed to eliminate much of
“these elements originating in the character of the Franco-Germanic
people and which the Roman Church later adopted.”38 We know,
however, that several of these foreign elements have survived the
liturgical reform of Vatican II because of their intrinsic value and
pastoral usefulness. One must admit that in many ways they en-
riched the classical Roman liturgy by infusing it with drama, poetry,
and symbolism.
As a final consideration, the Franco-Germanic period has relevance
particularly in those local churches whose culture differs from the
classical qualities of the reformed Roman liturgy. It serves as a
36 De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus Libri I (Hildesheim, 1967) cap. IV, Ordo XXXIV–
VII, 662–79; A. Nocent, “Les apologies dans la célébration eucharistique,” Liturgie

et rémission des péchés (Rome, 1975) 179–96.
37 F. Müterich: “I libri carolini e la miniatura carolingia,” 283–301; V. Elbern,
“Werke liturgischer Goldschmiedekunst in karolingischer Zeit,” 305–36; C. Heitz,

“L’architettura dell’età carolingia in relazione alla liturgia sacra,” 339–62, Culto
cristiano. Politica imperiale carolingia.
38 Schema Constitutionis de Sacra Liturgia, Emendationes VI (Vatican City, 1963) 32.
145
historical model of inculturation, which in the thinking of the present
legislation takes the revised Roman liturgy as its point of departure.39
THE ROMAN LITURGY FROM THE TENTH

TO T H E F I F T E E N T H C E N T U RY
Another development in the Roman liturgy began to take shape in
the tenth century when it returned to the city in its Gallicanized
form. Several factors, both political and religious, contributed to it.
After the death of Louis the Pious in 840, the Franco-Germanic
Empire went into crisis and collapsed in 887. The French part of the
empire distanced itself from the German which Otto I (951–973) ruled
with the religious fervor of the Carolingians. In 962 he went to Rome
to be crowned emperor of the Holy Roman Empire and to inaugurate
the Renovatio Imperii. There he discovered that the city was racked by
political conflicts and suffered badly from the spiritual decadence of
its head. The Roman clergy had accused Pope John XII († 964) of si-
moniacal ordinations, of ordaining bishop a boy ten years of age, and
of giving away to women of bad repute the Church’s sacred vessels.40
The following year Otto I went back to Rome accompanied by arch-
bishops and bishops to institute reforms. What interests us here is the
fact that his ecclesiastical cortege brought along the Gallicanized
Roman liturgical books, with particular mention of the Romano-
Germanic Pontifical. Furthermore as part of the Ottonian emperors’
political strategy Germans occupied the see of Peter from 1046 to
1057: Clement II, Damasus II, Leo IX, Victor II, and Stephen IX. These
popes celebrated the Roman liturgy in the Gallicanized form they
had known in their homeland.
The Roman decadence was felt also in the indispensable area of
manuscript writing. During the papacy of Gregory V (996–999) Rome
did not have scriptoria to transcribe liturgical books. In exchange for
39 The Roman Liturgy and Inculturation. IVth Instruction for the Right
Application of the Conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy (nn. 37–40), (Rome, 1994)
no. 36, 18.
40 M. Andrieu, “La diffusion du Pontifical romano-germanique. Son adoption
par l’Eglise romaine,” Les Ordines romani du haut moyen-âge, vol 1 (Louvain, 1931)
512–15. Of Pope John XII Liber Pontificalis (II, 246–49) notes: Iste denique infelicissi-
mus, quod sibi peius est, totam vitam suam in adulterio et vanitate duxit.
146
the privilege of immunity requested by the monks of Reichenau, he
demanded to be regularly furnished copies of their liturgical books.
Thus the Franco-Germanic liturgy became the liturgy of the Lateran
Basilica.41
Outside developments in the liturgy also influenced to some de-
gree that of Rome. The tenth-century monastic reform of Cluny led to
a type of liturgical worship that grew longer and more solemn with
the years. Though not everything Cluny practiced was originally its
own, it succeeded in propagating as community activities devotions
to the cross, the Eucharist, Mary, and the saints. It encouraged the
multiplication of Masses, their “private” celebration in the lateral
chapels of the church, and the recitation of psalms for benefactors.
It was Abbot Odilo († 1049) who instituted the commemoration of
the dead on November 2.42
Another outside development in the tenth century was the impor-
tance being given to dramatization in the liturgy. Examples of these
are the Easter visitatio sepulchri, officium peregrinorum, and hortolanus.
These forms of drama made use of the liturgical texts, like the
sequences, and the dramatis personae were the liturgical ministers.43
Dramatization in the liturgy reveals the state of liturgical life of the
high Middle Ages. It tells us that ordinary people no longer grasped
the meaning of the liturgy and had to be helped with visual aids. The
English Regularis Concordia explains that drama was intended for the
ignorant and those new in the faith. Participation in songs and re-
sponses had began to wane. Burkhard of Worms († 1035) complained
that people in church ignored the greeting and exhortation of the
priest as they continued to chat among themselves. In 1078 Pope
Gregory VII had to require people to bring an offering at least for
solemn Masses. The twelfth-century Ordo officiorum of the Lateran
Basilica decried the fact that the ancient practice of daily Communion
during Lent, including Sundays, was not being observed by both
41 C. Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, 230–39; M. Andrieu, “La diffusion du Pontifical

romano-germanique,” 515–17.
42 K. Hallinger, “Progressi e problemi della ricerca sulla riforma pre-gregoriana,”
Il Monachesimo nell’alto medioevo e la formazione della civiltà occidentale (Spoleto,

1957) 257–91; J. Leclercq: “Culte et pauvreté à Cluny,” MD 81 (1965) 33–50.
43 K. Young, The Drama of the Medieval Church (Oxford, 1951); B. Berger, Le drame
liturgique de pâques (Paris, 1976).
147
clergy and faithful. It thus prescribes Communion of the faithful at
least three times a year.44
The accession of Gregory VII to the papal throne in 1072 had pro-
found consequences for the liturgy of Rome. A defender of the liberty
of the Church against investiture, he was also a reformer who com-
batted the two abuses which plagued the Roman clergy: simony and
nicholaism. To counteract investiture he built the image and author-
ity of the pope: feasts of holy popes were to be kept in every local
church; bishops had to make an oath of allegiance to the pope before
their ordination; the naming of the pope in the canon of the Mass
was to be observed everywhere.45 Part of his strategy in the reform of
the clergy, besides the imposition of a quasi-monastic discipline, was
to reestablish the traditional liturgical usages of the Church of Rome
before the Germans took over its government. The return to the re-
gula sanctorum patrum, the ordo romanus, and the mos antiquus, which
he claimed to have studied, became the order of the day.46 Some ele-
ments of the traditional usages concerned the order of psalmody,
fasting on Saturday, omission of the Alleluia in Septuagesima, and the
ancient ordo for the celebration of the Easter Vigil.
In the spirit of the Gregorian reform, the Roman liturgists of the
twelfth century reworked the Romano-Germanic Pontifical using the
method of elimination in an effort to restore the romana sobrietas.
Things not pertaining to the scope of a pontifical, like didactic ele-
ments, or ran contrary to the Roman cultural sensitivity, like the
Masses for energumens and the blessing of instruments of ordeal,
were eliminated. The result was the Roman Pontifical of the twelfth
century.47 This book was propagated in other local Churches in Italy
and north of the Alps by papal legates who went about implement-
ing the decrees of Lateran Council I (1123) and by the popes them-
selves who before the reign of Innocent III (1198–1216) frequently
44 B. Neunheuser, Storia della liturgia, 93–4.

45 E. Cattaneo, “La riforma gregoriana,” Il Culto cristiano in occidente, 231–42.
46 Regula Canonica, G. Morin, ed., Anecdota Maredsolana, 2, series 1 (Paris, 1913)
459–60. Pius V invoked the pristina sanctorum Patrum norma for the Tridentine
Missal of 1570; so did Paul VI for the Missal of 1970.
47 M. Andrieu, Le Pontifical romain au moyen-âge, vol 1, 8–16; C. Vogel, Medieval
Liturgy, 230–9.
148
went into exile in various parts of Italy and France. The rest is part of
the history of the Roman liturgical books.
Although the work of the Roman liturgists of the twelfth century
was not perfect in the sense that several Franco-Germanic elements
survived, it is a proof that the Roman Church does not easily forget
nor lay aside its classical genius and its traditions. Its openness to
things new does not prejudice its attachment to the regula sanctorum
patrum. The liturgical reform of Vatican II confirms this.
The reigns of Pope Innocent III and of Pope Honorius III (1216–
1227) witnessed further development in the shape of the Roman lit-
urgy. It is useful to set their reigns in the context of an age of intense
spiritual and cultural activities represented by Dominic († 1221) and
Francis of Assisi († 1226), the great scholastics led by Thomas
Aquinas († 1280), the University of Paris, and the great cathedrals in
Reims, Westminster, and Florence.
On his part Innocent III initiated a liturgical novelty. He instituted
a type of liturgy that would respond to the particular situation of the
Roman curia which at that time functioned as an itinerant adminis-
trative body. For their travels curia members needed portable litur-
gical books with a simplified format. For this purpose a missal now
known as Missale Curiae, a pontifical, and a breviary were com-
posed.48 Clearly the intention of Innocent III was neither codification
nor unification of liturgical usages. By a turn of circumstances, how-
ever, this type of liturgy was adopted by the Friars Minor who,
besides being closely linked to the Roman curia, often found them-
selves also in an itinerant situation. Thus the liturgy of the Roman
curia spread beyond the small group of ecclesiastics for whom
Innocent III had originally intended it.49 Its relationship with the
famous 1295 Pontifical of Durand and the 1485 Editio princeps by
A. Piccolomini and J. Burchard of Strasbourg is part of the history of
the Roman liturgical books.
Intense spiritual and cultural activities continued well into the
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. These years were marked by the
guilds, construction of numerous chapels and oratories, the appear-
48 M. Andrieu, Le Pontifical romain au moyen-âge, vol II, 263–323; C. Vogel,
Medieval Liturgy, 252.

49 S. van Dijk, The Origins of the Modern Roman Liturgy (London, 1960).
149
ance of influential preachers and reformers like Savonarola († 1498),
the birth of the Renaissance, the works of the great masters like
Giotto († 1337), Dante Alighieri († 1321), and Filippo Bruneleschi
(† 1446). The invention of the printing press by Johann Gutenberg in
1445 contributed immensely to culture and religion, including the
liturgy. The Editio princeps of the Roman Pontifical was printed in
Rome in 1485. This period closes with the discovery of America in
1492. Yet these centuries shared much in human misery and trage-
dies. The tenor of life, caused by political strifes all over Europe, was
violent. The Black Plague of 1380 and the Hundred Years War (1337–
1453) induced in the people a sense of pessimism. Lastly the fall of
Constantinople in 1453 rocked the confidence in the existence of a
Christian world. Because of this authors have called these centuries
the “autumn of the Middle Ages.”50
In the area of liturgy things were not better. Indeed there was
something insidious about this period. The external appearances
seemed healthy, but within was a dangerous malaise that announced
the total collapse of the Church’s life of worship. It is important to
note, however, that much of the malaise with which this period was
afflicted was not a product of the time, but had its origin in the pre-
ceding centuries.
The following are some examples. Clericalism, which forced the
assembly to resort to private devotions during Mass, had made its
appearance already in the ninth century with the composition of the
plenary missals. The premise for these missals is that the presider
did everything by himself and privately, regardless of an assembly.51
The theology of the transubstantiation, which developed against the
heresy of Berengarius of Tours († 1088) confined the attention of
clergy and faithful to the moment of consecration. People sometimes
came to Mass with the sole desire to witness a miracle similar to the
one reported in Bolsena in 1236. Another example was the excessive
use of allegorism, which presented the Mass to the assembly as a
mere occasion to remember aspects of Christ’s life. This period inher-
ited it from the allegorism of Amalarius of Metz († 850) and Pope
Innocent III.
50 J. Huizinga, The Waning of the Middle Ages (London, 1976).

51 C. Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, 105–6, 156–9.
150
Likewise during this period the faithful’s devotion to the Mass
consisted in gaining its “fruits.” Consequently Masses were multi-
plied in order to comply with the obligation arising from the stipends
offered by the faithful and alas indulge at times in the abusive Missa
bi-, tri-, or quadrifaciata or the several repetitions of the parts of the
Mass before reciting once the canon of the Mass.52 Finally this period
witnessed the birth of the devotio moderna among the religious. It was
a spirituality of a mystical type influenced by Master Eckhart († 1327),
purely personal or unecclesial in the style of Thomas à Kempis (†
1471), and strongly affective in expression. With the exception of
Gertrude of Helfta († 1301), few knew how to nourish their spiritual
and mystical life with the liturgy.
The fourteenth and fifteenth centuries were an interplay between
light and shadow. Their external vitality hid the malaise of clerical-
ism, exaggerated allegorism, misplaced devotion to the Mass, a form
of spirituality that dispensed with the liturgy as its source, and most
of all the loss of an ecclesial sense caused by individualism. This pe-
riod tells us that when solid theological, ecclesiological, and liturgical
foundations are absent in our liturgical activities, autumn has come
and winter is not far away.
52 S. Marsili, “Excursus I,” Anamnesis III/2, 78–91.
Bibliography
Cattaneo, E. Il culto cristiano in Occidente. Note storiche. BELS 13. Rome, 1984.
Chavasse, A. La liturgie de la ville de Rome du Ve au VIIIe siècle. SA 112. Rome,
1993.
Dix, G. The Shape of the Liturgy. 2nd ed. Westminster, 1945. Reprint New York,
1982.
Duchesne, L. Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution. Trans. M. L. McClure.
London, 1956.
Harper, J. The Forms and Orders of Western Liturgy from the Tenth to the
Eighteenth Century. Oxford, 1991.
Jungmann, J. The Early Liturgy to the Time of Gregory the Great. Notre Dame,
Ind., 1980.
Klauser, Th. A Short History of the Western Liturgy. Trans. J. Halliburton. 2nd ed.
New York, 1979.
151
Mazza, E. The Eucharistic Prayers of the Roman Rite. New York, 1986.
Metzger, M. Histoire de la liturgie. Les grandes étapes. Paris, 1994.
Neunheuser, B. Storia della liturgia attraverso le epoche culturali. Rome, 1977.
Nocent, A. “La preghiera eucaristica del canone romano.” Anàmnesis 3/2.
Schmidt, H. Introductio in liturgiam occidentalem. Rome, 1960.
Vogel, C. Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources. Trans. and rev.
W. Storey and N. Rasmussen. Washington, 1986.
Willis G. G. A History of Early Roman Liturgy to the Death of Pope Gregory the
Great. London, 1994.
152
Keith F. Pecklers, S.J.
10
History of the Roman Liturgy from the

Sixteenth until the Twentieth Centuries
There was significant liturgical activity at the beginning and end of

this historical period, that is, from 1563 until 1614, and again from
1903 until 1962. Otherwise, the seventeenth, eighteenth, and nine-
teenth centuries witnessed little change in liturgical practice.
T H E R O M A N L I T U R G Y AT T H E
T I M E O F T H E R E F O R M AT I O N
The sixteenth century was a time of tremendous reform. Martin
Luther († 1546) criticized the Church’s use of indulgences, the exag-
gerated cult of the saints, and a liturgical practice that had become
pompous and removed from the people. In 1520, he wrote the second
of his famous three treatises: “The Babylonian Captivity of the
Church,” which contains his interpretation of the sacraments. His
thesis is already stated in the title. As the Jews were sent away from
Jerusalem into captivity under the oppression of the Babylonian
Empire, so in Europe, Christians were sent away from the Scriptures
under the oppression of a papacy that had misused the sacraments,
especially the Eucharist.1 The treatise exposed three aspects of the
Church’s slavery: the denial of the chalice to the laity, the doctrine
of transubstantiation, and the doctrine of the sacrificial character of
the Mass. Moreover, Luther abolished private Mass and private
1 “Introduction,” “The Babylonian Captivity of the Church,” in Three Treatises
(Philadelphia, 1988) 116.
153
confession, called for a vernacular liturgy, and emphasized the priest-
hood of the baptized.2
Though we normally consider the Reformation to be “Protestant”
under the leadership of Luther, John Calvin († 1564), Ulrich Zwingli
(† 1531), and others, the Catholic Church experienced its own refor-
mation through the Council of Trent and the founding of reforming
orders like the Jesuits. We have already seen that the fourteenth and
fifteenth centuries were a time of heightened clericalism and a lost
ecclesial sense. The Mass had become a devotional practice.
Eucharistic adoration was viewed as superior to eucharistic partici-
pation in its fullest sense, and liturgy’s relationship to the daily life of
Christians was lost. Religious individualism was on the rise and with
it the proliferation of private Masses where the priest’s reception of
Communion was viewed as representative of those who did not com-
municate. By the beginning of the fourteenth century, the practice of
Mass stipends offered to the priest for having a Mass said for one’s
particular intention was already well in place. The sixteenth-century
Church was ripe for reform.
Symbolically, the Renaissance saw a growing interest in the theme
of magic, of “natural” (i.e., good) magic and “demonic” magic.3
Liturgical abuses increased. Those who attended Mass or those who
paid a stipend to the presider were entitled to obtain the “fruits of
the Mass.” Although earlier medieval interpretations of those “fruits”
were more benign, the Renaissance saw the list to include the follow-
ing: “during the time one hears Mass one does not grow older . . .
after hearing Mass one’s food tastes better; one will not die a sudden
death; the souls in Purgatory will not have to suffer while one is
hearing Mass for them.”4 The Reformation emerged within such a
milieu, reacting against what appeared to be poor doctrine and
scandalous practice and against a cultural system which deprived
Christians of personal freedom and direct access to God’s mercy.5
2 E. Cattaneo, Il culto cristiano in Occidente (Rome, 1978) 343–8.

3 B. Cooke, The Distancing of God: The Ambiguity of Symbol in History and
Theology (Minneapolis, 1990) 188–9.
4 J. Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite: Its Origins and Development (Dublin,
1986) I: 129, note 10.

5 D. Power, The Sacrifice We Offer (Edinburgh, 1987) 40.
154
For the first time, religious orders founded in the sixteenth century
were exempted from the obligation to pray the choral Office in order
to be more apostolically available.6 This meant architectural changes
in the newly-constructed churches of those orders since choir stalls
for the corporate praying of the Office were unnecessary. This also
meant radical changes in the liturgical space. Church architecture in
the late medieval period focused on the altar as shrine. The building
was divided into clearly delineated areas. The nave for the laity and
the choir where the Office was chanted was divided by a wooden
partition, called a “roodscreen” (rood meaning cross) since a large
cross often hung on or above the partition. As the nave and the choir
were two separate architectural spaces, they were also treated sepa-
rately according to church law: the choir (also called chancel) be-
longed to monks and clergy and the nave to the laity. In the distance
beyond the choir was the altar.7 Moreover, side chapels grew to facili-
tate the increase in private Masses, especially in churches of religious
orders where there were many priests living in the same place.
Sixteenth-century church buildings, however, were seen as a single
worship space. The removal of the chancel allowed for clear sight-
lines, and barriers between the assembly and the altar had vanished.
The first monumental church of this new architectural style was the
Jesuit Church of the Gesù in Rome, built between 1568 and 1575,
soon to be imitated elsewhere. There was no roodscreen blocking the
assembly’s vision. The altar stood centrally in the apse for all to see.
With the Jesuits’ emphasis on preaching and catechesis, the spoken
word rather than sung chant now became the priority, so the ambo
was placed on the north wall in the center of the church. Concerns
about acoustics and visibility were given greater attention because of
the emphasis on the ministries of the Word, an emphasis that seemed
“too Protestant” to some critics. This concern about acoustics is best
demonstrated in a debate over what type of ceiling should be in-
stalled in the Gesù. The Jesuits wanted a ceiling of open wooden
trusses because it would acoustically assist the preaching and cate-
chesis. Cardinal Alessandro Farnese, benefactor of the church, pre-
ferred a stone vault ceiling. Cardinal Farnese won.
6 J. Weiss, “Jesuits and the Liturgy of the Hours,” unpublished Ph.D. disserta-
tion, University of Notre Dame, 1992.
7 J. White, Roman Catholic Worship: Trent to Today (New York, 1995) 6.
155
THE LITURGICAL REFORMS
OF THE COUNCIL OF TRENT
The Council of Trent lasted from 1545 until 1563. In light of Vatican
II, the Tridentine council is often viewed as conservative and even re-
actionary. Indeed, its agenda included an affirmation of Catholic doc-
trine on such topics as the seven sacraments instituted by Christ as
instruments of God’s distribution of grace, and the propitiatory na-
ture of eucharistic sacrifice as a response to Protestant reformers who
held that the Mass was a “testament” of God’s forgiveness. But the
council also sought to correct some of the liturgical abuses witnessed
and commented upon by those same reformers and even encouraged
pastoral sensitivity regarding liturgical concerns such as the vernacu-
lar.8 In attempting to challenge what was seen as a rampant subjectiv-
ity of the liturgy,9 a rigid uniformity was enforced, so much so that
the liturgy remained virtually unchanged until Vatican II. The call for
liturgical uniformity overshadowed the pastoral dimension.
Liturgically, the Council of Trent dealt primarily with the Mass and
the Liturgy of the Hours. In its disciplinary decree De observandis et
evitandis in celebratione missae, passed in its twenty-second session on
September 17, 1562, the council ordered that the most serious litur-
gical abuses be eliminated: Mass should be celebrated only in conse-
crated places, magical treatment of the consecrated host was to stop,
disrespectful and inappropriate liturgical music was to cease, bishops
were to keep an eye on their priests regarding stipends so that they
did not profit inappropriately from a proliferation of Masses, super-
stition around the number of fixed Masses should cease. The reform
of the missal was not mentioned. It was not until the twenty-fifth
session when both the missal and breviary were discussed and then
referred to the pope to be reformed.10
Pius IV delegated the task of reforming the missal and breviary to
a commission whose proceedings no longer exist. In 1568 the
8 H. Schmidt, Liturgie et langue vulgaire. Le problème de la langue liturgique chez
les premiers Réformateurs et au Concile de Trente AGreg 53 (Rome, 1950).

9 With the birth of the Reformation, many Catholic priests initiated their own
reforms. In some parts of Austria, for example, the Eucharistic Prayer was elimi-
nated altogether. Jungmann, I:134.
10 Jungmann, 133–5.
156
Breviarium romanum ex decreto sacrosancti Concilii Tridentini restitutum,
Pii V. Pont. Max iussu editum was promulgated followed two years
later by the Missale Romanum ex decreto ss. Concilii Tridentini restitu-
tum, Pii V. Pont. Max iussu editum, issued in July 14, 1570. Prior to the
Council of Trent, Clement VII commissioned Francisco de Quiñonez,
a Spanish cardinal, to produce a revision of the breviary. Quiñonez
published his breviary in 1535 with the printed approval of Paul III.
The breviary was intended for private recitation, and the psalter was
divided into weekly segments without repetitions. The length of
Scripture readings was increased and read in sequence. Saints’ leg-
ends and votive offices were omitted along with elements more ap-
propriate to choral recitation such as antiphons, responses, chapters,
and intercessions. Many hymns were also omitted. The Quiñonez
breviary soon became popular because it was simple, short, and easy
to use, so much so that it was reprinted eleven times in the first year
and over one hundred times in its thirty-two years of use.11
The breviary produced by the Tridentine commission was a return
to the traditional Roman office albeit shortened and simplified.
Choral elements were restored although hagiographical legends and
the votive offices suppressed by Quiñonez were left omitted. The ob-
ligation to pray the offices of the Blessed Virgin and the Dead, along
with the Gradual and Penitential psalms was removed. The sanctoral
cycle was simplified.
The commission’s goal regarding the reform of both the breviary
and the missal was not the composition of new books but a return to
tradition, to the ancient liturgy of the city of Rome. This included a
cleansing of the liturgical calendar allowing for greater attention to
feasts and seasons, and the removal of unnecessary or inappropriate
texts added to the breviary and missal over the centuries. Prior to the
council, saints’ days were so abundant that they even took the place
of Sundays. Only those saints’ days celebrated in Rome prior to the
eleventh century were accepted as legitimate for the new calendar.
As a result, 157 days opened up on the liturgical calendar, excepting
octaves. A number of votive Masses and sequences were likewise
removed from the missal. Order was given to private prayers and
11 R. Taft, The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: The Origins of the Divine
Office and Its Meaning for Today (Collegeville, 1986) 311.
157
gestures of the presider which had been multiplied due to excessive
fervor and piety.12
The topic of liturgical music was also included in the agenda of the
council. Prior to the council music was often used inappropriately in
the liturgy, as background during the Eucharistic Prayer, for example,
while the presider prayed the prayer privately. The council permitted
only such music that had a particular function in the liturgy. Further,
preference was given to communal or “conventual” Masses where
the canons or the whole religious community celebrated together,
over private Masses devoid of music and the other ministries.
Perhaps most significant was the council’s statement that the solemn
celebration of Mass was to become the normative eucharistic liturgy
rather than the unadorned “low Mass.”13
These Tridentine reforms sought to bring about a liturgical unifor-
mity both in theology and practice, and so rubrics were now printed
for the first time at the beginning of both the breviary and missal, de-
spite requests that permissions for regional differences in celebrations
of the Roman rite be left to the local bishops involved. The 1502 Ritus
servandus in celebratione missae of Johannes Burckard, papal master of
ceremonies, was the source for the rubrics of the 1570 missal and sub-
stantially changed the face of Catholic worship far beyond the con-
fines of Rome.14
The pastoral sense of the council participants and their genuine de-
sire for reform within the Catholic Church should not be overlooked.
By the time the decree on the Mass was formulated, bishops at the
council had already recognized the importance of Communion by the
whole assembly during Mass and this became one of the practical re-
forms desired out of the disciplinary decrees that were issued. Other
decrees reveal discussion on the possibility of the use of the vernacu-
lar and on offering the chalice to the whole assembly during Mass.15
12 R. Cabié, “The Celebration of the Eucharist in the West from the Council of
Trent to Vatican Council II,” in A.G. Martimort, The Church at Prayer vol II: The
Eucharist (Collegeville, 1987) 175.
13 Ibid.
14 P. Jounel, “From the Council of Trent to Vatican Council II,” The Church at
Prayer, vol 1: Principles of the Liturgy, 67–8.

15 J. Huels, “Trent and the Chalice: Forerunner of Vatican II?” Worship 56 (1982)
386–400. Decision on offering the chalice to the faithful was left to the Pope. In
158
While affirming that Latin was the language of mystery and the lan-
guage of the Church, at least some of the bishops at the council were
concerned that a large percentage of every liturgical assembly was
unable to comprehend what was taking place. This concern was
expressed in the twenty-second session (1562) when it was decreed
that the liturgical readings and the mystery of the Eucharist should
be explained to the people during Mass, at least on Sundays and
feasts (no. 1554). Moreover, despite the “fruits” received because of
so many private Masses celebrated throughout the world, the prac-
tice of Communion by the laity only once or twice a year was consid-
ered unsatisfactory.16 Therefore, that same session expressed the
desire that the faithful should communicate sacramentally at every
Mass where they are present (no. 1552).
As for the doctrine of the Eucharist, there were no surprises. In
1551, during the thirteenth session, the doctrine of the real presence
was reaffirmed (no. 1513) along with reservation of the sacrament in
churches for veneration (no. 1520) and care of the sick (no. 1521).
That same session affirmed the preeminence of the Eucharist over
other sacraments (no. 1516) and the doctrine of transubstantiation
(no. 1519). The twenty-second session affirmed the propitiatory
nature of the eucharistic sacrifice (no. 1548) and that Christ offered
himself in bread and wine to reveal his own priesthood in the order
of Melchizedek (no. 1546). The Roman Canon was proclaimed free
from error (no. 1550), and priests were reminded that water was to be
mixed with wine in offering the chalice (no. 1553) as already pre-
scribed in the Council of Florence.
Under the leadership of Gregory XIII, the liturgical calendar was
revised in 1582. Two years later, the Roman martyrology was revised,
relying on the ninth-century martyrology of Usuard and removing
undocumented or historically inaccurate hagiographical accretions.
A commission of ten worked on the new text, including the noted
historian Cardinal Cesare Baronius, who published further revisions
1564, permission was granted by Pius IV to Germany and several other European
countries. Successors of Pius IV gradually revoked the permission, for Bavaria in
1570, and finally Bohemia in 1621. C. Constant, La concession à l’Allemagne de la
communion sous les deux espèces: Etude sur les débuts de la reforme catholique en
Allemagne (1548–1621) (Paris, 1923, 2 vols).
16 Power, 128–9.
159
in 1586 and 1589. The martyrology was intended to be read in reli-
gious houses at the daily office of prime. No other liturgical book
was revised as often as the martyrology since new canonizations and
ongoing research required new editions of the text.17
In 1588, the Congregation of Sacred Rites was established by Sixtus
V, along with fourteen other congregations. Responsibilities for the
congregation included care for the celebration of the rites, the restora-
tion and reform of ceremonies, the reform of liturgical books, regulat-
ing the offices of patron saints, the canonization of saints, the
celebration of feasts, the reception of dignitaries to Rome, and the so-
lution to liturgical difficulties raised by local circumstances.18 Despite
these different responsibilities, there is no question that the primary
function of the congregation was to assist the goal of liturgical unifi-
cation throughout the western world and to see to it that the newly
instituted Roman rubrics were being faithfully observed.19
The Congregation of Sacred Rites also continued the reform of
liturgical books begun at Trent. In 1596 the new Roman Pontifical,
based on the thirteenth-century pontifical of French bishop William
Durandus was published and made universally mandatory by
Clement VIII. Four years later, in 1600, the first Caeremoniale
Episcoporum (CE) was published, containing rubrics for liturgies
involving a bishop. The Roman Ritual (RR) followed in 1614 as a type
of pastoral manual: blessings of persons, places, or things, the
administration of baptism, penance, marriage, extreme unction,
processions, etc. The text was based largely on the 1523 text for
priests by Dominican Alberto Castellani and on Cardinal Giulio
Antonio Santori’s 1601 ritual. Although Paul V encouraged bishops
and priests to use the new ritual, it was not obligatory. As a result,
with the exception of Italy, the RR was little known until the mid-
nineteenth century, and even then, many dioceses had their own
appendixes included up until Vatican II.20
17 White, 12.
18 F. McManus, The Congregation of Sacred Rites (Washington, D.C., 1954) 27.
19 White, 12–4.
20 White, 12.
160
THE ROMAN LITURGY DURING THE BAROQUE PERIOD
The religious culture of the seventeenth-century baroque was a
culture of joyful celebration and feasting with pilgrimages and
processions in richly adorned costumes, with a flamboyant church
architecture and orchestral music, and with dramatic representations.
The visual and the audio were of paramount importance in this
sensual culture.21
Liturgically, it was a time of uniformity, or in the words of histo-
rian Theodor Klauser, a period of “rigid unification in the Liturgy
and rubricism.”22 Reform of liturgical books continued with Clement
VIII’s new edition of the breviary in 1602 and a new missal in 1604,
adding new saints’ days and making corrections in the readings.
Urban VIII issued a new breviary in 1632, revising the Latin hymns.
New editions of the martyrology, missal, and pontifical were pub-
lished in 1630, 1634, and 1644 respectively. The CE of 1600 was re-
vised by Innocent X in 1650. Other than the revision of liturgical
books, however, there was relatively little liturgical change.
The decline in liturgical activity during the baroque period gave
way to a growth in eucharistic adoration. The RR of 1614 prescribed
the tabernacle for the universal Church. Unlike the medieval hang-
ing pyx in the form of a dove, baroque tabernacles tended to be
rather substantial in size. With newly constructed churches free of
barriers and the altar and tabernacle in clear sight, veneration of the
reserved Eucharist took on a new appeal. The unified baroque inte-
rior did, indeed, gather people together in a way that the medieval
worship space could not. The only difference was that it was the
reserved sacrament rather than the liturgy itself that became the
motive for the gathering. Liturgy became subordinate to the cult of
the reserved Eucharist. The altar became a throne for the monstrance
containing the sacrament and the interior of the church became a
throne room. The altar itself played a subordinate role to the much
more elaborate tabernacle and monstrance. The feast of Corpus
Christi was the most important liturgical celebration of the Church
21 B. Neunheuser, Storia della liturgia attraverso le epoche culturali (Rome, 1983)

122–3.
22 T. Klauser, A Short History of the Western Liturgy (New York, 1981) 117–52.
161
year because in that feast the Church professed its belief in the real
presence of Christ in the reserved sacrament.23
Jesuits, not only through their architecture but also through their
ministries, promoted such eucharistic adoration. In fact, up until
Vatican II, one of the few times of common prayer prescribed for
Jesuits was eucharistic benediction on Sundays and feasts. The
Congregation of Rites sought to challenge and suppress the baroque
subordination of the Mass as a backdrop to the veneration of the
reserved sacrament but this was not a battle easily won. Indeed, the
tension continues today in some places where bishops insist that the
reserved sacrament be centrally located in the liturgical space so that
the assembly has view of the tabernacle during Mass.
Unlike the clear lines and noble simplicity of medieval architecture,
baroque architecture was theatrical, known for its flamboyant move-
ment, color, and detail, and its twisted columns as demonstrated in
the baldachino of St. Peter’s Basilica in Vatican City, designed by the
baroque master, Gianlorenzo Bernini († 1680). Nothing was simple in
baroque churches. Everything was designed to create effects and
awaken the senses. Mission churches built during the seventeenth
century were often copies of what the Jesuit and Franciscan mission-
aries had left in Portugal and Spain, so the baroque style soon made
its way throughout the world.24
Musically, the age of the baroque was equally rich although the
focus was more on theatrical performance than liturgical function.
Occasionally, there were congregational hymns sung during low
Masses. The Cantual of Mainz published in 1605 encouraged the
incorporation of German hymns in the Mass, including hymns to be
sung by the assembly in place of the Gloria, the Sanctus, etc. This
tradition existed in Germany, especially in Bavaria even prior to the
Reformation, eventually finding its way into the German high Mass.
It escaped condemnation by church authorities because the presider
continued to whisper the texts in Latin as the assembly and choir
sang in German. New musical developments in harmony and coun-
terpoint brought about newly composed Masses to be sung by one or
more choirs, along with the use of other instrumentation besides the
organ. Masses were composed for orchestras by such musical leaders
23 Klauser, 138–9.
24 White, 28–9.
162
as Mozart and Beethoven. The artistic accomplishments of Baroque
music entertained liturgical assemblies, but congregants remained
passive spectators and had little role in the liturgy itself.
One significant liturgical issue of the seventeenth century was that
of the Chinese Rites Controversy25 which demonstrated the tension
between the Catholic culture of Europe and its encounter with the
non-Christian cultures of Asia through the experience of Catholic mis-
sionaries. The controversy centered on two issues: the veneration of
deceased parents and relatives, and the cult of Confucius. Early Jesuit
missionaries like Matteo Ricci believed that the Chinese did not have
to deny every aspect of their culture to accept Christianity, while later
Dominican and Franciscan missionaries disagreed. The debate re-
ceived a great deal of attention from the Congregation of Sacred Rites.
Back in Europe, the mid-seventeenth century witnessed the evolu-
tion of the neo-Gallican liturgies.26 The term “neo-Gallican” has no
reference to the earlier Gallican rites but refers to the country of
origin. Beginning in 1667 with the Ritual of Alet, a number of dioceses
in France published a series of service books with rubrics printed in
French and with variations in content from diocese to diocese. A new
ritual for the Archdiocese of Reims followed ten years later, along
with a new breviary published in 1678 by the archbishop of Vienne,
Henri de Villars. The breviary replaced antiphons and responsories
with others taken from Scripture. A new breviary was published for
the Archdiocese of Paris in 1680 followed by a new missal in 1684.
A new monastic breviary for Cluny followed in 1686.27
The growth of the Jansenist movement with its rigoristic piety had
its own influence on worship in France in the seventeenth and eigh-
teenth centuries.28 Founded by Cornelius Jansen († 1638), bishop of
Ypres, Jansenists argued that a serious preparation was required prior
to the reception of Communion. This position was viewed by outsid-
ers as challenging the practice of frequent Communion, while
Jansenists believed they were encouraging a more informed liturgical
participation. Although the movement had a number of supporters
25 G. Minamiki, The Chinese Rites Controversy from Its Beginning to Modern Times
(Chicago, 1985).
26 F. Ellen Weaver, “The Neo-Gallican Liturgies Revisited,” SL 16 (1986–1987) 62–5.
27 White, 32.
28 A. Adam, Les Jansénistes au XVII siècle (Paris, 1968).
163
among the bishops, it was condemned by several popes, Innocent X
and Clement XI in particular. Jansenists battled with Jesuits over the
sacrament of penance, accusing the Jesuits of being too lenient with
the sacrament due to their adherence to probabilism. Jansenists
argued for greater severity and stricter penances.
THE ROMAN LITURGY IN THE

AGE OF ENLIGHTENMENT
The enlightenment’s emphasis on rationalism and logic was not a great
help to the reform of the liturgy. This was a time of heightened indi-
vidualism where the essential logic of the liturgy was sought in order
to assist in personal moral formation. Despite Tridentine attempts to
simplify the liturgical calendar and restore the celebration of Sunday to
its proper place, the proliferation of feasts continued and many were
assigned to Sundays. As for liturgical scholarship, ancient sacramen-
taries and the Ordines Romani were being discovered, studied, and
published, thanks to the initiative of scholars like Cardinal Giuseppe
Tomasi († 1713).29 In 1741, attempting to re-launch the liturgical reform,
Pope Benedict XV established a commission to recommend liturgical
changes. Following their six-year project, the commission presented
their report in 1747, but it was rejected by the Pope. Benedict XV then
decided to take the matter into his own hands but died before being
able to execute the liturgical reform he desired. Despite liturgical schol-
arship and attempts at reform, rigid liturgical rubricism continued,
with the exception of the local liturgies of the French church.30
The biblical and patristic revival taking place in France and
throughout Europe gave added incentive to return to the sources.
Liturgical innovations continued to the extent that by the eighteenth
century, 90 of the 139 dioceses in France had its own liturgy. French
bishops viewed their approval of liturgical changes as similar to that
of their predecessors who had exercised the same power in approv-
ing the study and revision of earlier liturgical texts.31 Some German
bishops followed the example of their French neighbors in reforming
breviaries used in their dioceses according to the French model.
29 I. Scicolone, Il Cardinale Giuseppe Tomasi di Lampedusa e gli inizi della scienza
liturgica (Palermo, 1981).

30 P. Jounel, “From the Council of Trent to Vatican II,” 72.
31 J. F. De Percin De Montgaillard, Du droit et du pouvoir des évêques de regler les
offices divins dans leurs diocèses (Paris, 1686).
164
A very significant attempt at liturgical renewal came in 1786.
Inspired by the Tuscan Grand Duke Leopold II and under the leader-
ship of Scipio dé Ricci († 1810), bishop of Pistoia-Prato, the Jansenist-
influenced Synod of Pistoia called for a return to the pristine liturgy
of the early Church. The synod affirmed the independence of dioce-
san bishops to govern their own dioceses accordingly and that such
governance took place according to the approval of the diocesan
synod of the clergy. This was the position of the Gallican articles of
1682. Devotion to the Sacred Heart promoted by the Jesuits was op-
posed along with the cult of those saints and their reliquaries lacking
historical foundation, and processions carrying reliquaries or images
of the Madonna and the saints.
The synod encouraged the active liturgical participation of the faith-
ful, introducing use of the vernacular, eliminating Masses taking place
simultaneously in the same place, underlining the centrality of the
Sunday and parochial Eucharist where the presider should proclaim
the prayers in a loud, clear voice, and decreeing that Communion
given to the faithful must be consecrated at that same Mass, rather
than inappropriately relying on the convenience of the tabernacle.
Baptismal preparation for parents and godparents was insisted upon,
and it was considered preferable that baptisms took place at the
Easter Vigil. Marriage preparation for couples was also decreed.
The synod was far ahead of its time. Indeed, the liturgical reforms
bear a remarkable resemblance to liturgical concerns of Vatican II
because both relied upon the same sources for their reforms: the
liturgical tradition of the Church that ancient liturgical texts began to
propagate. Unlike the Synod of Pistoia, however, Vatican II enjoyed a
fifty-year preparation in the work of the liturgical movement. In
1794, eight years after the Synod of Pistoia, eighty-five propositions
of the Synod were condemned by Pius VI in the bull Auctorem fidei.
The first fifteen regarding the Church and its hierarchy were consid-
ered heretical while the rest were termed “false, scandalous,” etc.
Dé Ricci was subjected to public humiliation and was deposed as
bishop in 1790. In fact, the people and clergy of the diocese were not
in agreement with the decrees.32
32 C. Bolton, Church Reform in 18th Century Italy: The Synod of Pistoia 1786 (The
Hague, 1969).
165
THE ROMAN LITURGY AND
T H E P E R I O D O F R E S T O R AT I O N
Following the French Revolution, the Church in France was in a state
of tremendous disarray. In 1833 Prosper Guéranger († 1875) re-
founded the Benedictine Abbey of Solesmes that had been sup-
pressed during the revolution (1792). Guéranger’s intent was that
the new Solesmes respond to the needs of the contemporary Church
while remaining faithful to the monastic rule and Church teaching.33
It would also assist in bringing about ecclesial unity and uniformity
in France in light of local liturgical innovations that he considered too
Jansenist and Protestant since they were done without the permission
of the Holy See. Unlike the rest of France, the Eucharist and hours at
Solesmes were celebrated strictly according to the Roman rite.
Guéranger advocated a return to Gregorian chant as the official litur-
gical music of the Church. In the 1870s, the monks of Solesmes em-
barked on a study of chant manuscripts by returning to medieval
sources and purifying texts of accretions. The results of their research
have proved to be a valuable contribution for the Church.
Despite Guéranger’s conservatism, he is often considered to be the
founder of the European liturgical movement. This is ironic since his
approach was highly subjective, leading him to inaccurate liturgical
conclusions. Some of the local French liturgies he opposed, for ex-
ample, were later accepted by Vatican II and incorporated in the
missal of Paul VI. Nonetheless, Guéranger’s contribution was signifi-
cant. He worked at restoring the liturgy as central to the monastic
life. He educated many of the French clergy and laity through his
nine-volume series, L’année liturgique, begun in Advent of 1841.
In that same year, he initiated another major work, Institutions
liturgiques which was more scholarly in tone. It must be noted,
however, that unlike other liturgical pioneers, Guéranger failed to
promote the fundamental liturgical principle of “full and active litur-
gical participation by whole assembly.” Moreover, his work failed to
rely on a patristic liturgical model and it lacked the social justice
dimension, central elements of the liturgical movement in Europe
and elsewhere.
33 C. Johnson, Prosper Guéranger (1805–1875): A Liturgical Theologian (Rome,
1984) 147–89.
166
The influence of Solesmes was not limited to France but was car-
ried into Germany as well, through the founding of the Benedictine
abbey of Beuron and then its daughter house of Maria Laach. In
many respects, Beuron closely resembled Solesmes. Founded in 1863
by Maurus and Placidus Wolter, these brothers initiated that same
monastic and liturgical reform in Germany that Solesmes had offered
to the church in France. The early years of the monastery at Beuron
reveal concerns similar to those of Solesmes, a great respect for the
classic Roman liturgy, for example. Beuron became famous for its
Romanesque art and its art school founded by Desiderius Lenz, who
was influenced by Giotto, El Greco, and others. Lenz worked at es-
tablishing artistic unity within one liturgical space, fostering the har-
monic relationship between art and liturgy and encouraging others to
do the same. Beuron also became involved in liturgical publishing.
In 1884, Dom Anselm Schott published the first German-Latin missal,
Das Messbuch der Hl. Kirche. In 1893 the Vesperbuch followed. Each
volume contained numerous explanations taken from Guéranger’s
L’année liturgique.
The late nineteenth century witnessed a growth in liturgical schol-
arship. The review Ephemerides liturgicae was founded in 1887 and
three great collectors of liturgical texts, the Surtees Society, the Henry
Bradshaw Society, and the Alcuin Club Collections were founded in
1884, 1891, and 1899, respectively.
THE CLASSICAL LITURGICAL MOVEMENT

The early years of the twentieth century saw the coming of age of the
liturgical movement in Europe and gradually in other parts of the
world. Although Guéranger is sometimes called the founder of the
European liturgical movement, most historians agree that the real
founder was the Belgian Benedictine, Dom Lambert Beauduin, monk
of Mont César (founded in 1899), and the date for the movement’s
inception was 1909 at the Congrès national des ouvres catholiques at
Malines, Belgium, when Beauduin delivered his historic address,
La vraie prière de l’église. In that conference, he called for full and active
participation of all Christians in the Church’s life and ministry,
particularly the liturgy. He took as his mandate one of the statements
from the motu proprio of Pius X, Tra le sollecitudini, promulgated on
22 November 1903, which described the liturgy as “the Church’s most
167
important and indispensable source,” and called for greater liturgical
participation. Although the motu proprio dealt primarily with the
issue of Gregorian chant as the “supreme model for sacred music,”
its call for greater liturgical participation by the whole Church was
far more influential. Beauduin claimed the papal document as the
“magna carta” of the liturgical movement.
Two years after the promulgation of the motu proprio, the same
pope promulgated Sacra Tridentina synodus, reiterating the Tridentine
call to sacramental communion by the faithful. The document led to
the return of many Catholics to the practice of weekly and even daily
Communion and fostered an awareness of the reception of
Communion as integral to liturgical participation. With the promul-
gation of Quam singulari in 1910, Pius X lowered the age for first
Communion to the “age of reason,” i.e., when the child had reached
age seven. In 1911, the apostolic constitution Divino afflatu called for
a reordering of the psalter in the breviary, and it was reformed again
in 1914.
In 1910 Beauduin founded La vie liturgique and was joined by other
monks of Mont César in initiating the annual semaines liturgiques
(liturgical weeks) in 1912. In 1914, he published his only book, La
piété de l’église, which was a public declaration of the liturgical move-
ment, offering it solid theological and ecclesiological grounding.
Several years earlier, another Belgian Benedictine monastery,
Maredsous (1872), had already earned a reputation in liturgical pub-
lishing with the 1882 edition of the first French-Latin missal, Missel
des fidèles by Dom Gérard van Caloen, rector of the abbey school.34
In the Rhineland, Maria Laach became a center of German liturgical
scholarship and reform. In 1913, before becoming abbot, Ildefons
Herwegen († 1946) met a group of young laymen who expressed the
desire for greater liturgical participation. One year later, the new
abbot invited that same group back to the monastery for holy week
of 1914, where they celebrated together the dialogue Mass for the
first time.35
34B. Botte, Le Mouvement liturgique: Témoignage et souvenirs (Paris, 1973) 18–23.

35A. Häußling, “Die betende Kirche. Maria Laach und die deutsche Liturgische
Bewegung,” in Erneurung der Kirche aus dem Geist der Liturgie (Maria Laach, 1992)
15–26.
168
Herwegen, together with two of his monks, Cunibert Mohlberg
and Odo Casel († 1948), and in collaboration with Romano Guardini
(† 1968), Franz Dölger, and Anton Baumstark pioneered the German
liturgical movement. In 1918 they organized a three-fold series of
publications: Ecclesia Orans, Liturgiegeschichtliche Quellen, and
Liturgiegeschichtliche Forschungen. Three years later, they initiated the
periodical Jarbuch für Liturgiewissenschaft. A theoretician, Casel wrote
hundreds of articles and books in the next thirty years, the most fa-
mous of which was Das cristliche Kultmysterium. In that text he spoke
of the sacraments as mysteries, believing that Christian sacraments
were rooted in the Greek mystery cults. Although this theory is no
longer held today, his interpretation gave way to a positive and rich
view of the Church as the mystical body of Christ that expresses itself
relationally and symbolically through sacramental participation.
Casel’s theory was hotly debated. Guardini published his classic
work Vom Geist der Liturgie in 1923. Under Herwegen’s direction, the
first missa recitata was celebrated in the crypt of the abbey church on
August 6, 1921, presided over by the prior, Albert Hammenstede. This
Mass included the praying of the ordinary parts of the Mass in com-
mon and the participation of the assembly in the offertory procession.
Liturgical renewal of the early twentieth century was not limited to
Belgium, France, and Germany but was spreading elsewhere. The
first Netherlands Congress on Liturgy took place at Breda in 1911,
leading to the founding of the Liturgical Society of the Dioceses of
Haarlem (1912) and Utrecht (1914), and the Dutch Liturgical
Federation in 1915. In Austria the liturgical movement grew under
the leadership of Augustinian Canon Pius Parsch († 1954). Based at
his monastery of Klosterneuburg, Parsch integrated the liturgical
scholarship of Germany with the pastoral concerns of Austria in a
common goal of biblical and liturgical renewal. That renewal was
fostered through two important publications: Das Jahr des Heiles
(begun in 1923), a commentary on the missal and the breviary for the
entire liturgical year, and Bibel und Liturgie (founded in 1926), which
promoted the relationship between Bible and liturgy and encouraged
a wider knowledge of Scripture among Catholics.
In Italy, the monks of Finalpia, Savona, fostered the liturgical apos-
tolate through their important review Rivista liturgica in which many
of the Italian liturgical pioneers communicated their ideas on the
169
renewal of the liturgy. Founded in 1914, the journal continues to be
published today. Two leading figures in the Italian liturgical move-
ment were Emmanuel Caronti, O.S.B. and Ildefonso Schuster, O.S.B.
In 1919, Schuster wrote his Liber Sacramentorum which consisted of
historical and liturgical notes on the Roman missal, addressed primar-
ily to the clergy. Caronti grounded ecclesial piety in a solid liturgical
spirituality in his text La pietà liturgica. His greatest contribution, how-
ever, was the widely acclaimed Messale festivo per i fedeli. This missal
helped a large number of Italian Catholics to encounter the richness of
the Church’s worship by assisting their understanding of the liturgical
texts and thereby enhancing an appreciation of the liturgy itself.36
The liturgical movement began to take shape in other European
countries as well37 with different emphases according to the cultural
and ecclesial climate within each country. In particular, there were
significant developments in Spain, Portugal, Switzerland, England,38
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Poland.39 Such cultural diversity was
best seen through liturgical architecture. The French Church of Notre
Dame du Raincy designed by Auguste Perret, a secular architect
well-known as a master of reinforced concrete construction, was
dedicated in 1923 and marked the beginning of the movement in
modern liturgical architecture. Perret’s influence soon spread beyond
France. In Switzerland, examples include Karl Moser’s Church of
St. Anthony, Basel, and Fritz Metzger’s Church of St. Charles,
Luzerne, and in Germany, Rudolf Schwartz’s chapel at Burg
Rothenfels designed in collaboration with Romano Guardini, and his
Church of Corpus Christi, Aachen. Germany took the lead in initiat-
ing the dialogue between theologians and architects through the
influence of Maria Laach and individuals such as Guardini.40
36 F. Brovelli, Ritorno alla liturgia: Saggi di studio sul movimento liturgico (Rome,
1989) 231–2.
37 For a recent survey of the liturgical movement within Europe, see R. K.
Fenwick and B. Spinks, Worship in Transition: Highlights of the Liturgical Movement

(Edinburgh, 1995).
38 D. Gray, Earth and Altar (Norwich: Alcuin Club Collections 68, 1986).
39 J. Sroka, L’apport de l’abbé Michel Kordel au mouvement liturgique polonais
(Roma: SL.D. dissertation, Pontifical Liturgical Institute of Sant’ Anselmo, 1973.)

40 P. Hammond, Liturgy and Architecture (New York, 1961) 50–66.
170
The liturgical movement was not limited to Europe, but found its
way across the Atlantic to the Americas, as well. In 1926 the liturgical
movement in the United States was launched at Collegeville,
Minnesota, under the leadership of Virgil Michel, O.S.B. († 1938), in
collaboration with William Busch, Martin Hellriegel, Gerald Ellard,
S.J., and others.41 In 1933 the Brazilian liturgical movement was initi-
ated in Rio de Janeiro by Martinho Michler, O.S.B., in collaboration
with Beda Kecheisen, O.S.B., Polycarpo Amstalden, O.S.B.,
Hildebrando Martins, O.S.B., and others.42 The movements in Brazil
and the United States were both marked by a strong pastoral empha-
sis, highlighting the relationship between liturgy and social action.
In both countries annual liturgical weeks were a source of support
and encouragement for liturgical pioneers and promoters, and in
both countries a pastorally-oriented periodical was immediately
founded as an important tool in promoting liturgical renewal. Orate
Fratres (later Worship) was founded in 1926 to foster a deeper under-
standing of and wider participation in the liturgy through articles,
editorials, announcements of lectures and conferences, “letters to the
editor,” etc. In 1934, the weekly Folheto litúrgico was founded at Sao
Paolo initially including only the liturgical texts for Sunday to pro-
mote the dialogue Mass, but gradually also including occasional in-
structions on the Mass to promote a better liturgical understanding.43
The liturgical renewal was given support in the 1928 apostolic con-
stitution on sacred music Divini cultus, which argued that the faithful
should not attend the liturgy passively as “silent spectators” but as
active participants, singing with the presider and choir. Although
such documents assisted the work of the liturgical pioneers, their
task remained difficult and controversies often became normative.
Germany offers an interesting example. In 1934 the pastoral journal
Liturgisches Leben was founded in Berlin by university chaplain
Johannes Pinsk († 1957) to forge the relationship between liturgy and
daily life. Increasingly, the journal encouraged Christian social
41 K. F. Pecklers, The Liturgical Movement in the United States of America: 1926–
1955 (Collegeville, 1995).

42 J. Ariovaldo da Silva, O Movimento Litúrgico no Brasil: Estudo Histórico
(Petrópolis, 1983).
43 Ibid., 58–9.
171
responsibility, especially in light of the rise of Nazism.44 Some within
the German church began to publicly criticize the liturgical move-
ment for such activism, as in M. Kassiepe’s book Irrwege und Umwege
im Frömmigkeitsleben der Gegenwart. Responding to the controversy, a
Liturgical Working Party was initiated including such members as
Romano Guardini and Josef Jungmann. The controversy continued
and was brought to the German hierarchy in 1942. The result was the
establishment of a national liturgical commission which, in addition
to members of the Liturgical Working Party, also included monks
from Beuron and Maria Laach. The group served as a liaison between
members of the liturgical movement, the German bishops, and the
rest of the German church. In 1943 Cardinal Betram, archbishop of
Breslau, requested permission from the Holy See for the reform of the
ritual, the breviary, and other liturgical books. Cardinal Maglione,
the Vatican secretary of state responded by approving the
Gemeinschaftsmesse (community Mass) and stated that the Holy See
“sympathetically tolerates” the Deutsches Hochamt (sung Mass) which
included the singing of vernacular hymns contrary to the rubrics.45
Interest in liturgical research and education grew in the 1940s. In
the United States, the first national liturgical week took place in 1940
at Holy Name Cathedral, Chicago, with 1,260 participants. The Centre
de pastorale liturgique was founded in Paris in 1943 under the leader-
ship of A.-M. Roguet, O.P., and Pie Duploye, O.P., and soon became a
center of liturgical activity. Two years later, the centre initiated its
well-known publication La Maison-Dieu which continues to the pres-
ent. Meanwhile in Austria, Josef Jungmann, S.J. († 1975), was writing
his classic work, Missarum Sollemnia. The two-volume text took six
years to complete, from 1939 to 1945, and was published in 1948.
Balthasar Fischer was the first to hold a chair of liturgy in the
44 A number in the German liturgical movement strongly opposed Nazism.
Although Hans A. Reinhold is considered more a pioneer of the liturgical move-

ment in the United States, he attributed his own liturgical formation to Maria
Laach and ultimately had to flee Germany because of his outspoken criticism of
Nazism. Finding his way to the United States, Reinhold was largely responsible
for instilling a strong social consciousness in the American movement during the
1940s.
45 V. Funk, “The Liturgical Movement: 1830–1969” in P. Fink, The New
Dictionary of Sacramental Worship (Collegeville, 1990) 702–3.
172
University of Trier’s theological faculty in the academic year 1946–
1947. Johannes Wagner founded the Liturgical Institute in that same
year, serving as its first director, while at Maria Laach, the Herwegen
Institute for the Promotion of Liturgical Studies was inaugurated
with the publication of the well-known Archiv für Liturgiewissenschaft.
Michael Mathis, C.S.C., began the first American academic program
in liturgy in the summer of 1947 at the University of Notre Dame in
Indiana. In 1951 the Liturgical Institute at Trier initiated its
Liturgisches Jahrbuch.46
One finds few names of women in the history of the liturgical
movement. It would seem that all the liturgical pioneers were men
and almost all were Benedictine. This was not the case. True enough,
women were excluded from the academic world until relatively
recently, so those specialists who set the agenda for the liturgical
reform were primarily men. But it must also be noted that women
were often involved in different facets of the liturgical movement.
In Belgium, for example, the Abbey of Wépion was founded in the
1920s to introduce the “modern woman” to the richness of the
liturgical life. The abbey became a liturgical center not only for
Belgian women, but for German and French women, as well. In
Germany, most of the early work on the index for Jahrbuch für
Liturgiewissenschaft was done by Agape Kiesgen († 1933), a
Benedictine nun from Herstelle. In fact, Kiesgen collaborated with
Odo Casel on a number of projects. Another nun of Herstelle,
Aemiliana Löhr († 1972), who wrote over three hundred articles,
poems, and books, is known for having composed some of the best
meditations for Sundays and feasts throughout the 1930s. At Maria
Laach, Abbot Herwegen encouraged one of his monks, Athanasius
Wintersig († 1942) to write Liturgie und Frauenseele. The book explic-
itly discussed the important role of women in the liturgical move-
ment. One finds regular contributions by women in the liturgical
periodicals Bibel und Liturgie, Liturgische Zeitschrift, and Liturgisches
Leben.47 In the United States, examples include Justine Ward and
46 H-C. Schmidt-Lauber, “Begriff, Geschichte und Stand der Forschung,” in
Schmidt-Lauber und K-H. Bieritz, Handbuch der Liturgik: Liturgiewissenschaft in
Theologie und Praxis der Kirche (Leipzig, 1995) 23–6.
47 T. Berger, “The Classical Liturgical Movement in Germany and Austria:
Moved by Women?” Worship 66 (1992) 234–6.
173
Georgia Stevens, R.S.C.J., who founded the Pius X School of
Liturgical Music in 1916, as well as Adé Bethune, Dorothy Day,
Catherine DeHueck, Sara Benedicta O’Neil, Mary Perkins Ryan, and
Nina Polcyn Moore, all of whom contributed significantly to that
liturgical movement.48
Liturgical research and pioneering were supported by several sig-
nificant papal documents in that same period. As World War II was
raging, Pius XII issued his encyclical Mystici Corporis Christi in 1943,
which emphasized the corporate nature of the Church as the body of
Christ. This fundamentally Pauline doctrine promoted by nineteenth-
century German theologians of the Tübingen school and used by
liturgical pioneers as the theological basis for liturgical renewal was
highly controversial prior to the encyclical because some believed it
threatened the hierarchical structure of the Church. In that same year,
the encyclical Divino afflante Spiritu was issued allowing for the use of
modern exegetical methods for the study of Scripture. Four years
later, in 1947, Pius XII issued Mediator Dei, the first encyclical exclu-
sively devoted to the liturgy. Although the document cautioned
against liturgical abuses and upheld the Latin liturgy, it officially
recognized the liturgical movement and inaugurated a series of litur-
gical changes that would lead to the Vatican II.
In 1947 Belgium received permission for the celebration of evening
Mass on Sundays and holydays. The Diocese of Bayonne, France,
received approval for the recitation of the complete introit psalm, and
a Latin-French edition of the RR was also approved. One year later,
the Belgian Diocese of Liège received permission for the same ritual.
The Japanese bishops were given permission to allow evening Masses
also in 1948, and daily evening Masses were approved for some parts
of Poland. The translation of the MR of 1570 (except for the Roman
Canon) into Mandarin Chinese was approved by the Holy See in
1949, and India was given permission for evening Masses and a
shorter eucharistic fast. In 1950 a shorter form of the breviary was ap-
proved for use in Holland, while the Austrian, French, and German
bishops requested permission for the restoration of the Easter Vigil to
Holy Saturday evening. A restored Easter Vigil was approved as an
experiment on February 9, 1951, with the document Ordo Sabbati
48 N. Mitchell, “The Amen Corner,” Worship 68 (1994) 64–72.
174
Sancti. In 1953 and 1957 the apostolic constitutions Christus Dominus
and Sacram communionem respectively, gave permission for evening
Mass and a shortened eucharistic fast to the universal Church.49
In 1955 Pius XII’s encyclical on liturgical music Musicae sacrae disci-
plina approved the use of vernacular hymns during Mass, but far
more significant was the full restoration of the Holy Week rites, pro-
mulgated for Palm Sunday 1956. This was seen as a landmark accom-
plishment for liturgical pioneers. Odo Casel did not live long enough
to see his foundational work on the paschal mystery come to fruition.
He died in 1948, just after intoning the Exsultet during the Easter
Vigil at the Benedictine convent of Herstelle. The revised rites of
Holy Week left much work to be done. Prior to 1955, liturgies of the
paschal triduum were normally celebrated in the morning with only
a small number of the faithful present. Now that those liturgies had
been transferred to the evening, Catholics needed to be catechized as
to why participation in those rites was so important.
In 1951 the first international liturgical congress took place at
Maria Laach, followed by Odilienberg in 1952, and Lugano in 1954.
In 1956 the first international pastoral liturgical congress was held at
Assisi. This was a historic meeting. Presided over by the prefect of
the Congregation of Sacred Rites, Cardinal Gaetano Cicognani, the
congress gathered together over fourteen hundred participants from
five continents, including eighty bishops and six cardinals. Among
the presentations, the talk by Josef Jungmann, “The Pastoral Idea in
the History of the Liturgy,” and that of Cardinal Augustin Bea, “The
Pastoral Value of the Word of God,” were considered the most sig-
nificant.50 Only several years later, Vatican II’s Sacrosanctum Concilium
would echo many of the same concerns articulated at the Assisi
Congress. Two primary concerns surfaced during the congress: the
issue of a vernacular liturgy and the reform of the breviary. Both topics
brought about lively discussion and even heated debate during the
congress.51 At the end of the gathering, participants travelled to
Rome for an address by Pius XII, where he stated that the movement
49 Funk, 706–8.
50 The Assisi Papers: Proceedings of the First International Congress on Pastoral
Liturgy, Assisi-Rome, September 18–22 1956 (Collegeville, 1957) 18–31.
51 A. Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy: 1948–1975 (Collegeville, 1990) 12.
175
was a sign of God’s providence and of the presence of the Holy Spirit
in the Church, bringing people closer to the mystery of faith and the
grace that comes through liturgical participation.52
Pius XII died on October 9, 1958 and John XXIII was elected pope.
On January 25, 1959 the new pope announced Vatican II. On June 6,
1960, a preparatory commission on the liturgy was established with
Cicognani as president. One month later, Annibale Bugnini, C.M.
(† 1982) was appointed secretary.
The commission began its work immediately, creating subcommis-
sions on the following topics: (1) the mystery of the liturgy in relation
to the Church, (2) the Mass, (3) eucharistic concelebration, (4) the
Divine Office, (5) sacraments and sacramentals, (6) calendar reform,
(7) use of Latin, (8) liturgical formation, (9) liturgical participation by
the laity, (10) cultural and linguistic adaptation, (11) simplification of
liturgical vesture, (12) liturgical music, and (13) liturgical art.53 When
the time came to appoint members for the various subcommissions,
many members of the liturgical movement were chosen. Names such
as Godfrey Diekmann, O.S.B. (St. John’s Abbey, Collegeville,
Minnesota, U.S.A.), Balthasar Fischer (Trier, Germany), Joseph
Gelineau, S.J. (Paris, France), Anton Hänggi (Fribourg, Switzerland),
Josef Jungmann, S.J. (Innsbruck, Austria), Frederick McManus
(Washington, D.C., U.S.A.), Cipriano Vagaggini, O.S.B. (Bologna,
Italy), Johannes Wagner (Trier, Germany) appeared on the roster of
the preparatory commission.
The preparatory commission designed the schemata for the reform
of the liturgy which was presented to Vatican II.54 Between October
22 and November 13, 1962, council participants spent fifteen general
meetings discussing liturgical reform. A series of amendments de-
layed the process, thus it was not until the end of the second session,
on December 4, 1963, that Paul VI promulgated Sacrosanctum
52 Christ the Center of the Church’s Liturgy, Address by His Holiness, Pope Pius XII,
to the Delegates of the First International Congress on Pastoral Liturgy assembled in
Vatican City, September 22, 1956. Trans by the Vatican Press Office (Clyde, Mo:
Benedictine Convent of Perpetual Adoration, 1957).
53 Bugnini, 15–16.
54 C. Braga, “La preparazione della Costituzione Sacrosanctum Concilium,” in
A. G. Martimort, Mens concordet voci (Paris, 1983) 381–403.
176
Concilium,55 approved by a vote of 2,147 to 4. Following an introduc-
tion, the first chapter of the constitution outlines the general prin-
ciples for the reform, followed by concrete directives on the Eucharist
in the second chapter. Chapter 3 deals with the other sacraments and
sacramentals, followed by the Liturgy of the Hours (ch. 4), the litur-
gical year (ch. 5), liturgical music (ch. 6), and liturgical art (ch. 7). The
doctrine of the Church as the mystical body of Christ that theologi-
cally girded the liturgical movement prior to the council gave way to
a new vision of the Church as the people of God.
On January 29, 1964, a new commission was established by Paul VI
to assist in the implementation of the new liturgical reforms through-
out the world. Called the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de
sacra Liturgia and chaired by the archbishop of Bologna, Cardinal
Giacomo Lercaro, the international Consilium comprised fifty cardi-
nals and bishops and over two hundred liturgiologists. Annibale
Bugnini, C.M., served as secretary. That commission was given the
task of revising liturgical books according to the new directives of the
council, of teaching the whole Church about the renewed liturgy and
the call to full and active participation. Change came quickly, not
only regarding the vernacular, but in many other areas, as well.
The work of the Consilium lasted for five years when in 1969, it was
replaced by the Congregation for Divine Worship.
In the forty-five years prior to Vatican II, many men and women
throughout the Church labored tirelessly for a renewal that would
call clergy and laity alike into full and active liturgical participation.
Liturgical pioneers like Beauduin, Casel, and Michel died before they
could witness the results of their initiative. Other pioneers who pro-
moted such things as a vernacular liturgy were happy to see their
dream become a reality. All those efforts were crowned with the
promulgation of Sacrosanctum Concilium. The difficult task of imple-
mentation was yet to come. Thirty-five years later, we are still learn-
ing the significance of those liturgical reforms and the social
responsibility implied in our liturgical “Amen.”
55 W. Baraúna, The Liturgy of Vatican II, 2 vols (Chicago, 1966); H. Schmidt, La

Costituzione sulla Sacra Liturgia: testo, genesi, commento, documentazione (Rome,
1966).
177
Bibliography
Cattaneo, E. Il culto cristiano in Occidente, 371–378. Rome, 1978.
Klauser, Th. A Short History of the Western Liturgy. Trans. J. Halliburton. 2nd
ed. New York, 1979.
Martimort, A.-G., ed. The Church at Prayer. Collegeville, Minn., 1987.
Neuner, J., and J. Dupuis. The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the
Catholic Church, 413–428. Staten Island, N.Y., 1981.
Neunheuser, B. Storia della liturgia attraverso le epoche culturali. Rome, 1983.
Power, D. The Sacrifice We Offer: The Tridentine Dogma and Its Reinterpretation.
Edinburgh, 1987.
Taft, R. The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West. Collegeville, Minn., 1987.
White, J. Roman Catholic Worship: Trent to Today. New York, 1995.
178
Jordi Pinell i Pons, O.S.B.
11
History of the Liturgies in the Non-Roman West
I . T H E F O R M AT I O N O F T H E L AT I N R I T E S
1. Diversification through a Process of Ecclesial Maturity

The process of diversification of the rites of the Christian liturgy took
place through the positive affirmation of particular values in specific
churches within the unanimous tradition in what is essential.
Christianity had spread through communities closely related to their
place of origin or residence and to their historical and cultural com-
ponents. Discrepancies did not produce differences among local
churches in terms of planning communitarian prayer, celebrating the
Lord’s memorial, administering the sacraments, and organizing a
calendar of seasons and feasts. Instead, this was brought about by a
progressive theological and pastoral understanding of the mysterious
reality that Christ had entrusted to the Church in the sacraments.
The ongoing, in-depth understanding of their meaning inspired a
more refined elaboration of those signs which helped Christians to
establish contacts with God, according to the dictates of their own
faith. Thus, the churches continued to be rooted in their particular
history as they used the cultural means which characterized them.
In that general evolutionary process, there were frequent contacts
and exchanges between metropolitan sees, but in any case, the forma-
tion of local liturgies occurred spontaneously and autonomously.
2. Culmination of the Homiletic Period

In the Western Mediterranean region the phenomenon of liturgical
creativity appeared in the middle of the fifth century at the height of
179
the “homiletic period,” that is to say, when, for all practical purposes,
public allocution addressed directly to the assembly was already re-
placing the form of instruction of a treatise to be read and learned in
private. In all of this, one implicitly finds a new appreciation for the
“praying ecclesial assembly” as the medium for transmitting re-
vealed truth, the place and privileged moment for the Holy Spirit’s
salvific action. From then on, the formularies intended for ecclesial
prayer and the eucharistic celebration became privileged documents
of Christian thinking. People were already beginning to experience
that participation in the liturgy constituted a first-rate pedagogical
tool indispensable for completing the pre-baptismal catechesis.
3. Product of Particular Circumstances

The ceremonial organization of the celebrations of the Office, the
Mass, and the sacraments (every ordo’s schema) and the list of fixed or
variable texts (readings, canticles, and euchology) were mostly the
work of clergymen who were familiar with the practices and customs
of various churches. Thus, the quality and success of those fundamen-
tal elements depended on their authors’ skill and talent. For the most
part, the uniqueness of local liturgies was the result of the choices
made by their authors at a determined time in their evolution.
4. All the Churches Did Not Have the Same Luck

All the Western churches did not succeed in attaining full develop-
ment. There is nothing left of what might have been the liturgies of
Latin Africa or Aquileia. Little has been preserved of what was begin-
ning to be organized as the liturgy of Benevento. Some liturgical rites
for the so-called “Celtic rite” for Ireland were compiled, but their
content does not show that a lot of creativity took place there. We
will see shortly that circumstances were not equally favorable or
adverse to the three liturgies that we will consider: the Ambrosian,
the Gallican, and the Hispanic.
5. The Mass and the Office Are Not Distinguished in the Same Way
The Office is that part of the liturgy in which local churches show the
greatest freedom and independence. In the service of common
prayer, they invent forms that inspire while nourishing personal spir-
ituality, as they combine scriptural phrases and images with church-
composed poetic and euchological texts inducing reflection. Thus, we
180
find hymns, antiphons, responses, and prayers from different genres
which are subsequently presented in wisely organized structures.
The greatest care in the plan of the celebration applies to the rites of
the sacraments.
Local liturgies are more similar in terms of the celebration of the
Eucharist. This is undoubtedly because of the close ties uniting all the
churches with the universal tradition. However, even in this case, it
should be indicated that while the Ambrosian Mass is close to the
Roman Mass in its structure, by nature of their variable texts the
Gallican and Hispanic Masses differ from them. Their configuration
is so similar that variable parts of the Hispanic rite could easily be
used in the Gallican rite, and vice versa, Gallican prayers could be
used in the Hispanic rite.
6. Current Interest
Local Latin liturgies provide a focus for our present study especially
from a doctrinal point of view. The contemplation of Christ’s mystery
according to the liturgical year inspired their authors to write spiri-
tual reflections comparable to those of the treatises and homilies of
the patristic period. The events or situations conditioning their
genesis, evolution, and decadence are also valuable because they
serve now as models to help in pastoral orientation.
The three rites we will examine have not been equally preserved.
The Ambrosian rite in its entirety — Mass, Office, and ritual — con-
tinues to be used in the area where it was created. On the other hand,
the daily celebration of the Hispanic rite — Mass and Office — was
limited to the Mozarabic Chapel of the Cathedral of Toledo.
Occasionally, that Mass is celebrated in other parts of Spain.
The Office, the Mass, and the ritual of the Ambrosian church have
been renewed according to the guidelines of Vatican II. The Hispanic-
Mozarabic ritual has also been revised.
Today, it would be impossible to celebrate Mass according to the
Gallican rite. Only the readings and the euchology have been pre-
served. The manuscripts of the antiphonary were not kept. As a
result, we lack the songs which were part of the celebration. The
sources pertaining to the Gallican rite have been totally lost.
181
II. THE AMBROSIAN LITURGY
1. Name and Origin

The well-known figure of St. Ambrose gave his name to the local
liturgy of Milan. Some of the pieces intended for sacred songs which
the saintly doctor and bishop composed at the same time as he pro-
mulgated his hymns may have brought about the institution of the
music school whose influence subsequently spread to Rome,
Benevento, Tarragona, and Seville. Most likely, the criteria used to
select the Scripture of the Milan rite, at least for Lent and Easter,
came from a fourth-century tradition contemporary of Ambrose.
But Milan’s autonomous liturgy also reflected the Roman creativity
of the fifth century, when Milan’s euchological school adopted the
principle of a variation for the preface and the prayers of the Mass
such as the experiment St. Leo had introduced in Rome.
2. The Eucharistic Prayer of De Sacramentis

By interpreting the Eucharistic Prayer quoted by St. Ambrose in
De Sacramentis (IV, 5–6) as an incipient version of the “Roman canon,”
one can assume that a common liturgy co-existed at that time in
Rome and Milan. Nevertheless, the canon which was definitively re-
worked in Rome in the middle of the fifth century, could never have
resulted from a mere stylistic evolution of the text that Ambrose had
known. There are differences between the two texts due to distinct
euchological traditions. The Roman canon differs from De Sacramentis
in very specific points that make it closer to other traditions like the
Alexandrian school among others. The Eucharistic Prayer adopted in
the Ambrosian rite was not the one from the De Sacramentis, but
rather from the Roman canon according to the Gregorian version
with some variations introduced in Milan.
3. Precedents of an Ambrosian Sacramentary

Historical circumstances did not favor a quick and opportune forma-
tion of these particular liturgical books. A schism had taken place for
doctrinal reasons and the most representative part of the Milan
church had to emigrate to Geneva (571), from where it would not
return until 649. Meanwhile, both the Gelasian and Gregorian forms
of the Roman sacramentary had been written and promulgated, and
182
both models were to have a strong impact on the eventual options of
the Ambrosian compilers.
Yet, at the petition stage, the euchological output for the
Ambrosian Mass had been very prolific. Occasionally, there were imi-
tations or variations on Roman texts, but quite frequently new and
original ideas emerged. Compared with the formal and juridical lan-
guage of Roman euchology, the texts of the Ambrosian rite stand out
because of a literary style and a lexicon closer to poetry. The structure
of the Mass differed from that of the Roman rite in some unimportant
though significant details.
The Ambrosian compilers knew the Gelasian model. That pre-
vented them from proceeding with criteria as restrictive and austere
as those which characterized the codification of the Gregorian ver-
sion. They took greater and better advantage of their pre-existing
patrimony in editing the Ambrosian sacramentary.
4. Autonomous and Wise Make-up of the Office

While it is true that the Ambrosian church had always been subject to
what was happening in the Roman rite in the establishment and sub-
sequent evolution of the Mass, it also showed greater freedom in
organizing ecclesial praise.
It kept very ancient principles in its selection of psalms and canticles
as fundamental elements. It worked out the schemes so that the blend
of genres (psalmody, reading, poetry, euchology) would intensify the
fervor of the praying community. Also contributing to this fervor was
the variety of the forms of singing, from simple psalmodic antiphons
to others with a more complex melody, attaining the great responsory,
an authentic concert piece as a meditation song. The form of the respon-
sorium prolixum presupposed a centonization of the text, and the
Ambrosian school became masterful in that technique. Its models were
taken as examples by the music schools of Rome and Spain.
Some external influences were imposed upon the Ambrosian Office
by its contacts with Benedictine monasteries during the tenth and
eleventh centuries. Those were mostly the simultaneous accumula-
tion of various systems of psalmody. The severe Romanizing reform
imposed by the Council of Trent affected one of its most significant
parts. The unified celebration of the vigil and the morning praise,
making the Ambrosian Office resemble venerable examples of some
183
Eastern rites and also the Hispanic rite, was divided into two sepa-
rate celebrations without taking into account that the perfect balance
of the previous structure was destroyed.
In spite of all, until now, the Ambrosian breviary represented one
of the most interesting realizations of the Divine Office, created and
preserved with a strong identity of the Church which had designed
it. The revision done at the suggestion of Vatican II has been most
respectful of the values of its own tradition. Thus, in Diurna Laus, we
still find the work of a church which, from its most remote origins,
was able to harmonize music, word, and gesture with great ability
and skill in order to present the mystery of communitarian prayer.
III. THE GALLICAN LITURGY
1. Name and Place of Origin

The term “Gallican” liturgy was established in the seventeenth cen-
tury by J. Thomasius and I. Mabillon, editors of several of its main
sources. It did, in fact, refer to a local liturgy that had emerged in the
Mediterranean region of the Gauls and was based on traditions from
the Latin ambit, common to those that gave rise to the Hispanic rite.
Later on, other authors incorrectly applied the adjective “Gallican”
to elements developed in agencies of Central Europe. These were
songs, prayers, rubrics, and ceremonies which gradually filtered into
the liturgical books of the Roman rite, from the time the latter was
officially adopted in Charlemagne’s court and imposed in his whole
empire. These elements derived from Nordic piety and from a
spirituality proceeding from the British Isles rather than from the
Latin culture of the patristic period.
Here, we will refer to what must be considered strictly Gallican
and only to what involves the subject matter of two liturgical books:
the lectionary and the sacramentary.
2. Construction of the Gallican Peculiarity

The philological analysis of the texts intended for the eucharistic cele-
bration leads us to believe that the greatest and best period of its
creativity took place between the end of the fifth century and the
middle of the sixth. The Wolfenbüttel palimpsestic lectionary, the old-
est of the Latin liturgical texts, also corresponds to the same period.
184
In order to understand one of the oddest peculiarities of the
Gallican rite, we have to recall what was occurring in Rome, whose
pattern was increasingly forced upon other Latin churches from then
on.
The preface had always been set in all the liturgies. Thanksgiving
was considered as an integral and unchangeable part of the
Eucharistic Prayer, and it developed in accordance with the style and
theme of the corresponding anaphora. From the middle of the fifth
century, Rome experimented with and established the custom of a
variable preface according to the specific themes of the feast, fol-
lowed by the set canon which we all know. At the same time, there
also appeared changeable short prayers to be recited at several
predetermined parts of the celebration: (a) when the assembly gath-
ers before God, (b) at the conclusion of the litanies of universal inter-
cession, (c) at the offering of bread and wine, (d) after Communion,
(e) before the assembly is dismissed. Copies of the libelli missarum
circulated throughout the West. In them, we can observe the inter-
connected while distinct groups of five prayers and a preface which
make up the formulas for a Mass.
Without knowing that reality achieved in the Roman rite, the evo-
lutionary process leading to the Gallican-Hispanic system would
have been inconceivable. The variability of the preface, on one hand,
and the plurality of texts forming a unified whole on the other,
suggested the fragmentation of the Eucharistic Prayer into always
varying parts.
3. Alternance of Praefatio and Collectio

Another important step in characterizing the Gallican rite occurred
with the frequent and multiple use of euchological texts addressed to
the assembly. These texts already had precedents in the urban liturgy
of Rome — calling for fasts and vigils, for example — but the
Gallican and Hispanic liturgies applied them in more varied and
important ways. One of the most specific texts of both rites — the
Gallican praefatio, the Hispanic oratio admonitionis — introduced a
pastoral liturgical style establishing an ongoing communication
between the celebrant and the assembly.
In their terminology, the Gallican sources specify if the text is a
prayer rising up to God, the collectio, and if it is an exhortation ad-
185
dressed to the faithful, the praefatio. Although the output of the early
Gallican euchological school was not prolific, it was extremely valu-
able. It does show an original and profound theology of the Eucharist
as sacrifice and fulfillment of the Lord’s institutional mandate.
4. Irregular and Difficult Codification

However, in the absence of a metropolitan see to offer a solid basis,
without the indispensable support and seeing that it was systemati-
cally replaced by the Roman rite, the Gallican liturgy quickly lapsed
into unavoidable decadence.
The codification of its liturgical books achieved between the
middle of the seventh and eighth centuries was rushed, uneven,
and overly conditioned by the models of the Roman sacramentary.
In the venerable Karlsruhe fragment, edited by F. G. Mone, which
corresponds more to the petition stage than to the codification of
the books, it is difficult to distinguish what is genuine from later
imitations.
Eager to produce a book resembling the Roman canon, the com-
piler of the so-called Missale Gothicum used inferior adaptations to fill
up unavoidable lacunae. The Milan and Munich manuscripts took
from the Hispanic liturgy what they did not find in their own.
Following the example of the Bergamo Sacramentary and other
similar books of the Ambrosian rite, the Bobbio Missal combined the
lectionary and the sacramentary. But Bobbio’s Missal is Gallican only
until the preface. From the Sanctus on, it proceeds with the Roman
canon.
Something similar occurs with the so-called Missale Gallicanum
Vetus, which rarely includes texts corresponding to the Post Sanctus
and to the Post Secreta. Romanization is even greater in the Missale
Francorum since it adopts a strictly Roman structure by which it ar-
ranges texts of Roman origin. Yet, both missals, the Missale
Gallicanum Vetus and the Missale Francorum contain authentically
Gallican texts for Holy Week and ministerial ordinations.
The codification of the lectionary is not totally homogeneous either.
There are fewer similarities between the already mentioned
Wolfenbüttel, Luxueil manuscript, the monumental Luxeil lectionary
copied two centuries later, and other small extant fragments from the
same area.
186
I V. T H E H I S PA N I C L I T U R G Y
The Hispanic liturgy, better known as “Mozarabic” and also called
“Visigothic” by some, largely developed during the sixth and seventh
centuries, with the successive contributions of three metropolitan
sees located in three different areas of the Iberian Peninsula:
Tarragona, in the east, Seville in the south, and Toledo in the center.
1. Formation Time
The barbarian invasions and doctrinal disputes against the invaders’
Arianism had delayed its development in relation to the other local
Latin liturgies. But, thanks to the relative religious peace obtained
with the Visigoths’ official conversion to Catholicism in the Third
Council of Toledo (589), there flourished in the kingdom an authentic
Latin humanism, fostered by the court which contributed indirectly
to the expansion of the Catholic liturgy.
While it is true that the phenomenon of liturgical creativity oc-
curred later in Spain than in other Mediterranean churches, it is also
true that it lasted much longer there. By observing what was happen-
ing in other places, the Hispanic fathers had been able to verify the
effectiveness of the liturgy as a means to inculcate authentic doctrine
in the consciences of the faithful. This is why euchology, hymnody,
and the biblical centonizations of sacred chant became favorite
literary genres. In fact, together the euchological texts and hymns
make up the most important literary legacy of that geographical area
during the sixth and seventh centuries.
2. Contribution of the Local Councils

In Spain the churches’ solicitude to carry out liturgical celebrations
wisely and in the best possible way also manifested itself in the at-
tention that the councils devoted to the subject. The councils of the
Tarragona province issued decrees concerning the liturgy in the first
half of the sixth century and from 589 on, so did the councils of
Toledo until the middle of the seventh century.
As a result, the literary and doctrinal work of the fathers of the
Hispanic churches and the councils’ legislation converged in the for-
mation of the rites. However, the documentary value of the conciliar
decrees does not only have a strictly disciplinary character.
In writing the canon establishing the recitation of the Creed within
the eucharistic celebration, placing it precisely in the part of the Mass
187
corresponding to the Communion rite, St. Leander of Seville justified
his decision with theological and pastoral reasons. His brother,
St. Isidore, would follow his example. In his early years, the latter had
written a treatise De Ecclesiasticis Officiis, which can be considered as
the first “liturgy manual” in history. In it, he showed that he was well
informed about the liturgical customs of other Western churches.
Years later, having attained full maturity in erudition and pastoral
experience, Isidore presided over the Fourth Council of Toledo (633)
and drafted its documents. Each of the seventeen canons devoted to
liturgical matters carefully illustrated the prescriptions equally im-
posed by the council to all the churches of the kingdom with his-
torical documentation and doctrinal arguments.
One of the clearest objectives seen in the liturgical canons of the
Fourth Toledo Council was to eliminate some peculiarities of the
Braga see, which had been introduced during the Swabian rule.
Wanting to dissociate themselves from the Catholic churches of the
Visigothic camp, the Catholic churches of the northeast of the
Peninsula under the Swabian rule had appealed to Rome during the
papacy of Vigilius (538) under the guise of a simple consultation in
order to clear up some doubts. Following the guidelines they re-
ceived, they were baptizing by a triple instead of a single immersion
as it was done elsewhere; they were using a set Eucharistic Prayer,
namely the Roman canon; they rejected hymns and other poetic texts;
they sang the alleluia before, not after the gospel; they gave the bless-
ing at the end of Mass, not before Communion, etc. In 585, the Braga
province and its churches had come under the Visigothic rule. Yet,
after seventy-eight years, the Fourth Toledo Council still detected
romanizing remnants and it took great care to eliminate them.
The Tenth Toledo Council (656) established an annual feast on
December 18 in honor of the Virgin Mary. This time, St. Ildefonse,
author of a treatise on Mary’s virginity, played an important role in
the council and he wrote the corresponding canon. Later, when he
was archbishop of Toledo, he composed the texts for the Office and
the Mass of that feast.
3. Exchanges among Various Sees and with Other Liturgies

Despite that attitude of strong defense of what was typically their
own and authentic, the Hispanic churches never lost contact with the
188
distant Eastern liturgies — Alexandrian, Antiochan, or Syro-
Chaldean — and with the nearest liturgies of southern Gaul, Milan,
and Rome. The Hispanic liturgy was affirming itself while it always
remained connected with universal tradition.
Provinces exchanged their respective works. The uniformity often
called forth by the council in terms of the liturgy was limited to the
ecclesiastical province. Lists of biblical pericopes, chants, and
euchological texts of the Office and the Mass were made known, and
all of this became shared patrimony. But every metropolitan church
arranged this in its own style. In the sources that have come down to
us in manuscripts from the same tradition, there are relatively impor-
tant differences in composition.
After a long period of constant creativity during which texts circu-
lated from one church to another as petitions, the compilation of the
liturgical books took place at the end of the seventh century. Their
revision and definitive codification was attributed to St. Julian of
Toledo, who died in 690.
4. Under Arab Rule

The Arab invasion (711) suddenly interrupted what could have been a
normal evolutionary process of the Hispanic rite. Some clerics were
able to emigrate and take liturgical books with them. A book of prayer
for the Office from Tarragona is still kept in Verona. Other codices en-
riched the libraries of monastic schools where the Carolingian cultural
movement flourished. In this way, texts of Hispanic origin were used
to prepare the Roman Germanic pontifical.
A bastion of resistance against the Islamic occupation was estab-
lished in Asturias. As soon as this basis for the future Reconquest
was consolidated, in 790, Alfonso the Chaste decreed the restoration
of the Palatine liturgy in Oviedo, just as it had been celebrated in
Toledo.
When they were fleeing from the Moors, the Hispanic émigrés had
taken refuge in Septimania. Armed and led by the Franks’ military
chiefs, they had liberated both sides of the Eastern Pyrenees in 782.
From there, they conquered successively all the counties of the
Hispanic Marchia, and these counties formed Catalonia. Benedictine
monasteries settled in the liberated regions where they introduced the
Roman rite. Elements of the Hispanic rite subsisted in the liturgical
189
codices of the Roman rite which were copied there, specifically the
parts corresponding to the calendar and the ritual.
On the other hand, the ancient rite continued to be celebrated in
the part of Spain occupied by the Arabs and in the new kingdoms of
Leon, Castile, and Navarre. Many of the codices and liturgical frag-
ments of the ancient Hispanic rite copied during the tenth and elev-
enth centuries in Leon, San Millán de la Cogolla, San Juan de la Peña,
Santo Domingo de la Calzada, and Santo Domingo de Silos are still
preserved.
The manuscripts show that there was a renewal of music that had
taken place in the tenth century. Leon and San Millán were the main
centers. That renewing movement implied a certain degree of crea-
tivity. The ancient songs were not merely transcribed; they were en-
riched by new verses.
There was an attempt to extend creativity to the field of euchology,
but in view of the low cultural level of the time, high quality texts
could not be expected. The Masses grouped in the third part of the
Liber Ordinum and some of the devotional prayers ad miserationes for
the Liber Horarum (monastic Office) are probably the result of that
endeavor.
5. Accusations of Adoptionism
During the eighth century, an unfortunate doctrinal polemics between
people from liberated and occupied Spain, had grave consequences
for the old Hispanic rite.
Elipando, the archbishop of Toledo, assuming the chief responsibil-
ity in matters of Catholic orthodoxy in the area of Spain occupied by
the Moors, believed he had the obligation to correct Mignecio who
was in charge of one of the southern episcopal sees. In Elipando’s
intention to explain that the Word had assumed human nature in
his own person, he was using the verb “adopted” and the phrase
adoptivus homo to indicate Christ’s human nature.
These expressions reminded Beato de Liébana of an ancient heresy
called “adoptionism.” Beato was a writer from the Cantabrian region
of free Spain, and he was already well known in the Frankish king-
dom for his commentary on the Book of Revelation.
The polemics worsened to the point that it gave rise to four coun-
cils: Ratisbon (792), Frankfurt (794), Rome (798), and Aachen (798–
190
800). Condemned on various occasions, Felix de Urgell was hurt the
most by all of this, for no other reason than his stubbornness in sup-
porting Elipando.
To justify the use of the word adoptio and the expression adoptivus
homo, three letters (in 792, 798, and 799) were sent to the bishops of
the Frankish kingdom and personally to Alcuin. Although one of the
letters was signed by a group of Spanish bishops and another by
Felix de Urgell, Elipando had written the three letters. They almost
always cited the same texts, fragments from the Hispanic liturgy at-
tributed to Spanish authors whose orthodoxy could not be doubted.
In fact, Alcuin did not find any error in those excerpts. However, he
did not realize either that some quotations were not pertinent. Two of
the texts cited by Elipando did not apply the concept of “adoption”
to Christ, but to Christians, “children of God by adoption” in virtue
of sanctifying grace.
“Adoptionism” never existed in the Mozarabic church. But its
liturgy, seemingly so different from the Roman liturgy, could not
easily avoid the suspicion surrounding it even though such an
accusation represented the greatest historical absurdity that could be
perpetrated.
6. Toward Suppression
Nevertheless, the fact is that Pope John X (914–918) sent a legate
named Zanellus to Spain to examine the liturgical books in use there.
All he was able to observe was that the words of consecration were
not exactly the same as those of the Roman Missal. They were actu-
ally St. Paul’s words in 1 Corinthians 11:24-26. Another visit by
Cardinal Hugo Candido on behalf of Pope Alexander II (1068) was
also ineffective.
However, for Gregory VII (1073–1085) the existence of a different
liturgy in Spain was not a matter of doctrine, but of discipline. Based
on what was happening in the East, he thought he could infer that
the diversity of rites entailed the division of powers. The fact that
Spain had its own liturgy limited the range of his reform program.
His legates imposed the substitution of the old rite by the Roman rite
in the monasteries of San Salvador de Leyre in the Navarre kingdom
(1067) and of San Juan de la Peña in Aragon (1071). The pope pre-
vailed on King Alfonso VI to call a council in Burgos (1080). In it, the
191
suppression of the so-called “Gothic” rite was decreed for the king-
doms of Leon and Castile.
7. Relative Survival of the Rite

In their desire to remain faithful to their ancestors’ religious tradition
to celebrating Christian worship and participating in it, Hispanics
who were in the part of Spain occupied by the Moors had to pay a
special tribute to local authorities. They were designated under the
name of “Mozarabs.” In recognition of their merits, when Toledo was
liberated (1085), King Alfonso VI conceded to the Mozarabs the
privilege of continuing to celebrate the ancient Hispanic rite in the
six parishes existing in Toledo in spite of the suppression decreed by
the Council of Burgos.
The archbishop of Toledo, Bernardo de Sahagún (1085–1124), tried
to revoke that privilege. But, the Mozarabic communities which had
been joined at the beginning of the thirteenth century by many
emigrants from southern Spain and from North Africa, tenaciously
defended their sacred rights.
The scribes of Sts. Justa and Rufina and of St. Eulalia parishes
continued to renew the liturgical books of the ancient rite during the
twelfth and thirteenth centuries until the beginning of the fourteenth
century.
8. Two Traditions
The manuscripts copied in Sts. Justa and Rufina parish differ from the
codices copied in St. Eulalia parish and from those proceeding from
the north of the Peninsula (Tarragona, Leon, San Millán, and Silos).
The A tradition, represented by most of the manuscripts, reveals a
better and more elaborate compilation of the liturgical books
intended for the Divine Office and the eucharistic celebration. But the
B tradition, represented by the manuscripts of Sts. Justa and Rufina,
presents undeniable signs of archaisms and cannot be in any way
considered as a distorted version of the other tradition.
In view of its size, the A tradition could only be the result of
St. Julian of Toledo’s work of codification. In the B tradition, several
signs lead us to identify the liturgy as it was celebrated in the metro-
politan church of Bética (Andalusia) which Southern emigrants
brought with them to Toledo and which they zealously followed in
the Toledan parish dedicated to the two Sevillian martyrs.
192
9. Cardinal Cisneros’ Restoration
When Cardinal Francisco Ximénes de Cisneros became archbishop in
1495, he became immediately aware of the religious and cultural
value of the Mozarabic liturgy. He also observed that it was in
danger of disappearing. In order to insure that it would continue, he
established the Mozarabic Chapel. He assigned it an altar-chapel in
the cathedral for the Office and the Mass according to the Mozarabic
rite to be celebrated there daily, and he put Canon Alfonso Ortiz in
charge of the printed edition of the missal and the breviary.
The Missale mixtum, secundum regulam beati Isidori, dictum mozarabes
appeared in 1500 and the Breviarium secundum regulam beati Isidori in
1502. The Missal was re-edited in Rome in 1755 with a presentation
and explanatory notes by Alexander Lesley, a Jesuit. Lesley’s re-
edition was reproduced in Migne’s Latin Patrology, volume LXXXV.
Later on, in 1804, the archbishop of Toledo, Cardinal Francisco
Antonio de Lorenzana, also published a new corrected edition of the
Missal under the title Missale Gothicum secundum regulam beati Isidori
Hispalensis episcopi. Cardinal Lorenzana himself had already re-edited
the breviary in Madrid in 1775 under the title of Breviarium Gothicum
secundum regulam beati Isidori. Migne’s Latin Patrology reproduced
this revised version of the breviary in volume LXXXVI.
10. Revision of the Missal

On July 12, 1982, Cardinal Marcelo González Martín appointed a
committee whose mission was to revise the Hispanic rite Missal
according to what Vatican II had suggested. The new edition of the
Missale Hispano-Mozarabicum in four volumes was approved by the
Roman Congregation of Divine Worship on July 17, 1988.
On one hand, the revision consisted in eliminating extraneous
elements and the distortions which had been introduced in the
Ordinary of the Mass of the 1500 edition, and on the other hand, in
integrating all the contributions of ancient sources from both tradi-
tions. All the manuscripts were used for that revision.
The new edition and the accompanying guidelines facilitated the
occasional or relatively regular celebration.
193
Bibliography
I. THE FORMATION OF THE LATIN RITES

King, A. A. Rites of Western Christendom. Vol. 4, Liturgies of the Past.
Milwaukee, 1959.
Klauser, Th. A Short History of the Western Liturgy. Trans. J. Halliburton. 2nd ed.
New York, 1979.
Pinell i Pons, J. “Liturgie locali antiche (origine e sviluppo).” NDL 776–783.
. Preci eucaristiche occidentale: Testi delle liturgie ambrosiana, gallicana e is-
panica. Sintesi di uno studio letterario-dottrinale. Rome, 1984.
II. THE AMBROSIAN LITURGY

Biffi, G. “Il nuovo messale della Chiesa ambrosiana: Spirito e principi della
sua riforma.” Ambrosius: Bollettino liturgico ambrosiano 2 (1976) 81–99.
. “La riforma del Messale Ambrosiano: Metodo e risultati.” Not 13 (1977)
12–28.
. “La ‘ambrosianità’ della nostra ‘Liturgia delle Ore.’” RL 70 (1983) 234–
236.
Borella, P. Il rito ambrosiano. Brescia, 1964.
Cattaneo, E. Il breviario ambrosiano: Note storiche ed illustrative. Milan, 1943.
Dell’Oro, F. “Il nuovo Messale della Chiesa ambrosiana.” RL 64 (1977) 524–
623.
. “Annotazioni in margine alla ‘Diurna laus.’” RL 70 (1983) 236–256.
. “La ristampa aggiornata del Messale ambrosiano del Vaticano II.” RL
75 (1988) 637–712.
Triacca, A. I prefazi ambrosiani del ciclo ‘De tempore,’ secondo il Sacramentarium
Bergomense: Avviamento ad uno studio critico-teologico. Rome, 1970.
. “La liturgia ambrosiana.” Anàmnesis 2:88–110.
III. THE GALLICAN LITURGY

Griffe, E. “Aux origines de la liturgie gallicane.” ButLitEc 52 (1951) 17–43.
Pinell i Pons, J. “Anàmnesis y epìclesis en el antiguo rito gallicano. Didaskalia
4 (1974) 3–130.
. “Gallicana, liturgia.” DPAC 2, cols. 1425–1431.
Porter, W. S. The Gallican Rite. Studies in Eucharistic Faith and Practice 4.
London, 1958.
194
Thibaut, J. B. L’ancienne liturgie gallicane, son origine et sa formation en Provence
aux Ve et VIe siècles. Paris, 1929.
IV. THE HISPANIC LITURGY

Aldazábal, J. “La misa en el rito hispano-mozárabe renovado.” Ph 175 (1990)
57–77.
Pinell i Pons, J. “Las fórmulas conclusivas y de enlace complementarias del
sistema de textos variables en la Misa del antiguo rito hispánico.”
Paschale Mysterium: Studi in memoria dell’abate Prof. Salvatore Marsili
(1910–1983), 139–168. SA 91. Rome, 1986.
. “La estructura de la misa en rito hispánico, herencia de la tradición uni-
versal y de su propia historia.” Not 267 (October 1988) 471–727.
.”Credo y comunión en la estructura de la misa hispánica, según dis-
posición del III Concilio de Toledo.” Concilio III de Toledo. XIV Centenario
589–1989, 333–342. Toledo, 1991.
. “El oficio catedral hispánico.” Ph 175 (1990) 9–37.
. “El Misal Hispano-Mozárabe: Nueva edición revisada.” Ph 191 (1992)
367–380.
Rivera Recio, F. “La controversia adopcionista del siglo VIII y la ortodoxia de
la liturgia mozárabe.” EphLit 47 (1933) 506–536.
. “Gegorio VII y la liturgia mozárabe.” RET 2 (1942) 3–33.
Sancho, J. “El leccionario de la Misa en la liturgia hispánica renovada.” Ph
175 (1990) 39–56.
195
Part III
Liturgical Sources
A. Documents and Books
12
Liturgical Documents of
the First Four Centuries
Liturgical historians are not of one mind when it comes to defining

what is a liturgical book. Still they do agree in their emphasis on two
elements: a liturgical book is one that is composed for liturgical use
and is in fact used in a local church’s liturgical celebration.1 However,
no such books are found in the first four centuries, when the only
book used was the Bible, parts of which were read in the Sunday as-
sembly2 or on other occasions. On the other hand, enough evidence
exists that we can get a fairly clear idea of the major rites that became
fixed relatively early, at least in their essential elements. Christian
writers from that period have transmitted liturgical formulas, some
of which are still used, such as the Apostles’ Creed or other baptis-
mal creeds,3 as well as the Roman canon and other Eucharistic
Prayers.4 At any rate, a good number of texts contain information
about how the ministers or faithful prayed and to which models they
turned for their liturgical prayer.
For a better understanding of these basic assertions, we must take
into account the distinction usually made by liturgists between the
period of creativity, when cultural expressions were freely impro-
vised, and the period when rites and prayer formulas were gradually
fixed. In the first period the president of the assembly prayed
1 I. Scicolone, “Libri liturgici,” NDL (1984) 701–13.

2 See the very early testimony of Justin, Apol. 1, 67, 3.
3 J.N.D. Kelly, Early Christian Creeds (London, 1972).
4 A. Chupungco, Canone Romano: DPAC i, 572–6.
199
spontaneously in the name of all, as Justin attests,5 even though he
drew inspiration from scriptural formulas or others that were already
traditional. These were adapted, if necessary, to the various circum-
stances of language and culture. But on the level of ritual, traditions
already seem more established, although we notice a certain prolifer-
ation of secondary rites.6 During the second period ritual details
underwent further development; the major prayers took on an in-
creasingly more definite shape. Two factors determined this evolu-
tion. Concern for orthodoxy, and to some extent esthetics, led more
influential bishops such as Basil, Chrysostom, and Augustine, to
propose prayer models to their brother bishops.7 On the other hand,
the episcopal liturgy in the great centers often became a model for
presbyteral celebrations in the secondary churches.
Since the role of Scripture and Jewish tradition in the gradual
transition from spontaneous to fixed forms of liturgical celebration is
discussed elsewhere, we shall not go into it here. But it will be remem-
bered that it is really the patristic evidence which makes clear that the
liturgies of all Churches go back more or less to Judaeo-Christian
origins.8 We should also note that this transition did not happen every-
where at the same time, and so we must be flexible in assigning a date,
viz., third-fourth century. At any rate, in this article we shall consider
documentary evidence from the first four centuries. But it is not neces-
sary to present all the evidence for the liturgical life of that period in
chronological order. It is better to group it according to literary genre,
keeping to chronology only within individual groups. Thus it is easier
to grasp each document’s particular importance.
1. CHURCH ORDERS
Concern for the organization of the community’s daily life appears
quite soon in the history of the early Church. A need was felt to regu-
late the common life of its members, the manner of receiving guests
5 Justin, Apol. 1, 67, 5.
6 See especially the rite for baptism, whose essentials are already fixed in the
Didaché 7, 1, but which undergoes further development in the second century, as
attested by Tertullian in his De baptismo and in the Traditio Apostolica.
7 See the studies of the so-called Liturgy of St. Basil in CPG 2905. For
Augustine, see M. Klöckener, Das eucharistische Hochgebet bei Augustinus: FS C. P.

Mayer (Würzburg, 1989), 461–95.
8 See C. Giraudo, Eucaristia per la Chiesa (Rome, 1989).
200
and strangers, and aid for the poor and sick. In particular there was
an effort to order common prayer so as to avoid all confusion. These
concerns found juridical or, as we would say, canonical, expression in
the so-called church orders.
A trail of evidence for these can be found in all patrologies, even
though unlike other ancient Christian writings, they do not strictly
belong to the history of early Christian literature.9 In fact, most of
these “canonical” writings are anonymous and owe their origin to
compilers. Put together mostly during the third and fourth centuries
in Syria and Egypt, these collections are closely related to each other.
The later ones are essentially reworkings of earlier ones. Their au-
thors, in fact, did not intend to preserve the traditions they received
but to adapt them to new circumstances in their communities. We
should note in this regard that concern to regulate the community’s
daily life soon becomes a concern to guarantee its hierarchical order.
Thus we can speak of a living literature. Finally, these collections are
distinguished by their pseudepigraphal character. They were issued
under apostolic authority. At first this claim was meant only to stress
their conformity to apostolic teaching. But with time greater empha-
sis was placed on their apostolic origin, and they were attributed to
Clement of Rome, Hippolytus, individual apostles, and even Jesus
himself.
Although these documents are collections and pseudepigraphal in
nature, they deserve to be considered as the first. More than other
writings, they bear witness to the historical evolution of rites and
liturgical prayers, at least for those times and places where they
originated. Their compilers, by issuing them under apostolic author-
ity, filled the lacuna existing between the authority of Sacred
Scripture, which was accepted during the second century, and the
authority of synods, which would not be recognized until the fourth
century.10 At any rate, these documents’ pseudepigraphal nature cer-
tainly contributed to their acceptance by local churches which were
more or less important. It is not easy to interpret this “canonical”
evidence. The original versions have not always been completely
preserved. Often we must turn to much later translations from Syriac,
9 B. Altaner and A. Stuiber, Patrologie, § 64. “Kirchenordnungen und liturgische
Texte.”
10 G. Schöllgen, Kirchenordnungen, 21
201
Latin, or other languages.11 We must also exercise care when judging
the acceptance of documents that were already a collection. The new
compiler has not only placed them in a different setting but has also
frequently modified individual chapters. Finally, we must not forget
that in condemning certain abuses and insisting on certain rules, the
compiler has presented personal ideals but not described the actual
situation in the community.
a. Didaché
The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, usually called the Didaché, has been
described as a manual of catechetics, liturgy, and discipline (Rordorf).
It was probably composed around the end of the first century near
Antioch in Syria. It includes three parts and an epilogue. The first
part consists of a moral instruction of Jewish origin, which has been
Christianized: the teaching on the Way of Life and the Way of Death
(1–6). The second part deals with baptism, Christian fasting, daily
prayer, and prayers of thanksgiving (7–10). Especially noteworthy is
the fact that baptism is administered with a trinitarian formula. As
for the prayers before and after meals, we are not sure if these are
Eucharistic Prayers. In any case, their structure, which is borrowed
from Jewish tradition, can help us to understand better the later
Eucharistic anaphoras. The third part contains disciplinary prescrip-
tions concerning hospitality, the ministers of the community, and the
Sunday celebration (11–5). The work ends with an eschatological
admonition (16).
Its liturgical orientation is evident in the chapters on baptism, the
prayers of thanksgiving, and the Lord’s Day. But the other chapters
are not without liturgical interest. In fact, the moral instruction is pre-
sented with a view to baptism (see 7, 1) and so is pre-baptismal in
nature. The same is true for fasting and prayer. The teacher speaks
about the position of prophets and their relation to bishops and dea-
cons, after alluding to their liturgical ministry (10, 7).12 Finally, the
epilogue urges the community to gather frequently in order to be
ready for the parousia of the Lord, whose hour no one knows (16, 1f).
11 The most famous example is the Traditio Apostolica.

12 See also 15, 1 where the subject changes from Sunday to the appointment of
bishops and deacons. It is significant that in the Apostolic Constitutions (VII 26, 6)
the prophets are replaced by presbyters.
202
No doubt this first Church Order, although it reflects only the situa-
tion in one minor local church, sheds a great deal of light on the
beginnings of the Christian liturgy. It helps us recognize its Jewish
background. As prototype of a whole series of “canonical” docu-
ments, it also helps us understand how from the very beginning
Christian communities felt the need for liturgical and disciplinary
rules and prescriptions.
b. Traditio Apostolica
According to Quasten, the Apostolic Tradition must be considered a
document of inestimable value for our knowledge of church institu-
tions and Christian life during the first centuries.13 Today, however,
this assessment is challenged or at least nuanced in two respects. On
the one hand, the document’s Roman origin, defended by its editor
B. Botte and also held by V. Loi and M. Simonetti, is more or less
strongly questioned by G. Kretschmar, M. Metzger, and W. Geerlings.
On the other hand, B. Botte’s reconstruction of the text, which
J. Quasten and J.M. Hannsens considered valid, has been seriously
criticized by P. Nautin and W. Geerlings. M. Metzger considers it
fanciful (un document fantôme).14
The document’s structure is not very clear. Based on the titles,
which according to Botte are ancient, it is divided as follows:
Prologue, in which the author defends the tradition of his community
against certain innovations; Church Order (1–21), including rituals
and prayers for the ordination of bishops (2–4), presbyters (7), and
deacons (8), as well as the catechumenate and Christian initiation
(15–21); Prescriptions for community banquets (22–30); Various pre-
scriptions (31–42); Epilogue, in which the author insists again on the
value of tradition.
Given the contents of this document, there is no way to deny its
unique importance for the history of liturgy. But what is needed is an
interpretation of its texts that takes into account the fact that Botte’s
edition is a reconstruction based primarily on the fourth-century
Latin version. The Eastern additions, possibly lost in the Latin ver-
sion, must also be considered. Those who would say that Hippolytus
of Rome compiled the Apostolic Tradition should not forget that the
13 J. Quasten, Patrologia I (Rome, 1967) 35.
14 M. Metzger, art.cit.: EO 5 (1988) 242. See 248ff; 254f.
203
writings attributed to him are divided into two blocks: the so-called
Eastern writings and the writings mentioned in the list on the chair
of the “statue of Hippolytus.” Only writings from the second block
may be used for an auctor per auctorem explanation. Furthermore, the
importance of the Apostolic Tradition, which certainly existed in
some form, is also a result of its acceptance by later compilers and
translators.15
c. Didascalia Apostolorum
The Didascalia Apostolorum, written around the year 230 by a bishop
in Syria, was only partially transmitted in Greek — in the Apostolic
Constitutions (I–VI). On the other hand, it was completely preserved
in other languages, especially in a Syriac version, which must ante-
date the middle of the fourth century. Also important is a partial
Latin version, which may go back to the end of the fourth century.
Dealing with a large number of disciplinary questions, it insists
strongly on freedom from the Law (24f). As for its liturgical elements,
the chapters on the bishop’s duties, including those toward penitents
(4–14), are especially interesting. Other subjects of interest include the
organization of the liturgical assembly (12), deacons and deaconesses
(16), and the discipline of fasting (21).
d. Canones Ecclesiastici Apostolorum (CPG 1739)

The Canones Ecclesiastici Apostolorum, also called the Apostolic Church
Order, are a brief work that, like the Didaché, includes the teaching on
the Two Ways (4–15), a part on church ministries (16–22), and a part
on the role of the laity, men and women (23–30). It goes back to the
third or fourth century and reflects conditions in Syria or Egypt.
e. Constitutiones per Hippolytum — Canones Hippolyti

The Constitutions of Hippolytus, also known as the Epitome, have been
incorporated into Book VIII of the Apostolic Constitutions, the Canons
of Hippolytus and the Testamentum Domini. They may reflect the situa-
tion in the Roman Church, but they leave many unanswered ques-
tions. Nowadays the Canons of Hippolytus are regarded as prior to the
Apostolic Constitutions.
15 See the information in CPG 1737.
204
f. Constitutiones Apostolorum (CPG 1730)
The rather extensive work known as the Apostolic Constitutions is the
first of the pseudo-apostolic canonical collections. Written around the
end of the fourth century in northern Syria, it is presented by its com-
piler (compilers?) as the final document of the so-called Council of
the Apostles (Acts 15), edited by Clement of Rome. It includes pre-
Nicene canonical and liturgical texts, specifically the Didascalia (I–VI),
the Didache (VII, 1–32), the Traditio Apostolica (VIII), and the Canoni
Apostolici (VIII, 47). As documentary evidence for the liturgy of the
first four centuries, it is of considerable importance. It contains a
nearly complete eucharistic ritual (VII–VIII) and many prayers not
found in the received sources. These are mostly from the author him-
self. Those texts borrowed from earlier collections have obviously
undergone later development. The compiler’s modifications and ad-
ditions become more substantial in the third book, and in the last two
books they predominate. Of a stylistic nature, they add to the num-
ber of biblical quotations, show greater respect for the community’s
new situation, highlight the apostolic origin of the documents, and
adapt them to the compiler’s own theology. However, this last point
is still debated by specialists. At any rate, the author’s theology
should not be called Arian, even though it does not really reflect or-
thodox belief at the time of its composition. The Quinisext Synod
(692) had already rejected certain of the collection’s passages as heret-
ical interpolations. On the other hand, its apostolic origin was never
questioned in antiquity. Thus it is not surprising that the collection
was translated, at least in part, into various languages.16
There are also other canonical collections, such as the Collectio
Veronensis (CPG 1731), the Sinodos Alexandrina (CPG 1732), and the
Octoeuchos Clementinus (1733). But these collections are later than the
year 400, although they may contain earlier documents. The same is
true of the Testamentum Domini (CPG 1743).
2 . M Y S TA G O G I C A L C AT E C H E S E S
As attested by several NT writings, especially the Acts of the
Apostles, baptism and admission to the Christian community were
from the very beginning preceded by instruction on faith in Jesus
Christ as Lord and Savior, and the Christian life. In the course of the
16 See CPG 1730.
205
second century, evidence for this intellectual preparation becomes
more frequent and more specific. We know this primarily from the
Didaché, the Epistle of Barnabas, Justin’s Apology (ch. 61), and
Irenaeus’s Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching.
As we already see in the Letter of Paul to the Romans (ch. 6) and
the Gospel of John, the very earliest pre-baptismal instruction in-
cluded an explanation of Christian initiation — in other words,
baptism and the Eucharist. Justin, in the liturgical chapters of his
Apologia (chs. 61–7), and Tertullian, in his De baptismo, give clear
information about the method used in the sacramental catecheses.
According to them, Christian rites are best explained in virtue of
their names (baptism: regeneration, illumination), their natural sym-
bolism (water cleanses and gives life), their biblical prefigurations
(the manna of the Israelites foretells the Eucharist), and analogies
with other data of faith (the Eucharist is compared to the incarnation
of the Word). In his De oratione, Origen clearly states that this way of
emphasizing the ratio sacramenti and the biblical figures — to use
Tertullian’s expression (De bapt. 9) — is similar to biblical exegesis
which explains texts according to their literal sense and their deeper
sense.17 Augustine, with his doctrine of sacramentum-similitudo, would
put the finishing touches on this type of patristic reflection.18
The most beautiful evidence for the interpretation of the major
Christian rites is found in the so-called mystagogical catecheses of
the fourth and fifth centuries. This name, attested in the manuscript
tradition, is used to describe catecheses that were given mostly dur-
ing Easter week to the newly baptized. The expressions mystagogy
(“initiation to the mysteries”) and thus mystagogical catecheses (“dis-
courses on the mysteries”) became popular when Christian authors
definitively accepted the mystery language long used in Judaeo-
Christian exegesis.
Among the mystagogical catecheses, first place belongs to those
attributed to Cyril of Jerusalem (d. 387). They may, however, be from
his successor John; in any case, they were given rather late.19 In five
catecheses, the preacher and bishop of the Holy City develops the
following topics: (1) the renunciation and baptismal profession,
17 B. Studer, L’esegesi doppia in Origene: ASE 10 (1993) 427–37.
18 Ibid., 427f, with Augustine, Epist. 98, 9.
19 See the discussion of their authenticity in Sch 126, 18–40.
206
(2) the mystery of baptism, (3) the chrism, (4) the body and blood of
Christ, and (5) the eucharistic celebration. In developing these topics,
which correspond to the structure of initiation in Jerusalem, he re-
mains close to the ritual and biblical method. Especially interesting is
the way he refers to the primordial waters, the Exodus, the Passover,
the Jordan, and the wedding feast at Cana.20
Another famous example is the baptismal catecheses of John
Chrysostom (d. 407). These discourses were given by the greatest
preacher of the Greek Church around the year 390 in Antioch, center
of the Eastern world. Some of these have become available only more
recently, thanks chiefly to the research of A. Wenger. Among the
catecheses reprinted in Migne and published by him, two are post-
baptismal. However, they are not mystagogical in the strict sense.
Instead they present the authentic Christian life of a baptized person
according to the Letters of Paul, who was Chrysostom’s spiritual
master.
At almost the same time, Theodore, who later became bishop of
Mopsuestia (d. 428), also gave catechetical homilies in Antioch.
Among these homilies, which have come down to us only in Syriac,
ten are commentaries on the baptismal creed, one is an interpretation
of the Lord’s Prayer, and five are initiations into the mysteries: bap-
tism (2), anointing (1), and the Eucharist (2). Since (unlike those of
Chrysostom) they stress the symbolic meaning of the rites, they
constitute the major evidence for initiation as celebrated in late
fourth-century Antioch. Moreover, the information we have from
Theodore is supplemented by the catecheses of Proclus, bishop of
Constantinople (d. 446). To grasp the full significance of these beauti-
ful catecheses, we must remember two things. On the one hand,
Theodore, who is considered the most outstanding representative of
“historical” exegesis, gives a surprisingly “allegorical” interpretation
of the details of the liturgy. For example, he compares the procession
with the offerings to Christ’s journey to his passion. He sees the dea-
cons as representatives of the angels who are present at the liturgical
assembly. On the other hand, presupposing a quasi-apocalyptic view
of the world, he distinguishes two katastavsei": the world of corrup-
tion and the world of life. He sees the liturgical celebration as antici-
pating the life of heaven: baptism is a figure of eternal rebirth, the
20 J. Daniélou, Catechesi, 161ff.
207
Eucharist is a figure of the angelic liturgy, and the whole of Christian
life is a figure of our final union with Christ and God.
Finally, we have the most famous example from the Latin Church,
the baptismal catecheses of Ambrose of Milan (d. 397). These are pre-
served in two works whose authenticity is no longer questioned
today: the De sacramentis and the De mysteriis. These sermons by the
great bishop of Milan deserve special attention for two reasons. First,
they allow us to reconstruct the entire ritual of the church of Milan,
which was mother of a liturgical family. Second, they also furnish in-
formation about the Roman Liturgy, as their reference to the Roman
canon demonstrates. This information, we should note, can easily be
supplemented by the Easter sermons of bishops who lived near
Milan: Zeno of Verona (d. ca. 372), Chromatius of Aquileia (d. 407),
Gaudentius of Brescia (d. 410), Peter of Ravenna (d. 450), and Nicetas
of Remesiana (d. after 414). On the other hand, Ambrose’s catecheses
are distinguished by their theology, which is not only profound, but
later had a great influence on Western sacramental theology. We may
recall the following points: Christ, true God and creator, is presented
as the auctor sacramentorum; baptism and the Eucharist appear, in the
context of his exegesis of the Canticle of Canticles, as a personal en-
counter with Christ; the “heavenly” words spoken by the priest are
efficacious; thus the Eucharist is also a remissio peccatorum.
3 . PAT R I S T I C P R E A C H I N G
It is neither possible nor necessary here to compare the history of
Christian liturgy with that of patristic preaching. It suffices to point
out a few facts that show how a good knowledge of the latter can be
useful for study of the former.
Like other phenomena in the life of the Church, the preaching of
the Fathers grew up in a Jewish matrix. But the path that leads from
synagogue teaching to acceptance of the rhetoric of Greece and Rome
was quite long. From its beginnings, which are reflected, for example,
in the two letters attributed to Clement of Rome, to sermons that
reflect the school of Libanius and Donatus, a complex process of
linguistic and homiletic inculturation was at work. First, we notice
some hesitation in the use of the words pivsti", eujsevbeia, and ejlpiv",
which Christian writers owe to the Septuagint, and the other use they
received from the classics. The fact that the word dovxa is translated
208
into Latin by the four terms maiestas, claritas, gloria, and honor, and
the fact that sacramentum does not correspond in any simple way to
musthvrion are perhaps even more interesting.21 It is also instructive to
compare rhetorical forms inherited from the Bible, such as the paral-
lelism of the psalms, and those borrowed from ancient rhetoric, such
as antithesis. What literary research finds in the sermons of the
Fathers holds true for much of the liturgy. The major difference
between the two areas lies in the fact that the homiletic evidence is
much more abundant than the liturgical; that is why the history of
liturgy owes so much to the history of homiletics.22
Perhaps it is trivial to point out that for an understanding of a text
it is not enough to know its author; we must also have some idea
about the people to whom the text is addressed. Indeed, the word is
word in the full sense only if it reaches its destination and is heard
and understood. This basic hermeneutic principle is especially true in
the case of preaching. Proclaiming and explaining the Word of God,
the preacher stands before his audience of faithful, who are sympa-
thetic or at least curious. He hears their reaction and is applauded or
even criticized. This fact has been the subject of much study, either in
general works on patristic preaching or in monographs on individual
writers: the Cappadocians (Bernardi), Ambrose (Graumann),
Augustine (Van der Meer, Pellegrino), and many others. We need not
consider the details in these descriptions of the Fathers of the Church
and their audience. Instead we should stress that for a knowledge of
the elements of the liturgical assembly, it is much more useful to
study the public to whom these homilies were addressed than to
conduct research on other documents or on the liturgical texts them-
selves. Indeed, the information found in the studies of individual
authors is taken from the sermons themselves — and not only from
the preachers’ own remarks, their manner of addressing their audi-
ence and perhaps adapting themselves to its expectations, but also
from its reactions as these may have been written down by the secre-
taries who were taking notes during the sermon. Part of a sermon
21 B. Studer, Spätantike lateinische Übertragungen griechischer christlicher Texte und
Themen: V. Warnach (ed.), Hermeneutik als Weg heutiger Wissenschaft = Salzburger

Studien zur Philosophie, Bd. 9 (1971) 87–115.
22 C. Mohrmann, Études sur le latin des chrétiens, 4 vols. (Rome, 1958–1977);
W. Dúrig, Pietas liturgica (Regensburg, 1958).
209
was its description of the assembly: the large crowd, their joy or per-
haps sorrow, not to mention that preachers sometimes had to com-
plain at the small number of those present.
We may also recall that the practical thrust and timeliness (the
hodie) of the liturgical celebrations is apparent from the sermons
given during them. But we have already dealt with this in our dis-
cussion of the Fathers and the liturgy. Still it is useful to add one
more word on the transmission of the sermons of the Fathers. As al-
ready mentioned, preachers spoke extemporaneously. The text was
established by secretaries or perhaps some devout members of the
faithful. The notes were preserved in the episcopal archives. Before
being circulated, they may have been revised by the preacher him-
self. The authors or others saw to their publication — usually in
collections — or else inserted the texts into their writings. Such was
particularly true in the case of Ambrose. This method of transmitting
sermons could also have its drawbacks. We are not always sure about
a text’s authenticity and integrity. Before using the sermons of the
Fathers, we must clarify the circumstances of their transmission,
using Patrologies, modern editions or lists such as the Clavis Patrum
Latinorum et Graecorum, or Frede’s list of ecclesiastical authors.23
4 . T H E O L O G I C A L T R E AT I S E S
A N D B I B L I C A L C O M M E N TA R I E S
Until the middle of the second century, non-canonical Christian
literature had an exclusivly practical thrust. It consisted of letters,
homilies, and exhortations of various kinds. But after the year 150,
writings of a more theoretical nature appeared. These may be divided
into treatises and biblical commentaries. The first group includes
apologies, which are replies to particular questions that may have
been raised by adversaries, and controversial or polemical works,
which are attempts at summarizing a series of problems. The second
group is divided into quaestiones et responsiones and commentaries,
which may be either written or oral (homilies).
Among these writings, treatises dealing with liturgical questions
are naturally of greater interest here. We find them at the beginning
23 See the Claves published by Brepols; H. J. Frede, Kirchenschriftsteller,
Verzeichnis und Sigel (Freiburg, 1995); P. Verbraken, Études critique sur les sermons
authentiques de Saint Augustin (Steenbrugge, 1976).
210
of the third century. First of all, we should mention Tertullian’s De
baptismo. In defending the religio aquae (religious use of water) against
certain opponents of baptism, he describes the baptismal ritual of
Carthage, explains the chief scriptural texts, speaks of the conditions
for the administration of baptism, and defines the principle of litur-
gical sacramentality.24 This theology of baptism was supplemented
by Cyprian’s letters upholding the non-validity of baptism adminis-
tered by heretics. The concern of these two great authors, however,
was not limited to first penance. They also spoke of second penance,
that is, readmission to the sacraments of those who after baptism
were excommunicated for grave sins. Tertullian dealt with this ques-
tion in his treatise De paenitentia, and Cyprian in some of his letters,
especially the De lapsis. Cyprian’s letter 63 is also important for the
Eucharist. Refuting certain bishops who were opposed to the use of
wine, the bishop of Carthage (d. 258) emphasizes several basic prin-
ciples of the theology of the Eucharist: its institution by Christ, its
connection with the Last Supper and thus its sacrificial character, and
the role of the celebrant as representative of Christ. While these writ-
ings are highly polemic (as was later the case with Augustine’s anti-
Donatist works, especially his De baptismo), others are more irenic.
Among the latter we should note the treatises in which Tertullian,
Origen, Cyprian, and others spoke of prayer, especially the Our
Father.25 Two things should be emphasized here. On the one hand,
we must always remember that the explanation of the Lord’s Prayer
was linked more or less closely to baptism. On the other hand, it is
worth noting that Origen’s De oratione, which deals with private
prayer, also contains precious information about the community’s
official worship. Certain prayer gestures are explained, as well as the
direction to face while praying, and the sacredness of the place.26
While Western writers show great concern about the major liturgical
rites of baptism and the Eucharist, Eastern writers devote less time to
24 P. A. Gramaglia (ed.), Tertullian, Sul battesimo (Rome, 1979); E. Evans,
Tertullian’s Homily on Baptism (London, 1964) XXIII–XXVIII.

25 A. Hamman, La prière. Les trois premiers siècles (Tournai, 1963); E. von Severus,
Gebet: RAC 8 (1972) 1134–1258; V. Grossi, Tertulliano-Cipriano-Agostino. Il Padre

nostro (Rome, 1980); A. Pollastri, Padre nostro: DPAC II, 2565ff (bibliography).
26 Origen, Orat. 31f. See W. Gessel, Die Theologie des Gebetes nach “De oratione”
von Origenes (Munich, 1975).
211
these questions (OE). However, Eusebius of Caesarea left a treatise on
the Easter Solemnity (CPG 3479), Gregory of Nyssa included some
chapters on the sacraments in his Great Catechesis, and Gregory
Nazianzen and John Chrysostom spoke about the priesthood.27
Besides these works which may be called liturgical treatises, there
are many others which were not written to clarify liturgical ques-
tions, yet examined aspects of the early liturgy at close range. First,
we must mention the Apologies. In order to refute the accusations
of atheism and immorality that pagans were uttering against
Christianity in the second century, Justin described Christian initia-
tion and the Sunday liturgy, giving a very profound explanation.28
Later, in his Apologeticum, Tertullian sang the praises of the Christian
assembly.29 His Ad uxorem contains additional information and is also
an impressive expression of the meaning of Christian marriage.30
Equally interesting is Origen’s Contra Celsum. In the eighth book of
this extensive apology, the Alexandrian teacher discusses the nature
of true spiritual worship.31 Such worship demands knowledge of the
one true God. With his strong tendency toward spiritual interpreta-
tion, Origen defends a purely spiritual meaning for the temple, altar,
and statues. But when it comes to sacred times, he does not seem to
place as much emphasis on spiritual interpretation. Although advo-
cating the ancient ideal according to which the perfect Christian cele-
brates Sunday, Good Friday, Easter, and Pentecost every day, he
admits that the simple faithful, who cannot reach this lofty ideal,
need symbols and annual feasts to remind them at least occasionally
of the Logos of God.32 Thus Origen not only established the basis for
27 Gregory of Nyssa, Catech. Mag., 33–7; Gregory Nazianzen, Or. 1–3; John
Chrysostom, De sacerdotio (CPG 4316).

28 Justin, Apol. 1, 61–67. See the commentary by C. Munier, L’Apologie de saint
Justin Philosophe et Martyr = Paradosis 38 (Fribourg, 1994) 127–41, with an up-

dated bibliography.
29 Tertullian, Apologeticum, 39.
30 Tertullian, Ad uxorem II, 8. See B. Studer, Zur Hochzeitsfeier der Christen in den
westlichen Kirchen der ersten Jahrhunderete = SA 93 (Rome, 1986) 51–85.

31 See M. Fédou, Christianisme et religions païennes dans le Contre Celse d’Origène
(Paris, 1988) especially 299–375.

32 Origen, C. Cels. 8, 23. See also Origen, Com. Io. 13, 18, 109–13; Hom. Num. 23,
4: PG 12, 749C–751A.
212
a theology of feasts33 but also provided fundamental elements for the
theology of the sacraments.34 We must also mention a famous text of
Augustine, even though it is later than the year 400. In his De Civitate
Dei — the greatest apology of Christian antiquity — he draws inspi-
ration from Porphyrius’s Ad Marcellam and shows that the Christian
sacrifice consists in the caritas made possible by the passion of the
one and only Mediator, made real in the Church’s daily Eucharist.35
Both Eastern and Western writers, when discussing questions of faith
or morals, often touched on aspects of the celebration and meaning
of the liturgy. We have discussed these writings elsewhere in our
explanation of the saying lex orandi-lex credendi. Finally, it should be
remembered that while interpreting Sacred Scripture, Christian
exegetes also raised questions of a liturgical nature. They did this
because they were explaining biblical texts to a liturgical assembly,
or because they had to comment on Old or New Testament passages
concerning liturgical realities, such as John 3 and 6 or 1 Corinthians
11, or because certain puzzling words would inspire them to give
allegorical or typological interpretations of a liturgical nature. In this
area, we recommend consulting the indexes in the editions of the
Fathers, or lists of biblical quotations such as those in the Biblia
Patristica.
5. HISTORIOGRAPHY AND HAGIOGRAPHY

During the first three centuries there was not much development in
Christian historical writing. But with the end of the great persecu-
tions (311–12) there came a great flowering of this literary genre, so
suited to the needs of the Christian religion. The celebrated pioneer
was Eusebius of Caesarea (d. ca. 340).36 Basing himself on a large
number of historical documents, he attempted to show in his Historia
Ecclesiastica how the Christian religion had definitively triumphed
under Constantine the Great. In his pursuit of this apologetic and
edifying aim, Eusebius provided a great wealth of documentary
33 See W. Schütz, Der christliche Gottesdienst bei Origenes (Stuttgart, 1984) 40–5.
34 H. U. von Balthasar, Le mysterion d’Origène: RSR 26 (1936) 513–67; 27 (1937)
38–64.
35 See B. Studer, Das Opfer Christi nach Augustins De Civitate Dei X, 5–6: SA 79
(Rome, 1980) 93–107 (bibliography).

36 G. Bosio et al., Introduzione ai Padri della Chiesa, Secoli III e IV (Turin, 1993)
173–202.
213
evidence, without which we would know very little about the first
three centuries. Part of this unique information is the amount of data
on the Christian liturgy: baptism, the Eucharist, the cult of the mar-
tyrs, as well as the existence and structure of buildings for worship
(the basilicas). This evidence is supplemented by the Vita Constantini
and the History of the Martyrs of Palestine. We should note that in his
historical writings Eusebius not only informs us about many liturgi-
cal facts but also proves to be an extremely valuable witness to litur-
gical terminology. He testifies especially to the growing acceptance of
mystery language.
Eusebius’s Historia Ecclesiastica was imitated by a series of Greek
and Latin authors, almost all of them after 400.37 However, their
works are less important for knowledge of the history of the liturgy,
given that their documentary evidence, perhaps original, no longer
constitutes a practically exclusive historical source.
The historical works of Eusebius can be supplemented by hagio-
graphic writings dating back to the first four centuries. With regard
to the martyrs, specialists distinguish between “passion narratives,”
which are faithful accounts of the martyr’s death; “judicial acts,”
which are more or less lengthy reports of the processes at which the
martyrs were condemned; and “epic and romantic legends,” where
history gives way to fantasy and fiction. In addition, specialists insist
on the differences between earlier and later writings, between writ-
ings of Latin origin and those of Greek origin.38 We cannot enter into
this vast area here. Anyone who would use these writings, which
were meant primarily for edification of the faithful, must be aware of
the complex nature of early hagiography. From the viewpoint of
liturgical history, these documents are of some interest for three rea-
sons. They reflect the liturgical practice of the time inasmuch as they
end with doxologies39 or contain quasi-liturgical prayers, as in the
Martyrdom of Polycarp.40 They also attest to the cult of the martyrs and
37 See the information in P. Siniscalo, art. cit. We should especially note the
Historiae Ecclesiasticae of Gelasius of Caesarea and Rufinus of Concordia, written
shortly before and shortly after 400.
38 V. Saxer, Atti, Passione, Leggende: DPAC II, 2140–9.
39 See for example the Martyrium Polycarpi 23, 3; Acta Iustini 6; Acta Martyrum
Scillitanorum, 17; Passio Perpetuae et Felicitatis, 21, 11; etc.

40 Martyrium Polycarpi, 14, 1–3.
214
their relics.41 Later they would include the Gesta martyrum in order to
explain to pilgrims the origin of the martyrs’ shrines.42 Finally, certain
Passions, such as the Passio Perpetuae, were written to be read at litur-
gical assemblies.43 In some churches, for example those of Africa,
reading of the Acts and Passions of the Martyrs was part of the
Liturgy of the Word. In Rome such readings were allowed only at the
martyrs’ tombs or in presbyteral churches — not in the papal liturgy.
During the fourth century lives of holy monks and bishops were
added to the martyrologies. Among the most famous were the Life of
Anthony, written by Athanasius and twice translated into Latin,44 and
the first Life of Pachomius, which along with his Praecepta, letters, and
catecheses, also translated into Latin, formed the basis of Pachomian
monasticism.45 While the Life of Anthony merely attests to the begin-
ning of the cult of saints who were not martyrs of blood but martyrs
of conscience, the documentary evidence on Pachomius tells us about
the liturgy of the Egyptian monks. Gregory of Nyssa’s eulogies dedi-
cated to Gregory the Wonderworker, Athanasius, his brother Basil,
Ephrem, and Meletius of Antioch cannot really be called lives of
these holy bishops. But they do have a hagiographic quality, espe-
cially the first, which circulated under the title Vita Gregorii
Thaumaturgi (CPG 3184).46 At any rate, they contain many liturgical
elements, including richly detailed evidence on the meaning of
Christian feasts, information on the Eucharist, Christian funerals, and
banquets in honor of the martyrs. Gregory of Nyssa also eulogized
his sister Macrina. In this work he has also left us valuable informa-
41 See especially Martyrium Polycarpi, which according to T. Baumeister,
Heiligenverehrung: RAC 112–5, already contains all the elements of the cult of the
martyrs.
42 T. Baumeister, Heiligenverehrung: RAC 127.
43 Passio Felicitatis, 1, 5–6. For the question of the liturgical reading of hagio-
graphic writings, see B. de Gaiffier, La lectures des actes des martyres dans la prière
liturgique en occident: ABoll 72 (1954) 134–66.
44 G.J.M. Bartelink (ed.), Vita di Antonio = C. Mohrmann (ed.), Vite dei Santi =
Scrittori Greci e Latini (Rome, 1974).

45 A. Veilleux, La liturgie dans le cénobitisme pachômien au quatrième siècle = SA 57
(Rome, 1968).
46 B. Studer, Das christliche Fest, ein Tag der gläubigen Hoffnung: SA 95 (Rome,
1988) 517–29, especially 523–8, with the respective quotations.
215
tion about monastic prayer, the lucernarium, prayers for the dying,
and funeral ceremonies.47
Among the works of historiography and hagiography we can also
include the Itineraria that appear during the fourth century. The
Greek and Latin term historia had two meanings in antiquity: investi-
gation and narration. Both meanings have to do with both past and
present. Basing themselves on written evidence, historians presented
the past (res gestae); basing themselves on visits to the places or on
eyewitnesses, they explained in detail what they had seen and ex-
perienced.48 In this sense, descriptions of journeys are historical writ-
ings. Since they concern the cult and shrines of the saints, they also
share essential elements of hagiography. Two Itineraria come from the
fourth century: the Itinerarium Burdigalense to Jerusalem (333) and the
Itinerarium Egeriae (381–384). The second is certainly more important,
also from a liturgical point of view.49 It contains a wealth of informa-
tion on the holy places of Egypt and Palestine, especially those in the
vicinity of Jerusalem.50 There are also detailed descriptions of the
liturgy in the Holy City (Dedication, Epiphany, Holy Week, Paschal
Time).51
6. ECCLESIASTICAL CORRESPONDENCE
A N D C H R I S T I A N P O E T RY
Since the beginning of Christianity, a huge number of letters have
been exchanged between Christian communities and their leaders.
Beginning in the third century, the bishops of Alexandria would send
Easter Letters every year to the communities in Egypt, announcing
the date of Easter.52 Toward the end of the fourth century, the bishops
47 E. Giannarelli (ed.,) La Vita di s. Macrina (Milan, 1988) Index, s.v. preghiera.
48 See B. Studer, La cognitio historialis di Porfirio nel De ciuitate Dei di Agostino:
Studia Ephemeridis Augustinianum 50 (Rome, 1995) 529–53, especially 537–48.
49 A. Hamman, Egeria: DPAC I, 1108, with bibliography. In addition there is
P. Maraval, Égérie, Journal de Voyage: SCh 296 (Paris, 1982); E. Bermejo Cabrera,
La proclamacion de la escritura en la liturgia de Jerusalem. Estudio terminologico del
“Itinerarium Egeriae” = Studium biblicum franciscanum. Coll.maior 37 (Jerusalem,
1993); N. Natulucci (ed.), Egeria, Pellegrinaggio in Terra Santa = Biblioteca Patristica
(Florence, 1993).
50 See P. Maraval, Égérie, 56–117: a reconstruction of Egeria’s journey, worked
out using the later versions of Valerius and Paul the Deacon.
51 See P. Maraval, Égérie, 367ff: Analytic Index, 2. Liturgie.
52 P. Évieux, in SCh 372, 73–118, especially 111f.
216
of Rome began to address themselves officially not only to the
Western Churches, but also to those of the East in so-called decretal
letters.53 These writings deserve special attention inasmuch as they
emanated from important communities, mother churches or mission-
ary centers, or from bishops who enjoyed great authority and in one
way or another expresssed the consensus of all the Churches.
Certainly they contain the clearest expression of the Fathers’ thought
and its pastoral orientation to current realities. We can distinguish
between letters in the strict sense, whether official or personal, and
treatises composed in epistolary form.54
We cannot go into detail on the correspondence from the patristic
era. A few examples must suffice to show that letters from the com-
munities or the great bishops constitute a major source for the history
of liturgy. At the end of the first century, the community in Rome
wrote to the community in Corinth appealing for harmony. This so-
called Prima Clementis shows how the faithful in Rome prayed; the
Jewish origins of the Christian liturgy are also clearly apparent.55 The
letters of Cyprian, “primate” of Carthage (d. 258), are also of great
importance. These first letters from a bishop deal with many liturgi-
cal questions (penance, Eucharist, baptism, the cult of the martyrs).56
The Easter Letters in which the bishops of Alexandria, beginning
with Demetrius (188–230), announced the date of Easter, not only
emphasize the paschal mystery but also deepen the notion of the
Christian feast.57 Noteworthy among Basil of Caesarea’s extensive
correspondence is a letter on frequent Communion.58 Knowing that
Ambrose took great care to organize the daily life and liturgy of the
churches in northern Italy, it is not suprising to find in his many
letters much information of a liturgical nature: the question of Easter
(ex.coll. 13), references to liturgical chant (75A, 34), fasting (ex.coll.
53 B. Studer, in Patrologia III, 546–57 (DPAC II, 2664ff).
54 M. Pellegrino, in NBA 21, XXV–XXXVIII.
55 A. Jaubert, in SCh 167, 139ff.
56 V. Saxer, Vie liturgique et quotidienne à Carthage vers le milieu du IIIe siècle
(Vatican, City, 1969).

57 P. Évieux, in SCh 372, 73–118, especially 111f.
58 Basil, ep. 93 (a. 372). The bishop of Caesarea also takes positions on baptism,
matrimony, and ordination. But he does this especially with regard to the canoni-
cal requirements for the administration of these sacraments. See Y. Courtonne,
S. Basile et son temps (Paris, 1973), 456–90; 521–25.
217
13, 11), or the liturgical functions of the priest.59 There are also many
letters and epistolary treatises in which Augustine60 develops his
ideas on the criteria to be used in judging liturgical rites (ep. 54), the
sacramental meaning of the paschal feast (ep. 55), the relationship
between faith and baptism (ep. 98), prayer (ep. 139), the euchological
terminology of 1 Timothy 2:1 (ep. 149, 2, 11–7), and, of course, the
much-debated question of baptism (ep. 166).61 Among the papal
letters, those of Leo I deserve special attention. They concern the date
of ordinations and repetition of the Eucharistic sacrifice (ep. 6), the
baptismal liturgy (ep. 16; 168, 1), the date of Easter (ep. 121), and the
administration of sacramental penance (ep. 108; 167f).62
To shorten our discussion considerably, we may say that the letters
of the Fathers of the Church are to a great extent a “personal” source
for their liturgical thought. Of course that is even more true for the
Christian poetry that developed during the fourth century.63 We
already have evidence for the first three centures that chants and
hymns borrowed from the Bible or composed by Christian authors
were sung at liturgical assemblies.64 However, we know much more
about the practice of the imperial Church. It is said that Arius had his
faithful sing verses as a way of spreading his theological ideas.65
Augustine refers to something similar in the case of the Donatist,
Parmenianus.66
59 R. Gryson, Le prêtre selon saint Ambroise (Louvain, 1968) especially 235–93, but
also elsewhere, with references to various letters, e.g., 76, 4.8.23.25.
60 Augustine himself introduces some of his letters into his “books.” See G. Bardy
(ed.), Augustin, Les révisions: BA 12, 39f.

61 W. Roetzer, Des Hl. Augustinus Schriften als liturgie-geschichtliche Quelle
(Münster, 1931).
62 T. Jalland, The Life and Times of St. Leo the Great (London, 1941) 399–410.
63 A. Dihle, Die griechische und lateinische Literatur der Kaiserzeit (Munich, 1989)
581–90: “Liturgische Dichtung”; J. Fontaine, Naissance de la poésie dans l’Occident

chrétien (Paris, 1981).
64 J. Quasten, Patrologia I (Casale, 1975) 143–56: “Gli inizi della poesia cristiana,”
with references to the hymn “Phos hilaron” (2nd cen.) and the papyrus
Oxyrhynchus XV, n. 1786 (3rd cen.). See also A. Hamman, Phos Hilaron: DPAC II,
2777.
65 CPG 2028, and J. Quasten, Patrologia II (Casale, 1973) 15f.
66 Augustine, Epist. 55, 18, 34. On this subject, see W.H.C. Frend, Parmeniano:
DPAC II, 2686f.
218
More important from a liturgical point of view were the hymns of
Hilary and Ambrose, which have been described as “a kind of ‘back-
lit picture’ of the Arian controversy.”67 The three hymns by the
bishop of Poitiers that were discovered in 1885 have no history.
Ambrose’s fourteen (?) authentic hymns “created a ‘fixed form’ of
Latin liturgy,” which lasted a millennium and a half.68 Reflecting the
various currents of the Latin poetic tradition as it was renewed and
perpetuated during the fourth century, the poetry of Prudentius is
obviously the high point of early Christian Latin poetry. The ballads
of the Peristephanon, dedicated to the Spanish, Roman, and other mar-
tyrs, are a singular witness to the veneration of the saints. Although
later than the year 400, at least as to their definitive publication, they
do testify to the “liturgical sense” of the fourth-century Latin Church.
The extent to which the latter was open to the values of ancient
poetry is confirmed by the epigraphs of Damasus, also composed in
honor of the martyrs and placed near their tombs.69 Poetry occupied
an even more important place in the Eastern Church.70 However, we
do not know the names of the fourth-century authors. Ephrem, the
most famous hymnographer of the Syrian Church, is an exception.71
While it is true that his poems are more like sermons composed in
verse, they became a model for Byzantine liturgical poetry. If we
could be sure of the authenticity of a poem on virginity and a hymn
addressed to Christ, we could also count Gregory Nazianzen among
the fourth-century liturgical poets.72
Early Christian literature contains a great wealth of documentary
evidence on the history of Christian worship. Even though we do not
find books in the strict sense during the first four centuries, the writ-
ings of Christian authors of the period allow us to get an idea of that
time in history when the liturgy of the Eastern and Western Churches
was formed in its essentials. But to properly evaluate these unique
sources and take advantage of their riches, we must be conscious of
their great literary variety and study them in their ecclesial and
67 J. Fontaine, Inni/innologia: DPAC II, 1881ff. (bibliography).

68 J. Fontaine, art.cit., 1782.
69 C. Pietri, Damaso: DPAC I, 883ff.
70 A. Dihle, Literatur, 584: on the Eastern origins of liturgical chant.
71 Ibid., 585.
72 Ibid., 583.
219
cultural setting. Only on these two conditions can we fully under-
stand how the liturgy of the apostolic communities became the
liturgy of the Churches.
Bibliography
CHURCH ORDERS
Bradshaw, P. F. Kirchenordnungen. Vol. 1, Altkirchliche. TRE 18 (1989) 662–670.
CPG 1730-1743 (editions and critical studies).
Faivre, A. “La documentation canonico-liturgique de l’Église ancienne.” RSR
54 (1980) 204–215; RSR 54 (1980) 273–297; RSR 55 (1981) 31–42.
. Ordonner la fraternité: Pouvoir d’innover et retour à l’ordre dans l’Église
ancienne = Histoire. Paris, 1992.
Giraudo, C. La struttura letteraria della preghiera eucaristica. Analecta Biblica 92.
Rome, 1981.
Hanssens, J. La liturgie d’Hippolyte: Documents et études. Rome, 1970.
Schöllgen, G. Zur Entstehung und Entwicklung der frühchristlichen
Kirchenordnungen. FCh 1:13–21. Freiburg, 1991.
DIDACHE
CPG 1735.
De Halleux, A. “Les ministères dans la Didachè.” Irén 53 (1980) 5–29.
Niederwimmer, K. Didache. Kommentar zu den Apostolischen Vätern 1.
Göttingen, 1989.
Rordorf, W., and A. Tuilier, eds. La doctrine des douze Apôtres (Didachè). SCh
248. Paris, 1978. (See DPAC 1:947f.).
Schöllgen, G. “Didache: Zwölf-Apostel-Lehre.” FCh 1:23–139. Freiburg, 1991.
TRADITIO APOSTOLICA
Botte, B., ed. La Tradition Apostolique de saint Hippolyte: Essai de reconstitution.
LQF 39 (see SCh 11bis, 1968). Münster, 1963.
Geerlings, W. Traditio Apostolica. FCh 1:141–313. Freiburg, 1991 (bibliogra-
phy).
Magne, J. Tradition Apostolique sur les “charismes” et “Diataxeis des saints
apôtres.” Origines chrétiennes 1:193–225. Paris, 1975.
Metzger, M. Nouvelles perspectives pour la prétendue Tradition Apostolique. EO 5
(1988) 241–259 (see SCh 320 and 336; ALW 33 (1991) 290–294.
220
Nuove richerche su Ippolito. Studia Ephemeridis “Augustinianum” 30. Rome,
1989.
DIDASCALIA APOSTOLORUM
CPG 1738.
DPAC 1:948ff.
Rahner, K. La penitenza nella Chiesa, 483–522. Rome, 1968.
TRE 18 (1989) 665ff.
CANONES ECCLESIASTICI APOSTOLORUM

CPG 1739.
DPAC 1:577ff.
Faivre, A. Naissance d’une hiérarchie, 143–153. Paris, 1977.
LThK 1 (1993) 871ff.
CONSTITUTIONES PER HIPPOLYTUM

CPG 1741, 1742.
DPAC 1:827.
TRE 18 (1989) 667ff.
CONSTITUTIONES APOSTOLORUM
CPG 1730.
Metzger, M. Les Constitutions Apostoliques. 3 vols. SCh 320 (1985); 329 (1986);
336 (1987).
Schöllgen, G. Bibliography in LThK 1 (1993) 872ff.
MYSTAGOGICAL CATECHESES
A. General Bibliography
Cesana, F. L’eucaristia nei Padri: La catechesi eucaristica del II al VII secolo. Milan,
1982.
Daniélou, J. La catechesi nei primi secoli. Turin, 1969.
Dragon, G. Naissance d’une capitale: Constantinople et ses institutions de 330 à
451. Paris, 1974.
Hamman, A. L’initiation chrétienne. Paris, 1980.
Mazza, E. Mystagogy: A Theology of Liturgy in the Patristic Age. Trans. M. J.
O’Connell. New York, 1989.
Olivar, A. La predicación cristiana antigua. Barcelona, 1991.
Paverd, F. van de. Zur Geschichte der Messliturgie in Antiocheia und
Konstantinopel gegen Ende des vierten Jahrhunderts. OCA 187. Rome, 1970.
Rentinck, P. La cura pastorale in Antiochia nel IV secolo. AGreg 178. Rome, 1970.
221
Riley, H. M. Christian Initiation: A Comparative Study of the Interpretation of the
Baptismal Liturgy in the Mystagogical Writings of Cyril of Jerusalem, John
Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia and Ambrose of Milan. Washington,
1974.
Ruffini, E., and E. Lodi. “Mysterion” e “sacramentum”: La sacramentalità negli
scritti dei Padri e nei testi liturgici primitivi. Nuovi saggi teologici 24.
Bologna, 1987.
Schütz, W. Geschichte der christlichen Predigt. Berlin, 1972.
Studer, B. Soteriologie der Kirchenväter. HDG 3/2a:144–156, 181–190. Freiburg,
1978.
. “Mistagogia/Mistero.” DPAC 2 (1984) 2264–2266 (bibliography).
Zinconce, S. Studi sulla visione dell’uomo in ambito antiocheno (Diodoro,
Crisostomo, Teodoro, Teodoreto). L’Aquila, 1988.
B. Bibliography for Cyril of Jerusalem († 387)
Bosio, G., ed. Introduzione ai Padri della Chiesa. Secoli III e IV, 247–260 (bibliog-
raphy). Turin, 1993.
CPG 2:3585ff.
Fernandez, D. Diversos modos de presencia de Cristo en los catequesis de san Cirilo
de Jerusalen. EstTrin 9 (1975) 245–272.
Piédagnel, A., and P. Paris, eds. Catéchéses mystagogiques. SCh 126 (1966) and
126bis (1990). Paris, 1966.
Röwekamp, G., ed. Cyrill von Jerusalem: Mystagogische Katechesen. FCh 7.
Freiburg, 1992.
Yarnold, E. “Cyrillus von Jerusalem.” TRE 8 (1981) 261–266.
C. Bibliography for John Chrysostom († 407)
Bosio, G., ed. Introduzione ai Padri della Chiesa. Secoli III e IV, 390–435 (bibliog-
raphy). Turin, 1993.
Corsato, C. “Dottrina battesimale nella catechesi di San Giovanni
Crisostomo.” StudPad 23 (1976) 270–296.
CPG 2:4305–4995, esp. 4460–4472: Catecheses ad illuminandos.
Finn, Th. M. The Liturgy of Baptism in the Baptismal Instructions of John
Chrysostom. Washington, 1967.
Fittkau, G. Der Begriff des Mysteriums bei Johannes Chrysostomus: Eine
Auseinandersetzung mit dem Begriff des “Kultmysteriums” in der Lehre Odo
Casels. Bonn, 1953.
Kaczynski, R. Das Wort Gottes in Liturgie und Alltag der Gemeinden des Johannes
Chrysostomus. Freiburger theologische Studien 94. Freiburg, 1974.
Sartore, D. “Il mistero del battesimo nelle catechesi di S. Giovanni
Crisostomo.” Lateranum 50 (1984) 359–395.
222
SCh 50 bis (Paris, 1970); 366 (Paris, 1990—bibliography and introduction).
English translation with commentary: ACW 31 (1963) under the direc-
tion of P. W. Harkins.
Wenger, A. “Jean Chrysostome.” DSp 8 (1974) 331–355.
D. Bibliography for Theodore of Mopsuestia
Bosio, G. Introduzione ai Padri della Chiesa. Secoli IV e V, 389–409. Turin, 1995.
CPG 2:3827–3864, esp. 3852: “Homiliae catechetichae.”
Bruns, P., trans. Theodor von Mopsuestia, Katechetische Homilien. FCh 17:1/2.
Freiburg, 1995.
Tonneau, R., and R. Devreesse. Les homélies catéchétiques de Théodore de
Mopsueste. Photocopy of Ms. Migana Syr. 561, translation, introduction,
index = ST. Vatican City, 1949.
E. Bibliography for Ambrose († 397)
Banterle, G., trans. Spiegazione del Credo, I sacramenti, I misteri, La penitenza.
SAEMO 17. Milan, 1982.
Calcaterra, C. La catechesi pasquale di Ambrogio di Milano. Milan, 1973.
Dassmann, E. “Ambrosius von Mailand.” TRE 2 (1978) 362–386.
Jacob, C. “Arkandisziplin,” Allegorese, Mystagogie: Ein neuer Zugang zur
Theologie des Ambrosius von Mailand. Frankfurt, 1990.
Mara, M. G. “Ambrogio.” DPAC 1 (1983) 147–152.
Schmitz, J., ed. De sacramentis = Über die Sakramente; De mysteriis = Über die
Mysterien / Ambrosius, De sacramentis-De mysteriis. FCh 3. Freiburg, 1990
(bibliography).
PATRISTIC PREACHING
Baus, K., and E. Ewig. The Imperial Church from Constantine to the Early Middle
Ages. New York, 1980.
Beatrice, P. F., ed. Cento anni di bibliografia ambrosiana (1874–1974). Milan, 1981.
Bernardi, J. La prédication des pères cappadociens: Le prédicateur et son auditoire.
Paris, 1968.
Daniélou, J. La catéchése aux premiers siècles. Paris, 1968.
Graumann, T. Christus Interpres: Die Einheit von Auslegung und Verkündigung
in der Lukaserklärung des Ambrosius von Mailand. Berlin, 1994.
Monachino, V. La cura pastorale a Milano, Cartagine e Roma nel secolo quarto.
Rome, 1947; 2nd ed., 1973.
Olivar, A. La predicaciòn cristiana antigua. Barcelona, 1991.
Sachot, M. “Homilie.” RAC 16 (1991/2) 148–175 (172/5: bibliography).
Salzmann, J. C. Lehren und Ermahnen: Zur Geschichte des christlichen
Wortgottesdienstes in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten. WUNT 59. Tübingen,
1994.
223
Schütz, W. Geschichte der christlichen Predigt. Berlin, 1972.
Sottocornola, F. L’anno liturgico nei sermoni di Pietro Crisologo. Ravenna, 1973.
Van der Meer, F. Augustine the Bishop. Trans. B. Battershaw and G. R. Lamb.
New York, 1962.
THEOLOGICAL TREATISES AND BIBLICAL COMMENTARIES

Di Berardino, A., and B. Studer, eds. History of Theology. Vol. 1, The Patristic
Period. Trans. M. J. O’Connell. Collegeville, Minn., 1997.
Studer, B. Die frühchristliche Literatur bis zur konstantinischen Zeit. NHL.
. Die theologische Literatur vom 4. bis zum 7. Jahrhundert. NHL.
HISTORIOGRAPHY
Dihle, A. Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire from Augustus to
Justinian. New York, 1994.
Siniscalco, P. “Storiografia.” DPAC 2:3319–3326 (bibliography).
Studer, B. In A. Di Berardino and B. Studer, eds. History of Theology. Vol. 1,
The Patristic Period, 270f. Trans. M. J. O’Connell. Collegeville, Minn.,
1997.
HAGIOGRAPHY
Bastiaensen, A.A.R., et al., eds. Atti e passioni dei martiri, vii–xlix. Scrittori
greci e latini. Rome, 1987.
Baumeister, T. Heiligenverehrung I: RAC 14:96–150. Heiligenverehrung II: RAC
14:150–183.
Saxer, V. “Agiografia.” DPAC 1:80–83.
. “Atti, Passione, Leggende.” DPAC 2:2140–2149.
ECCLESIASTICAL CORRESPONDENCE AND CHRISTIAN POETRY

Dihle, A. Greek and Latin Literature of the Roman Empire from Augustus to
Justinian. New York, 1994.
Fontaine, J. Naissance de la poésie dans l’Occident chrétien. Paris, 1981.
. “Inni/innologia.” DPAC 2:1781ff. (bibliography).
Pellegrino, M. “Introduzione alle lettere di Agostino.” NBA 21. Rome, 1969.
vii–cvii.
Studer, B. “Lettere dei papi.” DPAC 2:2664ff. (bibliography).
. In A. Di Berardino, and B. Studer, eds. History of Theology. Vol. 1, The
Patristic Period, 292ff. Trans. M. J. O’Connell. Collegeville, Minn., 1997.
224
Elena Velkova Velkovska
13
Byzantine Liturgical Books
Current editions of the Byzantine liturgical books reflect the complex

evolution and radical transformations experienced by the
Constantinople tradition over a thousand years, from the fifth to the
sixteenth century. The Byzantine rite, like the Roman, represents a
synthesis of extremely diverse cultic and cultural traditions. There-
fore we shall describe the books of each core tradition together with
the books that have resulted from their repeated encounter.
I . B O O K S F R O M T H E A N C I E N T C O N S TA N T I N O P L E
C AT H E D R A L T R A D I T I O N
1. Psalter
The psalter contained the 150 psalms of the Septuagint and fifteen
biblical canticles arranged in units called “antiphons.” For this reason
it was also sometimes called the antiphonary (ajntifwnavrion). Each
antiphon was composed of a variable number of psalms with respec-
tive refrains and constituted the psalmodic pensum of the Liturgy of
the Hours. Its organization has sometimes been attributed to the pa-
triarch Anthimos (535–36). After the psalms came the fifteen biblical
canticles proper to Constantinople and some appendices with chants
and prayers. The earliest copy preserved is the famous Chludov
Psalter (11th cen.), known for its valuable miniatures.
2. Gospel
The book used for liturgical proclamation of the gospel has always
been an object of special veneration in Byzantine churches because it
is a sign of Christ’s presence. It is kept on the altar to indicate the
225
indissoluble link between the table of the Word and the table of the
Bread and Cup.
As in the West, the earliest group of gospel codices is represented
by the continuous text of the four evangelists (tetraeuaggevlion) in
the order Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. This is followed or pre-
ceded by several tables indicating which pericopes are to be read.
Beginning in the eighth century, lectionaries (eujaggevlion, ejklogavdion
tou≈ eujaggevlivou) developed alongside the tetraevangelion. The peri-
copes were arranged in the order of their reading during the litur-
gical year: John, Matthew, Luke and Mark.
The earliest gospel lectionaries give pericopes only for Saturdays
and Sundays during the year, for weekdays between Easter and
Pentecost, and for the chief memorials of the Proper of the Saints.
Only much later do lectionaries appear with pericopes for weekdays
after Pentecost, with the exception of Lent, which was always alitur-
gical. This development depends on how often the Eucharist was
celebrated. Even today it is not celebrated daily in all places but is
restricted mainly to Saturdays, Sundays, and feastdays.
The readings are divided into four periods: the Gospel of John is
read from Easter until Pentecost; the Gospel of Matthew from the
Monday after Pentecost until the Sunday after September 14
(Exaltation of the Holy Cross); the Gospel of Luke from the Sunday
after the Exaltation until Lent; the Gospel of Mark is read during
Lent, with a few exceptions. Later it was also read on weekdays
(Monday-Friday) beginning with the thirteenth Sunday after
Pentecost.
Each of the three cycles (Saturday, Sunday, and Weekday), divided
into four periods, follows the principle of semi-continuous reading.
Holy Week and the Proper of the Saints, of course, have special
readings.
3. Praxapostolos
This is a lectionary for the Eucharist containing pericopes from Acts
(IIravxei"), the Letters of Paul (ajpovstolo") — hence the Greek name
praxapovstolo" — and at a later period the Catholic Epistles, but not
the Apocalypse. As in the gospel, the pericopes are arranged accord-
ing to the Proper of the Season and the Proper of the Saints. The
Proper of the Season begins with the Easter Eucharist and ends with
226
the Easter Vigil of the following year; the Proper of the Saints, on the
other hand, begins on September 1, which was the ancient Byzantine
New Year.
The books are divided as follows: from Easter to Pentecost the Acts
of the Apostles are read; on the thirty-second through the thirty-sixth
Saturdays and Sundays after Pentecost, the readings are from the
Pauline corpus; during Lent the Letter to the Hebrews is read; on the
pre-Lenten Saturdays and Sundays and during Holy Week, the read-
ings are special.
As we have already seen with regard to the gospel, the weekday
cycle is later. In the concrete case of the Praxapostolos, it was arranged
by distributing according to the principle of semi-continuous reading
what remained of the Pauline corpus and the Letter to the Hebrews,
including also the Catholic Epistles. This has given rise to various edi-
torial possibilities in the manuscripts. These are embodied in as many
groups, linked to the eucharistic rhythms of each local church during
the time after Pentecost: a Saturday-Sunday lectionary, a Saturday-
Sunday-Weekday lectionary, or simply a Weekday lectionary.
One characteristic of the Praxapostolos is its many rubrical direc-
tions. It should be noted that in our Bibles today the order of the
books (Acts, Romans, Corinthians, etc.) follows that of the Byzantine
Praxapostolos.
4. Prophetologion
The disappearance of the Old Testament reading from the Eucharist
during the seventh century gave rise to the development of the Book
of Prophecies (profhtolovgion), whose earliest witness is Sinai gr. 7
(9th cen.). This lectionary contains the Old Testament pericopes —
often with musical notation — for Vespers and the vigils of major
feasts, Vespers for weekdays (Monday–Friday), and Tersext for Lent.
It also includes the psalms with their antiphons and the responsories
between the readings (prokeimevna and Alleluia) for the Eucharist,
together with many rubrics.
5. Euchologion
The Greek term (eujcolovgion) literally means “collection of prayers.”
This liturgical book contains the presidential prayers for the
Eucharist, for the sacraments, and for blessings or consecrations of
persons and things reserved to the bishop and/or priest. It corre-
227
sponds to the ancient Sacramentarium of the Roman Church. The
earliest known copy is the codex Barberini gr. 336 (8th cen.) from
southern Italy, which is kept in the Vatican Library.
From an esthetic and formal point of view, the Byzantine
Euchologion has come to us in the two forms of codex and scroll.
Although, as we have mentioned, the codex is attested since the
eighth century, we should note that the liturgical use of scrolls can
lay claim to a certain antiquity. We need only think of the famous
hymns or kontavkia by Romanos the Melodist, a deacon in
Constantinople before 518.
Some years ago L. W. Daly suggested that the liturgical use of
scrolls be seen as an imitation by the Church of the practice of the
imperial chancery. This was based on the parallels he established be-
tween the kontakia and chrysobulls. Briefly, the euvcaiv presented to God
by the Church in the liturgy were supposedly written in a format
identical to that used in civil petitiones. The kontakia then are a kind of
elite Euchologion with a few special liturgical formulas, at first re-
served to a prominent celebrant such as a bishop or patriarch.
Manuscript tradition for the Euchologion exists in one of two recen-
sions: paleo-Byzantine and neo-Byzantine. The latter arose after the
iconoclast controversy, and its earliest manuscript is from 1027 (Paris,
Coislin 213). Each recension is in turn divided into Italian (Calabria-
Campania, Calabria-Sicily, Salento) and Eastern (Sinai, Palestine,
Greece). Each of these bears signs of distinct influences from the rite
of Jerusalem.
6. Synaxarion
This collection of hagiographic material is arranged according to the
sequence of feasts and memorials (suvnaxi") from September 1 to
August 31. It was “edited” in the ninth century under the sponsor-
ship of Emperor Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus (913–959) in the
context of the post-iconoclast liturgical reform. One famous
Synaxarion has been improperly called the Menologion of Basil II (see
below). In the twelfth century, verses by Christopher of Mytilene
were added.
7. Rubrics
There is no separate codex rubricarum in the Byzantine cathedral tradi-
tion, but the directives for individual celebrations may be found, as
228
we have seen, in the body or appendix of the lectionaries (gospel,
Praxapostolos, Prophetologion), or incorporated into the Synaxarion. The
most important collections of rubrics known today are included in
the manuscripts Patmos 226 and Jerusalem Hagios Stauros 40: codices P
and H of the Synaxarion. Juan Mateos, who edited codex H, entitled
his work the Typicon de la Grande Église, but this is not strictly correct,
since tupikovn is a term that belongs to the monastic rubrical tradition.
The rubrics contained in the Synaxarion are exceptionally important
for a knowledge of the development of the stational liturgy of
Constantinople, which revolved around the basilicas and imperial
buildings. Times, routes, and participants are given. Also interesting
are the rubrics for the proclamation of the Word at the Eucharist and
those for the cathedral Liturgy of the Hours.
In addition to the corpus of rubrics apportioned among various
books as needed, directories (diavtaxi") were established in the elev-
enth century in a metropolitan context. These were for the patriarchal
liturgy, whose increasingly complex development required detailed
regulations.
I I . B O O K S F R O M T H E PA L E S T I N I A N
MONASTIC TRADITION
1. Psalter
Unlike the cathedral tradition of Constantinople, the Palestinian
monastic psalter, also called the Psalter of the Anastasis, is divided
into twenty sections or “sessions” (kaqivsmata), which in turn are sub-
divided into three or more subsections (stavsei") of three psalms each.
The result is that each session is the same length. The number of
verses is generally given at the end of each section or subsection.
The 150 psalms are followed by 11 of the 15 canticles of the cathedral
psalter, arranged in a Canon of nine odes. The earliest known witness
to this type of psalter is St. Petersburg gr. 216 from the year 862.
2. Horologion
This is the Book of Hours (wJrolovgion) of the monastery of Mar Saba
in Jerusalem. It contains the ordinary invariable parts (psalms and
hymns) for Vespers, ajpovdeipnon, mesonuvktikon, Matins, Prime, Terce,
Sext, and None (the order may vary). Depending on the individual
manuscripts, the ordinary is followed by various appendices contain-
229
ing hymns. The Horologion reflects a strictly monastic Liturgy of the
Hours and does not envision the presence of a priest celebrant. The
earliest example, which dates back to the ninth century, is codex Sinai
gr. 863.
III. THE STUDITE AND SABAITE SYNTHESES

In the year 799, at the height of the iconoclast controversy, the monk
Theodore and some of his companions moved from Sakkoudion,
Bithynia (Asia Minor), to the Constantinople monastery of Stoudios,
whose name he would later take. To assure adequate support for his
iconodule position, Theodore appealed to Patriarch Theodore of
Jerusalem, who sent some monks from Mar Saba to Stoudios. Thus
they brought to Constantinople the prayer horaria of Palestine, which
upon contact with the cathedral rite gave birth to the so-called
Studite tradition. This process led to new “editions” of liturgical
books already noted and to the creation of others.
1. Books Resulting from the Monastic-Cathedral Synthesis

For the celebration of the Eucharist, the Studite monks kept the
cathedral Euchologion, gospel, and Praxapostolos. They did the same
for the Liturgy of the Hours but distributed the prayers at Vespers
and Orthros according to the Palestine Horologion. From Mar Saba the
Studites adopted the psalter divided into sessions, but they interpo-
lated refrains from the cathedral antiphonary between the psalm
verses.
2. Hymnals
One of the monks who arrived in Constantinople with Theodore
from Mar Saba was Theophanes Graptos (778–845), a hymnographer
of exceptional talent. With him the consolidated hymn tradition of
Palestine, already distinguished by the names of Andrew of Crete
(d. 720), John of Damascus (d. 780), and Cosmas of Maiouma (d. 787),
moved to the banks of the Bosphorus. There in Stoudios it was able
to grow, thanks to Theodore himself and his brother Joseph, who
later became metropolitan of Thessalonica.
a) Oktoechos-Paraketike. This hymn cycle is fifty-six days long and is
divided into eight sections of a week each. It is called the Eight Tones
(ojktwvhco") because each weekly section of hymns is sung according
to one of the eight tones of Byzantine liturgical music. The cycle of
230
the Oktoechos begins on the first Sunday after Pentecost and is inter-
rupted on Friday of Carnival Week. However, it remains in effect on
all the Sundays of Great Lent and Eastertime, except for Palm
Sunday and Easter Sunday.
The Sunday hymn cycle of the Eight Tones is often attributed to
John of Damascus but is certainly older, even though it also contains
material from him. Parallel to the original Sunday Oktoechos there
also developed a weekday series of hymns, called the Parakletike
(“consolation”), which completed the cycle of fifty-six days.
b) Triodion-Pentekostarion. This contains the hymns for pre-Lent,
Lent, Holy Week, and Eastertime. Originally conceived as one vol-
ume called simply the Triodion, it was later divided into two parts:
the name Triodion was reserved to the section ending with Holy
Saturday, and the name Pentekostarion was given to the section cover-
ing the fifty days of Easter. The name Triodion (triwvdion) comes from
the fact that during Lent the Canon for o[rqro" (Vigils-Lauds) calls for
the singing of just three biblical canticles with their respective odes.
c) Menaia. This collection of hymn texts contains the propers for the
cycle of fixed feasts (mhnaivon, “monthly”) arranged in twelve volumes
according to the Byzantine calendar, which runs from September 1
until August 31. The Menaia may contain only selected texts for major
feasts, or they may be complete and contain texts for every day. The
earliest copies date back to the ninth century. Among them are the
manuscripts Messina gr. 175 and Sophia, Dujec Center gr. 350.
d) Musical Collections. Many hymn texts of the Triodion,
Pentekostarion and Menaia have been gathered into special collections
according to their textual-musical genre. Thus we have the collection
of stichera for Vespers and Lauds (stichravrion), kontakia (kontakavrion),
and musical models for the Canons of Orthros (eijrmolovgion).
3. Menologion
This hagiographic collection, arranged by months (mhnolovgion),
contains the lives of the saints and patristic homilies read mostly at
Orthros (Vigils-Lauds) or at other celebrations of the Hours, for ex-
ample during Holy Week, as directed by the Typicon. The Menologion
was compiled during the ninth century at the height of the Studite
era, but the edition produced by Simeon Metaphrastes (“the
Translator”) during the second half of the tenth century is important
231
enough that the book’s manuscript tradition is usually divided into
pre- and post- Metaphrastes. But Metaphrastes’s work was adapted
in turn, giving rise to the so-called Imperial Menologion from the time
of Emperor Michael IV Paphlagones (1034–1041).
4. Typikon
Conflicts between the Proper of the Season and the Proper of the
Saints, made more complicated by the increasing number of books
used in the Liturgy of the Hours, would be regulated from now on
by a new book of rubrics, the tupikovn.
a) Studite Typikon. After Theodore’s death, liturgical life in the
monastery of Stoudios was entrusted to the brief prescriptions con-
tained in the Rule (uJpotuvpwsi") composed by his disciples. The first
real Studite Typikon we know of comes from the eleventh century and
was drawn up by the hegumen Alexis, who was patriarch from 1025
to 1043. This Typikon is now available only in a contemporary Slavic
translation, an eloquent sign of its spread throughout the Byzantine
world. The first Studite Typicon in Italy dates from the second half of
the twelfth century, although Theodore’s Rule had already reached
there by the first half of the tenth century.
b) Sabaite Typikon. This Typikon is the result of a renewed influence
of the Mar Saba Laura on the Studite Typikon, in particular following
the interlude of the Latin Empire in Constantinople. This influence is
especially noticeable in the reintroduction of the Vigil between
Saturday and Sunday. It is given such prominence that it occupies the
first chapter of the Typikon. In the fourteenth century the Athonite
recension of this book became the norm for the Byzantine rite during
the Hesychast period. From the Holy Mountain it spread throughout
the entire Byzantine world, paradoxically regulating even celebra-
tions in secular churches. The only exception was southern Italy
which remained faithful to the Studite Typikon, which is still followed
today in the monastery of Grottaferrata near Rome — the only place
in the world.
I V. P E R I O D O F S TA B I L I Z AT I O N A N D U N I F I C AT I O N
With the fall of Constantinople in 1453 and the invention of printing,
the various Greek liturgical books assumed definitive shape in the
fifteenth century — naturally in their Byzantine-Sabaite form. Over
the course of a few decades, the Venetian printing houses of the
232
Calliergi and Sabio published the entire series of liturgical books:
Horologion (1509 and 1523), Parakletike and Triodion (1522 and 1525),
Psalter (1524), Oktoechos (1525), Euchologion (1525?), Menaia (1526-36),
Gospel (1539), Apostolos (1542), and Typikon (1545).
Stablization and the progressive spread of the Venetian editions has
marked the history of the Byzantine tradition until our own day.
Among the chief consequences, the first was the canonization, as it
were, of a single local tradition to the detriment of many others still
alive and well. The Venetian printers generally established the manu-
script tradition of the Greek Mediterranean (it was closer at hand),
with no attempt at comparison or correction based on other witnesses.
Thus the invention of printing hindered the organic development
of the liturgical heritage, at the same time laying down the premises
that would lead to the Byzantine rite becoming a monolithic and
fixed block. Except for minor rubrical details, there was no possibility
of legitimate liturgical pluralism, which until then had enjoyed free
reign. The individual churches had practically no role in this process
except to affix their formal imprimatur, while everything was left to
the initiative and will of the printers.
The advent of printing served to accentuate a process already
noted in the Orthodox world: the anthologizing of liturgical books.
These tended to become complete. Although this process never pro-
duced books of the kind found in the West after Trent, nevertheless
extracts from different liturgical books were often collected into a
single volume, usually for the Liturgy of the Hours.
V. R E F O R M S A N D R E V I S I O N S
The historical, religious, and political phenomenon known today as
uniatism, which since the late sixteenth century has resulted in the
division of some churches into two obediences or jurisdictions,
Roman and Orthodox, also favored in time the publication of sepa-
rate liturgical editions. In fact, in the seventeenth century a special
Roman congregation was created, headed by a cardinal, whose pur-
pose was to correct (as was said at the time) the Greek liturgical
books. This congregation remained active until the end of the nine-
teenth century. Breaking with the earlier tradition of confessional
neutrality, the commission made certain dogmatic adjustments, obvi-
ously from a Tridentine viewpoint. It suppressed some texts or struck
233
from others the names of dead authors not in communion with the
Church of Rome.
Moved by needs disproportionate to the size of the project — such
as the need to provide liturgical books for Albanian immigrants to
Italy — the congregation during its long life actually promoted the
critical study of Byzantine hymns and liturgical rules. Except for the
editorial changes just mentioned, the books it had printed are gener-
ally considered good from a philological point of view.
On the Greek Orthodox side, during the most acute phase of a
theological dispute, the monk Bartholomew of Imbros published a
Typikon of the Great Church in 1838. This is nothing more than a drastic
shortening of the Sabaite monastic Typikon, which was considered,
not without reason, as unsuitable for parish celebrations. The edition
met with great success, judging from the number of reprintings
(1851, 1868, and 1884). Finally, in the context of a larger project to
reform the liturgical books sponsored by the Ecumenical Patriarch
Joachim III (1878–1894), the definitive edition of 1888 was published,
thanks to the editorial work of Constantine, protocantor of the Great
Church.
Unfortunately this Orthodox revision, like that of the Roman con-
gregation, was not immune from editorial changes made under the
banner of confessional intransigence.
VI. PROSPECTS
From what we have said thus far, it is clear that the history of the
liturgical books during the last four centuries moves in a distinctly
rubrical — if not rubricist — direction, at least in some churches.
Only one principle of adapatation is considered: that the celebrant or
cantor may shorten some parts of the celebration, but always within
the framework of the customs of their particular church.
But the idea of reform of the Byzantine liturgical books is not new,
even though it was spoken of with less insistence in the past — per-
haps because people were conscious of a certain hypersensitivity on
the part of the Orthodox in the area of liturgical renewal. It must not
be forgotten that the reform in Russia by Nikon and, more recently,
the adoption of the Gregorian calendar were carried out at the cost of
internal schisms that are still with us. In fact, based on the documents
of the preparatory commissions for the Pan-Orthodox Synod, the
234
question of reform of the liturgical books — even what was earlier
suggested on reorganization of the readings — has now been limited
to discussion concerning the periods of fasting.
In any case, when we speak of reform of the liturgical books
among the Orthodox, we must not imagine any kind of major change
in the celebration. It would be no more than a matter of revising the
texts of the individual books from a philological point of view in
order to eliminate inconsistencies and inaccuracies.
However, there are new particular liturgies, such as the liturgy of
New Skete Monastery in the United States and the French liturgy
which follows the Gallican rite.
Bibliography
Allatius, L. De libris et rebus ecclesiasticis graecorum dissertationes et observatio-
nes variae. Paris, 1646.
. De libris ecclesiasticis Graecorum dissertationes duae . . . ad editionem
Cramoisianam Paris. MDCXCIV, additis notis, supplemento & indice atque
elencho alpahabetico Melodorum Graecorum recusae, cura Jo. Alberti Fabricii.
Hamburg, 1717.
Beck, H. G. Kirche und theologische Literatur im byzantinischen Reich. Handbuch
der Alterumwissenschaft 12:245–262. Munich, 1959.
Cappuyns, R. “L’histoire des livres liturgiques grecs.” Studi bizantini e neoel-
lenici 4 (1940) 470–473.
Federici, T. “Libri liturgici orientali.” Anàmnesis 2:217–223.
Pantelakis, E. “Les livres ecclésiastiques de l’Orthodoxie.” Irén 13 (1936) 521–
557.
Taft, R. Selected Bibliography on the Byzantine Liturgy of the Hours. OCP 48
(1982) 358–404.
I. Books from the Constantinople Cathedral Tradition
PSALTER
Schneider, H. “Die biblischen Oden in christlichen Altertum.” Biblica 30
(1949) 28–65.
. “Die biblischen Oden seit dem sechsten Jahrhundert.” Biblica 30 (1949)
239–279.
. “Die biblischen Oden in Jerusalem und Constantinopel.” Biblica 30
(1949) 433–452.
235
Strunk, O. “The Byzantine Office at Hagia Sophia.” Dumbarton Oaks Papers
9–10 (1955–1956) 175–202, esp. 200–201.
(1982) 358–404.
. “Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the Byzantine Rite.”
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 42 (1988) 179–194, esp. 181.
GOSPEL
Aland, K. Kurzgefasste Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments.
Berlin, 1963.
Braithwaite, W. C. “The Lection-System of the Codex Macedonianus.” JThS 5
(1904) 265–274.
Guillaume, D. Saint Évangile conforme a celui qui est lu dans les Églises. Rome,
1979.
Gy, P.-M. “La question du système des lectures de la liturgie byzantine.”
Miscellanea liturgica in onore di Sua Eminenza il Cardinale Giacomo Lercaro,
2:251–261. Rome, 1967.
Velkovska, E. “Lo studio dei lezionari bizantini.” EO 13 (1996).
PRAXAPOSTOLOS
De Vries, I. The Epistles and the Tones of the Byzantine Liturgical Year. Eastern
Churches Quarterly 3 (1954).
Junack, K. “Zu den griechischen Lektionaren und ihrer Überlieferung der
Katholischen Briefe.” Die alten Übersetzungen des Neuen Testaments, die
Kirchenväterzitate und Lektionare, 498–589. Arbeiten zur neutestamentli-
chen Textforschung 5. Berlin–New York, 1972.
PROPHETOLOGION
Texts
Engberg, S. G. Prophetologium. Pars altera: Lectiones anni immobilis.
Copenhagen, 1980–1981.
Zuntz, G., and G. Engberg, eds. Prophetologium. 2 vols. Monumenta Musicae
Byzantinae, Lectionaria 1. Copenhagen, 1939–1981.
Studies
Engberg, S. G. “The Greek Old Testament Lectionary as a Liturgical Book.”
Cahiers de l’Institut de Moyen Âge grec et latin 54 (1986) 39–48.
Høeg, C., and G. Zuntz. “Remarks on the Prophetologion.” AA. VV.
Quantulacumque: Studies Presented to K. Lake, 189–198. London, 1937.
Taft, R. A Selected Bibliography on the Byzantine Liturgy of the Hours, no. 171.
236
Zuntz, G. “Das byzantinische Septuaginta-Lektionar.” Classica et mediaevalia
17 (1956) 183–198.
EUCHOLOGION
Texts
Dmitrievskij, A. Opisanie liturgiceskih rukopisej hranjasihsja v bibliotekax
pravoslavnago Vostoka. Vol. 2, Euchologia. Kiev, 1901. Reprint Hildesheim,
1965.
Goar, J. Euchologion, sive Rituale Graecorum complectens ritus et ordines Divinae
Liturgiae. Editio 2a. Venice, 1730. Reprint Graz, 1960.
Parenti, S., and E. Velkovska. L’eucologio Barberini gr. 336. BELS 80. Rome,
1995.
Studies
Daly, L. W. “Rotuli. Liturgical Rolls and Formal Documents.” Greek, Roman
and Byzantine Studies 14 (1973) 332–338.
Grand Euchologe et Arkhiératikon. Trans. D. Guillaume. Parma, 1992.
Parenti, S. “Euchologion.” Lexikon für Theologie und Kirche 3, col. 976.
Freiburg, 1995.
Taft, R. The Byzantine Rite: A Short History, 52–56. Collegeville, Minn., 1992.
SYNAXARION
Texts
Delehaye, H. Synaxarium ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae e codice Sirmondiano,
nunc Berolinensi, adiectis synaxariis selectis. Propylaeum ad Acta
Sanctorum, Novembris. Brussels, 1902.
Studies
Luzzi, A. Studi sul sinassario di Costantinopoli. Studi e testi bizantino-neoellenici
8. Rome, 1995.
Noret, J. “Ménologes, Synaxaires, Ménées: Essai de clarification d’une termi-
nologie.” AB 86 (1968) 21–24.
Pieralli, L. “Synaxarium Ecclesiae Constantinopolitanae: La famiglia C.” OCP
60 (1994) 399–470.
RUBRICS
pravoslavnago Vostoka. Vol. 1, Tupikav. Kiev, 1895. Reprint Hildesheim,
1965. 1–152.
237
Mateos, J. Le Typikon de la Grande Église. Ms. Sainte-Croix No. 40. 2 vols. OCA
165–166. Rome, 1962-1963.
Taft, R. “The Pontifical Liturgy of the Great Church According to a Twelfth-
Century Diataxis in Codex British Museum Add. 34060. OCP 45 (1979)
279–307; 46 (1980) 89–124. Reprinted in Liturgy in Byzantium and Beyond.
Collected Studies Series 493. Brookfield, Vt., 1995.
II. Books from the Palestinian Monastic Tradition
PSALTER
(1982) 358–404, nos. 86, 87.
. “Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the ‘Byzantine Rite.’”
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 42 (1988) 181–182.
HOROLOGION
Texts
Black, M. A Christian Palestinian Syriac Horologion (Berlin MS. Or. Oct. 1019).
Texts and Studies, n.s. 1. Cambridge, 1967.
Mateos, J. “Un horologion inédit de Saint-Sabas. Le Codex sinaïtique grec 863
(IXe siècle).” In Mélanges E. Tisserant. Vol. 3, Orient chrétien, 47–76. ST 233.
Vatican City, 1964.
Studies
Egender, N. Introduction to La prière des heures: Hôrologion. La prière des ég-
lises de rite byzantin 1. Chevetogne, 1975.
(1982) 358–404, nos. 62, 63, 66-67, 70, 73, 75-76, 88, 90, 94, 101, 108, 110.
III. The Studite and Sabaite Syntheses
OKTOECHOS-PARAKLETIKE
Text
The Hymns of the Octoechus. Parts I-II. Monumenta Musicae Byzantinae,
Transcripta 3 and 5. Copenhagen, 1940, 1949.
Studies
Hannick, Ch. “Le texte de l’Oktoechos.” Dimanche. Office selon les huits tons:
Oktoechos, 37–60. La prière des églises de rite byzantin 3. Chevetogne,
1972.
238
TRIODION-PENTEKOSTARION
Text
Follieri, E., and O. Strunk. Triodium Athoum. Monumenta Musicae
Byzantinae, Transcripta 9. Copenhagen, 1975.
MUSICAL COLLECTIONS
Follieri, E. Initia hymnorum ecclesiae Graecae. 5 vols. in 6. ST 211–215. Vatican
City, 1960–1966.
Szövérffy, J. A Guide to Byzantine Hymnography: A Classified Bibliography of
Texts and Studies. 2 vols. Medieval Classics: Texts and Studies 11–12.
Brookline, Mass., and Leyden, 1978–1979.
MENOLOGION
Ehrhard, A. Überlieferung und Bestand der hagiographischen und homiletischen
Literatur der griechischen Kirche von den Anfängen bis zum Ende des 16.
Jahrhunderts. 3 vols. TU 50–52. 3/1: Leipzig, 1937–1943; 3/2: Berlin, 1952.
Halkin, F. Bibliotheca hagiographica graeca. 3 vols. Subsidia hagiographica 8a.
Brussels, 19573.
STUDITE TYPIKON
(1982) 358–404, nos. 29, 35, 37-38, 42-44, 47.
SABAITE TYPIKON
Text
pravoslavnago Vostoka. Vol. 3. Kiev, 1901. Reprint Hildesheim, 1965.
Studies
Taft, R. “Mount Athos: A Late Chapter in the History of the ‘Byzantine Rite.’”
Dumbarton Oaks Papers 42 (1988) 187–194.
PERIOD OF STABILIZATION AND UNIFICATION

Follieri, E. “Il libro greco per i greci. Le imprese editoriali romane e vene-
ziane della prima metà del Cinquecento.” Venezia centro di mediazione tra
Oriente e Occidente (secoli XV–XVI): Aspetti e problemi, 2:482–508. Florence,
1977.
Korolevskij, C. “La codification de l’office byzantin: Les essais dans le passé.”
OCP 19 (1953) 25–58.
239
Raes, A. “Les livres liturgiques grecs publiés a Venise.” Mélanges Eugène
Tisserant. Vol. 3, Orient chrétien, deuxième partie, 209–222. ST 233. Vatican
City, 1964.
Tomadake, N. B. “L’edizione dei libri ecclesiastici greci (soprattutto liturgici)
in Italia, a cura di religiosi greci ortodossi durante i secoli XV e XVI.” La
Chiesa Greca in Italia dall’VIII al XVI secolo. Atti del Convegno Storico
Interecclesiale, 685–721. Bari, 1969.
REFORMS AND REVISIONS

Korolevskij, C. “Liturgical Publications of the Sacred Eastern Congregation.”
Eastern Churches Quarterly 6 (1945–1946) 87–96, 388–399.
. “L’édition romaine des Ménées grecques: 1881–1901.” Bollettino della
Badia Greca di Grottaferrata, n.s. 3 (1949) 30–40, 153–162, 225–247; 4 (1950)
15–16.
Ploumidis, G. “Il libro liturgico (-biblico) greco e slavo. Scelte ecclesiastiche e
tecnica editoriale.” Rivista di Bizantinistica 2 (1992) 65–79.
Radovic, A. “Réformes liturgiques dans l’Église de Grèce.” Liturgie de l’Église
particulière et liturgie de l’Église universelle, 261–273, esp. 265–266. BELS 7.
Rome, 1976.
Raes, A. “Les notices historiques de l’horologe grec.” AB 68 (1950) 475–480.
Raquez, O. “La Congrégation pour la correction des livres de l’Église orien-
tale (1719–1862).” Sacra Congregatio de Propaganda Fide Memoria Rerum,
2:514–534. Rome, 1972.
PROSPECTS
Federici, T. “Revisione dei libri liturgici nell’Oriente oggi.” Not 15 (1979) 640–
654.
Sargologos, G. “L’altération des textes liturgiques grecs.” Gestes et paroles dans
les diverses familles liturgiques, 235–278. BELS 14. Rome, 1978.
240
Manel Nin, O.S.B.
14
Other Liturgical Books in the East
In this section we shall list in schematic fashion the books used in the
non-Byzantine Eastern liturgies. It must be said that the various edi-
tions of the liturgical books are especially associated with the Eastern
Churches that are in communion with the Church of Rome, whereas
in the Orthodox Churches the liturgical books in many cases are still
in the manuscript stage.
I . E A S T- S Y R I A N L I T U R G I C A L B O O K S 1
The principal East-Syrian liturgical books may be grouped as follows:
Hudra (cycle). Contains the texts for all the offices of all feasts.
Gazza (treasure). Contains liturgical compositions for the offices of
Vigils (lelya).
Kashkull (contains everything). Contains the texts of the Hudra as
well as those for weekdays.
Warda (rose). A collection of poetic texts used as antiphons.
Ktaba daqdam wadbatar (book of before and after). Contains the texts
for Sundays beginning with Easter.
Three Lectionaries: Old Testament, Epistles, and Gospel Book.
Naqpayatha drase (supplement to the mysteries). Contains chants for
the celebration of the liturgy.
1 See PDOC 329–34; C. Moussess, Les Livres Liturgiques de l’Église Chaldéene
(Beirut, 1955); F. Y. Alichoran, Missel Chaldéen (Paris, 1982). I would also mention
the edition of J.E.Y. de Quellayta, which contains the texts of the three eucharistic
anaphoras and various other texts for blesssings and the consecration of an altar.
241
I I . W E S T- S Y R I A N L I T U R G I C A L B O O K S 2
Ktobo d<anaphuras (book of anaphoras). Contains the prayers and
anaphoras recited by the priest.
Diaconal. Book with the deacon’s parts and the people’s responses.
<Atiqto (Old). Contains the Old Testament readings.
Shliho (Apostle). Contains readings from the Letters of Paul, di-
vided into three cycles: Sundays, movable feasts, immovable feasts,
and weekdays.
Gospel Book. Divided into three cycles like the “Apostle.”
Fanqitho. Contains the collection of liturgical texts for feasts during
the year; it is subdivided into seven volumes.
Shimo (simple). Book for the weekly offices.
Psalter.
Book of Sedri (orders). The Sedro is a text recited by the priest, con-
taining an introduction and homiletic type of admonition that refers
to the feast being celebrated or the day of the week.
Book of Homilies.
III. COPTIC AND ETHIOPIAN LITURGICAL BOOKS3

1. Coptic Liturgical Books
There are twenty-one liturgical books in the Coptic liturgy, a sign that
the different books and traditions are still very poorly codified.
Euchologion. Contains formulas for the Eucharist with the three
anaphoras in use (St. Basil, St. Gregory, and St. Cyril), for Matins and
for the Office of Vespers.
Diaconal. Variable parts of the deacon and the people.
Katameros. A lectionary in three parts: one for Sundays, feasts, and
weekdays, one for Lent, and one for Easter and Pentecost.
Synaxarion. A kind of martyrology read at Mass after the reading
from the Acts of the Apostles in order to show the continuity of
salvation history.
Al-Tasafir. Arabic translation of the readings for Mass, with a series
of commentaries on these.
Al-Mawa<iz. An anthology of homiletic texts from the patristic
tradition.
2See PDOC 334–9.
3See PDOC 339–41; Hanna Malak, “Les Libres Liturgiques de l’Église Copte,”
Mélanges Eugène Tisserant III (Vatican, 1964) 1–35.
242
Al-Tamagid. Hymns and doxologies for saints’ feasts.
Al-Mayamir. A series of homilies describing the feast being
celebrated.
Al-Sirah. Biographies of the saints read after the Al-Mayamir.
Chants for Feasts. Chants sung during Communion.
Processional. Used for processions on the two feasts of the Holy
Cross and on Palm Sunday.
Horologion. Ordinary parts for the seven hours of the Office.
Annual Psalms. Contains odes and Theotokia for the days of the
week and the doxologies for saints’ feasts.
Psalms for Khoiak. Contains proper offices for the month of Khoiak
(before Christmas), dedicated to Our Lady.
Difnar. Contains a menologion with brief notes about the saints
being celebrated and hymns for the saints’ feasts.
Book of Chants. Contains hymns for Vespers and Matins of certain
annual feasts.
Office of Laqqan. A book of blessings: for water on the feast of
Epiphany, for Holy Thursday, and for the feast of SS. Peter and Paul.
Liturgy of Holy Week. Contains the prayers for Holy Week, from the
Saturday of Lazarus to Easter Sunday.
Book of the Holy Pascha. Contains the lectionary for Holy Week.
2. Ethiopian Liturgical Books4
Missal. Contains about twenty anaphoras.
Manuals. There are several: for penance, matrimony, and the
anointing of the sick.
Deggua. An antiphonal with psalms, antiphons, and other texts for
the Office.
Soma Deggua. The antiphonal for Lent.
Antiphonal. Used for feasts.
Office. The common.
Synodos. A list of saints’ feasts.
I V. A R M E N I A N L I T U R G I C A L B O O K S 5
Tonac>oyc>. The Armenian version of the Greek tupicovn, that is, the
book containing the rules for feasts and liturgical celebrations.
4 See PDOC 341–3.

5 See PDOC 343–4.
243
Horhdatetr (book of the mysteries). The missal containing the
Liturgy of St. Athanasius, which is used by the Armenian Church.
Casoc>. The lectionary containing the biblical pericopes for celebra-
tions.
Zamagirk>. The Book of Hours corresponding to the Greek
oJrolovgion.
Sarakan. The antiphonary containing the variable parts of the Office
and the Tagaran, which is a hymnal containing the variable parts of
the Eucharist.
Mastoc>. The ritual of the Armenian Liturgy.
Pontifical. Contains the parts pertaining to the bishop.
Synaxarion (a kind of martyrology).
Bibliography
Assfalg, J., and P. Krüger, eds. Petit Dictionnaire de l’Orient Chrétien (PDOC).
Turnhout, 1991.
Dalmais, I.-H. Introduction to the Liturgy. Trans. R. Capel. Baltimore, 1961.
. Les liturgies d’Orient. 2nd ed. Rites et symboles 10. Paris, 1980.
Gelsi, D. “Orientali, liturgie.” NDL 983–1007.
Hänggi, A., and I. Pahl. Prex eucharistica: Textus e variis liturgiis antiquioribus
selecti. Spicilegium Friburgense 12. Fribourg, 1968.
Hanssens, J. M. Institutiones liturgicae de ritibus orientalibus. Rome, 1930.
Janeras, S. Introductio in liturgias orientales (pro manuscripto).
. Bibliografia sulle liturgie orientali (1961–1967). Pro manuscripto.
Nin, M. “The Liturgical Heritage of the Eastern Churches.” In Catholic Eastern
Churches: Heritage and Identity. Rome, 1994.
Salaville, S. An Introduction to the Study of Eastern Liturgies. London, 1938.
Sauget, J. M. Bibliographie des liturgies orientales (1900–1960). Rome, 1962.
Taft, R. The Liturgy of the Hours in East and West: The Origins of the Divine
Office and Its Meaning for Today. 2nd rev. ed. Collegeville, Minn., 1993.
Yousif, P., ed. A Classified Bibliography on the East Syrian Liturgy. Rome, 1990.
244
Cassian Folsom, O.S.B.
15
The Liturgical Books of the Roman Rite
Every craft has its tools, and one of the essential tools for the study of
the liturgy is a good grasp of liturgical books. This allows for a pro-
found understanding of the sources of the liturgy, a sine qua non for
tracing the development of the tradition. It is under this heading that
liturgical books will be presented here: as essential tools of the trade,
each having its own name, its own history, its own specific typology1
or use. For the sake of clarity, the vast material under discussion will
be divided into four major sections: books used for Mass, for the
Liturgy of the Hours, for the good ordering of the liturgy, and for
other sacraments and rites.
BOOKS USED FOR MASS

At first, the various books used for Mass existed separately: the
sacramentary, possibly including the canon (for the priest or bishop),
the lectionary (for the lectors), the antiphonary (for the cantors), and
the calendar (for reference use). Only gradually were these many
books gathered together into a single book, the Missal.
I . T H E S A C R A M E N TA R Y
A. The so-called Verona Sacramentary

Our first sacramentary is really not a sacramentary at all, but a collec-
tion of libelli or booklets, each of which had originally been used
1 By “typology” we mean the literary genre of a given document, the character-
istics of this particular type of document in its historical context and actual use.
Cf. L. Genicot, Introduction, TS 1 (Brepols, 1972) 8.
245
quite independently of the other. Thus it is a precursor of the sacra-
mentary, properly so-called.
1. Edition: L. C. Mohlberg - L. Eizenhöfer - P. Sifrin, Sacramentarium
Veronense, RED Series Maior, Fontes I (Rome, 31978).
2. Date of manuscript: 600–625; Date of composition: 561–574.
3. Description: This book is structured according to the months of the
year. Since the manuscript is defective, the text begins part way
through the month of April; it ends with the month of December.
The temporal and sanctoral cycles, along with certain sacramental
rites are intermixed in a rather disorganized manner.
4. Typology: The Veronense is not arranged in such a way as to be
used directly in the liturgical action itself. Rather, it is a collection of
libelli from various different periods. A libellus is a small booklet con-
taining a number of euchological texts: the formulary for a single
Mass, for example, or a collection of formularies for different Masses,
or a group of texts for some other kind of ritual action. In the
Veronense, the presence of many different formularies for the same
feast day indicates that the celebrant had a wide selection to chose
from. This is a kind of liturgical resource book.
There are two kinds of libelli: (1) In the pre-sacramentary period, a
libellus was single page, or a booklet of several pages containing the
orations composed for a given feast or a given church. These libelli
are the link between “structured improvisation” and the fixed texts of
later sacramentaries. The Veronense is a collection of this type of
libellus. (2) In the sacramentary period, there were still libelli in circu-
lation, but these tended to be extracts of the sacramentaries them-
selves, for the use of priests who were traveling missionaries or
pilgrims,2 or for the celebration of various votive Masses.3
5. History: The Veronense is a private collection of authentic Roman
libelli, which before their compilation in this book, were collected and
kept in the Lateran archives. Originally, this collection was for papal
use; later it was modified for the use of priests in the titular churches
2 Examples of this type are the Stowe Missal (mid-seventh century, Celtic
liturgy) and the Mone Missal (ca. 650, Gallican liturgy) cf. Vogel, ML 38.
3 Examples of this type are the glagolitic (i.e., using the cyrillic alphabet)
Missal of Kiev (9th century, based on a Roman prototype of the 6th–7th century)
and the Votive Sacramentary of Alcuin (8th–9th century) cf. Vogel, ML 38.
246
of Rome. In modern times, the manuscript was discovered in the
chapter library of Verona by Scipione Maffei in 1713. Already in 1735,
with the edition of Bianchini, it was attributed to St. Leo the Great.
While St. Leo surely is the author of some of its formularies, the attri-
bution of the entire work to him has been shown to be erroneous.
The most recent edition is that of Cunibert Mohlberg and collabora-
tors (1956); the third edition (1978) was reprinted in 1994.
There has been a great deal of speculation as to the origins of this
book. Some scholars have taken as their point of departure an analy-
sis of particular formulas, striving to date the text on the basis of the
literary style of a given pope, the theological content of the orations,
and contemporary civil and ecclesiastical history. For example, it has
been demonstrated that certain formularies can be attributed to
St. Leo the Great (440–461) based on his literary and theological
style,4 to Pope Gelasius (492–496) based on his struggle against the
pagan celebrations of the lupercalia,5 and to Pope Vigilius (537–555)
based upon the historical crisis of the siege of Rome by the Ostrogoths
under King Witiges from July 537 to March 538.6 Other scholars have
based their research upon the book considered as a whole, as it has
come down to us. According to this method, A. Chavasse has con-
vincingly argued that the compilation as we now have it is actually
an untidy combination of two different collections, one following the
temporal and sanctoral cycle, the other supplying formularies for the
liturgy of the hours, sacraments, and other rites (that is, the begin-
nings of a pontifical or ritual). On the basis of internal evidence,
Chavasse proposes that this compilation was made during the
papacy of Pope John III (561–574).7
The fact that later sacramentaries contain orations that are found
also in the Veronense does not necessarily mean that there is a direct
link between the one and the other. Taking into account the nature of
this book, that is, a collection of libelli, it is more accurate to speak of
4 J. Pinell i Pons, “Teologia e liturgia negli scritti di S. Leone Magno,” EO 8
(1991) 137–81.
5 B. Capelle, “Retouches gélasiennes dans le sacramentaire léonien” in RB 61
(1951) 3–14. Cf. also Gélase Ier, Lettres contre les lupercales: Dix-huit messes du sacra-
mentaire léonien, G. Pomarès, ed., SCh 65 (Paris, 1959).
6 A. Chavasse, “Messes du Pape Vigile (537–555) dans le sacramentaire
léonien,” EphLit 64 (1950) 161–213; 66 (1952) 145–219.

7 Chavasse, “Le sacramentaire dit léonien,” 183–5.
247
an indirect connection, since the other sacramentaries were able to
draw upon the same kinds of libelli which were in circulation at the
time. Thus, it cannot be said that the Veronense is a direct source for
the Gelasian or the Gregorian sacramentaries.
B. The Gelasian Sacramentary

While the title of this sacramentary is Liber sacramentorum Romanae
Ecclesiae ordinis anni circuli, since the edition of Muratori in 1748, it
has been commonly called the “Gelasian Sacramentary” because it
was thought that Pope Gelasius I (492–496) was its author. There is
but one manuscript, the Reginensis 316 of the Vatican Library. The
conclusion is missing from the Reginensis 316, however, and is sup-
plied instead by Codex latinus 7193 of the Bibliothèque Nationale of
Paris.
1. Edition: L. C. Mohlberg, Liber sacramentorum Romanae Ecclesiae
ordinis anni circuli, RED Series Maior, Fontes IV (Rome, 31981).
2. Date of manuscript: ca. 750, copied in the monastery of Chelles, near
Paris. Date of composition: 628–715. Terminus a quo: after the pontifi-
cate of Pope St. Gregory the Great († 604), since the canon of the
Mass contains additions made by St. Gregory; after the recovery of
the relics of the Holy Cross by Emperor Heraclitus in 628, since the
sanctoral includes the feast of the Exaltatio Sanctae Crucis. Terminus ad
quem: before the pontificate of Pope Gregory II (715–731), since the
Gelasian does not contain formulas for the Thursdays during Lent,
introduced by the same pontiff.
3. Description: There are two distinguishing characteristics of this
book: (1) It is clearly divided into three parts: the liturgical year; the
sanctoral cycle, including a set of commons and the Masses of
Advent; and the Sundays of the year, including the canon, Masses for
various occasions, and other varia liturgica. (2) Frequently there is an
“extra” oration after the Collect and before the Secret. Various theories
have been proposed to explain this. Most recently, Chavasse argues
that it serves as the concluding oration of the universal prayers.8
4. Typology: This is a sacramentary properly so-called, compiled for
use during the liturgical action, containing the necessary texts for the
8A. Chavasse, “A Rome, au tournant du Ve siècle, additions et remaniements
dans l’ordinaire de la messe,” EO 5 (1988) 25–42.
248
bishop/priest for Mass, other sacraments, the liturgy of the hours,
and various other occasions.
5. History: An analysis of the content of this sacramentary shows that
it is a mixed book in two senses: (1) It is a Roman book to which
many Gallican elements have been added. This is not a “pure
Roman” sacramentary, therefore: the original Roman source has not
come down to us. (2) The Roman base itself is mixed; that is, is a
combination of papal and presbyteral elements. It is important to
note that there were two liturgical traditions developing at the same
time in Rome: one papal (Gregorian), the other presbyteral
(Gelasian).
Chavasse proposes that the Gelasian Sacramentary was compiled
for a single church out of the twenty-five titular churches which
existed in Rome at the time: St. Peter in Chains.9
The Gelasian Sacramentary was used in Rome during the seventh
century and the first part of the eighth. Before the papacy of Gregory
II (715–731), it was brought to Gaul, where various Gallican elements
were added.10 Because of the widespread influence of this sacramen-
tary in Gaul in the eighth century it is reasonable to conjecture that it
must have arrived there by the end of the seventh. It would seem
that this sacramentary was instrumental in the romanization of the
Gallican liturgy even before the reforms of Pepin the Short (751–768).
It is therefore an important witness to the “Roman-Frankish” rite
which was gradually developing north of the Alps.
C. The Gelasian Sacramentaries of the Eighth Century

The Gelasian Sacramentary was not the only sacramentary being
used by the church in Gaul in the mid-eighth century however. For
another Roman sacramentary, a Gregorian of the Paduense variety
(cf. below), had arrived on the scene as well. Rather than choose be-
tween one or the other, a decision was made to combine the two and
make a new book, including certain Gallican and monastic additions.
The archetype of this book has not come down to us. This family of
sacramentaries is called the “Gelasian Sacramentaries of the Eighth
Century” and can be divided into two groups: (1) The first group
contains only one book: the Gellone Sacramentary. (2) The second
9 Chavasse, Le sacramentaire gélasien, 332–9.
10 Vogel, ML 66–7.
249
group contains all the rest: the most important being the St. Gall,
Triplex, Rheinau, Phillipps, Angoulême, and Monza Sacramentaries.
The difference is this: the second group derives from a systematic
revision of the first group, in the course of which the majority of the
doublets which had occured from combining the two sources (old-
Gelasian and Gregorian-Paduense) were eliminated.
Group one
1. Edition: Ad. Dumas - J. Deshusses, Liber sacramentorum Gellonensis,
CCL 159–159A (Turnhout, 1980).
2. Date of manuscript: ca. 790–800. Date of composition: ca. 760–770.
3. Description: The Gellone Sacramentary is clearly divided into two
parts: the first part is the sacramentary proper, in which the temporal
and sanctoral cycles are intermingled as in the Gregorian tradition, not
separated as in the Gelasian tradition. The second part is a ritual-
pontifical containing various episcopal blessings, orations according to
monastic usage, an order of baptism, and an abbreviated martyrology.
4. Typology: Because of the presence of the large collection of epis-
copal blessings, the text as we have it was probably intended for a
bishop. On the basis of both internal and external evidence,
Deshusses proposes that the manuscript was copied for Bishop
Hildoard (790–816) of the cathedral of Notre-Dame of Cambrai. The
manuscript is handsomely illuminated.
5. History: It is proposed that the book was originally compiled in a
monastic milieu, at the initiative of King Pepin the Short, as part of
his plan for the liturgical unification of his kingdom. The monastic
connection is clear from a number of specifically monastic feasts and
rituals. Evidence points to the monastery of Flavigny in Burgundy,
founded in 742.
Group two, Editions:

St. Gall: L. C. Mohlberg, Das fränkische Sacramentarium
Gelasianum in alemanischer Überlieferung, LQF Quellen
I–II (Münster, 1918).
Triplex: O. Heiming, Das Sacramentarium Triplex, LQF 49
(Münster, 1968).
250
Rheinau: A. Hänggi - A. Schönherr, Sacramentarium
Rhenaugiense (Fribourg, 1970).
Phillipps: O. Heiming, Liber sacramentorum Augustodunensis,
CCL 159B (Turnhout, 1984).
Angoulême: P. Saint-Roch, Liber sacramentorum Engolismensis, CCL
159C (Turnhout, 1987).
Monza: A. Dold - K. Gamber, Das Sakramentar von Monza
(Beuron, 1957).
D. The Gregorian Sacramentary

While there is not sufficient evidence to claim that Pope St. Gregory
the Great himself compiled this sacramentary, it can be demonstrated
that he composed orations, and that he possibly compiled an earlier,
less-structured version of this text.11
1. Edition: J. Deshusses, Le sacramentaire Grégorien, 3 vols., SF 16,24,28
(Fribourg, 21979).
2. Date of manuscript: Deshusses uses Cameracensis 164 as his base text,
which is a copy of the original Hadrianum, executed ca. 811–812 in
Cambrai during the episcopacy of Bishop Hildoard. Date of composi-
tion: It seems that the primitive redaction of the Gregorian took place
during the pontificate of Pope Honorius I (625–638).
3. Description: Instead of being divided into three distinct books, as
was the Gelasian sacramentary, the Gregorian combines the temporal
and sanctoral cycles. Usually there are three orations only for each
Mass: the oratio, super oblata, and ad completa or ad complendum.
Sometimes there is also a super populum. Prefaces are greatly reduced
in number. The stational churches are clearly indicated. When there is
a procession, there is a special collect for the initial gathering at the
stational church before the procession begins.
4. Typology: Initially, this sacramentary was for the personal use of
the pope, or his representatives, organized with a view toward the
liturgical celebrations in the stational churches of Rome. Hence the
11Deshusses, Le sacramentaire Grégorien, I, 52; H. Ashworth, “The Liturgical

Prayers of St. Gregory the Great,” Traditio (1959) 107–61; H. Ashworth, “Further
Parallels to the Hadrianum from St. Gregory the Great’s Commentary on the First
Book of Kings,” Traditio (1960) 364–73.
251
sacramentary was not intended for, nor suitable for, all the needs of a
normal parish.
5. History: The somewhat complex history of this book can be divided
into two periods: before and after the middle of the eighth century.
Before the middle of the eighth century.: The situation can be described
most simply by using the example of a tree: There is a common
trunk, which later divides into several branches. The common trunk
has its roots in St. Gregory the Great († 604). In the sanctoral, there
are a number of feasts which, according to the Liber Pontificalis, were
introduced after St. Gregory but before 638, which points to the pon-
tificate of Pope Honorius I (625–638), as mentioned above. The feast
of the Presentation (Hypapanti) could not have been introduced be-
fore the pontificate of Pope Theodore (642–649).
The first branch to break off (ca. 670–680) is the so-called Type II
branch. According to Chavasse, this revision was made for St. Peter’s
in the Vatican, which would explain why it had such authority and
such a wide diffusion in the late seventh and early eighth century. It
is this version of the Gregorian Sacramentary which found its way to
Gaul, and was used in conjunction with the old Gelasian to form the
Frankish or Gallicanized Gelasian of the eighth century. The Type-II
Gregorian adapted the papal sacramentary for presbyteral use, and
therefore, borrowed elements from the Gelasian and other sources in
order to make up what was lacking for the parish setting. The best
example of this Type II branch of the Gregorian family is a sacramen-
tary in the archives of Padova, hence the name Paduense.
The main trunk kept growing however. During the pontificate of
Pope Leo II (682–683), Masses for St. George and St. Peter in Chains
were added. These Masses are not present in the Paduense. In the
pontificate of Pope Sergius (687–701) three Marian feasts
(Annunciation, Assumption, Nativity) were given greater solemnity
by means of adding a procession. Originally these formularies were
inserted as libretti, and when the codex was recopied (ca. 690) they
were integrated into the text. The old copy, now out of date, was put
aside. This older version of the Gregorian also made its way over the
Alps. The best example of this Type I branch of the Gregorian family
is the sacramentary of Trent.
The common trunk continued its natural growth. Pope Gregory II
(715–731) added formularies for the Thursdays of Lent. This was the
252
state of the Gregorian Sacramentary without further major develop-
ments up until the pontificate of Pope Hadrian I (772–795).
After the middle of the eighth century.: Charles, King of the Franks
(king 768–800; emperor 800-814), following in the footsteps of his
father, Pepin the Short, saw a unified liturgy as a means of establish-
ing a unified kingdom. The Gallicanized Gelasian, however, was a
clumsy book, and created more disorder than unity. So ca. 783,
Charlemagne sent a request via Paul the Deacon (a monk of Monte
Cassino on his way from the court back to Italy) to ask Pope Hadrian
for a pure Roman sacramentary. The pope searched in the Lateran ar-
chives for the most authentic copy of the Gregorian Sacramentary
available, and sent it to Charlemagne in 785–786 via Abbot John of
Ravenna. The book arrived safely at Aix-la-Chapelle (Aachen) where
is was known as the Hadrianum (third branch of the Gregorian fam-
ily). This exemplar served as a model for many copies; the original
itself, however, has not come down to us.
The Carolingian liturgists were puzzled with the new sacramentary,
however, for two reasons: (1) The Latin of the Roman exemplar was
somewhat corrupt, and needed to be corrected. (2) Being a papal sacra-
mentary, the book did not contain many of the things necessary for
ordinary parish use, and hence needed a supplement. The man who
organized this work (ca. 810–815) was the monastic reformer,
St. Benedict of Aniane († 821). The supplement is clearly distinguished
from the sacramentary itself by an explanatory preface beginning with
the word Hucusque (up to this point). The supplement can be divided
into two parts: (1) a florilegium of texts assembled to fill in the lacunae
of the Hadrianum, and (2) a long series of prefaces, a collection of
episcopal blessings, and the rites for minor orders. The sources of the
supplement are as follows: the Gallicanized Gelasian of the eighth cen-
tury, the pre-Hadrianum Gregorian Sacramentary (Type I), the so-called
Missal of Alcuin (a collection of votive Masses), other Gallican sources,
the Visigothic liturgy (the family of Benedict of Aniane was of the
Visigothic aristocracy), and Benedict’s own liturgical compositions.
The Hadrianum and its supplement did not immediately replace the
already existing liturgical books in use north of the Alps: i.e., the
Frankish or Gallicanized Gelasians, the old Gelasian, and the
Gregorian Sacramentary of the Type II branch. In fact, what gradu-
ally came about was a new fusion of these various traditions.
253
E. The Mixed Gregorians of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries
The so-called “mixed Gregorians” or “Gelasianized Gregorians” are
a new synthesis of the Hadrianum/Supplement and the Frankish
Gelasian of the eighth century (which, it will be recalled, is a combina-
tion of the old-Gelasian, the Paduense type Gregorian, plus Gallican
and monastic usages). This type will be described in greater detail
below, in the section on the missal. For the moment let it suffice to
say that with the Ottonian reforms in the second half of the tenth
century, these mixed Gregorian sacramentaries return to Rome, and
there become the new standard.
I I . T H E L E C T I O N A RY
1. Introduction: Just as there was a special book for the priest or
bishop, so also there were special books for the lectors. The terminol-
ogy used for these books is somewhat complex, hence a somewhat
lengthy introduction is necessary.
The structure of the Liturgy of the Word is clearly attested to as
early as the second century (First Apology of Justin, chap. 67). But
there is a long way from that simple reference to the earliest extant
Roman lectionaries of the seventh century.
There are two basic ways of reading the Scriptures during the
Eucharistic celebration: a simple lectio continua, or passages chosen
specifically for the liturgical season or feast. In the earliest period the
bishop or priest had a considerable role in the choice of the readings,
but with the gradual development of the liturgical year and the sta-
tional liturgies of Rome, there was a parallel development of a sys-
tem of fixed readings. The early existence of such systems, even
before the compilation of the sacramentaries, can be deduced from
homilies of the Fathers and other historical evidence, such as inven-
tories of sacred furnishings and liturgical books.12
There are three different methods for indicating the liturgical read-
ings: marginal notes, capitularies, and lectionaries properly so-called.
In the first system, notes are made in the margin of a codex of the
Bible. In the second, the Scripture selections are listed according to
the initial and final word of the passage. The third method is the lec-
tionary properly so-called in which the entire biblical passage is writ-
12 Cf. Chavasse, “Evangéliare” 177–9.
254
ten out, these passages being arranged according to the established
order of the cursus of readings. These three methods did not follow
each other consecutively, but in fact, existed side by side for many
centuries, until the lectionary finally came to dominate. The oldest
Roman texts providing an organized system of liturgical readings are
capitularies from the seventh and eighth centuries.
2. Typology: The first system of marginal notes presupposes that the
Bible itself is a liturgical book, that is, used directly in the liturgical
celebration itself. In the second system of capitularies, the list of peri-
copes could be appended to the liturgical book itself (the Apostolum
or the Evangelia), or could exist separately as a kind of companion
booklet (comes). The liturgical book itself received all the honor it was
due; the Book of the Gospels in particular was not only reverenced in
the liturgical celebration, but frequently was also beautifully illumi-
nated and richly bound. The book of non-gospel readings rarely
received the same lavish attention as the Book of the Gospels. In the
third system, that of the lectionary properly so-called, the fact that
the readings were written out in full and in order, had obvious ad-
vantages of practicality and ease of use. A disadvantage, however,
was that with the normal growth and development of both the
temporal and sanctoral cycles, a lectionary could become outdated
more readily than a Book of the Gospels.
3. History: Because of the vast number of manuscripts involved, the
enormous task for liturgical scholars has been to classify them and
draw from them some kind of coherent synthesis. Most noteworthy
in this area have been the labors of Frere, Klauser, and Chavasse.
To begin with, three basic distinctions can be made: there are
manuscripts which contain only the pre-gospel readings (whether
from the Old Testament or from the New Testament Epistles), manu-
scripts which contain only the gospel readings, and manuscripts
which contain both (these books have an extremely variable nomen-
clature). What may be surprising to modern sensibilities is that the
epistolary tradition and the evangeliary tradition developed sepa-
rately from one another. When later on the two lists were combined,
they did not always correspond.
At the risk of oversimplifying a very complex history, the follow-
ing synthesis is presented according to three stages of development.
255
Stage 1
1. Corresponding sacramentary: Gelasianum Vetus
2. Epistolary: The oldest representative of this stage is the Comes of
Würzburg (composition: ca. 600–650, manuscript ca. 700).13 The
manuscript is in two parts; the first part is an epistolary, and
that is what concerns us here. The second part is an evangeliary,
but from a later period and not directly related to the epistolary
with which it is bound. The Comes of Würzburg is of great
importance because it is the oldest extant witness of the Roman
lectionary system, having such ancient characteristics as the
absence of Masses for the Thursdays during Lent, and the
designation Dominica vacat for the second Sunday of Lent.
3. Evangelary: None extant, although traces can be found in Type
Pi of Stage 2 (cf. below).
Stage 2
1. Corresponding sacramentary: Gregorianum
2. Epistolary: The most important representative of this stage is the
Comes of Alcuin (composition: ca. 626; manuscript: beginning of
the ninth century).14 This text has come down to us in two
forms: (1) the epistolary itself, based on the Comes of Würzburg,
a clearly Roman document, and (2) a later supplement, added in
the third stage (cf. below) when the epistolary arrived in the
kingdom of Charlemagne along with other liturgical books; the
supplement is based on the Comes of Murbach (cf. Stage 3).
3. Evangelary: According to the research of Klauser,15 there are
three types of evangeliary in this stage: type Pi (composition:
ca. 645; manuscripts: ca. 700), to which the evangeliary of the
Würzburg manuscript corresponds;16 type Lamda (composition:
ca. 740; manuscripts: ca. 800); and type Sigma (composition:
ca. 755; manuscripts ca. 800).
13 Edition: G. Morin, “Le plus ancien comes ou lectionnaire de l’Eglise
romaine,” RB 27 (1910) 41–74. For a description, cf. Vogel, ML 339–40.

14 Edition: A. Wilmart, “Le lectionnaire d’Alcuin,” EphLit 51 (1937) 136–97. For
a description, cf. Vogel, ML 340–2.

15 Edition: T. Klauser, Das römische Capitulare Evangeliorum, I: Typen (Münster,
21972). For a description, cf. Vogel, ML 342–4.
16 Edition: G. Morin, “L’évangéliaire de Wurtzbourg,” RB 28 (1911) 296–330.
256
Stage 3
1. Corresponding sacramentary: Frankish Gelasian of the eighth
century
2. Combined Epistolary and Evangelary: When the Roman liturgy
made its way over the Alps in the eighth century, the capitularia
made the journey as well, but as two separate books: the episto-
lary and the evangeliary. There they were combined. Careful
study on the part of Chavasse and others has demonstrated the
existence of two principal families of this third stage; A, which
is the Roman foundation (ca. 700) and B, which is the Franco-
Roman synthesis (ca. 700–740).17 There are a number of repre-
sentatives of this stage of combined capitularies or lectionaries:
(a) Klauser’s type Delta (composition: ca. 750; manuscripts: end
of the eighth century); (b) the Comes of Murbach (epistolary
based on the Comes of Alcuin, evangeliary based on the Gospel
texts of Stage 2);18 (c) the Lectionary of Corbie (also called the
Comes of Leningrad);19 and (d) the Liber Comitis of Paris, also
called the Verona Lectionary, or the Lectionary of Monza.20
Once having achieved this third stage of development, the lectionary
remained remarkably stable over the succeeding centuries. In fact
(via the liturgical consolidation of the Roman curia in the thirteenth
century), the lectionary of the Missale Romanum 1570 can be traced
directly back to this Franco-Roman synthesis.
The massive reform of the lectionary in the Missale Romanum 197021
had its seeds in a study week of the Fourth International Congress on
the Liturgy, held at Mont César in Belgium in 1954.22
17 A. Chavasse, “Les plus anciens types du lectionnaire et de l’antiphonaire
romains de la messe,” RB 62 (1952) 7–28.

18 Edition: Wilmart, A. “Le comes de Murbach,” RB 30 (1913) 25–69. For a
description, cf. Vogel, ML 347.

19 Edition: H. Frere, The Roman Epistle-Lectionary (Oxford, 1935) 1–24. For a
description, cf. Vogel, ML 340.

20 Edition: R. Amiet, “Un Comes carolingien inédit de la Haute-Italie,” EphLit
73 (1959) 335–67. For a description, cf. Vogel, ML 344.

21 Bugnini, chap. 26.
22 K. Hughes, The Monk’s Tale: A Biography of Godfrey Diekmann, O.S.B.
257
III. THE ANTIPHONAL
1. Introduction: Music has always been a part of solemn liturgy. In ad-
dition to euchological texts to be prayed, and scriptural texts to be
read, there are also scriptural/poetic texts to be sung. To the sacra-
mentary and lectionary, therefore, we must now add the antiphonal.
Because the repertoire of music for Mass grew out of an oral tradi-
tion, however, there is precious little evidence for written texts before
the eighth century. The historian must rely on sketchy information
from conciliar legislation, ecclesiastical history, the Liber Pontificalis,
the Ordines Romani, and other medieval documents. John the
Archcantor of St. Peter’s (fl. ca. 680), whose accuracy historians some-
times question, wrote that the collection of chants for Mass and
Office was begun by Pope Damasus (366–384) with the help of
St. Jerome, and was expanded and developed by St. Leo the Great
(440–461), St. Gelasius (492–496), St. Gregory the Great (590–604), and
others, including various abbots of the monastery of St. Peter’s.23
While St. Gregory the Great did not compose the chant that bears his
name, it seems clear that he gathered together and organized the
existing corpus of liturgical music as part of the general ordering of
the liturgy which took place during his pontificate.
2. Typology: Amalarius of Metz (780–850), in observing the discrepan-
cies between Roman and Frankish terminology, provides us with
some important information. He notes that “the volume which we
call an “antiphonary” the Romans call by three names”:24 the cantato-
rium (containing the gradual psalm), the responsoriale (containing the
responsory for the offertory), and the antiphonarium (containing the
antiphons for the introit and communion). What the Romans had in
separate books, Amalarius knew as a single volume. The terminology
for the various types of chant books is somewhat fluid.
While we are concerned primarily with codices, earlier forms of
writing chant texts and music are the rotulus (written on a continuous
roll of paper or parchment) and the libellus (a booklet of indetermi-
23M. Righetti I,263–70.

24Amalarius, Liber de ordine antiphonarii, Prologus 17 in I. M. Hanssens,
Amalarii Episcopi Opera Liturgica Omnia, t.1 (Vatican City, 1948) 363. Cf. also
Vogel, ML 357.
258
nate size, as we have seen earlier).25 The actual codices containing
liturgical chants Michel Huglo classifies as either single or composite.
Single: (1) Liber antiphonarius (eighth century and following): this
book could contain chants for both Mass and Office, following the
complete cursus of the liturgical year. From the twelfth century
onward, these books grew to an enormous size, and were placed on
large stands in the center of choir, so that text and music could be
read from a distance by a number of cantors. These books are often
very beautifully illuminated. (2) Cantatorium: a book for the soloist,
containing the chants between the readings (gradual, alleluia). Since
the chant was usually memorized, this book did not have a purely
practical function, but also conferred a certain honor upon the inter-
venient chants; often the cantatorium was richly illuminated, some-
times with a cover of carved ivory (hence the name tabula). (3) Liber
gradualis: the book containing the proper chants of the Mass, and
after the tenth century, also the ordinaries. (4) Processionale: (end of
eleventh century and following): a collection of chants, in a small
portable book for the use of the cantor, for occasional processions
(February 2, Ash Wednesday, Good Friday, Major Litany of April 25,
rogation days) and the Sunday procession (between Terce and Mass).
Composite books are a combination of several single books, either
juxtaposed to one another, or actually integrated or fused together:
(1) Graduale, without notation, bound just in front of the sacramen-
tary. (2) Tables of Gradual texts, either preceding the sacramentary or
integrated into it as marginal notes. (3) Sacramentary-Gradual: a com-
bination of euchology and chants. (4) Lectionary-Gradual: a combina-
tion of readings and chants. (5) Libelli of tropes and sequences: these
poetic compositions developed ca. mid-ninth century. (6) Tropary and
Prosary: a whole book containing tropes and proses. (7) Tropary-
Prosary-Processional. (8) Gradual fused with other books of the Mass,
or in other words, a notated Missal. (9) Breviary-Notated Missal:
containing everything needed for both Mass and Office. (10) Collec-
tions made for special occasions or special places (sanctuaries or
places of pilgrimage, for example).
Even from these very sketchy lists, one can see how rich and varied
the liturgical books of chant can be.
25 Huglo, Les livres 63–75.
259
3. History: The most ancient texts of the antiphonal date from the
eighth and ninth centuries, edited by Hesbert in parallel columns.26
A clue in one of the manuscripts — a rubric for the seventh Sunday
after Pentecost which says: Ista ebdomata non est in antefonarios
romanos — leads to the conclusion that at the time of its compilation,
there were older manuscripts of the same kind which were consid-
ered more authentically Roman, which did not contain the Mass
Omnes gentes (the first words of the Introit). Hesbert then classified all
manuscripts without the Mass Omnes Gentes as Family A (Roman),
and all the manuscripts with Omnes Gentes as Family B (Franco-
Roman). The Franco-Roman Antiphonal thus corresponds directly to
the lectionary of Stage Three and the Frankish-Gelasian Sacramen-
tary. The careful research of Chavasse has shown that behind the
eighth-century recension traces can be found of an antiphonal that
corresponds to Stage Two, while other traces allow us to go back as
far as Stage One as well. This shows that the antiphonal and the
lectionary developed together, and that the final synthesis of Stage
Three was a result of the integrating efforts of the Carolingian litur-
gical reform.
The first antiphonals were not notated, since the melodies were
memorized. During the ninth century, however, a system of musical
notation developed. At first, these were simply musical signs
(neumes) written above the liturgical text. Later, these neumes were
written within a system of lines, so as to indicate more clearly
changes of pitch. Also in the ninth century we see the diversification
of the chant repertoire into two basic groups: East (German and
Slavic) and West (romance languages), corresponding to the division
of the empire in 843. The two groups have a common patrimony, but
differ somewhat in both texts and music. With the passing of time,
each diocese or monastery (wherever there was a church of major
size or importance) developed its own personalized antiphonal: some
parts of which were very uniform, other parts showing a great deal
of diversity. Standardization came with the centralized religious
orders such as the Cistercians, Dominicans, and Franciscans.27
26 Edition: R. J. Hesbert, AMS (Brussels, 1935).

27 Huglo, Les livres 84–94.
260
Musicologists divide the history of chant into four periods:28
(1) The classical period is marked by the fusion of two different chant
traditions in the eighth and ninth centuries; the new synthesis is
what we call “Gregorian” chant. (2) The post-classical period from
the ninth to the twelfth centuries is characterized by the development
of a system of notation and the development of new musical forms,
including polyphony. (3) The period of decadence is a rather long
one: from the end of the Middle Ages to the nineteenth century.
The development of measured music and modern major and minor
tonalities led to the decline of the freer chant rhythms and the
tonality of the eight modes. By the time of the Council of Trent, the
level of liturgical music had reached a low point. Although attempts
were made to reform the chant repertoire, the publication of the
Medici Edition of the Roman Gradual in 1614–1615 codified a state of
decadence which was to last for three centuries. (4) The period of
restoration is closely associated with the monastery of Solesmes,
founded in 1833, and the research of the monks on ancient chant
manuscripts. After his Motu Proprio Tra le sollecitudini in 1903, Pope
St. Pius X charged the monks of Solesmes to make an official edition
of the chant books: the Kyriale came out in 1905, the Gradual in 1908.
The research of Solesmes has continued throughout the twentieth
century, and has not ceased with the publication of the post-Vatican II
Graduale Romanum in 1974.
I V. T H E C A L E N D A R
Ancient liturgical books, whether sacramentary, lectionary, or anti-
phonal, did not have a calendar inserted at the beginning of the text:
This was a development of the Middle Ages. Although we find this
development first in French lands from the ninth century onwards,
it does not become a Roman custom until the twelfth century. The
study of the calendar can be sub-divided according to its major types:
as a separate document, and as inserted into various other liturgical
books. This does not imply a strict chronological development from
the first type to the second, however, since both types existed side by
side for some time.
Separate document: In the ancient Church, there were two kinds of
documents for keeping track of feast days: the calendar, an actual list
28 Turco, Il canto gregoriano I, 23–39.
261
of feasts observed by a given church or diocese; and the martyrology,
which is a more general compilation. In early documents, however,
the distinction between the two is not always clear. The oldest evi-
dence for the Roman calendar is two lists, a depositio episcoporum and
a depositio martyrum included in the Philocalian Chronicle of 354.
In addition, Frere has shown that the ancient origins of the Roman
calendar are to be found in various lists of tituli, lists of stational
churches and churches where a collect was said as part of the
stational procession, and the arrangement of the seven diaconiae of
ancient Rome. The Liber Pontificalis provides other data: for example,
how the calendar is related to the growth of suburban cemeteries and
shrines. Of course, the liturgical books themselves are an important
source for the development of the temporal and sanctoral cycles.
A description of ancient calendars, both Roman and non-Roman, can
be found in Righetti and Jounel. This information is very important
for an understanding of the cult of the saints and the life of the local
church.
Inserted into various other liturgical books: Jounel’s study is important
for the twelfth century, Van Dijk’s research is key for the thirteenth
century. From the liturgy of the papal court, a direct path is paved for
the Roman calendar of the post-Tridentine liturgical reforms.29 The
process of forming the post-Vatican II calendar is described in some
detail by Bugnini.
V. T H E M I S S A L
1. Introduction: How the sacramentary, lectionary, and antiphonal
came to be united in one volume is the topic of this section, along
with the complex history of this new liturgical book: the missal.
2. Typology: As is so often the case, the terminology here is somewhat
fluid. The word “missal” during the medieval period can mean a
sacramentary, or a collection of Masses bound together in a libellus.
Our modern understanding of the missal as a book for the priest
which contains texts for the euchology, readings, and chants of the
Mass for the entire span of the liturgical year, plus music for the parts
29Cf. also the proposals for calendar reform under Pope Pius XII: Sacra Rituum
Congregatio, Memoria sulla Riforma Liturgica, Sectio Historica 71 (Vatican City,
1948) as well as the third supplement to the Memoria (Sectio Historica 79).
262
sung by the priest is a later concept, usually expressed by the terms
missale plenarium or missale completum.
How did these various books come to be fused together? There are
several stages in this gradual process, which however, are not to be
understood as progressing consecutively from one to the other.
Instead, the different forms existed side by side for long centuries.
(1) From the ninth century following, we find sacramentaries with
marginal notes indicating the incipit of the chants taken from the anti-
phonal. (2) Libelli missarum are important antecedents of the Missale
plenarium. These collections for certain feasts, votive Masses, or other
special occasions could contain the euchology, the readings, and the
texts of the chants. Such libelli appear already very early on; the
famous palimpsest from Monte Cassino is such an example, dating
from the eighth century.30 (3) Another system was to juxtapose the
different books (sacramentary-lectionary or sacramentary-antiphonal
or various other combinations), binding them together in a single
volume. (4) The system that finally prevailed was a fully integrated
Mass book, with the orations, readings, and chants all inserted in
their proper place according to the order of the Mass. Vogel points
out that toward the end of the ninth century, missals start to become
more numerous than sacramentaries; by the first half of the twelfth
century, sacramentaries are a minority; by the thirteenth century,
sacramentaries are an exception; by the fourteenth century, they are
merely an archaic remnant.
Why did these books come to be fused together? Among the most
common theories are these: (1) the development of the private
Mass,31 (2) the obligation on the part of the priest to recite all the
parts of the Mass, even if these parts were sung by the schola or read
by the lectors,32 (3) pastoral usefulness and the development of the
30 A. Dold, Vom Sakramentar, Comes und Capitulare zum Missale (Beuron, 1943).
Note that this is not a “missal” in the modern sense of the word, but rather a
libellus.
31 O. Nussbaum, Kloster, Priestermönch und Privatmesse (Bonn, 1961) and A.
Häussling, Mönchskonvent und Eucharistiefeier, LQF 58 (Münster, 1973). But accord-

ing to historical evidence, private and votive Masses were celebrated centuries be-
fore the advent of the Missale plenarium. It is more likely, therefore, that the private
Mass simply followed the evolution of the Missal rather than determined it. Cf.
Jungmann, The Mass of the Roman Rite, I,216 and Van Dijk-Walker, The Origins 61.
32 Palazzo 124; Nocent, LL 169; Vogel, ML 105.
263
care of souls in small parishes away from large diocesan or monastic
centers,33 (4) the influence of priestly piety and the concern to omit
nothing.34
3. History: The history and development of the Roman Missal can be
divided into four stages: (1) the Gregorian-Gelasian synthesis (ninth–
twelfth centuries), (2) the various traditions of the thirteenth-century,
(3) the post-Tridentine Missal, (4) the post-Vatican II Missal.
Stage 1: The sacramentary, lectionary, and antiphonal which even-
tually come together to form the missal all have their origins in the
Franco-Roman synthesis described earlier: the Frankish Gelasian
sacramentary of the eighth century, the Franco-Roman Lectionary,
and the Franco-Roman Antiphonal. But with the advent of the
Gregorian Sacramentary north of the Alps and its subsequent Supple-
ment, there was a new synthesis of the Gregorian/Supplement and
the Frankish Gelasian: what Bourque calls the “gelasianized
Gregorian sacramentary” of the tenth and eleventh centuries. It is
important to note the differences between the Frankish Gelasian of the
eighth century, and the Gelasianized Gregorian of the tenth century.
The Frankish Gelasian included the following elements: (1) the old-
Gelasian, (2) the Gregorian of the second type (e.g., Paduense), that is,
an adaptation of the papal sacramentary for use in presbyteral
churches, (3) Frankish elements, and (4) monastic elements. The
Gelasianized Gregorian, on the other hand, has the Gregorian and its
Supplement as a base, with certain blocks of material taken from the
Frankish Gelasian. It is important also to keep in mind the two major
Roman traditions that are behind these multiple combinations of
sources: the urban tradition (basically Gelasian) and the papal tradi-
tion (Gregorian). (Note, however, that the Type II Gregorian represents
an adaptation of the papal tradition for use in the urban parishes).
While these two traditions existed amicably side by side in Rome,
north of the Alps the situation was more complex: The existence of
two different traditions, both claiming to be Roman, caused no end of
difficulty. This will become apparent when examining the somewhat
chaotic situation of the thirteenth century.
33 Van Dijk - Walker, The Origins 65.

34 P. Borella, “Verso il messale plenario,” EphLit 67 (1953) 338–40.
264
According to Bourque, these mixed Gregorians may be classified
according to three categories: (1) those in a direct line to the later
Missale Romanum, forming a kind of bridge from the Hadrianum/
Supplement to the thirteenth century Missal of the Roman Curia
(and thence to the first printed Missale Romanum of 1474 and the 1570
Missal of Pius V), (2) the exuberant types, which while retaining the
Hadrianum/Supplement, considerably augment it with formularies
which do not appear in the later Missale Romanum, and (3) the eccen-
tric types, which have no direct connection with the later Missale
Romanum. Those in a direct line have these characteristics: they con-
tain the additions to the sanctoral from the Supplement of Benedict
of Aniane, they contain various votive and Requiem Masses, they
have a reduced number of prefaces, and in general, they remain
faithful to the formularies of the Hadrianum and Supplement.35
While we are interested in tracing the direct line, one must not lose
sight of the fact that these direct, exuberant, and eccentric types
existed side by side.
Stage 2: According to the detailed analysis of Van Dijk, by the year
1275, the city of Rome knew four liturgical customs: the papal court,
St. Peter’s in the Vatican, the reform of Cardinal Orsini (later Pope
Nicholas III), and the Lateran Basilica. (1) The papal court resided at
the Lateran Palace, usually celebrating the liturgy in the pope’s pri-
vate chapel, the Sancta Sanctorum. The tradition of the papal court it-
self went through four distinct phases during the thirteenth century:
(a) Innocent III reorganized the Divine Office during the last years of
his pontificate (1213–1216), but the Mass itself was not touched.
(b) Honorius III (1216–1227) revised the office again; this “breviary of
Honorius” was adopted by the Friars Minor in 1230, and is known as
the Regula Breviary. The Mass liturgy was not revised by Honorius
either, although he did issue a missal. This “missal of Honorius” was
adopted also by the Franciscans in 1230, and is known as the Regula
35 One of the manuscripts in the direct line which frequently receives attention
is Codex 65 of the Lateran Archives, the so-called “Lateran Missal,” edited in 1752
by Azevedo. Bourque follows the commonly held theory that this missal is from
the 11th century, and Vogel follows his lead. However, Kennedy (corroborated by
Van Dijk) has shown that this is actually from the 13th century. The manuscript is
an important witness to the pre-curial Missal, but its late date requires that the
conclusions of Bourque and Vogel in its regard be modified.
265
Missal. (c) The missal of Honorius was revised at court in the 1240s
since compared with the breviary, the missal was by this time much
out of date. (d) The Regula books were also revised, by the fourth
minister general of the Franciscans, Haymo of Faversham in 1243–44,
and a second edition was published in the years 1250–1260. The re-
sult of these historical developments is a certain amount of confu-
sion: each church or monastery following the tradition of the papal
court had its own particular combination of new books and old.
(2) St. Peter’s in the Vatican represents an ancient and venerable
tradition, distinct from that of the papal court. In general, books from
St. Peter’s represent the Old-Roman rite, the urban rite that St. Peter’s
had used for centuries, although towards the end of the century,
Haymonian rubrics were also used. The other churches of the Urbs
followed the Old-Roman tradition up to the 1250s and in some cases,
even longer. But then there was a sudden change, and the old books
disappeared. Why? (3) In the mid 1250s, the liturgy of the papal court
was making serious inroads into the urban tradition. According to
the research of Van Dijk,36 John Cardinal Orsini, later Nicholas III,
resisted the change, and in an effort to save the urban rite, devised a
compromise: a new urban liturgy which combined the urban and
papal rites, that is, the two traditions of the Vatican basilica and the
Lateran palace. Nicholas III died in 1280, and with the fourteenth
century transfer of the papacy to Avignon, his local reform came to
naught. (4) The Lateran Basilica, served by Canons Regular, had its
own liturgical tradition, distinct from that of the papal court. The ori-
gins of this tradition lie in the urban basilica liturgy of the previous
century.
These four liturgical traditions, all of them Roman, mutually influ-
ence one another in the thirteenth century. But it is the papal tradi-
tion which comes to dominate, while the urban tradition practically
disappears. The revised missal of the Franciscans was approved by
Clement V (1305–1314) and adopted by the papal chapel. This missal
forms the basis for the first printed missal of 1474, with the title:
Missale secundum consuetudinem Romanae Curiae.
Stage 3: The reason why a reform of the missal was so necessary at
the time of the Council of Trent was because the enormous variety
36 Van Dijk, “The Urban and Papal Rites,” 420.
266
from one diocese to another, or even within the same diocese, caused
a great deal of confusion, was a source of scandal, and contributed to
abuses. The Council of Trent, in Session XXV (1652) discussed the
reform of the liturgy. A commission was formed, under the guidance
of Archbishop Leonardo Marini, but since the members of the com-
mission could not agree upon the criteria to adopt for the reform, and
because it was necessary to bring the council to a close, the whole
project was turned over to Pope Pius IV (1559–1565). With the death
of Pius IV, the project passed to Pope St. Pius V (1566–1572), who
added new members to the commission, and in July 1570, promul-
gated the new missal. The research of Frutaz has shown that a certain
Guglielmo Cardinal Sirleto was instrumental in the reform of the
missal: In the Vatican Library there is an incunabulum of 1497, the
Missale secundum morem Sancte Romane Ecclesie, which contains the
corrections of Cardinal Sirleto written in his own hand. This 1497
missal is substantially the same as the editio princeps of 1474. The
major change in the 1570 missal was the modification of the calen-
dar.37 After Pius V, the missal received other minor modifications
under Clement VIII (1604), Urban VIII (1634), and Benedict XV
(1920): rubrical adjustments, the addition of formularies for newly
canonized saints, and the addition of four prefaces. The 1948 Memoria
sulla Riforma Liturgica of the Sacred Congregation of Rites concen-
trated principally on a reform of the calendar and the breviary, dedi-
cating only three pages to the missal. In these pages, reference is
made to the effect that calendar changes would have on the missal;
there is also a brief discussion of the various themes of the liturgical
movement concerning pastoral practice and the celebration of Mass.38
Stage 4: The desire of the Council Fathers of Vatican II for a recogni-
tio of the Ordo Missae, other ritual actions, the lectionary, the prayer
of the faithful, etc. (SC 47–58); the subsequent work of the Consilium
ad exsequendam Constitutionem de sacra Liturgia; the translation of the
missal into numberless vernacular languages; and other develop-
ments of the last thirty years — all these areas require ongoing and
serious study.
37 Cf. E. Focke and H. Heinrichs, “Das Kalendarium des Missale Pianum vom
Jahre 1570 und seine Tendenzen,” TQ 120 (1939) 383–400.

38 Sacra Rituum Congregatio, Memoria sulla Riforma Liturgica, Sectio Historica
71 (Vatican City, 1948) 304–6.
267
BOOKS USED FOR THE LITURGY OF THE HOURS
Just as the books used for Mass were originally separate and distinct
(the sacramentary, the lectionary, and the antiphonal) and only with
the passing of time became fused into a single book (the missal), so
also with the books used for the Liturgy of the Hours: the various
books for the euchology, the readings, and the chant were only
gradually fused into a single book: the breviary.
I. BOOKS FOR THE CHANT
A. Psalter
1. Introduction: We begin with the psalter, since it is the oldest litur-
gical book of the Divine Office, and forms its fundamental nucleus.
In the Latin-speaking rites, three different translations of the psalter
were to be found: two for liturgical use, the other for the purpose of
study. All three are related in some way to the person and work of
St. Jerome (ca. 342–420). (a) St. Jerome himself relates that he made an
initial revision of the Vetus latina (Itala) psalter: whether this is the
Psalterium Romanum39 or not is contested.40 The Roman psalter was
diffused widely in Italy and also in Spain. (b) Jerome’s second revi-
sion of the psalter was made ca. 389–392: This was a correction of the
Latin version based on the Hexaplaric Greek text of the LXX. In Gaul,
the Itala version was used until the end of the sixth century, when
St. Gregory of Tours (ca. 540–594) introduced this second revision of
St. Jerome into his cathedral; its wide diffusion in Gaul gave it the
name Psalterium Gallicanum. It was the Gallican psalter that Alcuin
introduced into the Vulgate, and hence this version came to domi-
nate, even in Italy, from the ninth century onward. In Rome, Pope
Sixtus IV (1471–1484) limited the use of the Roman psalter to the city
of Rome and environs. After the reforms of Pius V, the Roman psalter
was restricted even further to the Basilica of St. Peter.41 (c) Around
392, Jerome made a fresh translation iuxta hebraicam veritatem.42 This
39 For a critical edition, cf. R. Weber, Le Psautier Romain et les autres anciens
psautiers latins, CBL X (Vatican City, 1953).
40 Cf. C. Estin, Les Psautiers de Jérôme (Rome, 1984) 25–8.
41 S. Bäumer, Geschichte des Breviers (Freiburg-im-Brisgau, 1895). The French
translation is being used here: Histoire du Bréviaire (Rome, 1905), rpt. 1967. Cf. I,
355–7.
42 For a critical edition, cf. H. de Sainte-Marie, Sancti Hieronymi Psalterium iuxta
Hebraeos, CBL XI (Vatican City, 1954).
268
was never used in the liturgy, however, since the earlier versions
were already in common use.
2. Typology: It is important to distinguish between a biblical psalter and
a liturgical psalter. A biblical psalter contains the 150 psalms, pure and
simple, these being divided into five books. A liturgical psalter, on
the other hand, is characterized by various additions made to the
biblical psalter, such as the Old Testament canticles for Lauds, the
New Testament canticles (Benedictus, Magnificat, Nunc Dimittis), other
ancient hymns (Gloria, Te Deum), etc. In addition, a liturgical psalter,
by means of the decoration of the initial letter of a given psalm, fre-
quently indicated the distribution of the psalms according to the dif-
ferent days of the week. Salmon calls this type of psalter a psalterium
per ferias, and reserves the term liturgical psalter to those in which the
psalms are actually removed from their biblical order, and distributed
among the various hours of the day.43
3. History: The development of the liturgical psalter is very gradual.
By the twelfth century, antiphons and verses are often added in the
margin or the free space between the psalms. Bit by bit, other elements
are added in their respective places: invitatories, responsories, capitula,
and the incipit of hymns. Other additions to the psalter are psalm
titles, giving an interpretive key to the psalm along Christological and
spiritual lines, and psalm collects, serving the same function.44
From the Carolingian period onward, we find psalters joined to
various other liturgical books, forming psalter-collectars, psalter-
hymnals, psalter-antiphonals, and other combinations. Thus the
psalter acts as one of the fundamental nuclei of the future breviary,
attracting other books of the office to its central core. From the
twelfth century onward, another system of organizing the psalter be-
comes common: the psalms arranged not according to the days of the
week, but according to the liturgical hour: that is, for vigils (noctur-
nalis liber), for lauds (liber matutinalis), for the day hours (diurnale),
and for vespers (vesperale). It is not uncommon, however, to have
43 P. Salmon, Les manuscrits liturgiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane, ST 251
(Vatican City, 1968), I,xiv–xv.

44 For psalm collects, cf. L. Brou, The Psalter Collects, HBS 83 (London, 1949).
There is an African series (5th c.), a Roman series (6th c.), and a Spanish series
(7th c.). For psalm titles, cf. P. Salmon, Les “Tituli Psalmorum” des manuscrits latins,
CBL XII (Vatican City, 1959). Cf. also Martimort, “La prière des heures,” 220–2.
269
different systems existing side by side. In the thirteenth century, the
Breviary of the Roman Curia attains prominence, and eventually the
fusion of the psalter into a complete breviary becomes the norm.
B. Antiphonal
1. Introduction: The name antiphonarium is used equivocally for the
Mass antiphonal, the Office antiphonal, or a combination of both;
hence special care is needed to distinguish clearly the content of the
book in question. The edition of the ancient Mass antiphonals was
done by Hesbert in 1935; almost thirty years later, he published an
edition of the ancient Office antiphonals as well.
2. Typology: The antiphonal for the Liturgy of the Hours, following
the order of the liturgical year, contains the texts and/or music for
invitatories (for matins), antiphons (for the psalms), responsories
(after the readings), and versicles (after the hymns). The incipits of
the psalms and hymns may also be included, as well as certain
rubrical directions. The way in which the antiphons and responso-
ries are organized depends on which of the two major systems is
being followed: monastic or cathedral. Hesbert accordingly divides
his study according to these two different repertoires. The antipho-
nal is intended for the choirmaster or cantors: the choir itself would
have known most of the repertoire by heart. The oldest antiphonals
(ninth century) were not notated; it is not until the tenth-eleventh
centuries onward that we find antiphonals with musical notation
above the text.45
3. History: For the sake of clarity, it is useful to distinguish between
the textual and musical elements of the antiphonal.
Music: There is a certain amount of debate about the origins of
Gregorian chant, as distinguished from old-Roman chant. Van Dijk
has argued convincingly that the difference between the two parallels
is the difference between the presbyteral/titular usage and the papal
usage in Rome. Old-Roman chant is urban, Gregorian chant is papal.46
45 The oldest manuscript (without notation) is the Antiphonal of Compiègne

(between 860 and 880), Roman cursus. The oldest notated manuscript is the
Antiphonal of Hartker (end of 10th-beginning of 11th c.), monastic cursus. Cf.
Hesbert, CAO I,xvii–xix and II,vi–ix.
46 S.J.P. Van Dijk, “The Urban and Papal Rites in Seventh and Eighth-Century
Rome,” SE 12 (1961) 414–5.
270
The Franco-Roman synthesis achieved in the ninth century, therefore,
is not simply a synthesis of Gallican and Roman elements, but a
synthesis of urban and papal elements as well. Huglo has shown that
after the death of Charlemagne and the subsequent division of the
empire, the chant developed along two different tracks, determined
by geographical boundaries: the eastern part of the empire and the
western part. While at first the chant was transmitted from one gen-
eration to the next by oral tradition, a system of notation gradually
developed, which changed the physical arrangement of the antipho-
nal. The first notated manuscripts simply write in the musical nota-
tion above the text. Later, a staff is added, of one, two, and then four
lines. This means that the text must be smaller to allow space for the
lines of music. In the thirteenth century square notation develops,
and this new method of musical notation spreads rapidly. By the
fourteenth century the antiphonal has become fused with other office
books to form the breviary, although the older form of the antiphonal
as a separate book perdures for centuries afterwards.
Text: The antiphonal for the Office does not derive from a single
archetype, but rather from a common repertoire that was added to as
time went on. In the Romano-Germanic synthesis, however, the an-
tiphonal for the Office never gained the same official status and au-
thority as the liturgical books for Mass. As a result, there was much
variety. While the order of the antiphons remained fairly stable from
one place to another, the order of the responsories varied a good
deal. In addition, the verses of the responsories did not always corre-
spond to the content of the responsory itself. Shortly after the death
of Charlemagne († 814), these inconsistencies prompted various ini-
tiatives of reform. Helisachar, the archchancelor of Louis the Pious
(814–840), along with Nedibrius, bishop of Narbonne, undertook a
reworking of the verses. Their reform took root in the western part of
the empire, especially in southern France, while the eastern tradition
maintained the old verses. In some places, both systems were com-
bined together. These things troubled Amalarius (ca. 780–850) as
well, who observed the discrepancies between the antiphonal of
Metz and the Roman antiphonal of Corbie. Taking elements from
both, he proposed a new antiphonal entirely; this reform attempt did
not survive its author, but disappeared in the mid-ninth century. In
Lyon, the deacon Florus and Archbishop Agobard (fierce opponents
271
of Amalarius) worked to reform the antiphonal as well, substituting
all non-biblical responsories with others taken from Sacred Scripture.
The tradition of Lyon retained this characteristic thereafter. The devel-
opment of those religious orders with a strong central government had
implications for liturgical books in general and the antiphonal in par-
ticular. An exemplar kept in the main house of the order served as the
model for all subsequent copies, and thus a certain standardization re-
sulted. In the thirteenth century, the choice of the Franciscan order to
follow the usage of the Roman curia had far-reaching implications for
the Roman rite. But this pertains to the history of the breviary.
C. Hymnal
1. Introduction: The hymn functions as an interpretive key to the litur-
gical hour or the feast being celebrated: such compositions are often
of great poetic beauty and theological richness. While there is an
abundant bibliography on the hymn per se,47 there is rather little on
the hymnal and its development.48
2. Typology: For our purposes, the definition of the term “hymn” is
being restricted to those poetic, metrical, compositions used in the
Liturgy of the Hours. (Such compositions used elsewhere, such as in
processions or devotions, can also be called hymns). The hymnal, a
collection of these hymns for the Divine Office, appears in two forms:
either joined to another book, or contained in a separate and distinct
volume. The oldest hymnals which have come down to us are com-
posite books: frequently psalter-hymnals, or hymnals joined to books
of orations or readings. In the case of non-liturgical psalters, the
hymns usually come at the end of the manuscript, while in the case
of liturgical psalters, the hymns are interspersed throughout the
various hours. The hymnal as a separate book gradually disappears
from the scene after the fusion of the different books of the office into
the one book of the breviary.
47 Cf. the bibliographies provided in the following studies: P. Salmon, “La

prière des heures,” EP 1961, 824–5; A. G. Martimort, “La prière des heures,” EP
1983, IV,231; and especially J. Szövérffy, Latin Hymns, TS 55, Turnhout 1989, 11–28.
48 For the manuscript tradition, cf. J. Mearns, Early Latin Hymnaries: an index of
hymns in hymnaries before 1100 (Cambridge, 1913); P. Salmon, Les manuscrits I,49-
58; K. Gamber, CLLA, SFS 1, 2 vol. (Fribourg, 21968) II,602–5.
272
3. History: The origins of Latin Christian hymnody are to be found in
the third-sixth centuries. Of all the hymn writers from this period
who can be identified (St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Ambrose, Prudentius,
Sedulius, Venantius Fortunatus, St. Gregory the Great)49 it is
St. Ambrose who has the greatest authority:50 St. Benedict, when
speaking of hymns, calls them ambrosiani (Rule of St. Benedict 9:4 and
12:4). From this early period, however, no collection of hymns has
come down to us. It is not until the sixth century that we have evi-
dence of a distinct repertoire of hymns; traces can be found in the
monastic rules of St. Benedict, St. Caesarius of Arles, and his successor
St. Aurelian.51 The oldest hymnal we have is from the Celtic rite,
seventh century, followed by a psalter-hymnal of the Gallican rite, dat-
ing from the latter part of the eighth century.52 According to Gneuss,
up until the ninth century, there were two basic types of hymnal used
in Western Europe: The first one derived from the Ambrosian tradi-
tion, and is reflected in the monastic rules just mentioned; the second
coming from the Franco-Germanic or Gallican tradition. Both of these
types were replaced at the time of Louis the Pious by a new hymnal,
which has been attributed to St. Benedict of Aniane, but was proba-
bly worked on first by Alcuin, at the monastery of St. Martin in
Tours.53 The use of hymns in the liturgy of the hours, accepted early
on in monastic circles, did not find universal acceptance elsewhere.
Certain dioceses, such as Braga and Lyon, saw in such poetic compo-
sitions a departure from the purity of the Sacred Scriptures. In Rome,
49 For a general overview, cf. Righetti II, 589–598; for a full-length study, cf.
J. Fontaine, Naissance de la poésie dans l’Occident Chrétien: esquisse d’une histoire de la
poésie latine chrétienne du IIIe au VIe siècle (Paris, 1981).
50 J. Fontaine, ed., Ambroise de Milan, Hymnes: texte établi, traduit et annoté (Paris,
1992).
51 St. Benedict (Rule, chaps. 9-18) states that each hour has its own hymn, but
does not identify any of them; cf. Benedicti Regula, ed. R. Hanslik, CSEL 75
(Vienna, 1977) 53–74. The Rules of St. Caesarius (chap. 66) and St. Aurelian (ordo
quo psallere debeatis) indicate a specific repertoire: cf. Caesarius of Arles, S. Caesarii
Arelatensis Episcopi Regula Sanctarum Virginum, ed. Germanus Morin (Bonn, 1933)
22–3; St. Aurelian of Arles, Regula ad monachos, PL 68:393.
52 For the Celtic hymnal, cf. Cod. C 5 inf. of the Biblioteca Ambrosiana, Milano,
ed. F. E. Warren, Antiphonary of Bangor, HBS 4 (London, 1893); (Gamber, CLLA

I,146, #150). For the Gallican hymnal, cf. Codex Vat. Regin. lat. 11, ed. Tommasi,
Opera II (Roma, 1747) 351–434 (Gamber, CLLA II,583, #1617).
53 Cf. Gy, “Le Trésor,” 25.
273
hymns did not become part of the Office until the gregorian reforms
of the eleventh century. While there is a great deal of variety in the
hymn repertoires of the Middle Ages, both concerning text and
melody, the development of the breviary in the thirteenth century
brought about a certain standardization. The corpus of hymns did
not remain static, however, but throughout the late Middle Ages, the
neo-classical movement of the Renaissance, and the modern period,
had both spurts of growth (with the canonization of new saints and
introduction of new feasts) as well as times of pruning (with various
reform movements).54
I I . B O O K S F O R T H E O R AT I O N S
A. Introduction: There is not just one nucleus of the Divine Office, the
psalter — but also another, the collectar. That is, both the psalter and
the collectar (and the lectionary as well, as will be shown below)
gradually attracted other elements of the Office around themselves.
These varied origins must be considered when studying the forma-
tion of the breviary.
As usual, the terminology is variable. Depending on the manu-
script’s place of origin, this book can be called collectarium, collectarius
liber, collectaneum, orationarius, orationale, and portiforium.55
B. Typology: The collectar is the book the celebrant uses in the Divine
Office, usually containing both capitula (short Scripture readings for
Office) and concluding orations. Its function is parallel to that of the
sacramentary: to give the celebrant the texts he needs for the carrying
out of his part in the sacred action. Throughout history, there is a
great deal of diversity in the contents of this book and in the way it is
combined with other liturgical books. Gy points out that this variety
indicates a response to different needs: for example, to supply the
celebrant with the readings and prayers he needed for choir and
sometimes also for pastoral work, to establish a definite ordo for the
54 For collections of ancient hymns, cf. especially G. M. Dreves - Cl. Blume -
H. M. Bannister, Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi, 55 vols. (Leipzig, 1886–1922). For

the hymnal in the 1971 Liturgia Horarum, cf. A. Lentini, Hymni instaurandi Breviarii
Romani (Vatican City, 1968); Idem, Te decet hymnus: l’Innario della “Liturgia
Horarum” (Vatican City, 1984).
55 A 7th–8th c. predecessor is the rotulus orationum, in use in northern Italy. Cf.
the Rotulus of Ravenna, Gamber, CLLA I, 317–8, #660.
274
Office, to provide the necessary elements for the recitation of Office
outside of choir, etc.56
C. History: There is a clear development from sacramentaries, to
simple collectars, to what Salmon calls enriched collectars.
Sacramentaries: All the ancient sacramentaries contain orations for the
Liturgy of the Hours, whether connected with specific feast days, or
included in a series of orationes vespertinales seu matutinales, or found
in lists of aliae orationes.57 Simple collectars: The oldest collectars simply
culled these orations from the sacramentaries and gathered them to-
gether in separate libelli.58 In the ninth century, with the multiplica-
tion of proper collects for the specific liturgical hour or the feast
being celebrated, the repertoire of orations increased. At the same
time, the gathering together of capitula took place, and from the tenth
century onward, capitula are rarely found separate from the collectar.
There are two kinds of collectar-capitulary: the first, in which the two
elements are included as two independent blocks of material, the sec-
ond, in which orations and capitula are integrated together according
to the order of the liturgical year. Enriched collectars: To this original
base of material, other elements are soon joined: sacraments and rites
which pertain to the Rituale/Pontificale, devotional prayers such as ap-
pear in the libelli precum,59 blessings (of ashes, candles, palms) which
today are found in the missal. In the eleventh century the calendar is
often joined to the collectar, as well as antiphons, verses, responso-
ries, and hymns (or at least their incipit).60 In addition, a kind of ordo
officii was often added: a description of the office of Sundays and
weekdays, sometimes with readings and responsories included.
56 Cf. Gy, Collectaire, 448.
57 Cf. Salmon, L’Office Divin, 23–4 for a detailed summary.
58 The oldest example of such a collectar is the 8th c. fragment found in ms.
Sangallensis 349, edited by O. Heiming, “Das Kollektarfragment des Sangallensis

349, s.5-36, saec. VIII,” Mélanges liturgiques offerts au R. P. Dom Bernard Botte O.S.B.
(Louvain, 1972) 175–203.
59 Cf. A. Wilmart, ed., Precum Libelli Quattuor Aevi Karolini (Rome, 1940);
Gamber, CLLA, II,612–3, #1698; K. Gamber, CLLA: Supplementum (Fribourg, 1988)

166, #1698.
60 For published collectars of this type from the English tradition, cf. E. S.
Dewick, ed., The Leofric Collectar, HBS 45 (London, 1914); E. S. Dewick - W. H.

Frere, eds., The Leofric Collectar compared with the Collectar of St. Wulfstan, HBS 56
(London, 1921); A Correa, ed., The Durham Collectar, HBS 107 (London, 1992).
275
In fact, a study of the manuscripts shows every possible combination:
psalter-hymnal-collectar, collectar-hymnal, collectar-ordo, collectar-
ritual, collectar-pontifical, even one example of an collectar-evange-
liary (these gospel readings being used at the end of Matins on
Sundays and feast days). Certain combinations of these liturgical
books constitute a kind of primitive breviary.
III. BOOKS FOR THE READINGS

The division proposed here between scriptural, patristic, and hagio-
graphical readings is not quite as neat and clean in the actual litur-
gical books. Because of this difficulty of terminology, the content of
these books must be examined on a case by case basis.
A. Scriptural Readings
1. Introduction: It is important to distinguish between long readings
for Vigils, and short readings, or capitula, for all the other hours.
We have already seen that early on, the capitula were joined to the
collects in a single book, for the use of the hebdomadarian.61 In this
section, we will treat primarily the books containing the readings for
the night Office.
2. Typology: These books were intended for the lectern in choir, con-
taining the long scriptural readings for the night Office. The scrip-
tural text was divided into various sections, depending on a number
of factors. During the summer season, when the nights were shorter,
the readings were shorter also; but for the rest of the year the longer
readings were retained. On Sundays and feast days there were three
nocturns, with a corresponding increase in the number of readings.
Of course, differences between the monastic and cathedral office
must be taken into account.
3. History: There are two basic stages: the use of the Bible itself as a
liturgical book, and the formation of a lectionary properly so-called.
Originally, it was the Bible itself that was used during the night
Office. The Rule of St. Benedict refers simply to the codex of the Bible
placed on the lectern (RB 9). The passages to be read were often indi-
cated by marginal notes in the codex itself. There are a few rare ex-
61 There are a few examples of books containing capitula independent of the
collectar: cf. Martimort, Les lectures, 75, n.20. For manuscripts of collectar-capitula
in addition to those cited by Gy, cf. Martimort, Les lectures, 76.
276
amples, however, of the books of the Bible arranged, not according to
the order of the Vulgate, but according to the liturgical order of the
night Office.62 Unlike the history of the Mass lectionary, for the Office
there is no evidence of any lists of pericopes, forming an intermediate
stage between the Bible itself and the lectionary. Instead, there are
ordines, indicating which books of the Bible were to be read, and
when, throughout the course of the liturgical year. The earliest evi-
dence of this kind is Ordo Romanus XIV, which represents the usage of
the Basilica of St. Peter’s in the second half of the seventh century (and
perhaps going back even farther), followed by Ordo Romanus XIII-A,
representing the usage of the Lateran in the eighth century.63 Since
these two traditions are different from one another, some scholars pro-
pose the theory that OR XIII is a later adaptation of OR XIV. However,
it is important to keep in mind the existence of the double liturgical
tradition in Rome, urban and papal, which would explain the differ-
ences, without implying any necessary literary dependence between
these two ordines. It is the system of the Lateran, later adapted and
abridged, which remained in the Roman Breviary until 1970.
In the course of time, there was a gradual shortening of the scrip-
tural readings for various reasons. For example, with the develop-
ment of the Office and the accretion of various new elements, there
was a corresponding need to cut back on other areas where possible.
In addition, at certain moments in the history of spirituality devo-
tional readings were preferred to the Scriptures. In any case, in the
eleventh century a certain shortening of the readings took place,
without necessarily being connected with the development of the
portable breviary in the twelfth century. It is in this context that the
Office lectionary developed. While certain ancient Mass lectionaries in-
cluded indications for the Office readings as well,64 in this period, the
Office lectionary is an independent book, although, as mentioned ear-
lier, its contents were not necessarily exclusively scriptural readings.
62 Milan, Biblioteca Abrosiana E 51 inf. (11th–12th c): cf. Martimort, Les lectures,
73.
63 For OR XIV, cf. Andrieu, Les “Ordines Romani” du haut moyen âge, vol. 3
(Louvain, 1974) introduction 25–35, text 39–41. The text, according to ms V, begins
thus: “Legitur autem omnis scriptura sancti canonis ab initio anni usque ad finem
in ecclesia sancti Petri hoc ordine.” For OR XIII-A, cf. Andrieu, vol. 2, introduc-
tion 469–78, text 481–8.
64 Salmon, L’Office divin au Moyen Age, LO 43 (Paris, 1967) 27.
277
B. Patristic readings
1. Introduction: Although important monographs have been written
on the use of patristic readings for the Office, and excellent cata-
logues of manuscripts have been published,65 an overall history of
this liturgical book has yet to be written. Frequently enough, the
homilaries themselves do not give sufficient information about how
they were used. Martimort points out the importance of consulting
customaries and ordinals, as well as manuscripts of the breviary, in
order to obtain a more accurate understanding of the place of these
books in the liturgical celebration.66 Another topic of interest is the
role played by homilaries in the transmission of patristic texts. In
short, there is a considerable amount of work to be done in this field.
2. Typology: As usual, there are important distinctions to be made.
Not every collection of homilies or sermons is the liturgical book we
call a homilary. A homilary is organized according to a particular cur-
sus of readings, following the cycle of the liturgical year. Its content is
predominantly patristic readings, although as mentioned above,
there are very few “pure” homilaries: scriptural and/or hagiographi-
cal readings may also be included. Sometimes the homilary is in-
tended for non-liturgical use: for the preparation of preachers, for
lectio divina, for exegesis, or for table reading. In the liturgy, the homi-
lary can be used for Mass (for the sake of unlearned clergy who
would read a homily of the Fathers instead of preaching themselves)
or for the night office of the Liturgy of the Hours (and in terms of the
number of readings, we must distinguish between the monastic and
cathedral office). For the night office, there are two ways of reading
the Fathers: (1) the lectio continua of a patristic text, as a commentary
on a given book of the Bible: this did not require a separate liturgical
book, as the reading was taken directly from the writings of the
Fathers, or (2) a patristic homily for a particular feast day or for the
gospel text to be used at Mass: this second system did require a sepa-
rate book, organized according to the liturgical calendar: that is, the
homilary. Of course, a given homilary could be used in many differ-
65 Gamber, CLLA, II, 594–602; Salmon, Les manuscrits, IV, 3–74 (patristic read-
ings mixed together with scriptural and hagiographical readings); Grégoire,

Homéliaires Liturgiques.
66 Martimort, “La lecture,” 313–4.
278
ent circumstances: Mass, Office, the monastic refectory. There is much
flexibility.
3. History: The sermons or homilies (the terms are interchangeable) of
certain Fathers were gathered together early on. The preaching of
St. Augustine is a notable example of this; his homilies were widely
diffused and imitated. There are many collections of sermons from
North Africa: these made their way into Europe through two impor-
tant centers: Naples and Arles.67 The first evidence we have of the
liturgical use of patristic readings is the Rule of St. Benedict (first half
of sixth century), where he prescribes this reading for Vigils.68 Since
this practice does not come from the earlier monastic tradition, from
what source does St. Benedict draw upon? Since he borrows other
liturgical customs from the tradition of the Roman Church, perhaps
this one comes from the same source? In fact, the Ordines Romani XIV
and XIII-A mentioned above, shed light on this question also. OR
XIV:10 (St. Peter’s, second half of seventh century), at the end of the
list of scriptural books to be read at Vigils, adds laconically: Tractatus
vero sancti Hieronimi, Ambrosi, ceterorum Patrum, prout ordo poscit,
leguntur.69 Chavasse proposes that an entire family of later homilaries
all derive from a sixth-century homilary of St. Peter’s.70 Bouhot
67 Cf. Barré, “Homéliaires,” col. 600–1. St. Caesarius of Arles made a collection
of the sermons of St. Augustine for the use of his clergy.

68 RB 9:8.
69 Manuscripts from the northern tradition (St. Gall, Paris) add the hagiographi-
cal readings: similiter tractatus, prout ordo poscit, passiones martyrum et vitae patrum
catholicorum leguntur (Andrieu III, 41). The later OR XIII-A expands the list. For
example in the context of the Vigils of Christmas, OR XIII-A:13 says: Deinde
leguntur sermones vel omelias catholicorum patrum ad ipsum diem pertinentes, id est
Agustini, Gregorii, Hieronimi, Ambrosi vel ceterorum (Andrieu II, 486).
70 A. Chavasse, “Le calendrier dominical romain au VIe siècle,” RSR 41 (1953)
96–122; Idem, “Un homéliaire romain du VIe et du VIIe siècle: Le Sermonnaire des
Saints-Philippe-et-Jacques et le Sermonnaire de Saint-Pierre,” EphLit 69 (1955) 17–
24; Idem, “Le Sermonnaire d’Agimond,” Kyriakon, Festschrift Johannes Quasten, t.2
(Münster, 1970) t.2, 800-10; Idem, “Le Sermonnaire Vatican du VIIe siècle,” SE 23
(1978–79) 225–80; Idem, “Un homiliaire liturgique romain du VIe siècle,” RB 90
(1980) 194–233.
279
suggests that before this homilary, there weren’t any, as such, in the
Latin Church.71
Although in this early period there are no two homilaries exactly
alike, it is possible to group them into categories according to their
historical period: Barré classifies them as (1) patristic, (2) Carolingian,
and (3) medieval.72 (1) The patristic homilaries can be further classi-
fied into three types: those which depend upon the homilary of
St. Peter’s, those derived from the homilary of Paul the Deacon, and
others which fit neither category. Among those depending on
St. Peter’s are the homilary of the Basilica of St. Peter, written by Leo
qui Schifo vocatur (tenth century), the homilary of Agimond for the
Basilica of Ss. Philip and James (ca. 730), the homilary of Eginon of
Verona (ca. 796–799) and the famous homilary of Alan of Farfa (ca.
760–770).73 Representing a completely different tradition is the homi-
lary of Paul the Deacon, commissioned by Charlemagne. In this case,
Charlemagne did not call for a Roman exemplar, but left the compiler
a free hand. In this homilary, in addition to a different selection of
readings, there are two innovations in respect to the Roman homi-
lary: (1) There is but one patristic text per day, instead of several to
chose from (with some exceptions for the greater feasts); and (2) for
all the Sundays of the year and many feast days as well, a homily on
the gospel of the day is provided, including a couple of verses from
the Gospel itself just before the patristic text. While this homilary was
never imposed universally, it was adopted by a large number of dio-
ceses and monasteries; it was this homilary, in an abridged version,
that found its way into the breviary. While the homilary types of
St. Peter’s and of Paul the Deacon are the most widespread, they are
not the only ones: there are ancient homilaries from other traditions
as well.74 (2) The Carolingian homilaries are noteworthy because they
were intended for personal reading, not for liturgical use or preach-
ing. (3) The medieval homilaries, which flourished especially in the
eleventh-twelfth centuries, are usually patristic homilaries completed
by borrowings from the Carolingian tradition and from more recent
71 J. P. Bouhot, “L’Homéliaire de Saint-Pierre du Vatican au milieu du VIIe siècle
et sa postérité,” Recherches augustiniennes 20 (1985) 87–115.

72 Barré, “Homéliaires,” col. 601–5.
73 Martimort, Les lectures 83–6.
74 Martimort, Les lectures, 86–7.
280
elements. Again, there is a great deal of variety from one geographi-
cal area to another. In central and southern Italy, the tradition of
St. Peter’s predominates. In areas where Charlemagne’s influence
was greatest, the homilary of Paul the Deacon predominates. There
are other traditions in France, Anglo-Saxon lands, and other parts of
Italy.75 The new religious orders have an important role to play in the
standardization of the homilary repertoire within their order.
C. Hagiographical readings
1. Introduction: Because hagiographical texts were the last type of
reading to be admitted into the night Office in the Roman tradition,
they are rarely found as a separate liturgical book. Instead the hagio-
graphical readings are usually inserted into homilaries, either as a
supplement of some kind, or integrated into the course of the litur-
gical year.
2. Typology: The book known as the passionary or legendary, containing
the acts of the martyrs and the lives of the saints, is not, in the first
place, a liturgical book. As Philippart has demonstrated, this book
was also used in the monastic refectory; ad collationem, that is, in the
assembly of the brethren before Compline; in the work place, where
one monk would read while the others were engaged in manual
labor; and for private reading.76 In non-Roman traditions, hagio-
graphical readings were used both for Mass and Office. Roman usage
never permitted non-Scriptural readings at Mass, and was very slow
to admit hagiographical readings into the Office. Because the pas-
sionary was used in such varied contexts, in order to assert that a
given manuscript is a liturgical book used in choir, the book itself
must contain indications that it was, in fact, so used. Among such
indications are: (1) the division of the text into lessons (three, six,
nine, or twelve, depending on the particular context); (2) the presence
of other elements of the liturgical celebration in the same book (e.g.,
scriptural or patristic readings); (3) the title of the book, sometimes
specifying that it was used for the Office.77
75 Barré, “Homéliaires,” cols. 603–605; Martimort, Les lectures, 89–94.

76 Philippart, Les légendiers, 112–7.
77 Martimort, Les lectures, 100–1.
281
3. History: The liturgical use of hagiographical readings: As already men-
tioned, the custom of reading the passiones of the martyrs and lives of
the saints for Office is not Roman in origin. There is abundant informa-
tion, however, about this type of text as used in North Africa, Spain,
Gaul, and Milan. We restrict ourselves here to the Roman tradition.
The earliest Roman reference to hagiographical readings in the
liturgy is an explicit rejection of them. The decretal of pseudo-
Gelasius (sixth century) says that according to ancient custom, and
because of the anonymity of the texts in circulation and their dubious
accuracy, such books are not read in the holy Roman Church (cf. DS
353). In the year 598, St. Gregory the Great, responding to a request
of Eulogius of Alexandria for a copy of the gesta of the martyrs,
replies that in the Roman archives he could only find one small vol-
ume.78 The Ordines Romani confirm that even in the seventh century,
hagiographical readings were not the Roman custom, whereas the
Gallican recensions of the Roman texts include the passiones martyrum
et vitae patrum catholicorum.79 But finally, the ancient strictness gave
way, and Rome adopted this practice as well. OR XII (ca. 800) shows
that the reading of the passio or gesta of a saint was now customary
on the feast day of that saint, in the church where the relics were
venerated, and that Pope Hadrian I (772-795) extended this practice
to the Basilica of St. Peter’s.80 From the eighth century onward, this
literary genre developed rapidly, responding to the parallel develop-
ment of the cult of the saints and the veneration of their relics. By the
twelfth century, the Lateran Ordo of Prior Bernard indicates a hagio-
78 Gregorii I Papae Registrum Epistolarum, MGH, Epistolarum Tomus II (Berlin,
1899) 29.
79 OR XIV:10 in the Roman original and the various recensions north of the
Alps (Andrieu III, 41). There is a more extensive description of the celebration of
saints’ feastdays in OR XVI:10-12 and OR XVII:76-78 (both ordines “Gallicanized,”
from the end of the 8th c.). Cf. Andrieu III, 148 and 185–6.
80 OR XII:24–5 (Andrieu, vol.2, 465–6). Pope Hadrian in a letter to
Charlemagne, touches indirectly on this question. After rejecting Lives of the

Saints which did not have a known and approved author, and therefore, lacked
any authority, the pope adds: Magis enim passiones sanctorum martyrum sacri
canones censuentes ut liceat etiam eas legi, cum anniversarii dies eorum celebrantur.
Epistolae Hadriani I Papae, MGH, Epistolarum Tomus V (Berlin, 1899) 49. Cf. De
Gaiffier, “La lecture,” 142.
282
graphical reading for all the numerous feasts of saints which by this
time weighed down the calendar.81
The book of hagiographical readings:82 In the beginning, these texts
were written down in libelli, containing the acts of one or several
martyrs, for use in the churches where these saints were honored.
These libelli were gradually gathered together in larger collections,
whose terminology is somewhat flexible: acta martyrum, passiones
martyrum, passionarium, vitae sanctorum. When these texts are finally
taken into the liturgy, compiled for the Office, and organized accord-
ing to the liturgical year, then we have the liturgical book called the
legendary. These rarely existed by themselves however, usually
joined either to the biblical readings, the patristic readings, or both.
Thus the full lectionary for the Office is formed.
D. Lectionary
Beginning in the tenth century and continuing to the twelfth century,
the lectionary for Office gradually develops: that is, the amalgama-
tion of the scriptural, patristic, and hagiographical readings to make
a more or less organized whole. It must be stressed, however, that
there is a great deal of variety in the contents of these lectionaries,
depending on the usages of the local monastic or diocesan church.
That is to say, unlike the lectionaries for Mass, no single lectionary
for Office (before the advent of the breviary) ever became the gener-
ally accepted standard for the Roman rite.
The breviary begins to be formed in this same period of time.
Salmon suggests that in addition to the psalter and the collectar func-
tioning as a kind of core or nucleus for the formation of the breviary,
the lectionary served the same purpose, attracting to itself various
other elements of the Divine Office according to local circum-
stances.83 The success of the breviary, in fact, explains why the com-
plete lectionary, as a liturgical book in its own right, never became
widespread.84
81 L. Fischer, ed., Bernhardi . . . Ordo officiorum ecclesiae Lateranensis (Munich,
1916). Cf. nn. 249–54; 260–2; 264–72; 282–99, as cited in Martimort, Les lectures, 99–
100.
82 In this section, I am following Salmon, Les manuscripts, ix–x.
83 Salmon, L’Office divin au Moyen Age, 60–1. Cf. also Martimort, Les lectures,
103–5.
84 Salmon, Les manuscrits IV, viii.
283
I V. T H E B O O K F O R T H E C H A P T E R O F F I C E
1. Introduction (the origins of the chapter office): The chapter office is a
synaxis which takes place in communities of monks or secular
canons usually after Prime, but sometimes also after Terce. This
always includes a liturgical office, which is sometimes followed by a
chapter of faults and a distribution of the daily work assignments.
This liturgical office is comprised of readings: the martyrology, the
rule (which on Sundays or feasts days could be substituted by the
gospel of the day and a homily), and the necrology. This officium
capituli is a late-comer on the liturgical scene. It is not present in the
Rule of St. Benedict. The earliest extant source is OR XVIII, an eighth-
century document from a monastery in Gaul, which indicates that
Prime was said in the dormitory, after which a section of the Rule of
St. Benedict was read, with the superior giving an explanation of the
text.85 Other evidence is present in the Rule of Chrodegang (742–766)
and canon 69 of the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle (817):86 these texts
pertain to collegiate churches of the secular clergy. The structure of
the chapter office at this time includes (1) the martyrology, and
(2) the rule and an explanation of the rule (or the gospel and a
homily on the gospel). A third element, the reading of the necrology,
was added later.87 The earliest evidence for an actual book for this
chapter office comes from the ninth century. Palazzo points out the
constant dynamic in liturgical studies: namely, that liturgical action
leads to the creation of the conditions necessary for that action: in
this case, a separate space for the synaxis (the chapter room) and a
separate liturgical book.88
2.Typology (the book of the chapter office): This ninth-century book is
the so-called Martyrology of Usuard, written around 858 by a monk
of Saint-Germain-des-Prés in Paris.89 It includes a prologue, a marty-
85 OR XVIII:3–4 (Andrieu, vol. 3, 205).

86 Lemaître, “Liber Capituli,” 629–30; Palazzo 174–5.
87 For a description of the chapter office, cf. Martène, Book I:5, De capitulo in De
Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus Libri, 4 vol. (Antwerp, 1736–1738); (rpt. Hildesheim,

1969) IV, col. 52–65. Lemaître gives a summary of the structure and content of
Martène’s text in “Liber capituli,” 634.
88 Palazzo, 175.
89 J. Dubois, ed., Le martyrologe d’Usuard: Texte et commentaire, Subsidia hagio-
graphica 40 (Brussels, 1965).
284
rology, hymns in honor of St. Germain, a list of the abbots of the
monastery written in the margin, the Rule of St. Benedict, and the
necrology. The title “martyrology,” therefore, is misleading: the book
is a liber capituli, which had a very wide diffusion, and became the
archetype and model for subsequent versions. The four elements of
martyrology, lectionary, rule, and necrology form the content of this
type of book, although the order varies and all four elements are not
always present. The term liber capituli itself is very rare; the oldest ref-
erence is in a thirteenth-century catalogue of books of the monastery
of Cluny. Otherwise, the title tends to refer to only one of the book’s
component parts, such as the martyrology, or the rule. Since titles are
misleading and terminology is variable, it is the content of the book
which must be our guide. Perhaps one reason for the scarce attention
paid to this liturgical book is that up until the thirteenth century, it
was a question of local usage only. In 1266 this custom was adopted
at a general chapter of the Friars Minor, after which it was then intro-
duced into the Roman liturgical books.90
3. History (of the book’s component parts):
Martyrology: The martyrology as such existed long before it became
part of the chapter office. This type of document may be defined as a
collection which announces day by day, usually on the anniversary of
death, the saints who are honored on that day. The origins of this
usage are connected with the reading of the diptychs in the liturgy.
The fact that the martyrology was sometimes bound together with
the sacramentary and sometimes with the rule, indicates the various
uses of this text. The oldest martyrology in the west is the so-called
martyrologium hieronymianum, compiled in Italy in the second half of
the fifth century. This contains only the day of the feast and the name
of the place or cemetery where the saint was venerated. Such scanty
information did not satisfy, and with the organization and extension
of the chapter office, a martyrology with more detailed information
was desired. This is the origin of the historical martyrologies,
St. Bede the Venerable (673–735) being the first to compose such a
text, followed by others who set out to complete the work Bede
had begun. Usuard of Saint-Germain-des-Prés took the earlier
90 Lemaître, “Liber Capituli,” 626.
285
martyrologies and made a new synthesis;91 it was his work that was
adopted by Baronius as the base text for the official edition of the
Roman Martyrology in 1584.92
Necrology: The necrology, as the martyrology, follows the Roman
calendar, independent of the liturgical year. It is a list of the names of
the faithful departed, to be used in the daily commemoration of the
deceased members of a particular religious community or group of
communities. From the Carolingian period onward, new forms of
commemoration of the dead developed, giving rise to new liturgical
practices both at Mass and Office. The development of new books
testifies to the codification of these practices in a specific liturgical
context: the chapter office.93 Although the terminology is variable, the
necrology is to be distinguished from the obituary, which is a more
administrative kind of document, containing information about the
endowment provided for Masses, and the revenues obtained from
this endowment. In medieval books for the chapter office, the necrol-
ogy usually comes after the martyrology or the rule. To this day
monasteries retain this custom, although where the chapter office has
been discontinued, the reading of the necrology takes place in an-
other context, such as the refectory.
V. T H E B R E V I A R Y
1. Introduction: Just as in the case of the Mass the different books for
orations, readings, and chants gradually came together to form the
one book of the missal, so also in the case of the Office: the many and
various books came together to form the one book of the breviary.
This did not happen in a systematic fashion as something planned
out and organized. Rather, as mentioned earlier, a single book (be
that the psalter, the collectar, or the lectionary) served as a kind of
nucleus, and other books tended to gravitate around this core of
91 For a list of the modern editions of ancient martyrologies cf. Dubois,
Martyrologes d’Usuard, 35–45 (rpt. of “Introduction à la révision du martyrologe

Romain,” Not 21 [1985] 91–101; citation in question on 100–1).
92 For a description of editions of the martyrology after 1584 — the corrections
made by Pope Benedict XIV, the editio typica of 1913, the editio prima post typicam
of 1922, up to the present day — cf. Dubois, Martyrologes d’Usuard, 24–6
(“Introduction,” 90–2).
93 Cf. Palazzo, 174.
286
material. The breviary in its complete and integrated form does not
appear until the thirteenth century.
2. Typology: The word “breviary” in ancient texts must be treated
rather carefully. In itself, it simply means a shorter compendium of
texts: this term usually referred to Office texts, but sometimes could
refer to Mass texts as well. Common expressions are epitomata sive
breviaria, breviarium parvum itinerarium (for taking on a journey),
breviaria portatilia (portable, as opposed to the large book intended for
choir), or breviaria de camera (for private recitation). Other terms such
as libelli officiales or manuales were also used. As the name implies, the
breviary was a unified and/or shortened version of the Office, but
there were two kinds: breviaries of imposing size for choir and bre-
viaries of modest dimensions for private recitation. Choir breviaries
maintained the long readings for vigils, and were only shorter than
their predecessors in that they eliminated ad libitum choices, reducing
everything to a standard repertoire. Portable breviaries, on the other
hand, greatly abbreviated the readings, included only the incipit of
antiphons, responsories, and other texts, and omitted musical nota-
tion, all in an effort to reduce the size of the book. Early attempts to
gather various books of the Office together into one volume simply
juxtaposed one book or fascicle after the other, but this was a clumsy
arrangement which was soon abandoned. The fused or integrated
breviary was much easier to use, with each part of the Office in its
proper place according to the unfolding of that particular liturgical
hour and the order of the liturgical year.
3. History: Thirteenth century: The breviary tradition of the Roman
curia was given new impetus by the liturgical reforms of Pope
Innocent III (1198–1216). He promulgated an ordinal for the daily
services of the papal court, including both Mass and Office, which was
compiled somewhere between 1213–1216.94 The instructions from this
ordinal gradually found their way into the breviary itself, resulting in
a rubricated breviary of the papal court. The rapid growth of the
Franciscan order, the desire for uniform liturgical practice, and the
advice of Cardinal Hugolin (the future Gregory IX), led St. Francis
to adopt the liturgy of the papal court as the uniform liturgical
94 Edition of this text: S.J.P. Van Dijk - J. H. Walker, The Ordinal of the Papal Court
from Innocent III to Boniface VIII and Related Documents, SF 22 (Fribourg, 1975).
287
observance of the Franciscans, one exception being the use of the
Gallican psalter instead of the Roman psalter. Meanwhile, during the
pontificate of Honorius III (1216–1227), the court breviary was cor-
rected and simplified, with a more universal use in mind. The friars,
after the promulgation of their Rule in 1223, were able to obtain
portable breviaries for their use, but they were given old copies,
which did not contain the most recent corrections. In 1230 the
Franciscans made their own edition, the so-called “Regula Breviary,”
but the outdated copies remained in circulation. Thus in the 1230s,
at least three versions of the breviary were in use: the pre-Innocent
book, the revision of Honorius III, and the Franciscan adaptation.
In 1243–1244, the Minister General Haymo of Faversham addressed
this confusing situation by issuing a corrected ordinal of the breviary.
Because of the widespread and rapid diffusion of the Franciscan
order, this breviary of the papal court was carried to every corner of
Europe. Pope Nicholas III (1277–1286) imposed this breviary on the
other churches of the city of Rome, which until then had followed the
more ancient usage.
Sixteenth century: Although used widely, the breviary of the Roman
curia was neither obligatory nor universal. In the fourteenth to six-
teenth centuries, many local breviaries remained in use, and fre-
quently enough, side by side with the Roman breviary. New
compositions for the feasts of local saints, along with local usages for
the temporal cycle were inserted into the breviary of the Roman curia
according to the best judgment of the given compiler. In the four-
teenth century, the Avignon captivity and the Great Schism had their
negative influence on the Office, including much uncertainty and
disorder concerning rubrical directives and actual practice. John of
Arze, a theological consultor for the Council of Trent addressed the
cardinal legates in August 1551 concerning the problems of the
Divine Office.95 His observations can be summarized in three points:
(1) Because of the enormous growth of the sanctoral cycle, the Sunday
office and ferial office were being neglected, which meant that the
entire psalter was hardly ever recited. (2) The accumulation of several
offices on the same day — the Little Office of the Blessed Virgin
Mary, the Office of the dead, the gradual psalms, the penitential
95 For these observations, cf. Baümer-Biron, Histoire du Breviaire, II, 95.
288
psalms, in addition to the regular Office — was far too burdensome.
(3) The substitution of legendary and apocryphal material for the
reading of Scripture, along with the use of other dubious texts (anti-
phons, hymns, and responsories), compromised the integrity of the
Office. In response to this situation, there had already been numerous
attempts at reform. The humanists, who found the style of the Office
detestable, sought to return to the classical purity of the Latin lan-
guage. It must be said that while some of the humanist attempts
were praiseworthy, others were not. For example, in the desire to use
strictly classical expressions, they sometimes tried to render the con-
tent of the Christian faith in the language of Greco-Roman paganism.
In any case, a revised hymnal was issued in 1525 (not obligatory)
with the support of Pope Clement VII. The humanist reformers, and
in particular, Bishop Zaccaria Ferreri of Campobasso, had in mind to
correct the entire breviary, but Ferreri died in 1524, and his manu-
script was lost in the Sack of Rome in 1527. Pope Clement VII did not
give up, but entrusted the reform of the breviary to the Spaniard
Francisco Quiñonez, titular cardinal of Santa Croce in Gerusalemme.
His charge was to revise the canonical hours, restoring them to their
ancient form if possible, to suppress prolix and problematic texts
while remaining faithful to the usages established by the Fathers, so
that clerics would no longer have an excuse for neglecting the duty
of the prayer of the hours. Quiñonez began work in 1529, and
finished it in 1534, just before the death of Clement VII. It was
published in 1535 and approved for the private recitation of secular
priests by Pope Paul III. In its content, it was a return to a broader
reading of the Scriptures and the use of ecclesiastical texts which
were historically accurate. In its simplified structure, however, it was
a radical departure from the tradition, and as such, despite its popu-
larity, received massive criticism from the Fathers of the Council of
Trent. The then-reigning pope, Paul IV, when he had been bishop of
Chieti, had also worked on a reform of the Breviary for the use of the
new Congregation of the Theatines. His criteria were much more tra-
ditional however, and he suppressed the Breviary of Santa Croce in
1558, to be replaced by his own reform. But he himself died a year
later, before bringing the project to completion.
In the third session of the Council of Trent (1563), the reform of the
breviary was discussed, and a commission was formed for this work.
289
But desirous of bringing the council to a close, the Council Fathers
entrusted the task to the Holy See. Since Pope Pius IV died in 1564, it
was left to his successor, St. Pius V, to complete the work. New crite-
ria for the reform of the breviary were established, in sharp contrast
to the criteria of Quiñonez: (1) Nothing essential should be taken
away from the old Roman Breviary. (2) The task was not to create a
new breviary, but to restore the old one to its pristine state. (3) Those
elements which were later additions were to be suppressed. This new
breviary was published by Pius V in July 1568.96
Twentieth century: The Roman Breviary of 1568 had reduced the
number of saints’ feast days to 138. In the centuries that followed,
with the continued development of the sanctoral cycle, the number
increased once again, thus impairing the desired equilibrium be-
tween the temporal and the sanctoral cycle. By the time of Benedict
XIV (1740–1758), the number of saints’ feast days had risen to 228.
In the nineteenth century, the reform of the breviary had been on the
agenda of the First Vatican Council, but the council was suspended
before such things could be discussed. Pope St. Pius X (1903–1914)
established a commission to revise the breviary, according to two
criteria: the restoration of the ferial office to its rightful place, and the
celebration of the feasts of saints according to their proper rank. The
result was a lightening of the daily office with a new distribution of
the psalter, along with the institution of a mixed office: using the of-
fice of the day for the psalmody, and from the capitulum on, using the
sanctoral office. This new breviary was promulgated in November
1911. During the pontificate of Pius XII, shortly after the publication
of Mediator Dei (1947), the Sacred Congregation of Rites was charged
with preparing a proposal for liturgical reform. In its published re-
port, it returned to the thorny question of the relationship between
the temporal and sanctoral cycle, and devoted well over a hundred
pages to the question of the Roman Breviary97 A supplement to this
report some years later describes the results of a world-wide consul-
tation of four hundred metropolitan sees about an aggiornamento of
96 The Breviarium Monasticum was revised along the lines of the Breviarium
Romanum, and was promulgated by Pope Paul V in 1612.
97 Sacra Rituum Congregatio, Memoria sulla riforma liturgica, Sectio Historica
n.71 (Vatican City, 1948). Cf. the section on the Roman Breviary, 169–304.
290
the traditional structure of the Divine Office.98 Thus when in 1963,
Sacrosanctum Concilium 83–101 spoke about a renewal of the Divine
Office, the way had been well prepared.99 The new Liturgia Horarum,
while in some areas revolutionary, is very realistic and manageable.
All the liturgical hours for a given day can be prayed without undue
burden. At a distance of twenty-five years, it is possible to evaluate
both the positive and negative elements inherent in the liturgical
book itself, and the actual use of the book in daily practice.
BOOKS USED FOR THE GOOD ORDERING

OF THE LITURGY
To have all the necessary books containing the prayers, the readings,
and the music both for Mass and for Office is still not enough, for the
question remains: How are these liturgical actions to be carried out?
The rites and ceremonies must unfold in a certain order, according to
certain norms, some of which are universal, others of which are local.
Therefore, alongside the liturgical books already discussed, there is
yet another category, namely books which describe, with a certain
amount of detail, all the liturgical celebrations of the Church: Mass,
Office, sacraments, and other rites. The purpose of these books is the
good ordering of all the ritual actions of a given community. There
are three major types of book in this genre: ordines, ordinals, and
ceremonials.
I. ORDINES
1. Introduction: The ordines are usually small booklets or libelli, whose
purpose is limited to describing a single liturgical action. The Ordines
Romani published by Andrieu are the best known example of this
type of book. The first ordines appear at the end of the seventh, begin-
ning of the eighth century.
2. Typology: An ordo is a text which gathers together all the informa-
tion necessary for the carrying out of a given liturgical action, includ-
ing the incipit of the various texts, along with rubrical directions,
98 Sacra Rituum Congregatio, Memoria sulla riforma liturgica, Sectio Historica
n.97, Supplemento IV: Consultazione dell’episcopato intorno alla riforma del

Breviario Romano (1956-1957): risultati e deduzioni (Vatican City, 1948).
99 For information about the post-conciliar reform and the preparation of the
new Liturgia Horarum, cf. Bugnini, cha. 30–3.
291
sometimes quite detailed. The terminology, as usual, is extremely
variable: capitulare ecclesiastici ordinis, instructio ecclesiastici ordinis,
breviarium ecclesiastici ordinis. Sometimes the word ordo does not
appear in the title at all; other times it is very clear, for example: ordo
processionis, ordo vel dununtiatio scrutinii, etc. The length can vary from
a few pages to fifty or sixty pages. Such a text is intended for the
master of ceremonies and his assistants.
The ordines refer to the orations of a given liturgical action in vari-
ous ways: (1) with a very general remark, such as ut in sacramentario
continetur, (2) with the incipit of the prayer, or (3) with the entire
prayer written out, but in such a case we have the precursor of a
ritual, pontifical, or rubricated sacramentary.
3. History: In Andrieu’s monumental work, fifty ordines are described
and edited. Many of these originated in Rome as separate fascicles,
and later made their way across the Alps to Franco-Germanic lands,
where they were gathered together into collections. These collections
date from the eighth-ninth centuries. A careful study of the texts
enabled Andrieu to distinguish between the original Roman text of
certain ordines (Collection A) and the Gallicanized adaptations of the
same (Collection B). In addition, there are other Gallican collections
not necessarily related to Collections A or B. These ordines treat a
great variety of topics: the Mass (papal, episcopal, presbyteral), bap-
tism, ordination, funerals, the crowning of the emperor, dedication of
churches, the liturgical year, the liturgy of the hours, particular feasts,
rituals for the monastic refectory, liturgical vestments, and so forth.
These ordines are extremely valuable for a number of reasons. In
some cases, they enable us to distinguish clearly between Roman
usage and Franco-Germanic usage. They show a gradual codification
of orations, readings, and chants. They give clues, which cannot be
found elsewhere, as to how the various liturgical actions were carried
out in that historical period. They give the reader some insight into
the liturgical customs and the way of life of the Church both in Rome
and across the Alps, in the eighth and ninth centuries.
II. ORDINALS
1. Introduction: The ordinal can be distinguished from the ordo in that
it describes not only one liturgical action but many, throughout the
entire course of the liturgical year, with the intention of establishing a
292
certain uniform usage. Because the ordinal is concerned with local
and not universal custom, there is no standard collection of texts
comparable to Andrieu’s edition of the Ordines.100 The ordinals date
from the eleventh to the fifteenth centuries.
2. Typology: A document from the year 1208 defines an ordinal as:
Liber in quo continetur quid et quando et quomodo cantandum sit vel legen-
dum, chorus regendus, campanae pulsandae, luminare accendendum.101
In other words, the ordinal is a book which regulates all the myriad
details of an ordered liturgical life: whether that be Mass or Office or
other ritual actions; whether it be for a religious order, a diocese, or
one of the non-Roman western rites. In particular, the ordinal deals
with certain complexities which require a guide, such as the relation
between the temporal cycle and the sanctoral cycle and the alterna-
tion of fixed and moveable feasts. The intention is to codify liturgical
usage and unify liturgical practice. Often the redaction of an ordinal
is the result of a liturgical reform of some kind: this is frequently the
case in the history of the new religious orders of the thirteenth cen-
tury. When the ordinal serves this kind of purpose, it becomes the
central element around which other liturgical books (missal, bre-
viary) are organized.
The terminology is extremely varied. Sometimes cognates of the
word “ordinal” are used: ordinarius, liber ordinarius, ordinale.
Sometimes the title indicates the purpose of ordering the entire litur-
gical year: breviarium sive ordo officiorum per totam anni decursionem,
liber de ordinatione et officio totius anni, ordo ecclesiasticus per anni totius
circulum. Other expressions are: liber consuetudinum, agenda, caeremoni-
ale, directorium chori, mores, observantia, rituale, rubricae. The ordinal is
to be distinguished from a customary, which is a description of the
usages of daily life for a collegiate church or monastery, containing
far more than simply liturgical information.102
3. History: There are various types of ordinals, and here history and
typology are intertwined. (1) The ordinal of a cathedral church and
other churches dependent on the bishop: If the cathedral is in the
100 Martimort, Les ordines, 53–61 gives an extensive list of ordinals, according to
place of origin.
101 Martimort, Les ordines, 62.
102 For a discussion of the customary, cf. Palazzo, 221–7.
293
care of a group of canons regular, the ordinal may be that of the reli-
gious congregation. Otherwise, it would be compiled at the direction
of the bishop, often with the purpose of establishing a model for the
other churches of the diocese. (2) The ordinal of individual monas-
teries: The more important monasteries, such as Monte Cassino or
Cluny, not only had ordinals of their own, but often exercised a con-
siderable influence on the customs of smaller houses. (3) The ordinals
of monastic congregations and the new religious orders: From the
eleventh century and following, due to the vitality of various reform
movements in the monastic world, many existing monasteries
grouped themselves into congregations with more or less unified
observances. New monastic orders, such as the Cistercians, were
founded with a strong central authority, which meant that one ordi-
nal would serve for the standard observance of all the houses of the
order. The case is similar for the Premonstratensians, Dominicans,
Carthusians, and Carmelites. Particularly noteworthy is the ordinal
of the Franciscans, written by Haymo of Faversham in 1243–1244,
because of its influence on the Roman rite. Haymo wrote both an
Ordo breviarii and an Ordo missalis: when both were issued together
the document was called Ordinarium secundum consuetudinem
Romanae curiae. (4) The Roman ordinals: These documents form a
kind of bridge between the Ordines Romani and the later ceremonials.
The three most important are the Liber politicus (1140–1143), written by
Benedict, a canon of the Basilica of St. Peter’s;103 the Ordo officiorum
vel consuetudinum of Bernard, the prior of the Lateran Basilica (1139–
1145);104 and the Ordo romanae ecclesiae curiae compiled during the
pontificate of Innocent III (1198–1216) describing the liturgy not of
the Basilicas, but of the papal chapel.105
The history of this type of book can be divided into three periods.
(1) The first ordinals which have come down to us are from the mid-
eleventh century. Between the Ordines Romani and these early ordi-
nals, it is difficult to find intermediaries; in monastic circles, however,
there is greater continuity. (2) The twelfth-thirteenth centuries are
103 P. Fabre - L. Duchesne, “Benedicti Beati Petri canonici Liber politicus,” Le

Liber censuum de l’Église romaine . . ., 3 vol. (Paris, 1910-1952), II,141–74.
104 L. Fischer, Bernhardi cardinalis et Lateranensis ecclesiae prioris Ordo officiorum
ecclesiae Lateranensis, Historische Forschungen und Quellen 2-3 (Munich, 1916).

105 Van Dijk - Walker, The Ordinal of the Papal Court (Fribourg, 1975).
294
considered to be the “golden age” of the ordinal. In the centuries
which follow, the document is improved, corrected, and made more
precise. These indications become the rubricae generales of the missal
and breviary. (3) When each community had a complete text of the
general rubrics, plus the complete missal and breviary, the ordinal
gradually lost its importance. It was enough to have a small booklet,
or breve to supplement whatever was lacking in the rubrics. With the
advent of printing, this breve becomes what we know as the yearly
ordo, which resolves potential calendar conflicts for Mass and Office
with directions for every day of the year.
III. CEREMONIALS
1. Introduction: The ceremonial can be distinguished from the ordinal
in that it contains no liturgical texts, no incipits for the readings,
prayers, or chants. It describes, with greater precision than the ordi-
nal, the ceremonial practices of a given community throughout the
liturgical year.
2. Typology: The typology of a given ceremonial can be determined by
asking the question: Who was it written for? (1) The origins of the
ceremonial are to be found in the twelfth and thirteenth-century
development of the Roman curia and the necessity of writing down
the rubrics for the complicated ceremonies and court etiquette of
papal functions. It was important to know precisely who was respon-
sible for what and how each person was to carry out his particular
role. (2) Episcopal ceremonials followed, probably derived from
papal ceremonial. For example, the Pontifical of the Roman Curia
describes an ordination when the pope is not present: Thus bishops
who were part of the papal court needed ceremonial directives too.
The Pontifical of Guillaume Durand also contains a kind of ceremo-
nial for the bishop.106 (3) In addition, religious orders with a central
government and a standardized liturgical observance might also
have their own ceremonial. (4) Finally, those who followed various
non-Roman western rites felt the need to codify their usages with a
ceremonial, especially at the time of the Tridentine reforms, when in
order to retain their customs it was necessary to demonstrate a tradi-
tion of at least two-hundred years.
106 M. Andrieu, Le Pontifical Romain au Moyen-Age: Tome III, Le Pontifical de
Guillaume Durand, ST 88 (Vatican City, 1940) 631–62.
295
3. History:
Papal ceremonial: Martimort traces the formation of the papal ceremo-
nial as follows: (1) its beginnings in the twelfth century, (2) its devel-
opment in the last quarter of the thirteenth century, (3) the changes
brought about by the transfer of the papal court to Avignon in the
fourteenth century, (4) the ceremonial in the period of the Great
Schism, and finally (5) the period of the early Renaissance.107 In this
last period there were two important ceremonials published. The first
was the Caeremoniale romanum of Peter of Burgos, the master of cere-
monies of Pope Nicholas V (1447–1455). The second was De caeremo-
niis Curiae Romanae libri tres of Agostino Patrizi Piccolomini and John
Burckard, who compiled their ceremonial at the request of Pope
Innocent VIII (1484–1492) and submitted it to him in 1488. It was not
published, however, until 1516, having been poorly re-worked by
Cristoforo Marcello and dedicated to Leo X (1513–1521).
Episcopal ceremonial: In the fifteenth century, many bishops, with
some ties to the Roman Curia, inserted details about ceremonial
usages into their pontificals. These inserts were usually based on the
earlier works of Latino Malabranca108 and Guillaume Durand.
Piccolomini and Burckard had more success with their episcopal
ceremonial than with their papal ceremonial. Their Pontificalis ordinis
liber, printed in 1485, includes an episcopal ceremonial, which be-
came the basis for the official Caeremoniale episcoporum published in
1600 at the direction of Pope Clement VIII (1592–1605). With various
corrections and additions, this text remained the norm until the post-
Vatican II Caeremoniale Episcoporum of 1984.
BOOKS USED BY THE CELEBRANT FOR

SACRAMENTS AND OTHER RITES
I. THE BISHOP’S BOOK: THE PONTIFICAL

Introduction: The orations that a bishop needed for the celebration of
sacraments and other liturgical actions outside of the Eucharist were
originally contained in the sacramentary. The rubrical directives for
107Martimort, Les ordines, 96–102.

108Liber quando episcopus cardinalis missarum sollemnia celebraturus est (ca. 1280),
ed. Dymans, Cérémonial I, 220–63; cf. Martimort, Les ordines, 99.
296
the good ordering of these same services were contained in various
ordines. It is easy to see why the bishop would find it more conve-
nient to have both orations and rubrics gathered together in a single
book.
Typology: There are both practical reasons and ecclesiological rea-
sons for the development of the pontifical. The practical reasons are
simply stated: in the cathedral, the bishop used the sacramentary and
had all the other books necessary for the carrying out of those litur-
gical functions which pertained particularly to him. But when he was
away from the cathedral, he needed something smaller and handier,
a single book containing everything necessary. The ecclesiological
reasons are related to the practical ones. In the ninth and tenth centu-
ries the episcopal function in Christian society tends to expand and
solidify: the role of the bishop acquires increasing importance both
on the religious and social levels. The development of the pontifical
as an independent liturgical book bears witness to these changes.
History:
The primitive pontificals: The oldest documents in the formation of the
pontifical are libelli, dating from the second half of the ninth century,
containing everything needed for the bishop to celebrate a single
liturgical action: an ordination, the dedication of a church, the chrism
Mass of Holy Thursday, the rites pertaining to a council or synod,
etc.109 With time, these libelli are gathered together in collections, the
main characteristic of which is the lack of any fixed structure or con-
tent. These documents were compiled spontaneously according to
the needs of the moment and were usually very modest and simple
books, although occasionally splendid and luxurious books were pro-
duced as well.
The Roman-Germanic Pontifical of the tenth century: Just as the eu-
charistic liturgy arrives at a point of synthesis in the Gregorian-
Hadrian sacramentary with its Gallican supplement, so also the
109There are also libelli containing episcopal blessings, deriving initially from
the Mozarabic and Gallican rites, and entering the Roman rite with the Roman-
Germanic synthesis of the 8th–9th centuries. This blessing, reserved to the bishop,
was given not at the end of Mass, but before Communion. In that place it served
the dual function of preparing communicants for receiving the Eucharist, and dis-
missing non-communicants from the liturgical assembly. Cf. E. Moeller, Corpus
Benedictionum Pontificalium, 4 vol. CCL 162, 162a, 162b, 162c (Turnhout 1971–1979).
297
non-eucharistic liturgy reaches a new synthesis with the Roman-
Germanic pontifical. The pre-emininence of the Gregorian
Sacramentary was a result of Charlemagne’s desire to unify his king-
dom both politically and religiously. This pontifical also, a century
or so later, is the product of the unification policies of the
Reichskirchensystem of Emperor Otto I. It is an important book for the
history of the Roman liturgy. It was compiled in the Benedictine
monastery of St. Alban in Mainz between 950 and 962, when William,
the son of Otto I was protector of St. Alban’s, archbishop of Mainz,
primate of Germany, and archchancellor of his father, the emperor.
This pontifical is a substantial and complex book, and its sources are
diverse: (1) the sacramentaries for euchological texts, (2) various
families of ordines: Roman, Gallicanized-Roman, and pure Gallican,
(3) didactic collections containing sermons, expositiones Missae, and
explanations of the Our Father and the Creed. The first half of the
pontifical includes such liturgical actions as the sacrament of orders,
from the tonsuring of boys to the ordination of priests; consecration
of virgins, deaconesses, and widows; blessing of abbots and abbesses;
monastic profession; the consecration of a church along with special
blessings for all the sacred vessels and other appointments; the election
and consecration of a bishop; the consecration of the pope (recall that
the Ottonian emperors had a vested interest in this matter); the bless-
ing of the emperor or of a king; the convoking of a council; the expla-
nation of the pontifical vestments; excommunications; reconciliation
of the excommunicated; the order of Mass, along with an explanation
of its parts. The second half is a kind of ordinal-sacramentary-ritual
containing a description of the liturgical year (Andrieu’s Ordo 50)
and various other ordines, formularies for various Masses, and all
manner of blessings. The entire complex is an adaptation according
to the needs of the time and place, but done with the greatest of
respect for the Roman tradition. The papal consecrations in 963 and
965 used the Roman-Germanic pontifical. Pope Gregory V (996–999)
granted privileges to the monastery of Rheichenau (Saint Gall,
Rheichenau, and Mainz had very close ties in this period) in ex-
change for liturgical books copied in the monastic scriptorium. These
liturgical books, of course, were Roman-Germanic books. In the de-
cades that followed, a number of German popes sat in the chair of
Peter, using the same liturgical books which they had used north of
298
the Alps. A century later, around 1150, the Ordinal of the Lateran
Basilica cites this pontifical, giving it the name Ordo Romanus.110 The
Roman-Germanic pontifical was by then considered “Roman,” and it
became the basis for all later pontificals.
The Roman Pontifical of the twelfth century: It would be inaccurate,
however, to suggest that the Roman-Germanic pontifical enjoyed un-
contested sway. From the time of Pope St. Gregory VII (1073–1085)
until the end of the twelfth century, various efforts at liturgical re-
form were made in Rome, including a reform of the pontifical. There
is a great deal of variety in the manuscripts, and there is no one ar-
chetype which has come down to us. In making his edition of the
twelfth-century pontifical, Andrieu classified the manuscripts accord-
ing to their degree of similarity to the Roman-Germanic pontifical.
The characteristics of this Roman adaptation are as follows: (1) the
elimination of material considered too archaic or too German (certain
ordines; the coronation of the king, which was not necessary in Rome;
the didactic sections, certain blessings foreign to the Roman religious
temperament, etc.), and (2) the simplification and elimination of
some of the euchological selections. This new type of book had great
influence in the Latin church, especially after the First Lateran
Council in 1123, and the shoring up of ecclesiastical discipline.
The Pontifical of the Roman Curia of the thirteenth century: During the
pontificate of Innocent III (1198–1216), the masters of ceremony of the
papal household wished to adjust the pontifical to the needs of the
pope and his curia. This pontifical went through three different re-
censions, the first during the pontificate of Innocent III in a version
suitable also for episcopal celebrations, the last before the pontificate
of Innocent IV (1243–1253), written for the use of the episcopal sees
of Italy. It was this third version that came to dominate, and this was
brought to Avignon in the first decade of the fourteenth century.
The Pontifical of Guillaume Durand (1293–1295): In the very same
period, Guillaume Durand, bishop of Mende in France, compiled a
pontifical to use in his own diocese.111 The great advantage of his
pontifical was its clarity of structure. The material is divided into
110Vogel, ML 239.
111Durand was born ca. 1230, became bishop of Mende in 1285, died in Rome
on Feb.1, 1296, and is buried in Santa Maria sopra Minerva.
299
three parts: (1) ordination, consecration, and blessing of persons,
(2) consecration and blessing of things, (3) other celebrations. In addi-
tion, he deliberately excluded those celebrations that pertained to an
ordinary priest, reserving his book for episcopal ceremonies. As
sources, he drew upon the Roman-Germanic Pontifical, the Roman
Pontifical of the twelfth century, and the Pontifical of the Roman
Curia, in addition to certain local customs. Because of its clarity and
ease of use it soon came to dominate, and became the basis of all sub-
sequent editions of the Roman Pontifical.112
The Pontificale Romanum: The editio princeps of the Roman Pontifical
was published in 1485. It was a corrected and up-dated version of
the Pontifical of Guillaume Durand, edited by Piccolomini and
Burckhard: the same masters of ceremony who produced both a
papal ceremonial and an episcopal ceremonial, as was mentioned
earlier. This new edition involved suppression of out-dated materials
(the expulsion of penitents on Ash Wednesday and their reconcilia-
tion on Holy Thursday, for example), the addition of rubrical direc-
tives, and the elimination of whatever was not exclusively the
domain of bishops. A second edition was published in 1497 by
Burckhard and Giacomo de Luzzi, containing various minor modifi-
cations. This edition was reprinted several times. Alberto Castellani,
a famous editor of liturgical texts (who also produced a ritual, as we
shall see below) took in hand a revision of the pontifical (1520) in
order to insert once again certain chapters from the Pontifical of
Guillaume Durand which had been omitted in the more recent
editions. While there were several reprints throughout the sixteenth
century, with minor variations, the text remained substantially the
same. This Pontificale Romanum was promulgated for the entire Latin
Church by Pope Clement VIII in 1595. There were some minor
changes made by Urban VIII and Benedict XIV, but until Pope Paul
VI, the pontifical remained basically that of Piccolomini-Burckhard,
which was in substance the Pontifical of Guillaume Durand. In the
post-Vatican II liturgical reforms, the various rites that pertain to the
bishop were issued in separate fascicles. Thus, after a long history,
the pontifical has reverted to the form of libelli.
112 For the various pontificals between that of Durand and the editio princeps of
1485, cf. Dykmans, Le Pontifical Romain.
300
I I . T H E P R I E S T ’ S B O O K : T H E R I T UA L
Introduction: The pontifical described the liturgical rites of great occa-
sions when the bishop was present and presided. The ritual, on the
other hand, the priest’s book, describes the liturgical rites of every-
day occasions in the humble setting of the local parish. Indeed, the
local quality of the ritual (before the standardization of the sixteenth
century) is one of its most salient characteristics. As such, this book
provides priceless information about pastoral practice in a given
place and period. At the same time, however, such diversity makes
any general classification of texts difficult.113
Typology: The ritual contains all the texts necessary for liturgical ac-
tions outside of Mass and Office, which is to say all the other sacra-
ments, rituals, and blessings which are not reserved to the bishop.
The terminology is extremely variable, the most common names,
aside from rituale, being agenda, obsequiale, manuale, sacerdotale, or
pastorale. Since baptism is often the first ritual listed, the book is
sometimes called a baptisterium. From the ninth century onward the
parish becomes more and more important as an ecclesiastical entity
distinct from the cathedral or local monastery, with subsequent
changes in the style of pastoral ministry. There is a new emphasis on
presbyteral liturgy (as distinct from episcopal or monastic) in all of
its many sacramental forms: thus the need for a book with all the
necessary liturgical texts for priestly ministry.
History:
Libelli: When for a given liturgical action, the orations from the sacra-
mentary are put together with the rubrical directives from an ordo,
the result is a libellus which acts as a kind of ritual. These early libelli
were compiled mainly for the rites of penance, anointing of the sick,
and funerals; these were occasions when the liturgy would not be
celebrated in church, where the priest already had the necessary
books, but in the home of the sick person, hence the need for a book-
let which could be easily carried on such pastoral visits.
113 Rituals are usually classified according to country or even city of origin:
thus Vogel, ML 258–60 and Klöckener, “Die Ritualiensammlung,” 38–54. For
German-speaking lands, cf. M. Probst, Bibliographie der katholischen Ritualiendrucke
des deutschen Sprachbereichs, LQF 74 (Münster, 1993). For France, cf. J. B. Molin - A.
Aussedat-Minvielle, Répertoire des Rituels et Processionaux imprimés conservé en
France (Paris, 1984).
301
Juxtaposed books: From the tenth-eleventh centuries a more com-
plete ritual is often bound together with a collectar or a proces-
sional.114 These juxtaposed books came primarily from monasteries,
and show the connection between the conventual life and the pasto-
ral care of souls. The monk-priest needed to have a book in which the
orations he needed for the Divine Office, the rituals he needed for
priestly ministry to his monastic confrères, and the prayers he
needed for parish work outside the enclosure were all included.
The content of such a book might include: (1) the collectar for Office,
(2) the ritual, containing such things as rites for the sick and the
dying, the funeral ritual, rites of monastic profession, of baptism, of
penance, and of marriage, and (3) the processional, containing the
Sunday blessing of holy water and the blessings for the various
rooms of the monastery. Rituals were also bound together with sacra-
mentaries, martyrologies, and other books.115
“Pure” rituals: From the twelfth century following, rituals indepen-
dent of any other liturgical book became more common. The monas-
tic influence is still strong, either because the monastery was engaged
in pastoral work in the surrounding area or because the monastery
had the scriptorium where the book was copied for the local diocesan
priest. A well-known example of this type of book is the Ritual of
St. Florian. During the thirteenth century, the rituals gradually
moved out of the monastic context and became more parish-oriented.
One of the reasons for this is the insistence of various diocesan synods
which required the parish priest to have a manuale.116 Also during the
thirteenth century, as mentioned above, the pontifical excluded those
114 A processional is a book of the prayers and chants which accompany
various kinds of processions: the weekly Sunday procession between Terce and
conventual Mass (connected with the blessing of various rooms if the context is a
monastic one), or occasional processions which took place throughout the year.
Cf. Gy, “Collectaire, Rituel, Processional,” 466–9 and Palazzo 236–8.
115 Gamber, CLLA II, 566–75. Salmon points out that the oldest juxtaposed
rituals in the Vatican Library are the 10th-c. Rituale-Missale Bobiense (Vatic.
lat.5768) and the 11th–12th-c. Rituale-Martyrologium (Archivio S. Pietro H 58).
Cf. Les manuscrits, III, 86 and 60.
116 The synodal statutes of Paris during the episcopate of Eudes de Sully (1200–
1208) required that: librum qui dicitur manualis habeant singuli sacerdotes parochiales
ubi continetur ordo servitii extremae unctionis, catechismi, baptismatis et huiusmodi.
Cf. Palazzo, 203.
302
liturgical actions which were not reserved exclusively to the bishop.
These texts were taken up, then, by the rituals. In the fourteenth cen-
tury the diocesan bishop took greater responsibility for producing the
ritual for his diocese. An example of this is the Ritual of Bishop Henry of
Breslau (1301–1319). The fifteenth century continued to produce rituals,
varying greatly in content, such that no two were exactly alike.117 The
sixteenth century, in contrast, was a time of standardization.
Printed rituals: Printed rituals before the Tridentine reform were
very similar to their manuscript antecedents, but after the Council of
Trent, the desire was for uniformity. There are three Italian editions
which are in some way precursors of the Rituale Romanum of 1614:
(1) the Liber sacerdotalis of Alberto Castellani (1523),118 which is conve-
niently divided into three sections: sacraments, blessings, and proces-
sions, (2) the Sacerdotale of Samarino (1579) which was based on the
work of Castellani, and (3) the Rituale of Santori (1584–1602).119
Santori was commissioned by Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) to pre-
pare a ritual which would respond more fully to the pastoral needs
of the time and the norms of the Tridentine reform. Santori under-
took the project, but the pope died in 1585. His successors Sixtus V
(1585–1590) and Clement VIII (1592–1605) took an interest in the
work, but Santori himself died in 1602, while the ritual was being
printed. Pope Paul V (1605–1621) chose not to use the edition of
Santori, but promulgated a simplified version (although using many
elements of Santori’s work): the Rituale Romanum of 1614.120
However, this ritual was never made obligatory, and thus many local
rituals continued to be used. In the twentieth century two new edi-
tions of the Rituale Romanum were made: one in 1925 by Pius XI, in
order to incorporate the necessary changes occasioned by the 1917
Code, and in 1952 by Pius XII, when an appendix containing numer-
117 Salmon, Les manuscrits, III, 55–93.

118 E. Cattanew, “Il Rituale Romano di Alberto Castellani,” Miscellanea Liturgica
in onore di S. E. il Card. G. Lercaro, 2 vol. (Rome, 1967) II, 629–47.
119 B. Löwenberg, Das Rituale des Kardinals Julius Antonius Santorius (Munich,
1937).
120 B. Löwenberg, “Die Erstausgabe des Rituale Romanum von 1614,”
Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 66 (1942) 141–7; B. Fischer, “Das

Originalmanuskript des Rituale Romanum,” TTZ 70 (1961) 244f; Idem, “Das
Rituale Romanum,” TTZ 73 (1964) 257ff.
303
ous blessings was added.121 As with the pontifical, so also with the
ritual: in the post-Vatican II liturgical reforms, the various rites that
pertain to the priest were issued in separate fascicles.
CONCLUSION
The study of liturgical books is complex and very rich: books for
Mass, for Office, for the good ordering of the liturgy, for the celebra-
tion of the sacraments and other rites. The books are many and varied,
each one having its own specific typology and history. And yet the
multiplicity of liturgical books has as its proper end the unity and
beauty of liturgical prayer.
121 P. Jounel, “The Pontifical and the Ritual,” The Church at Prayer: III, The
Sacraments (Collegeville, 1988) 6–8. For a description of the changes in the 1952
edition, see the review by E. Viale in MD 34 (1953) 164–7.
Bibliography
INTRODUCTION
Cabrol, F. The Books of the Latin Liturgy. Trans. Benedictines of Stanbrook.
St. Louis, 1932.
Neuheuser, H. P. Internationale Bibliographie “Liturgische Bücher” = International
Bibliography on Liturgical Books. Munich and New York, 1991.
Nocent, A. “I libri liturgici.” Anàmnesis 2:129–183.
Palazzo, E. Le Moyen Âge: Des origines au XIIIe siècle. Histoire des livres litur-
giques. Paris, 1993.
Scicolone, I. “Libri liturgici.” NDL 701–713.
Sheppard, L. C. The Liturgical Books. New York, 1962.
Vogel, C. Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources. Trans. and rev.
W. Storey and N. Rasmussen. Washington, 1986.
Books Used for Mass
I. THE SACRAMENTARY
General Bibliography
Bourque, E. Étude sur les sacramentaires romains. 3 vols. Rome, 1948.
Chavasse, A. “Evangéliare, épistolier, antiphonaire et sacramentaire: Les
livres romains de la messe, au VIIe e VIIIe siècle.” EO 6 (1989) 177–255.
304
Deshusses, J. “Les sacramentaires: État actuel de la recherche.” ALW 24 (1982)
19–46.
Gamber, K. Sakramentartypen: Versuch einer Gruppierung der Handschriften und
Fragmente bis zur Jahrtausendwende. TuA 1. Abt., Heft 49/50. Beuron,
1958.
Metzger, M. Les sacramentaires. TS 70. Turnhout, 1994.
A. The Verona Sacramentary

Bourque, E. Étude sur les sacramentaires romains, 1:63–169. Rome, 1948.
Chavasse, A. “Le sacramentaire dit léonien conservé par le Veronensis
LXXXV (80).” SE 27 (1984) 151–190.
Hope, D. M. The Leonine Sacramentary: A Reassessment of Its Nature and
Purpose. Oxford, 1971.
Stuiber, A. Libelli Sacramentorum Romani: Untersuchungen zur Entstehung des
sogenannten Sacramentarium Leonianum. Bonn, 1950.
B. The Gelasian Sacramentary

Chavasse, A. Le sacramentaire Gélasien: Sacramentaire presbytéral en usage dans
les titres romains au VIIe siècle. Tournai, 1958.
Coebergh, C. “Le sacramentaire Gélasien ancien: Une compilation de clercs
romanisants du VIIe siècle.” ALW 7 (1961) 45–88.
C. The Gelasian Sacramentaries of the Eighth Century

Chavasse, A. “Le sacramentaire gélasien du VIIIe siècle: Ses deux principales
formes.” EphLit 73 (1959) 249–298.
_____. Le sacramentaire dans le groupe dit gélasiens du VIIIe siècle. 2 vols.
Instrumenta patristica 14A–14B. Steenbruge, 1984.
Klöckener, M. “Sakramentarstudien zwischen Fortschritt und Sackgass.”
ALW 32 (1990) 207–230.
Moreton, B. The Eighth-Century Gelasian Sacramentary: A Study in Tradition.
Oxford Theological Monographs. London, 1976.
Puniet, P. de. Le sacramentaire romain de Gellone. Rome, 1938.
D. The Gregorian Sacramentary

Chavasse, A. “L’organisation génerale des sacramentaires dits grégoriens.”
RSR 56 (1982) 179–200.
_____. “Le sacramentaire grégorien: Les additions et remaniements introduits
dans le témoin P.” Traditio et Progressio: Studi liturgici in onore del Prof.
Adrien Nocent, O.S.B., 125–148. SA 95. Rome, 1988.
Dehusses, J. Le sacramentaire Grégorien, 1:29–79. Fribourg, 1979.
305
E. The Mixed Gregorians of the Tenth and Eleventh Centuries
Bourque, E. Étude sur les sacramentaires romains, 2:251–274, 437–499. Rome,
1948.
Ebner, A. Quellen und Forschungen zur Geschichte und Kunstgeschichte des
Missale Romanum im Mittelalter: Iter Italicum, 389–394. Freiburg, 1896.
Reprint Graz, 1957.
Vogel, C. Medieval Liturgy: An Introduction to the Sources, 102–105. Trans. and
rev. W. Storey and N. Rasmussen. Washington, 1986.
II. THE LECTIONARY

Chavasse, A. “Les plus anciens types du lectionnaire et de l’antiphonaire ro-
mains de la messe.” RB 62 (1952) 3–94.
_____. “L’Épistolier romain du codex de Wurtzbourgh: Son organisation.” RB
91 (1981) 280–331.
_____. “L’Evangéliare romain de 6645: Un recueil, sa composition (façons et
matériaux).” RB 92 (1982) 33–75.
_____. “Aménagements liturgiques, à Rome, au VIIe et au VIIIe siècle.” RB 99
(1989) 83–102.
_____. “Evangéliare, épistolier, antiphonaire et sacramentaire: Les livres ro-
mains de la messe, au VIIe e VIIIe siècle.” EO 6 (1989) 177–255.
_____. “Après Grégoire le Grand l’organisation des évangélieres au VIIe et au
VIIIe siècle.” Rituels: Mélanges offerts au Père Gy, O.P., 125–130. Paris, 1990.
_____. Les lectionnaires romains de la Messe au VIIe et au VIIIe siècle: Sources et
dérivés. 2 vols. SFS 22. Fribourg, 1993.
Frere, W. H. Studies in Early Roman Liturgy. Vol. 2, The Roman Gospel-
Lectionary. ACC 30. Oxford, 1934.
_____. Studies in Early Roman Liturgy. Vol. 3, The Roman Epistle-Lectionary.
ACC 32. Oxford, 1935.
Martimort, A.-G. Les lectures liturgiques et leurs livres. TS 64. Turnhout, 1992.
III. THE ANTIPHONAL

Chavasse, A. “Les plus anciens types du lectionnaire et de l’antiphonaire ro-
mains de la Messe: Rapports et date.” RB 62 (1952) 3–94.
_____. “La formation de l’antiphonale missarum.” Bulletin du Comité des
Études de Saint-Sulpice 32 (1961) 29–41.
306
_____. “Cantatorium et antiphonale missarum: Quelques procédés de confec-
tion: dimanches après la Pentecôte: graduels du sanctoral.” EO 1 (1984)
15–55.
_____. “Evangéliare, épistolier, antiphonaire et sacramentaire: Les livres ro-
mains de la messe, au VIIe e VIIIe siècle.” EO 6 (1989) 177–255.
Graduel Romain, Le: Vol. 2, Les Sources. Solesmes, 1957.
Huglo, M. Les livres du chant liturgique. TS 52. Turnhout, 1988.
Turco, A. Il canto gregoriano. 2 vols. Rome, 1991.
IV. THE CALENDAR

Bugnini, A. The Reform of the Liturgy (1948–1975), chap. 21. Trans. M. J.
O’Connell. Collegeville, Minn., 1990.
Focke, E., and H. Heinrichs. “Das Kalendarium des Missale Pianum vom
Jahre 1570 und seine Tendenzen.” TQ 120 (1939) 383–400.
Frere, W. H. Studies in Early Roman Liturgy. Vol. 1, The Kalendar. ACC 28.
London, 1930.
Jounel, P. Le culte des saints dans les basiliques du Latran et du Vatican au douz-
ième siècle, esp. chap. 1. Rome, 1977.
Righetti, M. Manuale di storia liturgica, 1:240–243. 3rd ed. Milan, 1964.
Thurston H. “Calendar.” The Catholic Encyclopedia, 3:158–166. New York,
1908.
Van Dijk, S.J.P. The Ordinal of the Papal Court from Innocent III to Boniface VIII
and Related Documents. SF 22. Fribourg, 1975.
V. THE MISSAL
General Studies
Baudot, J. Le missel plénier. 2 vols. Paris, 1912.
Baumstark, A. Missale Romanum: Seine Entwicklung, ihre wichtigsten Urkunden
und Probleme. Eindhoven-Nijmegen, 1929.
Bourque, E. Étude sur les sacramentaires romains, 2:439–544. Vatican City, 1949.
Ferreres, J. B. Historia del Misal Romano. Barcelona, 1929.
Van Dijk, S. “The Urban and Papal Rites in Seventh and Eighth-Century
Rome.” SE 12 (1961) 411–487.
_____. “The Old-Roman Rite.” Studia Patristica V:185–205. TU 80. Berlin, 1962.
The Thirteenth Century
Andrieu, M. “Le missel de la chapelle papale à la fin du XIIIe siècle.” In
Miscellanea F. Ehrle, 2:348–376. ST 38. Rome, 1924.
307
_____. “L’authenticité du Missel de la chapelle papale.” Scriptorium 9 (1955) 17–
34.
Azevedo, E. Vetus Missale Romanum Monasticum Lateranense. Rome, 1752.
Chavasse, A. Les ancêtres du “Missale Romanum” (1570). AL 20. Rome, 1995.
Gy, P.-M. “L’unification liturgique de l’Occident et la liturgie de la curie ro-
maine.” RSPT 59 (1975) 601–612.
Kennedy, C. “The Lateran Missal and Some Allied Documents.” MS 14 (1952)
61–78.
Van Dijk, S. “Three Manuscripts of a Liturgical Reform by John Cajetan
Orsini (Nicholas III).” Scriptorium 6 (1952) 213–242.
_____. “The Lateran Missal.” SE 6 (1954) 125–179.
_____. “The Legend of the Missal of the Papal Chapel and the Fact of
Cardinal Orsini’s Reform.” SE 8 (1956) 76–142.
_____. “The Authentic Missal of the Papal Chapel.” Scriptorium 14 (1960)
257–314.
_____. The Ordinal of the Papal Court from Innocent III to Boniface VIII and
Related Documents. SF 22. Fribourg, 1975.
Van Dijk, S., and J. H. Walker. The Origins of the Modern Roman Liturgy: The
Liturgy of the Papal Court and the Franciscan Order in the Thirteenth
Century. London, 1960.
_____. The Origins of the Modern Roman Liturgy: The Ordinals by Haymo of
Faversham and Related Documents (1243–1307). 2 vols. London, 1960.
Editio Princeps, Milan 1474
Frutaz, A. P. “Due edizioni rare del “Missale romanum” pubblicato a Milano
nel 1482 e nel 1492.” Miscellanea G. Belvederi, 55–107. Rome, 1954.
Lippe, R. Missale Romanum Mediolanensis anno 1474. HBS 17/33. London,
1899/1907.
Missale Romanum 1570
Frutaz, A. P. “Contributo alla storia della riforma del Messale promulgato da
san Pio V nel 1570.” Problemi di vita religiosa in Italia nel cinquecento, 187–
214. Padua, 1960.
_____. “Sirleto e la riforma del Messale Romano di S. Pio V.” Regnum Dei:
Collectanea Theatina a clericis regularibus edita 30 (1974) 84–111.
Jedin, H. “Das Konzil von Trient und die Reform des Römischen
Messbuches.” Liturgisches Leben 6 (1939) 30ff.
_____. “Das Konzil von Trient und die Reform der liturgischen Bücher.”
Kirche des Glaubens, Kirche der Geschichte, 2:499–525. Freiburg, 1966.
308
Missale Romanum 1970
Bugnini, A. The Reform of the Liturgy (1948–1975), chaps. 24–29. Trans. M. J.
O’Connell. Collegeville, Minn., 1990.
Fischer, B. “Vom Missale Pius V zum Missale Pauls VI.” LJ 26 (1976) 2–18.
Books Used for the Liturgy of the Hours
BOOKS FOR THE CHANT
A. The Psalter
Palazzo, E. Le Moyen Âge: Des origines au XIIIe siècle, 145–150. Histoire des
livres liturgiques. Paris, 1993.
Salmon, P. Les manuscrits liturgiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane. Vol. 1,
Psautiers, antiphonaires, hymnaires, collectaires, bréviaires. ST 251. Vatican
City, 1968.
B. Antiphonal
Alfonzo, P. L’antifonario dell’Ufficio romano. Subiaco, 1935.
_____. I responsori biblici dell’Ufficio romano. Lateranum, n.s., an. 2, n. 1. Rome,
1936.
Hesbert, R. J., and R. Provost. Corpus antiphonalium officii. 6 vols. Rome, 1963-
1979.
Huglo, M. Les livres du chant liturgique. TS 52. Turnhout, 1988.
C. Hymnal
Gneuss, H. Hymnar und Hymnen im englischen Mittelalter: Studien zur
Überlieferung, Glossierung und Übersetzung lateinischer Hymnen in England.
Anglia Buchreihe 12. Tübingen, 1968.
Gy, P.-M. “Le trésor des hymnes.” MD 173 (1988) 19–40.
Huglo, M. Les livres du chant liturgique, 108–110. TS 52. Turnhout, 1988.
II. BOOKS FOR THE ORATIONS

Gy, P.-M. “Collectaire, rituel, processionnal.” RSPT 44 (1960) 441–454.
Salmon, P. L’Office divin au Moyen Âge: Histoire de la formation du bréviaire du
IXe au XVIe siècle, 23–26, 44–45, 50–60. LO 43. Paris, 1967.
309
III. BOOKS FOR THE READINGS
A. Scriptural Readings
Marot, H. “La place des lectures bibliques et patristiques dans l’Office latin.”
La prière des heures, 149–165. LO 35. Paris, 1963.
A.-M. Martimort, “Les livres des lectures de l’Office.” Les lectures liturgiques et
leurs livres, 69–76. Turnhout, 1992.
B. Patristic Readings
Barré, H. “Homéliaires, II: Homéliaires latins.” DSp 7/1:597–606. Paris, 1969.
Grégoire, R. Les homéliaires du Moyen Âge: Inventaire et analyse des manuscrits.
Rerum ecclesiasticarum documenta. Series maior: Fontes 6. Rome, 1966.
_____. Homéliaires liturgiques médiévaux: Analyse des manuscrits. Biblioteca
degli Studi Medievali 12. Spoleto, 1980.
Martimort, A.-G. “La lecture patristique dans la liturgie des heures.” Traditio
et Progressio, 311–331. SA 95. Rome, 1988.
_____. Les lectures liturgiques, 77–96. TS 64. Turnhout, 1992.
C. Hagiographical Readings
De Gaiffier, B. “La lecture des Actes des Martyrs dans la prière liturgique en
Occident: A propos du passionnaire hispanique.” AB 72 (1954) 134–166.
Martimort, A-G. Les lectures liturgiques, 97–102. TS 64. Turnhout, 1992.
Philippart, G. Les légendiers latins et autres manuscrits hagiographiques. TS 24–
25. Turnhout, 1977–1985.
Salmon, P. The Breviary Through the Centuries. Trans. Sister David Mary.
_____. Les manuscrits liturgiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane. Vol. 4, L’livres
de lectures de l’office, les livres de l’office du chapître, les livres d’heures, ix–xi.
ST 267. Vatican City, 1971.
IV. THE BOOK FOR THE CHAPTER OFFICE
Chapter Office
Lemaître, J.-L. “Liber capituli: Le livre du chapitre, des origines au XVIe
siècle: L’exemple français.” Memoria: Der geschichtliche Zeugniswert
des liturgischen Gedenkens im Mittelalter, 625–648. Munich, 1984.
310
Salmon, P. Les manuscrits liturgiques latins de la Bibliothèque Vaticane. Vol. 4,
L’livres de lectures de l’office, les livres de l’office du chapître, les livres
d’heures, xi–xiii. ST 267. Vatican City, 1971.
Martyrology
De Gaiffier, B. “De l’usage et de la lecture du martyrologe: Témoignages an-
térieurs au XIe siècle.” AB 79 (1961) 40–59.
Dubois, J. Les martyrologes du moyen âge latin. TS 26, Turnhout 1978.
_____. Martyrologes d’Usuard au martyrologe romain. Abbeville, 1990.
Quentin, H. Les martyrologes historiques du moyen âge: Étude sur la formation du
martyrologe romain. Paris, 1908.
Necrology
Huyghebaert, N. Les documents nécrologiques. TS 4. Turnhout, 1972.
V. THE BREVIARY
General Studies
Baudot, J. The Roman Breviary: Its Sources and History. London, 1909.
Bäumer, S. Geschichte des Breviers. Freiburg-im-Breisgau, 1895. French transla-
tion: Histoire du bréviaire, Rome, 1967; reprint 1967.
Battifol, P. Histoire du bréviaire romain. Paris, 1911.
Brinktrine, J. Das römische Brevier. Paderborn, 1932.
Leroquais, V. Les bréviaires manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France, 1:i–
cxxxiii. Paris, 1934.
Martimort, A.-G. “La prière des heures.” EP 1983, 4:167–293.
Piault, B. La prière de l’Église, le bréviaire romain. Paris, 1958.
Pinell J. “Liturgia delle ore.” Anamnesis 5. Genoa, 1991.
Raffa, V. La liturgia delle ore. Brescia, 1959.
Salmon, P. “Aux origines du bréviaire romain.” MD 27 (1951) 114–136.
_____. “La prière des heures.” EP 1961, 789–876.
_____. The Breviary Through the Centuries. Trans. Sister David Mary.
_____. L’Office divin au Moyen Âge: Histoire de la formation du bréviaire du IXe au
XVIe siècle. LO 43. Paris, 1967.
Sanchez, Aliseda, C. El breviario romano. Madrid, 1951.
311
The Thirteenth Century
Abate, G. “Il primitivo breviario francescano (1224–1227). Miscellanea
Francescana 60 (1960) 47–240.
LeCarou, A. L’office divin chez les Frères Mineurs aux XIIIe siècle. Paris, 1928.
Van Dijk, S.J.P., and J. H. Walker. The Origins of the Modern Roman Liturgy: The
Liturgy of the Papal Court and the Franciscan Order in the Thirteenth
Century. Westminster, Md., 1960.
The Sixteenth Century
Jungmann, J. A. “Perché la riforma del Breviario del Card. Quinonez è fal-
lita?” Eredità liturgica e attualità pastorale, 310–330. Rome, 1962. Originally
published as Liturgisches Erbe und Pastorale Gegenwart. Innsbruck, 1960.
Legg, J. W. Breviarium Romanum a Francisco Cardinali Quignonio editum et
recognitum iuxta editionem Venetiis A.D. 1535 impressam. Canterbury, 1888.
Reprint Farnborough, 1970.
_____. The Second Recension of the Quignon Breviary. HBS 35, 42. London, 1908,
1911.
Opfermann, B. “Das Reformbrevier des Kardinals Quinonez.” Bibel und
Liturgie 20 (1952) 307ff.
Vilnet, J. “Les réformes du bréviaire au XVIe siècle.” L’ami du clergé 64 (1954)
305–318.
Liturgia Horarum 1971
Ashworth, H. “The New Patristic Lectionary.” EphLit 85 (1971) 417–33.
Braga, C. “Dal Breviarium alla Liturgia Horarum.” EphLit 85 (1971) 184–205.
Gibert, J. “La nouvelle distribution du Psautier dans la Liturgia Horarum.”
EphLit 87 (1973) 325–382.
Pascher, J. “Il nuovo ordinamento della salmodia nella liturgia romana delle
Ore.” Liturgia delle Ore: Documenti ufficiali e studi, 161–184. Quaderni di
rivista liturgica 14. Turin, 1972.
_____. “Dal Breviarium del Quignonez alla Liturgia delle Ore di Paolo VI.”
Liturgia delle Ore: Documenti ufficiali e studi, 289–363. Quaderni di rivista
liturgica 14. Turin, 1972. 289-363.
_____. “Le intercessioni di Lodi e Vespri.” EphLit 86 (1972) 41–60.
Pinell, J. Las oraciones del salterio “per annum” en el nuevo libro de la Liturgia de
las Horas. BEL 2. Rome, 1974.
Raffa, V. La nuova Liturgia delle Ore: Presentazione storica, teologica e pastorale.
Nuova collana liturgica 3. Milan, 1971.
_____. “L’ufficio divino del tempo dei Carolingi e il breviario di Innocenzo III
confrontati con la liturgia delle ore di Paolo VI.” EphLit 85 (1971) 206–259.
312
Books Used for the Good Ordering of the Liturgy
I. ORDINES
Text
Andrieu, M. Les “Ordines Romani” du haut moyen âge. 5 vols. Spicilegium
Sacrum Lovaniense 11, 23, 24, 28, 29. Louvain, 1931–1961.
Studies
Martimort, A.-G. Les “ordines,” les ordinaires et les cérémoniaux. TS 56.
Turnhout, 1991.
II. ORDINALS
Martimort, Les “Ordines,” 49–85; Palazzo, 228–35.
III. CEREMONIALS
Text
Dykmans, M. Le cérémonial papal de la fin du Moyen Age à la Renaissance. 4 vols.
Bibliothèque de l’Institut historique belge de Rome 24–27. Brussels-
Rome, 1977–1985.
_____. L’oeuvre de Patrizi Piccolomini ou le cérémonial papal de la première
Renaissance. 2 vols. ST 293–294. Vatican City, 1980–1982.
Studies
Martimort, A.-G. Les “ordines,” les ordinaires et les cérémoniaux, 89–110.
Turnhout, 1991.
Books Used by the Celebrant for Sacraments and Other Rites
I. THE BISHOP’S BOOK: THE PONTIFICAL

Text
Andrieu, M. Le pontifical romain au Moyen-Âge: 1, Le pontifical romain du XIIe
siècle; 2, Le pontifical de la Curie romaine au XIIIe siècle; 3, Le pontifical de
Guillaume Durand; 4, Tables alphabétiques. ST 86, 87, 88, 99. Vatican City,
1939–1941.
313
Vogel, C., and R. Elze. Le pontifical romano-germanique du dixième siècle. 3 vols.
ST 226, 227, 269. Vatican City, 1963–1972.
Studies
Dykmans, M. Le pontifical Romain révisé au XVe siècle. Studi e testi 311. Vatican
City, 1985.
Leroquais, V. Les pontificaux manuscrits des bibliothèques publiques de France,
1:i–cliv. Paris 1937.
II. THE PRIEST’S BOOK: THE RITUAL
Texts
Castellani, A. Liber sacerdotalis . . . . Venice, 1523.
Franz, A. Das Rituale von St. Florian aus dem zwölften Jahrhundert. Freiburg im
Breisgau, 1904.
_____. Das Rituale des Bischofs Heinrich I von Breslau. Freiburg im Breisgau,
1912.
Rituale Romanum. Rome, 1614.
Santori, J. A. Rituale Sacramentorum Romanum. Rome, 1584–1602.
Studies
Franz, A. Die kirchlichen Benediktionen im Mittelalter. 2 vols. Freiburg im
Breisgau, 1909. Reprint Graz, 1961.
Gy, P.-M. “Collectaire, Rituel, Processionnal.” RSPT 44 (1960) 441–454.
Klöckener, M. “Die Ritualiensammlung in der Bibliothek des deutschen
Liturgischen Instituts.” LJ 44 (1994) 33–61.
Molin, J. B. “Introduction à l’étude des Rituels anciens.” Bulletin du Comité des
Études 3 (1959) 675–692.
_____. “Pour une bibliographie des Rituels: Leurs divers intitulés.” EphLit 73
(1959) 218–224.
314
Gabriel Ramis
16
Liturgical Books of the

Non-Roman West
Not all Western liturgies have evolved in the same way. Some have
developed themselves fully, while others never evolved completely.
We cannot establish any concrete characteristics common to all the
liturgies because the degree of evolution varies greatly from one
liturgy to another. Some liturgies had scarcely developed when their
evolution process was abruptly interrupted.
The liturgical books are a manifestation of this evolution process;
some liturgies have a great abundance of liturgical production, while
others are almost without documentation. In this article we will study
the liturgical books of each of the non-Roman Western liturgies.
AFRICAN LITURGY
In spite of the fact that no liturgical books of the African liturgy have
survived, there are some authors who, indirectly and above all
through the works of St. Augustine, have nevertheless presented
some fragments of the Lectionaries and a laus cerei, always within the
realm of the hypothesis.
Thus, Godu, Bishop, and Willis have proposed some fragments of
a lectionary;1 Verbraken believes he is able to identify a laus cerei for
the Easter Vigil among the sermons of Augustine.2 This is all the
1 G. Godu, Lectionarium ecclesiae Hipponensis secundem Augustinum: DACL 5/1,
857; W-L. Bishop, The African Rite: JThS 13 (1912) 263–4; G-G. Willis, St.
Augustine’s Text Lectionary = Alcuin Club 44 (London, 1962).
2 P. Verbraken, Una laus cerei africaine: RBén 70 (1960) 301–13.
315
information that we have of any possible lectionaries and liturgical
African texts.
C E LT I C L I T U R G Y
Although the Celtic liturgy has not developed fully like other
Western liturgies, it nevertheless has left us some liturgical books.
Sacramentaries
The Stowe Missal is the most representative sacramentary, although
it is basically a Roman book with Gallican influences.3 The Fulda
Missal is another example of the Celtic liturgy, and is like the Stowe
Missal. We also should cite the Missal of Corpus Christi College of
Oxford.4
In addition to these missals, a considerable amount of sacramen-
tary fragments also exist, like those of St. Gallen, Colmar, Reichenau,
and Piazzenza.
The Gospel Books

Many Gospel books exist, with ages ranging from the second half of
the seventh century until the eighth and ninth centuries.
Divine Office
In this area we have the psalter of St. Columba. This manuscript is
important because it contains the titles of the psalms as well as some
liturgical notes.
In this section of the Divine Office we also should mention the
Antiphonary of Bangor,5 and a book of hymns.6
Pontificals
Of this genre of liturgical books we only have some remains of the
Celtic liturgy that are worth citing.7
3 F-E. Warren (Ed.), The Stowe Missal = HBS 32 (London, 1920).

4 F-E. Warren (Ed.), The Manuscript Irish Missal of Corpus Christi College (Oxford)
(London, 1879).
5 F-E. Warren (Ed.), The Antiphonary of Bangor = HBS 10 (1895).
6 J-H. Bernard - A. Atkinson, The Irish Liber Hymnorum = HBS 13-14 (London,
1897–1898).
7 L. Brou, Le fragment liturgique Colmar 144 reste d’un pontifical irlandais du VIIIe.
siècle: ButLitEc 54 (1955) 65–71.
316
AMBROSIAN LITURGY
Writing an account of the Ambrosian liturgical books is arduous
work because only a small portion of them are edited and it is impos-
sible to follow the history and evolution of the manuscripts. This is
due to the fact that the manuscripts from before the ninth century
have been lost for reasons not having to do with the liturgy (inva-
sions, moving to a different town, humidity of the area, etc.).
Sacramentaries
With the Ambrosian liturgy we not only should mention the sacra-
mentaries, but the plenary missals as well, because in addition to the
prayer texts they also contain readings and allusions to the songs.
The edited manuscripts are from the ninth and tenth centuries. The
unedited manuscripts are from the ninth to the twelfth century.
The oldest edited sacramentary is that of Bergamo,8 from the
year 850. From this same century comes the Sacramentary of
St. Simpliciano,9 from the tenth century are the Sacramentaries of
Biasca10 and Ariberto,11 and finally, from the eleventh century we
have the Triplex Sacramentary, which is a mixed sacramentary in
which the Gelasian, Gregorian, and Ambrosian elements merge
together.12
Lectionary
There are three kinds of lectionaries: the capitulare lectionum, the capit-
ulare epistolarum, and the capitulare evangeliorum. To these we should
8 P. Cagin (Ed.), Codex Sacramentorum Bergomensis = Auctarium Solesmense
(Solesmes, 1900) 1–176; A. Paredi (Ed), Sacramentarium Bergomense = Monumenta

Bergomensia VI (Bergamo, 1962).
9 J. Frei (Ed.), Das ambrosianische Sakramentar D 3-3 aus dem mailändischen
Metropolitankapitel. Eine textkritische und redaktionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung der

mailändische Sakramentartradition = Corpus Ambrosiano Liturgicum 3: LQF 56
(Münster, 1974).
10 O. Heiming (Ed.), Das ambrosianische Sakramentar von Biasca = Corpus
Ambrosiano Liturgicum 2: LQF 51 (Münster, 1969).

11 A. Paredi (Ed.), Il Sacramentario de Ariberto, in AA. VV., Miscellanea Adriano
Bernareggi = Monumenta Bergomensia 1 (Bergamo, 1958) 327–488.

12 O. Heiming (Ed.), Das Sacramentarium Triplex. Die Handschrift C 43 des
Zentralbibliothek Zürich = Corpus Ambrosiano Liturgicum 1: LQF 49 (Münster,

1969).
317
add the Passion narratives, because in the feasts of the saints instead
of reading from Book of the Prophets, the lectio hagiographica was
read.
There are several editions of the Ambrosian Lectionary as a
whole.13 Besides these, other editions also exist that correspond to the
triple division of the lectionary. Thus, of the capitulare lectionum there
is an edition of a manuscript from the sixth and seventh centuries, for
the section of epistles there is another edition,14 and there is an edi-
tion of the gospels as well.15
Antiphonaries
In addition to the edited antiphonaries, above all in the sacramen-
taries, complete antiphonaries exist that contain the songs of the
Mass and Office. Other antiphonaries only contain the antiphons for
the Mass and for Vespers. The edition of the texts is found in the
edition of Magistretti.16
Ordines
Although the term ordines is maintained, in the Ambrosian liturgy
this term mainly referred to the celebration of Mass, but did not ex-
clude other celebrations, like those of the Office. The most representa-
13 P. Cagin (Ed.), Lectionarium Bergomense - Auctarium Solesmense (Solesmes,

1900) 187–192; this Lectionary also was edited by A. Paredi, Sacramentarium
Bergomense - Monumenta Bergomensia 6 (Bergamo, 1962) 28-34; in addition we
have information of a corpus lectionum placed apart in the section on the Master of
Ceremonies, these readings were edited by P. Gagin, Codex Sacramentorum
Bergomensis. Accedunt tres indiculi sive Capitularia lectionum, Epistolarum et
Evangeliorum antiqua - Auctarium Solesmense 1 (Solesmes, 1900) 193–207.
14 H. Quentin (Ed.), Capitulare epistolarum Sancti Pauli: RBén 28 (1911) 259-266;
this edition was reproduced by G. Godu in: DACL 5/1 (Paris 1922); afterwards he
again edited this manuscript A. Dold, Die in Cod. Vat. Reg. lat.9 vorgeheftete Liste
paulinischen Lesungen für die Messfeier - TuA 35 (Beuron 1944).
15 G. Morin (Ed.), Un système inédit de lectures liturgiques en usage au VII/VIII
siècle dans une église de la Haute Italie :RBén 20 (1903) 375-388; this edition was re-
produced by G. Godu in DACL 5/1 (Paris, 1922) 883-94; we also have an edition
of an old gospel, N. Ghiglione (Ed.), L’evangeliario purpureo di Sarezzano (s.VIII) -
Fontes Ambrosiani 75 (Venice, 1984).
16 M. Magistretti (Ed.), Manuale ambrosianum ex codice s. XI olim in usum
Canonicae Vallis Travaliae (Milan, 1904) 1–462.
318
tive manuscript is that of Beroldus,17 to which we should also add
the edition of the Manuale Ambrosianum.18
Divine Office
The already cited editions of the Manuale and the manuscript of
Beroldus contain the section of the Ambrosian Divine Office.
Pontifical
The pontifical is a book that contains the celebration of the sacra-
ments and of the sacramentals.19
Printed Missals
There are six incunable editions of the Ambrosian Missal, which
range from the year 1475 to 1499. Starting in the sixteenth century the
editions multiplied. We will cite only the edition of Puteobonelli of
1751, reedited some years later by Visconti.20 From our century we
should cite the edition of Cardinal Ferrari21 and that of Cardinal
Schuster, which was the last edition before the reform.22
Finally, the rite was revised according to the spirit of the Vatican II
liturgical reform, and from this revision came the new Ambrosian
Missal.23
17 M. Magistretti (Ed.), Beroldus sive ecclesiae ambrosianae mediolanensis kalendar-

ium et ordines s. XII (Milan, 1894).
18 M. Magistretti (Ed.), Manuale Ambrosianum II-III=Monumenta Veteris
Liturgiae Ambrosianae 2–3 (Milan, 1904–1905).

19 M. Magistretti (Ed.), Pontificale in usum ecclesiae mediolanensis necnon Ordines
Ambrosiani ex codicibus saec IX-XV = Monumenta Veteris Liturgiae Ambrosianae 1

(Milan, 1897).
20 Missale Ambrosianum. Joseph Cardinalis Puteobonelli Archiepiscopi auctoritate
recognitum jussu Philippi Archiepiscopi novissime impressum. Typis Galeatiorum

Impressorum Archiepiscopalium (Milan, 1795).
21 Missale Ambrosianum ex Decreto Pii IX p. m. restitutum iussu SS. D. N. Leonis
PP. XIII recognitum, Andreae Caroli cardinalis Ferrari Archiepiscopi auctoritate editum
(Milan, 1902).
22 Missale Ambrosianum iuxta Ritum Sanctae Ecclesiae Mediolanensis. Editio quinta
post Typicam (Milan, 1954).

23 Missale Ambrosianum. Iuxta ritum sanctae Ecclesiae Mediolanensis. Ex decreto
Sacrosancti Oecumenici Concilii Vaticani II instauratum, auctoritate Ioannis Colombo,

Sanctae Romanae Ecclesiae Presbyteri Cardinalis, Archiepiscopi Mediolanensis promulga-
tum (Milan, 1981).
319
GALLICAN LITURGY
The sacramentaries and the lectionaries are the only books of the
Gallican liturgy that have survived until our time. No testimony
remains of the liturgical books that contain the other celebrations,
like that of the Divine Office, the sacraments, etc.
Sacramentary
It is not possible to talk of a genuine or pure sacramentary in the
Gallican Rite. All have been influenced by the Roman Rite, and for
this reason the Roman elements and the purely Gallican elements are
mixed in the sacramentaries.
The main Gallican Sacramentaries are: the Missale Gothicum,24 the
Bobbio Missal,25 the Missale Gallicanum Vetus,26 and the Missale
Francorum.27 All conserve the ordo of the Gallican Mass, although
there is no uniformity among them; thus in the Bobbio Missal, the
order of the Mass ends with the preface because this Missal adopts
the Roman canon. The Gallicanum Vetus rarely includes the post sanc-
tus and the collectio post secreta, but although the degree of
Romanization of the Gallicanum Vetus is much more elevated than
that of the Bobbio, it nevertheless offers us some authentically
Gallican formulas for Holy Thursday, Good Friday, and the Easter
Vigil. The degree of romanization of the Missale Francorum is so great
that it does not even conserve the ordo of the Gallican Mass.
The name that we give to these liturgical books, “missal,” does not
describe the content well. It would be better to speak of a plenary
book, because the name “missal” is given to those books that, in ad-
dition to the prayer text, also contain the readings. These liturgical
books only contain the liturgical prayer texts. In addition to these
24 L.-C. Mohlberg (Ed.), Missale Gothicum = RED. Series Maior. Fontes 5 (Rome,
1961).
25 E.-A. Lowe (Ed.), The Bobbio Missal. A Gallican Mass-Book = HBS 58 (London,
1920).
26 L.-C. Mohlberg (Ed.), Missale Gallicanum Vetus = RED. Series Maior. Fontes 3
(Rome, 1958).
27 L.-C. Mohlberg (Ed.), Missale Francorum = RED. Series Maior. Fontes 2 (Rome,
1957).
320
missals we have a series of liturgical texts that are fragments of the
Gallican prayer texts.28
The time span of these manuscripts is from the sixth century to the
eighth. The oldest missal is the palimpsest of St. Gallen, and the most
recent are the Missale Gallicanum Vetus, the Bickell fragment, and the
Missale Francorum, all of which are from the second half of the eighth
century.
Lectionary
The Gallican Lectionary is represented, more than anything else, by
the palimpsest of Wolfenbüttel29 and the manuscript of Luxueil.30 To
these we should add a number of shorter fragments and a list of peri-
copes, but the two cited lectionaries are the most complete.31 The old-
est document of the Gallican liturgy and the Western Latin liturgies is
the palimpsest of Wolfenbüttel.
Both the Lectionary of Wolfenbüttel and that of Luxueil, each of
which represent different traditions, agree about proposing three
readings for the celebration of Mass: the first from the Old Testament,
the second from the New Testament, and the third from the gospel.
H I S PA N I C L I T U R G Y
The Gallican liturgical books are not abundant, as we have just seen,
and we can reduce the liturgical books to just two kinds, the sacra-
28 Among these fragments are found three palimpsests edited by A. Dold,
Palimpsest. Studien I - TuA 45 (Beuron 1955); A. Dold - L. Eizenhofer, Das irische

Palimpsestsakramentar in Clm 14429 der Staatsbibliothek München - TuA 43 (Beuron
1952); and two additional fragments of liturgical prayer texts edited by L.
Eizenhofer, Die Mone-Messen, L.-C. Mohlberg, Missale Gallicanum Vetus. oc. 135–8;
G. Bickell, Ein Neues Fragment einer gallikanischen Weihnachtsmesse, L.-C. Mohlberg,
Missale Gallicanum Vetus. oc 95–6.
29 A. Dold (Ed.), Das älteste Liturgiebuch der lateinischen Kirche = TuA 26/28
(Beuron, 1926).
30 P. Salmon (Ed.), Le lectionnaire de Luxueil = CBL 7 (Rome, 1944).
31 H.-J. White (Ed.), The four Gospels = Old Latin Biblical Texts. No III (Oxford,
1888) LIII-LV; A. Dold (Ed.), Zwei Bobbienser Palimpseste mit frühesten Vulgatatext =
TuA 19/20 (Beuron, 1931) 64–66; G. Morin (Ed.), Le lectionnaire mérovingien de
Schlettstadt avec fragments du texte oriental des Actes: RBén 25 (1908) 161–6; A. Dold
(Ed.), Die im Codex Vat. Reg. Lat. 9 Vorgeheftete liste Paulinischer Lesungen für die
Messfeier = TuA 35 (Beuron, 1944); D. DeBruyne (Ed.), Les notes liturgiques du ms.
134 de la cathèdrale de Trèves: RBén 33 (1921) 46–52.
321
mentary and the lectionary. The Hispanic liturgy has, on the contrary,
an abundance of liturgical sources for all kinds of celebrations: Mass,
Office, sacraments, benedictions, etc.
Lectionary
The lectionary in the Hispanic liturgy is called Liber Commicus.
According to St. Julian of Toledo it should be called commatus, de-
rived from comma, which means fragment. It is the book that gathers
the pericopes (fragments) from the Bible that should be proclaimed at
Mass. The Liber Commicus is mainly represented by five manuscripts,
but other fragments of this lectionary exist as well.32
During Lent the Liber Commicus, in addition to the readings of the
Mass, also carry the readings of the Cathedral Office, since during
this time of the liturgical year there is a correlation between the read-
ings of Mass and Office.
The composition of the Liber Commicus is mixed in the sense that
the sanctoral is mixed with the temporal. The lectionary begins with
the first Sunday of Advent and ends with the feast of the beheading
of St. John the Baptist. The lectionary continues with the readings for
the Masses of saints, followed by readings for some votive Masses
and rituals, and concludes with the readings of thirty-one Sundays
De quotidiano.
We should also mention that not all five manuscripts contain all of
the readings for the whole liturgical year. Some of them are incom-
plete, but since the sources coincide in showing a similarly structured
book, we are able to identify a complete lectionary.
The manuscripts of the Liber Commicus represent tradition A. The
reading system of tradition B is found in the plenary missal edited by
Cisneros.
Sacramentary (Liber Manuale)

This book, like the Roman Sacramentary, contains the nine liturgical
prayer forms for the celebration of the Eucharist. The post Gloriam
and the completuriae probably existed apart from each other. When
32 G. Morin (Ed.), Liber Commicus sive lectionarius Missae quo Toletana Ecclesia
ante annos mille et duecentos utebatur = Anecdota Maredsolana I (Maredsous, 1893);

J. Perez de Urbel - A. Gonzalez y Ruiz-Zorrilla (Eds.), Liber Commicus = MHS.
Series Liturgica 2-3 (Madrid, 1950–1955).
322
the plenary missals were made, these prayers were placed in their
respective places. Only one example of this manuscript has been
conserved, the 35.3 of the capitular library of Toledo.33
Antiphonary
This book includes the songs of the Cathedral office feasts and the
songs for the celebration of Mass. We only have one example of this
book, manuscript 8 of the Cathedral of Leon.34
Liber misticus
On the basis of the antiphonary, which contained the songs for Office
and Mass, the plenary books were formed. These books were called
misticus, a word derived from mistus - mixtus. The books are com-
posed of the feast day prayer book, the hymnal, the antiphonary, the
Liber Commicus, and the Manuale. Dom Ferotin gives them a name
that describes them perfectly: Officia et missae. Because of the abun-
dance of material, these books are divided in four parts: (a) from the
first Sunday of Advent until Sunday In carnes tollendas; (b) Lent;
(c) from Easter until Pentecost; and (d) the feasts of the Saints from
June to November. There are no exact boundaries among the parts.
Liber orationum festivus

This book contains the liturgical prayer texts of the Cathedral Office.
In the registry of the liturgical books donated to the Sahagun
Monastery (960), a clear distinction is made between the feast-day
prayer book and another prayer book that has the name of
psalmogravus or psalmographus.
In addition to the conclusive completuriae of the Matins and
Vespers, the feast-day prayer book contains the prayers that accom-
pany the antiphons and responsories of Matins and the lesser hours
of the penitential days, as well as the blessings. Two prayer book
manuscripts exist, the oldest is the codex. LXXXIX of the capitular
library of Verona, probably copied in Tarragon, and the other is
33 M. Ferotin (Ed.), Le Liber Mozarabicus Sacramentorum, et les manuscrits mozar-

abes = MEL 6 (Paris, 1912); J. Janini (Ed.), Liber Missarum de Toledo I = Instituto de
Estudios Visigótico-Mozárabes de Toledo. Serie Liturgica. Fuentes III (Toledo,
1982) 1–433.
34 L. Brou-J. Vives, (Eds.), Antifonario Visigótico Mozárabe de la catedral de León =
MHS. Series liturgica 5 (Barcelona/Madrid, 1959).
323
from the ninth century, copied in Silos, which today is in the British
Museum add. 30.852.35
Psalterium - Liber Canticorum - Liber Himnorum

The antiphonary and the prayer book were not sufficient for the cele-
bration of the Office; other repertories were necessary. These are the
psalter, the book containing the psalms, the book of the Old
Testament canticles for Matins, and the hymn book. There was a
fairly well-spread tendency to regroup these three books (the psalter,
the canticles, and the hymnal) into one single volume.36
Liber Orationum Psalmographus
P. Jordi Pinell reconstructed this Office book, which contains four
series of psalm collects. These collects were used in the Cathedral
Office, mostly in the non-feast day Office. A large part of the texts
that compose this book were found scattered throughout the psalters
that held the antiphones and the collects.37
The Passion Narrative
The Passion Narrative is a book for the liturgical celebrations of
Office and Mass, because in the celebrations of the martyrs the story
of their passion was read in Office and concluded in Mass.38
Liber Sermonum
This book contained the patristic homilies that were read after the
gospel. Only one example exists in the British Museum add. 30.853,
from the end of the ninth century. Using the title Homiliae Toletanae,
G. Morin published this manuscript in his edition of Liber Commicus.
Liber Horarum
This was the plenary book that gathered the necessary formulas for
the monastic celebration of Office, although it had to be completed
with the psalter, the Liber Canticorum, and the Liber Hymnorum. Two
35 J. Vives (Ed.), Oracional Visigótico = MHS Series Liturgica 1 (Barcelona, 1946).
36 C. Blume, Hymnodia Gothica. Mozarabischen Hymnen des altspanischen Ritus =
Analecta Hymnica Medii Aevi 27 (Leipzig, 1897), reedición (Frankfurt, 1961); M.
Gilson (Ed.), The Moazarabic Psalter = HBS 30 (London, 1905).
37 J. Pinell (Ed.), Liber orationum psalmographus = MHS. Series Liturgica 9
(Barcelona-Madrid, 1972).
38 A. Fabrega (Ed.), Pasionario Hispánico (siglos VII–XI) = MHS. Series Liturgica
1-2 (Barcelona, 1953).
324
manuscripts of this book exist: the manuscript 7 of Silos, and the
other is in the capitular library of Toledo 33.3.39
The Liber Ordinum

There are two kinds of Liber Ordinum, the Sacerdotal and the Pontifical.
This book contains: (a) the ritual itself; (b) a compilation of the cele-
brations of the Triduum; (c) an appendix of votive Masses and
Masses of devotional character.
This book is found in manuscripts 3 and 4 of Silos, and in the
Emilianense 56. Manuscript 4 of Silos and the Emilianense corre-
spond to the pontifical, and manuscript 3 of Silos corresponds to the
sacerdotal.40
Liber Precum
Among the names listed in the old catalogs we find the Liber Precum,
which is a book that cannot be identified with complete certainty, but
it was probably a book that held the rhythmic prayers.
Printed Liturgical Books

Cardinal Cisneros, promoted to the Diocese of Toledo in 1495, was
aware of the Hispanic liturgy’s value, although it was in a state of
great decadence because it lacked modern liturgical books. He ordered
Canon Ortiz to prepare the edition of the Missal41 and the breviary42
that were published under his authority. For this edition of the missal
and the breviary, Ortiz referred to the Libri mistici. In 1775 a new
39 This manuscript has been published in part by J. Pinell, Las horas vigiliares del
oficio monacal hispanico - Liturgica 3 (Montserrat, 1966) 197–340. The critical edi-
tion of the remaining part of this manuscript, that is to say, the diurnal hours, has
been presented as a doctoral thesis in the Pontifical Liturgical Institute, J-J. Flores,
Las horas diurnas del “Liber Horarum” de Silos. Introduccion y edicion critica (Rome,
1995).
40 M. Ferotin (Ed.), Le Liber Ordinum en usage dans l’Eglise wisigothique et mo-
zarabe d’Espagne du cinquième au onzième siècle = MEL 5 (Paris, 1904); J. Janini (Ed.),
Liber Ordinum Episcopal = Studia Silensia 15 (Abadía de Silos, 1991); J. Janini (Ed.),
Liber Ordinum Sacerdotal = Studia Silensia 7 (Abadía de Silos, 1981).
41 Missale Mixtum secundum regulam beati Isidori dictum Mozarabes. Editado por el
canónigo Alfonso Ortíz, por mandato del Cardenal D. Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros,
Arzobispo de Toledo. Impreso en Toledo el mes de enero del año 1.500.
42 Breviarium secundum regulam beati Isidori. Editado por el canónigo A. Ortíz, por
mandato del Cardenal D. Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros, Arzobispo de Toledo. Impreso en

Toledo en 1502.
325
edition of the Missal came out in Rome, prepared by A. Lesley. This
edition is reproduced in the PL.43 In 1776 Cardinal Lorenzana made a
new edition of the breviary, which was published in Madrid and also
reproduced in the PL.44 Some years later Cardinal Lorenzana also
wrote a new edition of the missal.45
After Vatican II, in agreement with number 4 of the SC, and follow-
ing the norms of the conciliar liturgical reform, Cardinal D. Marcelo
Gonzalez Martin, primate of Spain, revised the missal another time.
It was published in four volumes, two for the liturgical prayer texts,
and two for the lectionary.46
43 Missale Mixtum secundum regulam beati Isidori dictum Mozarabes: PL 85.
44 Breviarium Gothicum secundum regulam beatissimi Isidori: PL 86.
45 Missale Gothicum secundum regulam Beati Isidori Hispalensis episcopi, iussu
Cardinalis Francisci Ximenii de Cisneros, in usum mozarabum prius editum, denuo

opera et impensa Eminentissimi Domini Cardinalis Francisci Antonii Lorenzanae recog-
nitum et revissum. Ad Excellentiss. et Eminentiss. Principem et D. D. Ludovicum
Borbonium archiepiscopum Toletanum, Hispaniarum Primatem. Romae, Anno
MDCCCIV. Apud Antonium Fulgonium.
46 Missale Hispano-Mozarabicum I-II (Spanish Bishops’ Conference, Archbishop
of Toledo 1991–1994); Liber Commicus I-II (Spanish Bishops’ Conference,

Archbishop of Toledo 1991–1995).
Bibliography
African Liturgy
Gamber, K. Codices liturgici Latini antiquiores, 11–24. SFS 1. Freiburg, 1968.
_____. Codices liturgici Latini antiquiores, Supplementum, 39–49. SFS 1A.
Freiburg, 1988.
Celtic Liturgy
Freiburg, 1988.
Ambrosian Liturgy
Freiburg, 1988.
Magnoli, C. “I libri liturgici ambrosiani ‘riformati a norma dei decreti del
Concilio Vaticano II.’” AA. VV., Celebrare il mistero di Cristo, 455–465.
BELS 73. Rome, 1993. 455-465.
326
Triacca, A.-M. “Libri liturgici ambrosiani.” Anàmnesis 2:201-217.
Gallican Liturgy
Freiburg, 1988.
Pinell, J. “Libri liturgici gallicani.” Anàmnesis 2:185-190.
Hispanic Liturgy
Freiburg, 1988.
Pinell, J. “Libri liturgici ispanici.” Anàmnesis 2:190-201.
_____. “Missale Hispano-Mozarabicum.” Not 24 (1988) 670–727.
_____. “El Misal Hispano-Mozárabe: Nueva edición revisada.” Ph 32 (1992)
367–380.
327
B. Interpretation of Liturgical
Sources
Renato De Zan
17
Criticism and Interpretation of Liturgical Texts
1. INTRODUCTION
To study liturgical, or more precisely, euchological texts1 means in the
first place knowing how to contextualize them. Prayer texts, after all,
have no life of their own but are situated within a celebration. Thus
they must be studied within the context of a theological under-
standing of the liturgy.
The reflection on the liturgy begun by the council served as a
bridge between the dynamic (though sometimes one-sided) research
of the past and that of the present, which is active, systematic, and
attentive to the various aspects of celebrating. As the council said, the
science of liturgy must be understood, taught, and learned “under its
theological, historical, spiritual, pastoral, and juridical aspects.”2
1 By liturgical texts we mean the body of texts that make up the ritual program
or are linked to it. Liturgical texts are all those texts that were created by an act of
the Church. Thus we have Praenotanda, Instructiones, rubrics, prayer texts, and
poetic texts (hymns, responsories, tropes etc.). With regard to the biblical and
patristic texts found in the liturgy, we rightly note that these texts are always
“selected” and “cut” according to definite liturgical criteria. The simple fact that
these texts are no longer found in their original literary-theological context, but
have been cut and placed in a new literary-theological-celebrative context, makes
them “liturgical texts” in the true and proper sense. Thus we would rightly dis-
tinguish a biblical or patristic passage in its original setting (the Bible or the writ-
ings of the Fathers) from a passage that forms part of a ritual program with its own
shape and functions. In the first case, we should speak of biblical or patristic texts;
in the second, we should speak of biblical-liturgical or patristic-liturgical texts.
For a more traditional classification, see M. Augé, “Principi di interpretazione dei
testi liturgici,” Anamnesis I, 162–70.
2 SC 16.
331
Putting these words into practice has meant that the scientific study
of liturgy tries to present an overall view of the liturgical action with
regard to texts, rites, and signs. It does this by studying the history of
the liturgy, with special attention to the tradition of the Eastern
Churches, by examining the very nature of the liturgy,3 and by a
respectful and discriminating use of “the sound results of modern
human sciences, such as anthropology, sociology, linguistics, compar-
ative history of religions, etc.”4 All this is possible because of a recent
trend in modern research to do studies of a historical, theological,
and pastoral nature.
2 . A G R A D UA L T R E N D
In the wake of the council, there have been not only general prin-
ciples for interpreting the liturgy but also more specific principles for
interpreting euchological texts.
The first proposal, quite interesting and well worked out, was that
of F. Nakagaki.5 Published in 1971, it was called the “integral
method.” Its five main elements are the liturgical, historical, literary,
contextual, and unitary. Each element must be reunderstood in light
of those that follow. The liturgical element considers the structure of
the liturgical year, which influences rite and words (text). The his-
torical element, on the other hand, is concerned with the euchological
text’s four coordinates: author, date of composition or use, place, and
other things useful for situating the text in its cultural context. The
literary element studies the words and phrases in their literary con-
texts, noting their structure and style, mindful that the words of a
text acquire their full meaning from the rites (which are known
through the rubrics) and the latter acquire their full meaning from
the words of the text. The contextual element, closely associated with
the historical, is its logical continuation. It studies the links between
the text and the theological, historical, and literary contexts in which
it originated. Lastly, the unitary element — which continues and
3 See the 1979 Instruction on liturgical formation in seminaries, nos. 47, 49, 56,
58.
4 Ibid., no. 59.
5 F. Nakagaki, “Metodo integrale. Discorso sulla metodologia nell’interpre-
tazione dei testi eucologici,” A. Cuva (ed.), Fons vivus. Miscellanea liturgica in
memoria di don E.M. Vismara (Zurich, 1971) 269–86.
332
completes the literary element —must be studied by situating the for-
mula within its formulary so as to grasp its central ideas, as distinct
from those which are secondary or accidental.
A few years later, in 1974, M. Augé took up the question again and
presented his own principles for interpreting liturgical texts.6 The
scope of his research and the multifaceted nature of his investigation
led him to extend Nakagaki’s proposals considerably. He begins by
excluding those areas that lie outside his study. He is not interested
in the criteriology which plays a predominant role in liturgical re-
form and creativity; he passes over all liturgical sources (“the natural
religious world, Sacred Scripture, the Fathers of the Church, the
councils”) except the liturgical books. He focuses on the euchological
texts, dividing them into texts drawn from Scripture (scriptural read-
ings and biblical songs) and texts created by the Church for worship
(prayer texts, poetic texts, patristic texts). The liturgical texts, as
sources, are studied in their historical identity (date, author, geo-
graphic setting, function, evidence from writers and quotations etc.)
and their doctrinal identity (content, expressive power, specific litur-
gical meaning, link with patristic thought, and the theological climate
of their respective period). For the biblical and patristic texts, he pres-
ents their type of use and distribution.
For the euchological texts, after a brief illustration of the doctrinal
principles that guide their interpretation, he gives an ample presenta-
tion of his method of investigation. After clarifying the biblical roots
of the liturgical texts and the peculiarities of the literary language
(liturgical Latin), the author sets forth the three basic steps of his
method: analysis of the text’s objective elements or content; analysis
of its structural elements or form of composition; analysis of its
stylistic or rhythmic elements. The objective elements of euchology
(theological content) are rooted in the world of the Bible (see the
berakah) and are determined by Jesus. These three dimensions will be
fundamental: remembrance with thanksgiving, sanctification of the
gifts, and intercession for the Church. The structural elements of a
prayer text are essentially the invocation, the petition (principal,
introductory), the conclusion, the motive, and the introduction.
The stylistic and rhythmic elements reveal human, religious,
333
psychological, historical, and typological problems present in the
text. These are among the most important elements listed by the au-
thor: amplification, binary succession, antithesis, parallelism (simple,
antithetical), verbal redundancy, cursus, and concinnity. Every for-
mula is part of a formulary and every formulary is situated within
the liturgical year. Thus the context within which the prayer text
must be interpreted becomes increasingly wider.
In 1977 A. Triacca and R. Farina looked at the question of methodol-
ogy in the study and interpretation of the prayer book.7 The study of
euchology aims to examine the link between euchology and the theo-
logical climate of the time, the relationship between euchology and
the historical setting, the relationship between euchology and the eu-
chological school (stylistic criticism, redactional stratification, criticism
of variants or textual criticism), euchology in itself (structuralist
criticism), euchology and the literary system (formalist criticism),
the relationship between euchology and the reader (believer, prayer,
critical-literary scholar). This study will include four steps: historical-
critical reading or analysis, etiological reading or analysis of the
formulary, structural reading or analysis, and interpretive reading or
analysis. Etiological reading or analysis of the formulary attempts to
show “the motives or circumstances that over the centuries have
caused a prayer formulary to be used in various ways in the various
liturgical traditions.” By structural reading or analysis the authors
mean the combination of three methods: liturgical-contextual (analysis
of the content of word and formula), linguistic-communicative (em-
phasis on the superficial formal structure of the structural analysis),
and semiological or semantic. The latter is divided into four broad
analytic steps with their respective subdivisions: linguistic grammati-
cal analysis, analysis of the semantic function, semantic analysis of the
syntagmatic unity, and analysis of the structural or formal elements of
euchological texts. Finally, there is interpretive analysis of the text.
This may be of two types: historical interpretation or exegesis (placing
the prayer text and its compiler in contact with their spatio-temporal
context), and existential interpretation (placing the prayer text and its
compiler in contact with the “reader”).
7 A. Triacca and R. Farina, “Studio e lettura dell’eucologia. Note metodologiche,”
in C. Ghidelli (ed.), Teologia, Liturgia, Storia. Miscellanea in onore di C. Manziana

(Brescia, 1977) 197–224.
334
The following year, 1978, the methodology of interpreting liturgical
texts opened itself to structuralism with the contribution of R. Taft.8
The author sketches his proposal, suggesting a plan for structural
analysis of the celebration within which the texts are situated. The
usefulness of his proposal is more apparent in the comparative-
historical area than in the strictly textual.
A decisive turning point began nine years later, in 1987, with the
full acceptance of the human sciences in the study of euchological
texts. That year witnessed the publication of J. Schermann’s doctoral
thesis9 as part of the series by the Innsbruck theological faculty. More
than a real method, the Austrian scholar’s research represents a
linguistic-semiotic approach to the liturgy that we can no longer do
without today. His study is divided into three parts. In the first, lan-
guage is presented as an object and a means of communication. We
note in the author’s description the influence of structural linguistics,
pragmatic linguistics, and the analytic philosophy of Oxford. In the
second part, he gives an exact description of the liturgy understood
as a dialogical interaction between God and humanity, with all the
variables this can involve. Next he reflects on the science of commu-
nication, symbolic interactionism, and semiotics. His last part is a
long list of linguistic acts present in the celebration: locutory, illocu-
tory, and perlocutory.
The next year, 1988, works by two other authors began a dialogue
between the human sciences — especially linguistics — and eucho-
logical texts. The work of M. B. Merz appeared in the series
Liturgiewissenschaftliche Quellen und Forschungen of the Institute of the
Abbey of Maria Laach.10 It is also better in the case of Merz’s study to
speak of an approach rather than a method. His book is divided into
four parts. After the first chapter in which he presents the character-
istics of liturgical prayer and its modern theological interpretations,
the author takes up questions that are more concerned with method-
ology: the linguistic perspective of the link and transition that takes
place between the written text and the action by which it becomes
spoken word, with all that flows from that. Three elements can come
8R. Taft, “The Structural Analysis of the Liturgical Units: An Essay in

Methodology,” Wor 52 (1978) 314–29.
9 J. Schermann, Die Sprache im Gottesdienst (Innsbruck-Vienna, 1987).
10 M. Merz, Liturgisches Gebet als Geschehen (Münster, 1988).
335
into play in the linguistic understanding of a written text that be-
comes spoken: pragmatics, textual linguistics, and communication.
In the third and longest chapter, the author applies his methodology
to the liturgical texts. He ends his work with a serious reflection on
some of the elements that can become part of a new model for look-
ing at things theologically in dialogue with the human sciences (espe-
cially those of a linguistic nature), applied to the Eucharistic Prayer.
The other work, by J. A. Zimmermann,11 is a structuralist approach
to euchological texts along the lines of Paul Ricoeur. Her methodol-
ogy has two basic aims: to understand the celebration through the
form of the texts and through knowledge of the texts to understand
the Christian life. This is possible because there is a strict relationship
between text and celebration and an equally strict relationship be-
tween liturgy and life. The methodological process for understanding
the texts involves the following steps: study of the words according
to the linguistic criterion of synchrony (syntagmas, paradigms);
study of the expressions or phrases as they are used in the text (rela-
tionship to the event; relationship to the performative, illocutory, and
perlocutory; relationship to extra-linguistic reality); study of the text
(structure, literary genre, and style); new study of the written text
according to the criteria of written and read communication. In addi-
tion to the text there is its reference. What is required, therefore, is a
pre-understanding (through a participation in the liturgical event),
an explanation (through a distancing from it), and an understanding
(through appropriation of the liturgical event).
A year later, in 1989, the work of S. Maggiani was published.
Before dealing with the texts, he is particularly concerned with the
“ritual program” as found in the liturgical book.12 Underlying all her-
meneutical research is the ritual program understood as significant
praxis, capable of producing figures, texts, codified and traditional
gestures, functioning at several levels and capable of as many manip-
11 J. A. Zimmermann, Liturgy as Language of Faith: A Liturgical Methodology in the
Mode of Paul Ricoeur’s Textual Hermeneutics (Lanham-New York-London, 1988).

12 S. Maggiani, “Interpretare il libro liturgico,” Il mistero celebrato. Per una
metodologia dello studio della liturgia (Rome, 1989) 157–92. The topic is taken up
again in S. Maggiani, “Come leggere gli elementi costitutivi del libro liturgico,”
Celebrare il mistero di Cristo. La celebrazione: introduzione alla liturgia cristiana, vol. I
(Rome, 1993) 131–41.
336
ulations (in a positive sense) and unlimited elaborations as there are
expressive anthropological capabilities. By its nature the ritual pro-
gram must be interpreted and understood in light of the anthropo-
logical dimension of the rite, the rituality, and of the
anthropological-theological dimension of the sacrament. Today the
ritual program is found in the typical editions of the liturgical books,
which usually contain four elements: the Constitutio Apostolica, the
Praenotanda, the Ordo and the Ordines, and possibly an Appendix.
The Constitutio Apostolica (teaching) spells out the essence of the rite,
sheds light on the sacramental meaning and its rituality. The
Praenotanda or Institutio consists of a theological code (an exposition
of the Church’s teaching, which tells what should emerge and what a
celebration ought to signify) and a rubrical code (which states the
rubrical norms and emphasizes how the celebration must function if
it is to achieve the effects signified). The Ordo contains the ritual
program, inasmuch as it contains “the ritual description of the text
(through explanations, verbal and non-verbal texts, etc.) as contain-
ing all that is needed for its own virtual carrying out, of which the
liturgical actions or celebrations would be the variants.” Interpretation
of the ritual program can be done through several readings (linear
reading, narratological and paraphrastic reading, performative-deictic
reading, structural reading, symbolic-functional reading). “Within
every ritual program are euchological texts” that can be interpreted by
the classical methods (Nakagaki, Augé, Triacca, and Farina) or by
modern methods (actantial, conversational, narrative structural).
The most curious principle regarding the interpretation of texts
seems to be that of E. Mazza,13 published in 1993. The author, a
scholar of early liturgical texts, praises the historical-critical method.
After stating, between polemic and paradox, how many times the
word oremus conveys an excellent theology but has no impact on the
celebration, he summarizes his ideas in a few simple sentences:
“In a celebration, what is being celebrated is the rite as such, in its

globality, as a synthetic fact. In other words, the text is important not
for itself, insofar as it is a text, but for its importance within the rite,
13 E. Mazza, “Teologia liturgica centrata sul vissuto celebrativo,” M. Midali and

R. Tonelli (eds.), Qualità pastorale delle discipline teologiche e del loro insegnamento
(Rome, 1993) 143–4.
337
that is, for its connection with what precedes and what follows, as
well as with the totality of the rite insofar as it is a global fact. This is
not to deny the validity of the text, but to situate it within the ritual
context in which it is celebrated.”
3 . S O M E F U R T H E R C O N S I D E R AT I O N S
Having explained some of the most important proposed methods for
interpreting liturgical texts, we offer some further considerations.
These may be grouped around the four basic notions of text, celebra-
tion, theology, and method.
When approaching a liturgical text, the scholar is confronted first
of all by a text. This means that before a text can be approached as lit-
urgy it must be approached as textuality.14 Only by respecting the
process that begins with a text’s textuality and ends with its liturgic-
ity do we respect its semantic and pragmatic dimensions. Textuality
involves attention to several things. The first concerns the identity of
the text. It is very easy to see that a formula in the Sacramentarium
Veronense differs greatly from a text in the Missal of Paul VI. A for-
mula from the Sacramentarium Veronense is expressed in a linguistic-
cultural code that is homogeneous; it is very close to the
linguistic-cultural code of the celebrating assembly. Indeed, the Latin
used in formula was the homogeneous Latin of the period before the
fall of the empire. Here was a language which, if not actually spoken
by the assembly, was at least understood by it. Understood also were
the cultural models found in the text. A formula from the Missal of
Paul VI is expressed in a code that is dishomogeneous, artificial, and
unconnected with the cultural code. It is dishomogeneous because
many formulas are either a cento of fragments borrowed from early
formulas or texts, or else they are very recent since they are new. It is
artificial because Latin is a dead language. It is unconnected with the
cultural code because the text is often linguistically dishomogeneous;
since it must serve for the entire Church, it lacks a unique cultural
and theological referent. The consequences of this first observation
are clear. A formula from the Missal of Paul VI cannot be read as if it
were a formula from the early liturgical tradition. The philological
question is different, and the prescientific cultural referent, valid for
14See R. A. de Beaugrande and W. U. Dressler, Einführung in die Textlinguistik,
M. Niemeyer (Tübingen, 1981).
338
texts prior to the Missal of Pius V, is no longer valid for texts from
the Missal of Paul VI. And given the findings of linguistics, the ques-
tion of translation is far from settled in the case of early texts. It is
even more complex for texts from the Missal of Paul VI.
Once the textuality (historical-semantic dimension) of a text has
been shown, attention must be paid to its liturgicity (pragmatic
dimension). This means that the text must be properly situated
within its liturgical-celebrative and linguistic-pragmatic contexts.
To situate a text within its celebrative context means to analyze it
further relating it to the other texts of the rite, the gestures, the mys-
tery being celebrated, and the liturgical season. In short, it means to
situate the text within the total ritual program. The text is one frag-
ment of a textual ensemble, which is formed by the lesser euchology
from the other prayer and biblical texts of the formulary to which it
belongs, by the greater euchology, and by the biblical texts of the lec-
tionary. If the text is contemporary and is a Mass text, then its textual
ensemble includes the texts that form the respective Liturgy of the
Hours. The text is also part of a gestural ensemble that derives its
meaning from the text, but when re-understood anthropologically,
gives additional meaning to the text itself. The celebrative context is
sustained by the mystery celebrated, which provides the ultimate
framework for a complete understanding of the text. Finally, the litur-
gical season provides the setting within which to situate all the riches
of the text brought out thus far. For texts from the conciliar reform,
the Instructiones and Praenotanda in the liturgical books are a basic
tool for the text’s pragmatics.
Once the text has been situated within its linguistic-pragmatic con-
text,15 it is no longer approached as a written text but is understood
as a linguistic event. To understand this natural aspect of prayer texts
— which are created to be spoken and not merely written — we need
to set up an interpretive grid: a text can be approached from a con-
versational point of view, or according to the laws of communication
etc. In short, “speaking” becomes “doing.”
The results of our interpretation of a liturgical text must converge
in such a way that all the elements related to the text’s semantic and
15 J. Schermann, Die Sprache im Gottesdienst (Innsbruck-Vienna, 1987); M. Merz,
Liturgisches Gebet als Geschehen (Münster, 1988).
339
pragmatic aspects can be organized and used to construct a liturgical
theology. Such organization cannot be found in the division into
tracts that is typical of dogmatic theology; it must be discovered in
the world of the celebration. In other words, we must appeal to the
great categories of anamnesis, epiclesis, doxology, and koinoniva.16
Then, within these categories, we must embrace the theandric,
Christological-pneumatological, symbolic, and ecclesial dimensions.
Finally, we must say a word about methods. While these may seem
to be infinite in number, in fact there are only a few. Our first point
concerns the distinction between method and approach. It should be
noted that the word “method” is used quite often to refer to both
methods and approaches. Thus we have the liturgical-contextual
method, the linguistic-communicative method, the semiological
method, the actantial method, the conversational method, the narra-
tive structural method, etc. A method is a body of scientific proce-
dures, harmoniously and hierarchically related, whose aim is an
understanding and explanation of the text. An approach, on the other
hand, is a scientific study that is carried out according to a particular
and limited point of view. That is why we have, for example, the his-
torical-critical method and the semiotic method. There is no conver-
sational or actantial method but rather a conversational or actantial
approach. Our second point concerns the historical-critical method.
The historical-critical method as understood today (free from any
premise whose epistemological character is not in respectful relation-
ship to its formal object) can no longer be stated as it was a few years
ago. It has been greatly enriched by many contributions, especially of
a linguistic or structuralist nature. Our third point concerns vocabu-
lary. Authors rightly use the technical terms that are part of their
respective disciplines, at times with nuances of meaning that can be
lost on those who are not their disciples. This sometimes makes it
hard to understand exactly what they mean. Our final point concerns
examples. Certain methodological procedures, flawless from view-
point of hermeneutic theory, often turn out to be muddled in practice
and their results questionable.
Based on these observations, we can formulate a methodological
proposal. Since the nature of the pieces in this book has already been
16 E. Lodi, Liturgia della Chiesa (Bologna, 1981).
340
determined, our methodological proposal will stay within the frame-
work of the historical-critical method. But we shall not neglect the
findings of more recent methods and approaches.
4. A METHODOLOGICAL PROPOSAL
Liturgical texts17 may be divided into two main groups: biblical texts
(Scripture readings, psalms, and biblical songs) and texts composed
by the Church (patristic, euchological, poetic, rubrical). Here we are
interested in euchological texts,18 which may be divided into minor
euchology (brief and simple texts: opening prayer, prayer over the
gifts, prayer after Communion, prayer over the people, psalm
prayers, etc.) and major euchology (longer and more elaborate texts:
prefaces, Eucharistic Prayers, solemn blessings, etc.). A single eucho-
logical text is called a formula (e.g., opening prayer), while an organic
body of several euchological texts is called a formulary (e.g., entrance
antiphon, opening prayer, prayer over the gifts, Communion anti-
phon, prayer after Communion).
In our study of the Church’s euchological heritage, we must distin-
guish between the euchological deposit (euchology of the past) and
contemporary euchology (euchology of the conciliar reform). Our
proposed methodology looks at the characteristics of the euchological
deposit and contemporary euchology, as well as at what scholars
have said concerning method. Seeing our proposal, one may well
object to its failure to distinguish between synchronic and diachronic
analysis of the text. We would rather not accept this neat division,
given the nature of euchological texts. These texts, after all, are not
unique and fixed; they have been recycled again and again and are
constantly in the process of becoming. A clear distinction between
synchronic and diachronic analysis might well lead to a distortion of
the text. While respecting the methodological identity of the two
aspects, synchronic and diachronic, we prefer to see the results of the
methodologies engage in dialogue within their common interpretive
framework. For example, when analyzing the text’s historical identity
(diachronic analysis) we must answer the question, “Why and for
17 See M. Augé, “Eucologia,” NDL (Rome, 1984) 509–19.

18 For interpretation of the biblical texts in the liturgy, see R. de Zan, Bible and
Liturgy, in this volume.
341
whom was the text written?” This question can have a double con-
text, past as well as present (consider an early text adopted in con-
temporary euchology). It is well to view the pragmatic and
communicative approaches to the text from the framework of the
context. While these are two synchronic moments, they are essential
to understanding the meaning of the text, whether the latter is con-
sidered in its past or present use. In any case, let us keep in mind that
while the euchological deposit can be subjected to the individual
steps of the proposed methodological process, when it comes to an
understanding of contemporary euchology, many of these steps are
impracticable.
Finally, a methodological process for analyzing liturgical texts
starts as a collection of several methods and approaches. It is impor-
tant, after all, to answer the basic questions with what textual
hermeneutics has to offer. Given the shape of euchological texts
(texts that are evolving), we cannot follow the example of Procrustes
and sacrifice the guest (the texts) to the bed (the methods and ap-
proaches). It is better to adapt the bed (the methods and approaches)
to the guest (the texts). This gives us, then, a methodological process
consisting of nine general steps which answer nine equally general
questions:
a) What is the exact text being studied?

b) What is the meaning of this text?
c) What is its historical identity?
d) What is its communicative and pragmatic identity?
e) How has this text evolved historically through liturgical
use?
f) What is its literary identity?
g) What is its contextual identity?
h) What is the text’s theological value?
i) What is its new shape (translation) in a world that is cul-
turally different from the one in which it originated?
The answers to these questions are to be found by a process of

investigation that utilizes different methods and approaches.
342
a) The process always begins19 with certitude concerning the text.
Therefore we must begin with textual criticism, which enables us to
work with a text that is certain and correct. We cannot, of course, use
this step in the case of contemporary euchology, since here we have
the Editio typica. We shall not illustrate this first step of the process
here since it has already been illustrated in a separate article.20
b) Next we must analyze the text’s meaning. Since it is written in
Latin, we must first of all do a philological analysis. This will provide
the meaning of the individual words, expressions, grammatical and
syntatic constructions. It is only through philological analysis that we
can make an initial translation and arrive at a first rough under-
standing of the text. Of course, a text from the euchological deposit is
analyzed differently than a contemporary euchological text, as we
shall see later.
Since at this stage of the process we are looking for the text’s mean-
ing, we may also use the semantic approach here, whether our text is
early or contemporary.
c) Once we have analyzed the text’s meaning, we must give it a
historical identity. Analysis of its authenticity tries to establish, as far
as possible, the text’s author (and hence its theological and linguistic-
literary current), its time and place of composition, and its purpose as
intended by the author. Euchology reflects, in the various liturgical
traditions, the socio-cultural and theological characteristics of its
period of composition. Obviously, this part of the method does not
apply to contemporary euchology.
d) A prayer text is not created to be written, but fundamentally to
be spoken.
It is interesting to note how the purpose of the text gives us a
chance to apply the pragmatic and communicative approach to it
(whether it is early or contemporary). Euchology, too, is subject to the
19 Anyone who wishes to undertake the study of euchology must first have a
general bibliographical orientation. For this see M. Johnson (ed.), Bibliographia

liturgica (Rome, 1992) — a brief review of the more important tools — editions of
texts, periodicals, dictionaries, concordances, studies, etc. — which are useful for
the science of liturgy; M. Zitnik, Sacramenta. Bibliographia internationalis, 4 vols.
(Rome, 1992); the entries devoted to liturgy in the annual bibliography published
by Ephermerides Theologicae Lovanienses may also be very useful.
20 For textual criticism, see R. de Zan, Textual Criticism, in this volume.
343
linguistic law of the performative and thus to the law of illocutory
and perlocutory acts.21 To pray a euchological text during the celebra-
tion means not only to “say” it, but also “to do something” that is
linked to its sender and recipient.
e) The study of the text’s tradition leads us to examine how it may
have evolved and assumed different functions — from its creation to
its final redactional setting. In the past, this diachronic study of the
text was often done through the use of textual criticism, which added
the search for the correct text to the search for its sources, and the
latter to the study of its tradition.
f) The fourth step concerns literary criticism. In this phase of the
method we are looking for the sources of the liturgical text. These are
basically two: the primary source, Sacred Scripture, and the material
source, which is either the liturgy, the Fathers, or the magisterium
(for contemporary euchology it could even be a question of newly-
created texts). Besides the text’s sources, literary criticism deals with
the structure to which the question of literary genre is variously
linked. Next is the stylistics, one of the important elements of mean-
ing (philological-linguistic, semantic, and theological). From a study
of the stylistics, we can, if we wish, move to a study of the text using
the rhetorical method. This step concludes with an examination of
the literary-liturgical context.
g) The text is part of a rite which is guided by a ritual program.
There exists a ritual context within which the text is linked to other
elements (gestures, spaces, objects, seasons). These give the text a
shape which cannot be understood from textual, semantic, and his-
torical-literary analyses alone.
h) All the data that have emerged from the process thus far must
be organized and understood according to established rules. Since a
celebration has intrinsic dimensions and foundations, the material
must be organized according to its four dimensions (anamnesis, epi-
clesis, doxology, and koinoniva) and its four foundations (theandric,
Christological-pneumatological, ecclesial, and symbolic).22
i) After all these steps, which enable us to know and understand
the text, we can finally begin the real work of translating it.
21 J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words (Oxford-New York, 1975).
22 E. Lodi, “La liturgia: teologia mistagogica. Introduzione generale allo studio
della liturgia,” Liturgia della Chiesa (Bologna, 1981) 21–226.
344
Obviously we cannot continue to act as if the text were an absolute,
as if everything were contained in the Latin philology. We must try
other ways that utilize whatever linguistics has to offer.23
5. THE MEANING OF THE TEXT

To speak of the meaning of the text means to speak of at least two
things that are distinct: philological analysis and semantic analysis.
a) Philological analysis requires, first of all, knowledge of the lan-
guage in which the text was written. Medieval Latin24 inherited the
riches and positive qualities of late imperial Latin and Christian
Latin,25 the latter having been created within the Latin of the
Empire.26 Liturgical Latin27 is part of Christian Latin and linked to it
in many ways. But it is also linked to the different cultures where
Latin was spoken as a second language. Liturgical Latin represents
one particular strain of Christian Latin with its own distinctive shape.
Its vocabulary, for example, presents certain difficulties for those who
are not experts in the field.28
All these studies are useful for texts from the euchological deposit,
which are normally homogeneous, whereas contemporary euchologi-
cal texts are usually dishomogeneous. In the case of the former, we
23 See R. Jakobson, Saggi di linguistica generale (Milan, 1974) 185.

24 See D. Norberg, Manuel pratique de latin médiéval (Paris, 1968); V. Paladini and
M. de Marco, Lingua e letteratura mediolatina (Bologna, 1980); V. Väänänen,
Introduzione al latino volgare (Bologna, 1982).
25 See J. Schrijnen, Charakteristik des Altchristlichen Latein (Nijmegen, 1932);
A. Dumas, Manuel du latin chrétien (Strasbourg, 1955); C. Mohrmann, Études sur le

latin des Chrétiens, I–IV (Rome, 1958–1977).
26 See J. B. Hofmann, La lingua d’uso latina (Bologna, 1985).
27 See C. Mohrmann, Études sur le latin des Chrétines, III: Latin chrétien et
liturgique (Rome, 1965).

28 A. Blaise, Dictionnaire latin-français des auteurs chrétiens (Turnhout, 1962);
A. Blaise and A. Dumas, Le vocabulaire latin des principaux thèmes liturgiques

(Turnhout, 1966); see M. P. Ellebracht, Remarks on the vocabulary of the ancient ora-
tions in the Missale Romanum (Nijmegen, 1966). Countless monographs are studies
of a single word or expression, for example, M. Steinheimer, Die “DOXA TOU
QEOU” in der römischen Liturgie (Munich, 1951); W. Dienzinger, Effectus in der
römischen Liturgie (Bonn, 1961); B. Droste, «Celebrare» in der römischen
Liturgiesprache (Munich, 1963).
345
can do a classical philological analysis, and in the case of the latter,
a philological analysis of a linguistic nature.
Classical philological analysis of euchological texts involves a few
basic steps. The first concerns identification of the text’s euchological
source. Comparing the text with its source helps to situate it in its
original context. This is valuable, seeing that the formula may reflect
special dogmatic concerns (controversies, heresies) or troublesome
civic and political situations. On the other hand, the original context
provides the literary entourage with which to compare the formula
and determine the meaning of the words29 and of certain grammati-
cal and syntactic constructions.30 Next comes a consideration of the
stylistic elements. These help determine the author or the euchologi-
29 For the use of words in early texts, see P. Bruylants, Concordance verbale du
Sacramentaire léonien (Louvain, 1945); see also J. Deshusses and B. Darragon,

Concordances et Tableaux pour l’étude des grands Sacramentaires, 6 vols., Ed.
Universitaires (Fribourg, 1982–1983).
30 For the prayer over the gifts from the Mass for the Annunciation of the
Blessed Virgin Mary (March 25), the Missale Romanum ex Decreto Sacrosancti
Concilii Tridentini restitutum Summ. Pontific. recognitum, Editio sexta post typicam,
Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis (Editio Typica 1920) gives the following text:
In mentibus nostris, quaesumus, Domine, verae fidei sacramenta confirma: ut qui con-
ceptum de Virgine Deum verum et hominem confitemur; per eius salutiferae resurrectio-
nis potentiam, ad aeternam mereamur pervenire laetitiam. Per. . . .
In the expression conceptum de Virgine Deum verum et hominem confitemur, we
could stress the words conceptum de Virgine, giving us a translation more or less
like this: we confess that he who is true God and man was conceived by a virgin.
But knowing that the formula comes from the Gregorian Hadrian n. 142 and is
not one of the earliest Roman orations — even though it can be dated to the fifth
century — it becomes relatively easy to see that our proposed philological em-
phasis is wrong. The burning theological question of the fifth century was not the
virgin birth but Christology (the Council of Ephesus, 431, and the Council of
Chalcedon, 451; the first council opposed the Nestorian heresy and the second
monophysitism). Thus what is emphasized in the text are the words Deum verum
et hominem. The correct philological reading should be as follows: we confess that
he who was conceived by the Virgin is true God and true man. The correct read-
ing of the expression verae fidei sacramenta confirma is dependent on this reading.
In the expression verae fidei sacramenta, the word sacramenta does not refer to
“liturgical mysteries” but to “doctrinal mysteries.” This reading is confirmed by
the adjective vera which modifies fides. From this flows a correct understanding of
the formula’s incipit, In mentibus nostris, where the word mens may emphasize the
intellectual more than the generic dimension “interior world.” A possible transla-
tion of our first passage would be this: Increase in our minds, O Lord, a firm
346
cal school;31 they also clarify the meaning of certain expressions.32
Finally, we can make a rough translation. A full-fledged translation
will come only after we know and understand all the dynamics of
the text — in other words, at the end of the methodological process.
b) Semasiological analysis is another type of philological analysis
in the broad sense.33 It is used for prayer texts that are dishomoge-
neous, such as the contemporary Latin euchological texts. It is based
on the contextual theory of meaning which requires only a context
capable of codifying the use of the word we wish to analyze. For ex-
ample, the euchological texts from the Missal of Paul VI provide the
acceptance of the mysteries of the true faith; by confessing the Son conceived by
the Virgin, true God and true man, may we attain by the power of his resurrec-
tion. . . . (see B. Capelle, Pour mieux comprendre les Oraisons du Missel: Cours et
Conférences des semaines liturgiques, vol. V (Huy, 1926) 135–45.
31 G. Manz, Ausdrucksformen der Lateinischen Liturgiesprache bis im Elfte
Jahrhundert (Beuron, 1941). While we do not always share the author’s choices,
the material is still useful.
32 The text of the Sacramentarium Veronense n. 93 reads:
Da nobis haec, quaesumus, Domine, frequentata mysteria: quia quotiens hostiae tibi
placatae commemoratio celebrantur, opus nostrae redemptionis exeritur. Per. . . .
Correcting the verb celebrantur to celebratur, the text presents no special difficul-
ties except for the word exeritur. The textual tradition, in fact, proves that the text
was not understood: the Gelasianum has exercitum, the Gregorian tradition has
exercetur, the Gelasian of Angoulême has exere, and the Sacramentary of Prague
(twice) has exercitus and exercitur. The verb exero is not commonly found in
Christian Latin. But it is part of the style of St. Leo the Great, in whose writings it
occurs at least six times. There exero, besides meaning ‘to appear’ or ‘to manifest
oneself,’ also refers to the movement or action with respect to those to whom the
reality that appears or manifests itself is addressed. The expression opus nostrae
redemptionis exeritur means that “the work of our redemption (when the com-
memoration of Christ’s sacrifice takes place) is made present to us in order to affect
our life.” See J. Pinell, “I testi liturgici, voci di autorità, nella costituzione
«Sacrosanctum Concilium»,” Congregazione per il culto divino (ed.), Costituzione
liturgica «Sacrosanctum Concilium». Studi (Rome, 1986) 331–41.
33 “The term semasiology, which prior to Bréal meant what today we call
semantics, now has a narrower meaning. It refers to the study of significations or

meanings or concepts, beginning from the words that name them. Making an
inventory of all the meanings attributed to the semantic word is one of the prob-
lems of semasiology. On the contrary, the task of onomasiology is to make an
inventory of the various names or significants that can be attributed to one and
the same concept or meaning.” See G. Mounin, Guida alla semantica (Milan, 1975)
8–9.
347
codifying context for use of the word gloria in formula 140-C2.34
Semasiological analysis, which applies not only to the word but also
to the sub-syntagmas and syntagmas, involves two steps: a search for
associations and a search for commutations.
The search for associations also involves two steps: a search for the
syntagmas35 in which the word is found36 and a cataloguing of these
syntagmas (verbal, nominal, and determinative syntagmas) accord-
ing to semantic areas.37
34 The abbreviation 140-C2 refers to “the second collect on page 140 of the 1975
editio typica altera of the Missal of Paul VI.” We can use this style of abbreviation
until the editio typica altera has proven its validity and until the liturgical texts in
the Missal of Paul VI are codified in a more serious form than has been attempted
thus far.
35 The word gloria from formula 140-C2 is chosen as an example. For the sake
of brevity only the formularies from the Sundays of Advent are used here as a
contextual area.
36 Five syntagmas contain the word gloria: 132-C; 135-C1; 140-C2; 144-C; 149-So.
Two of these, 135-C and 149-So, are omitted here because they present serious dif-
ficulties. For the solution, see R. de Zan, “La teologia liturgico-biblica della gloria
in Avvento,” and also A. Catella, Amen Vestrum. Miscellanea di studi teologico-
pastorali in onore di P. Pelagio Vaisentin OSB (Padua, 1994) 345–76.
37 The three syntagmas, 132-C, 140-C2, and 144-C should be divided and cata-
logued thus:
Associations:
a) verbal * area of eschatological movement
—PERDUCAMUR ad gloriam resurrectionis: 132-C
* area of revelation
—splendor gloriae tuae ORIATUR in cordibus nostris:
140-C2
—DIGNATUS ES REVELARE splendorem gloriae
tuae: 144-C
b) nominal * area of revelation
—SPLENDOR gloriae tuae: 140-C2
c) determinative * area of revelation
—gloriam RESURRECTIONIS: 132-C
—gloriae TUAE: 140-C2
Complete analysis requires that each syntagma be analyzed at a stylistic level

with respect to the entire formula of which it is a part. Such an analysis will en-
able us to discover the semantic meaning of the word in question.
348
Continuing the basic schema of associations, the search for com-
mutations looks for other syntagmas38 in the Missal of Paul VI
belonging to the same semantic area as the preceding and cor-
responding to the same paradigm. These syntagmas contain the
nominal sub-syntagma to be replaced39 (equivalent or similar com-
mutation) by the word in question.
38 A basic work for this search is T. A. Schnitker and W. A. Slaby, Concordantia
verbalia Missalis Romani (Münster, 1983).
39 The process of commutations begins with the key word (verb, noun, determi-
native) printed in capital letters in n. 39. We look for other words, besides the
word gloria, which are associated with the word in capitals. Then we examine the
semantic area and paradigm to which they belong and decide whether they are
commutable in an equivalent or similar mode with gloria.
Commutations:
a) verbal * area of eschatological movement
— PERDUCAMUR ad gloriam resurrectionis:
132C
— perducas familiam tuam ad dona superna: 196-C
— perducas nos ad illam lucem in qua ipse es:
199-C
— perduxisti beatum Martinum ad caelestem gloriam: 638-C1
— concedas perduci ad veram patriam: 881-C2
Already we can begin to see certain commutations, but it is worth
completing the analysis with the determinative commutations.
* area of revelation
— splendor gloriae tuae ORIATUR in cordibus nostris: 140-C2
— salutare tuum oriatur cordibus nostris . . . :
173-C1
Splendor GLORIAE tuae and salutare tuum are two Christological
titles typically found in the Bible and the liturgy. Their commuta-
tion is possible because we are dealing with the same person. But
their equivalence is not complete, even though it is very exten-
sive, because they are two different functions performed by
Christ: one relative to God (in 140-C2 Jesus is the experiential
manifestation of God with respect to human beings: see 374-C),
the other relative to human beings (in 173-C1 Jesus carries out the
saving will of the Father in favor of human beings). The nominal
commutations are clearer.
b) nominal * area of revelation
— SPLENDOR gloriae tuae : 140-C2
— splendor animarum fidelium : 164-C
— splendor gratiae tuae : 209-Pc
349
c) Besides the words, expressions, and grammatical or syntactic
constructions, we also have the text. Decodification of the text —
through reading or hearing — is a backward process by which we
retrace the production of the text. Here it is a question of discovering
the relationships of meaning between the elements of the text.
Theoretically speaking, this discovery is endless. On the one hand,
the reader-hearer can always point out new relationships of meaning;
on the other hand, the text becomes an area of multiple and possible
meanings.40 Various procedures exist for arriving at the semantics of
the text, two of which we present briefly.
The first has three steps. First, the reader-hearer encounters a cer-
tain number of words (lexemes) and performs a semantic inventory
— splendor claritatis tuae : 311-C2

— splendor veritatis : 352-C
— splendor doctrinae et veritatis : 693-C1
In this series of words we must immediately exclude the expres-
sion doctrina et virtus (693-C1) because it clearly refers to realities
predicated of a creature and not of God or Christ (see the mean-
ing of gloria in the verbal commutations). A healthy dose of skep-
ticism is called for with regard to the word veritas—whether to
accept it or reject it. We cannot tell from the context whether it
refers to a “body of data that are true” or to God himself (352-C).
The syntagma splendor animarum fidelium in 164-C is a separate
case since it corrresponds to God himself. The other cases allow
for a good commutation with gloria, even though not absolutely
equivalent. For this reason we can say that the believer can see
the gloria of God (140-C2) as gratia and claritas (note the presence
of the possessive adjective tuus in all three sub-syntagmas). It is
more questionable to see the same commutations with gloria tua
when the sub-syntagma refers to Jesus Christ (144-C).
c) determinative * area of (eschatological) movement
— gloriam RESURRECTIONIS: 132-C
The sub-syntagma gloria resurrectionis associated with perduco
(132-C; 610-Pc) can be assimilated to the same sub-syntagma of
622-C2. In this case gloria takes on the meaning of “true state of
the believer” or “true homeland” or “joys of eternal light.”
40 See A. J. Greimas, Sémantique structural (Paris, 1968); J. Courtès, Introductions
à la sémiotique narrative et discoursive (Paris, 1976).
350
according to groups (or semantic areas). This provides a text’s lines
of meaning and its network of meaning.41 The second step consists in
recognizing the semantic oppositions.42 The last step consists in initi-
ating a dialogue between the lines of meaning and the oppositions in
41Euchological texts are usually short. Thus it is not easy to apply the method
completely to texts of two or three lines or four or five kommata. The examples,
which are continued in the following notes, are extremely schematic by reason of
space. The text in question is 140-C2:
Oriátur, quaesumus, omnípotens Deus, in córdibus nostris splendor glóriae tuae,

ut, omni noctis obscuritáte subláta,
fílios nos esse lucis Unigéniti tui maniféstet advéntus.
We can see at once that the text is very brief and the semantic inventory is very
simple. In schematic form we have:
area of movement area of stasis area of divine realities

orior corda nostra omnipotens Deus
subfero omnis obscuritas noctis splendor gloriae tuae
adventus nos Unigentius tuus
Unigenitus esse filii lucis

manifesto
The network of meaning is created by the divine action on behalf of the deixis
“us.” The objective is to make us children of God and reveal us as such. The di-
vine action is manifold: it begins within God himself (Unigenitus), continues in an
experience of drawing near (adventus), and is concretized in three quasi-simulta-
neous actions. The first is the “dawning” in the hearts of the suppliants; the
second is the “dispelling” of night’s darkness; the third is the “revelation” of the
effect of the brightness of glory in the hearts of the suppliants. They are children
of the light.
42 In the same text we find clear oppositions in the expressed text and in the
implicatures (what is not said but is implicit; in the schema these are the words in
parentheses). The basic opposition is between the area of movement in which the
area of divine realities is at work and the area of stasis in which the divine action
manifests itself. In schematic form:
351
order to note the transformations present in the text.43 For this final
step we can use Greimas’s semiotic rectangle or square,44 which
shows the relationship between the elements of meaning. But this is
not necessary.
A second procedure, derived directly from A. Greimas,45 is called
actantial analysis. It involves rewriting the text according to the rules
of the actantial model, which is made up of six actants: the Sender,
the Object, the Recipient, the Assistant, the Subject, and the
the area of divine activity the area of stasis
omnipotens Deus (that which is not all-powerful:) corda

nostra
splendor gloriae tuae (that which is in darkness:) corda nostra
Unigenitus tuus nos
orior (locus of the action:) in cordibus nostris
subfero (that which has dominated:) omnis ob-

scuritas noctis
adventus (that which is alone and waiting:) nos
manifesto (that which is hidden:) nos, filii lucis
filii lucis (that who were children of night’s

darkness)
With this schema of explicit and implicit semantic oppositions, the importance
of the divine action, already described at the beginning as omnipotens, is much
clearer.
43 A comparison between what has been said in the two preceding notes shows
us at once how the opposition between light and darkness is central. Within this
opposition, which is the genotext, we see certain transformations. The condition
of the suppliants before God intervenes is situated within the first opposition
(darkness). When God intervenes, he intervenes as light (splendor) and he pro-
duces light (filii lucis). In short, our euchological text is a clear expression of
Johannine theology (light-darkness), even though it uses the expression splendor
gloriae, which is from Heb 1:3.
44 A. Greimas, Du Sens, vol. I (Paris, 1970) 137; see A. Delzant, La communication
de Dieu (Paris, 1978) 331–3.

45 A. Greimas, Sémantique structurale (Paris, 1966); see S. Maggiani, Interpretare il
libro liturgico, Il mistero celebrato. Per una metodologia dello studio della liturgia
(Rome, 1989) 186–7; F. Isambet, Rite et efficacité symbolique (Paris, 1970).
352
Opponent.46 The actants are not only the “actors” (God, the Church,
the believer, the Evil One, etc.), but also all those realities which ad-
vance the action (faith, sin, grace, etc.). The procedure involves three
operations: analysis of the initial situation,47 identification of the three
trials (qualifying, principal, glorifying),48 and analysis of the final
situation.49
46 The names of the actants may also be as follows: Addresser, Object,
Recipient, Assistant, Hero-Subject, and Opposer. The Sender charges a Subject

with giving an Object to a Recipient. In carrying out his task the Subject seeks aid
from the Assistant and is opposed by the Opponent. The schema is as follows:
Sender → Object → Recipient

↑
Assistant → Subject ← Opponent
47 Several questions must be asked of the text. What is the situation or missing
object that initiates the action presented in the text? Who is presented as hero-
subject? Who is the false subject or real opposer? In whose name or by whose
mandate does the hero-subject act? How is the recipient defined? The initial situa-
tion can be summarized in schematic form as follows:
all-powerful God to be children of light → “we”

↑
your only Son/brightness of your glory ← all of night’s
darkness
48 A. Greimas and J. Courtes, Semiotica. Dizionario ragionato della teoria del
linguaggio (Florence, 1986) 131. The qualifying trial is between Sender and Subject,
the principal trial between Hero-Subject and Object, the glorifying trial between
Object and Recipient. The three trials are situated within the schema thus:
Sender → Object → glorifying trial ← Recipient

→ ↑
qualifying trial principal trial
→
↑
Assistant → Subject ← Opponent
In carrying out this step several questions must be asked. What is the trial
(present or presupposed in the text) that qualifies the Hero-Subject as such? Who
is the Assistant? In the case of the principal trial there are at least three questions.
Where is the locus of the principal trial expressed or implied in the text? In what
does it consist? How does it succeed in overcoming the Opposer? For the glorify-
ing trial the essential questions may be reduced to two. When and how does the
Hero-Subject make himself recognized as Hero-Subject who has overcome the
353
6. THE HISTORICAL IDENTITY OF THE TEXT
To search for the text’s identity means to do a historical analysis
(which has a complexity all its own) in order to articulate the data we
wish to know. To search for the historical identity of a formula or
formulary is equivalent to searching for the text’s authenticity. This
requires three operations: a search for the author of the text (or at
least the theological school), a search for the time and place in which
it written, and finally, its purpose.
a) A euchological text may be either a simple formula or a formu-
lary. A group of formularies make up a document. Thus we must
always distinguish the author of the text, understood as a formula or
formulary, from the author of the document. The author of the docu-
ment may have used texts composed by himself or texts composed
by others. Scholars know the patience required to identify the author
of a text. In doing this, it is very important to know the author’s style
and vocabulary. Neither can we forget that the great master often had
disciples who imitated him. What might be attributed to one of the
Fathers, could instead be the work of a disciple and imitator. This
fact is not always taken into account.
b) Besides style and vocabulary, we must also pay attention to the
milieu and historical setting in which the text is written. Indeed, his-
torical setting and place may be the reason for certain theological
choices made in the text itself. But we can also detect nuances of
meaning that would otherwise be imperceptible.50 Euchology carries
principal trial? How is the Object transmitted or how is the situation changed in
favor of the Recipient?
49 This last step of the procedure answers a single question: What transforma-
tion has taken place between the initial and final solution?
50 If we wish to understand better n. 193 of the Gregorian Hadrian
Sacramentary (Deus, qui nos in tantis periculis constitutos, pro humana scis fragilitate
non posse subsistere, da nobis salutem mentis et corporis, ut ea, quae pro peccatis nostris
patimur, te adiuvante, vincamus), it is not enough to know that it comes from
Gregory the Great. See B. Capelle, “La main de S. Grégoire dans le Sacramentaire
Grégorien,” Revue Benedictine 49 (1937) 13–28. It becomes clearer if it is situated
toward the end of the sixth century. We know, in fact, that the Lombards (who
were Arians) laid siege to Rome in 593–594. See also the Christocentric emphasis
of the Ambrosian prefaces. We cannot understand n. 193 unless we understand
the anti-Arian environment in which these prefaces originated; see A. M. Triacca,
I prefazi ambrosiani del ciclo “de tempore” secondo il “Sacramentarium Bergomense.”
Avviamento ad uno studio critico teologico (Rome, 1970).
354
within itself the socio-cultural and theological characteristics of the
various liturgical traditions to which the text belongs and the time in
which it was composed.
c) The expression “purpose of the text” is ambiguous and can be
understood in several ways. The classical rule focuses on the author
(or the later editor who modifies the text). Thus the search is devoted
to the conceptuality and “speaking” of the author-editor. It starts
with the presupposition that the author-editor meant to create a litur-
gical text that would express — in his own concrete historical situa-
tion — the specific and detailed need for salvation in a particular
community and within a celebration that is making present to people
the fulness of salvation. Thus the basic question is: what did the
author-editor mean to say?
Obviously the answer must use the material obtained in a) and b)
and develop it, with a rigorous search for words that can show the
link between the author-editor and the literary and theological works
of his time.51
7 . T H E T E X T A S E V E N T A N D C O M M U N I C AT I O N
Linguistic studies today have discovered that although a text is
linked to its author-editor, it also has a life of its own.52 Consequently,
we must look for motives within the text, using criteria that focus
less on the “speaking” and more on the “doing” that is inherent in
the very text.53 The most important means for discovering this
dimension involve an investigation of the text’s performative and
conversational dimensions.
a) We can do things with words. We need not automatically
think of the text’s performative dimension in its classical form, for
51 See G.A.L. du Cange and L. Favre, Glossarium mediae et infimae latinitatis,
vols. 1–10 (Graz, 1954) (anastatic reprint); A. Ernout and A. Meillet, Dictionnaire
étymologique de la langue latine. Histoire des mots (Paris, 1959); A. Forcellini, Totius
latinitatis lexicon, vols. I–VI, Padua (anastatic reprint); Thesaurus Linguae Latinae,
editus auctoritate et consilio Academicarum quinque Germanicarum, Berolinensis,
Gottingensis, Lipsiensis, Monacensis, Vindobonensis (Lipsiae, 1903).
52 See E. D. Hirsch, Validity in Interpretation (New Haven and London, 1967).
53 See J. Schermann, Die Sprache im Gottesdienst (Innsbruck-Vienna, 1987);
M. Merz, Liturgisches Gebet als Geschehen (Münster, 1988); L. Sartori (ed.),

Comunicazione e ritualità. La celebrazione liturgica alla verifica delle leggi della comuni-
cazione (Padua, 1988).
355
example: “I swear.” The text contains other elements that have to do
with pragmatics.54 For the sake of brevity, we simply mention how
important are the illocutory55 and perlocutory56 of the formula or for-
mulary.57 Indeed, there is present in the text a “constativity” (to fur-
nish information), an “intentionality“ (to provide the text’s purpose),
and a “result” (in a text, the result is furnished in the recipient).58
b) The conversational dimension belongs to the sensitive side of
communication. Here presentation of the conversational approach
will be based exclusively on Grice’s rules.59
8 . T H E H I S TO RY O F T H E T R A D I T I O N O F T H E T E X T
Once it has come to be, a euchological text embarks on a historical
adventure. Reinterpretations by other editors different from the
original author may have given rise to textual variants (voluntary
changes) of a stylistic, cultural, or theological nature. In writing the
54 See T. A. van Dijk, Text and Context. Explorations in the Semantics and
Pragmatics of Discourse (London, 1977).
55 “Illocutory” refers to the linguistic phonic or graphic act, examined through
the intention of the text to modify the recipient. See J. L. Austin, How to Do Things
with Words (Oxford-New York, 1975).
56 “Perlocutory” refers to the linguistic phonic or graphic act, examined
through the consequences of this act on the recipient (as intended by the editor of
the linguistic act). The real extra-textual recipient is the object of sociological
rather than linguistic study. See J. L. Austin, How to Do Things with Words
(Oxford-New York, 1975).
57 See R. A. de Beaugrande and W. U. Dressler, Introduzione . . . , 155–86.
58 Austin’s summary is well known by now: “We . . . can distinguish the locu-
tory act ‘he said that . . .’ from the illocutory act ‘he maintained that . . .’ and
from the perlocutory act ‘he convinced me that . . .’ “ (Austin, op.cit., 77). Text
155-C reads: Deus, qui hanc sacratissimam noctem veri luminis fecisti illustratione
clarescere, da, quaesumus, ut, cuius in terra mysteria lucis agnovimus, eius quoque
gaudiis perfruamur in caelo. In this text, the constative (qui in hanc sacratissimam
noctem veri luminis fecisti illustratione clarescere) is also a divine illocutory which
has its direct human perlocutory (cuius in terra mysteria lucis agnovimus) and its
indirect human perlocutory (eius quoque gaudiis perfruamur in caelo), the result of
an implicature (the joy that arises from the fact that God has made the true light
shine in this night filled with the mystery of salvation) of the divine illocutory.
59 See G. Bonaccorso, “Le regole conversazionali di Grice: verifica su alcuni
testi liturgici,” L. Sartori (ed.), Comunicazione e ritualità. La celebrazione liturgica alla

verifica delle leggi della comunicazione (Padua, 1988) 243–60.
356
history of the tradition of a liturgical text, we must retrace, at least in
part, the historical stages of a theology that expressed itself in celebra-
tion. Variants may cause the text to assume different shapes at the
literary-theological level and different functions within the ritual
program.
a) A euchological text, created with a certain shape, was often
taken up by later collections with conscious literary and theological
revisions.60 This process produced a text different from the original,
and thus a “new” rather than an “erroneous” text. 61 The concept of
the “history of the textual tradition” as understood in classical stud-
ies cannot be applied with impunity to the liturgy. The aim of the
liturgy is not to “throw out” all subsequent changes to an original
text so as to reconstruct the original. In liturgy, the history of the tex-
tual tradition shows how a text, created to become ever new, evolves
and becomes incarnate in new historical-anthropological and theo-
logical situations.62 At each new stage, the euchological text’s histori-
cal identity would have been examined when possible, and historical
data permitting, its new dimension as event and communication
would also have been examined.
b) Besides changes of a stylistic, cultural, and theological nature, it
is not uncommon for an earlier prayer text to have also undergone a
change of function within the ritual program.63
60 See, for example, how certain expressions typical of Gregory the Great (590–
604), such as flagella iracundiae tuae or a cunctis malis imminentibus were originally
used to refer to the barbarians who had laid seige to Rome. Later they referred to
spiritual enemies (see Triacca and Farina, op.cit., 203, n. 32).
61 We are speaking of deliberate changes in an original prayer text which can-
not be classified as “errors,” but which in liturgical textual criticism are classified
as “variants.”
62 The most useful tool today for trying to reconstruct the history of the tradi-
tion of a text within the Roman liturgy is the work by J. Deshusses and B.
Darragon, Concordances et Tableaux pour l’étude des grands sacramentaires, vols. 1-6
(Fribourg, 1982–1983). Johnson and Ward’s work may also be useful to some
extent (C. Johnson and C. Ward, The Sources of the Roman Missal [1975], I. Advent
Christmas, in N 22 [1986] 441–747; C. Johnson and A. Ward, The Sources of the
Roman Missal [1975] II. Prefaces, in N 23 [1987] 409–1009), which unfortunately
contains many errors in its liturgical, patristic, and biblical citations.
63 We may note, for example, how the opening prayer for Sixth Saturday of
Easter (323-C) is taken from the embolism of the preface of the quinta clausum
357
9 . T H E L I T E R A RY I D E N T I T Y O F T H E T E X T
Literary criticism is one of richest and most complex parts of the
methodological process. A method in itself, it is an attempt to photo-
graph the text on a surface level. Included in this step are the search
for the sources, the identification of the structure, the identification of
the literary genre, the search for the stylistic properties, and the
analysis of the context.
a) The Search for the Sources

This is an essential step in the study of prayer texts. The investigation
involves two distinct activities. First we must search for the primary
sources, which are the biblical roots of the euchological text (see SC
24). Secondly we must identify the material sources, which are the
text’s ecclesiastical roots.
To search for the primary sources means to identify the biblical
citations and allusions contained in the prayer text.64 This means we
must compare it to the Latin text of the Bible 65 with the help of
concordances.
The search for the material sources is more complicated since it
consists in identifying the patristic, liturgical, or material source from
which the prayer is born. Unfortunately, the tools for these opera-
Paschae in the Gelasianum Vetus. In the ancient formulary, the embolism of the
preface was part of a ritual program in which constant attention was paid to the
gradual passage toward eschatology. The embolism of the preface, which today
has become an opening prayer, loses its literary and theological-liturgical char-
acter and takes on a new shape that is hard to contextualize.
64 In the case of a biblical citation, the euchological text contains one or more
words identical to the biblical text. In the case of a biblical allusion, the euchologi-
cal text expresses the same theme as the biblical text but in different words. It is
well to keep in mind the extent to which the material sources of the euchological
texts have been influenced by the interpretation of Scripture based on the method
of lectio (lectio, ruminatio or meditatio, oratio, contemplatio, and perhaps also collatio
and actio). A good help for understanding the game of biblical allusions in prayer
texts is A. Blaise and A. Dumas, Le vocabulaire latin des principaux thèmes liturgiques
(Turnhout, 1966).
65 It would be a mistake to restrict ourselves to the Latin text of the Vulgata.
This translation was not, in fact, as widespread and widely accepted as it would
be after the year 1000. This means that we must also look at the Vetus latina, and if
possible, other versions as well (the Vetus hispanica?).
358
tions are still inadequate.66 Our search for the sources eventually
discerns the variants between euchology and source (additions,
subtractions, modifications, contaminations). It provides valuable
material for our philological analysis, for the history of the tradition,
and for the editorial history. But above all, it brings together the ele-
ments on which to base the liturgical theology of the text.
b) The Identification of the Structure

Despite a certain fluidity in formulating this part of the method,
M. Augé’s proposal prevails today.67 With regard to the content of the
euchological texts, these elements derive their origin from the prayer
of Jesus at the institution of the Eucharist. The Jewish literary and
cultural heritage (see the berakah) has passed over into Christian
prayer, where it is used to express anamnesis of the mirabilia Dei, dox-
ology, thanksgiving, sanctification of the gifts, koinoniva, intercession for
the Church, etc. These content-related data are also reflected literarily
in the structure. There are eight basic structural elements, not all of
which are found in a single text. Some are present in different literary
genres, while others are specific to one literary genre in particular. The
structural elements, of course, have various theological-liturgical func-
tions. Here is a list of the most important structural elements:
* The introduction is usually expressed by an ablative absolute

or a noun phrase.68
* The protocol and exocol are semi-fixed forms which begin
and end the preface.69
66 For the euchology of the Roman Missal of Paul VI, our first help is the notes
by A. Dumas (A. Dumas, Les sources du Missel Romain, in Notitiae VII [1971] 37–42,
74–77, 94–5, 134–6, 276–80, 409–10). Johnson and Ward’s work has already been
mentioned. Bruylants’ research on the Missal of Pius V is useful for some parts of
the early euchology, P. Bruylants, Les oraisons du Missel Romain. Texte et Histoire,
vol. I–II (Louvain, 1952). The Concordances et Tableaux by Deshusses and Darragon
is always a good help.
68 Example of an introduction with an ablative absolute: Accepto, Domine, pignore
salutis aeternae . . . (198-Pc). Example of an introduction with a noun phrase:

Sumentes pignus caelestis arcani, et in terra positi iam superno pane satiati . . . (202-Pc1).
69 Example of a protocol: Vere dignum et iustum est, aequum et salutare, nos tibi
semper et ubique gratias agere: Domine, sancte Pater, omnipotens aeterne Deus: . . .
(398-Preface). In the sacramentaries we find only the incipit of the protocol, often
359
* The embolism is the central part of the preface or canon, with
a development that is either narrative and decidedly theo-
logical, or else the words of Jesus over the bread and wine in
the canon etc.70
* The invocation, which always includes the divine name, is a
complement to the vocation or call.71
* The amplification consists of a simple or compound apposi-
tion in simpler cases, or a relative clause in more complex
cases.72
* The petition is usually expressed by a hortatory subjunctive
or an imperative, which may be followed by an objective
clause;73 a euchological text may also have more than one
petition.74
* The end or purpose of the petition is usually expressed by ut
with the subjunctive or by ad with the accusative of the
gerund.75
abbreviated. Example of an exocol: Et ideo, cum innumeris Angelis, una te magnifica-

mus laudis voce, dicentes: . . . (401-Preface).
70 Example of an embolism in the preface: . . . Quia ipsum in Christo salutis nos-
trae mysterium . . . nova nos immortalitatis eius gloria reparasti . . . . (398-Preface).

71 Sometimes this may be reduced to a simple Domine . . . or Deus . . . . At
other times it may be enriched by one or more elements (adjective; adjective + ad-
jective; apposition + adjective): Omnipotens Deus . . ., (136-C2); Praepara, quaesu-
mus, Omnipotens sempiterne Deus . . . (713-C); Domine Deus noster . . ., (136-C1).
72 Example of an amplification by means of a simple apposition: Exaudi nos,
Deus, salutaris noster . . . (708-C); example of an amplification by means of a com-

pound apposition: Deus, vita fidelium, gloria humilium, beatitudo iustorum, . . . (318-
C2); example of an amplification by means of a relative clause: Deus, qui regnum
tuum humilibus parvulisque disponis . . . (619-C).
73 Example of a petition in the hortatory subjunctive: Accepto pignore vitae aeter-
nae, te, Domine, suppliciter deprecamur . . . (577-Pc); example of a petition in the

imperative: Exaudi, quaesumus, Domine, preces nostras . . . (710-C2); example of a
petition in the imperative with an objective clause: Fac nos, quaesumus, Domine, his
muneribus offerendis convenienter aptari . . . (184-So).
74 Omnipotens sempiterne Deus, infirmitatem nostram propitius respice, atque ad
protegendum nos dexteram tuae maiestatis extende (183-C).

75 Example of purpose expressed by ut with the subjunctive: Omnipotens sempi-
terne Deus, deduc nos ad societatem caelestium gaudiorum, ut eo perveniat humilitas

gregis quo processit fortitudo pastoris (302-C); example of purpose expressed by ad
with the accusative of the gerund: Exaudi nos, omnipotens Deus, et familiae tuae
corda, cui perfectam baptismatis gratiam contulisti, ad promerendam beatitudinem aptes
360
* The motive is usually expressed by quia and the subjunctive,
or else by a simple relative.76
c) The Identification of the Literary Genre

Analysis of the literary genre is based on three elements: form, con-
tent, and functionality. If we look at the form, we must say that the
‘protocol’ is never found in a Collecta. On the other hand, the Collectae
from the Roman Missal of Paul VI always have the long ending,
which is absent in the Super oblata and the Post communionem, where
it is replaced by the shorter ending.77 As for content, we may note
that the most powerful themes of minor euchology are found in the
collects and are often linked, more or less directly, to the Liturgy of
the Word. On the other hand, the theological content of the prayer
over the gifts will be less “ample” than that of the collect and will be
related to its function as a prayer text associated with the offertory.
Euchological texts come in a host of literary genres,78 including anti-
phon, canon, collect, gradual, prayer after Communion, prayer over
the gifts, prayer over the people, preface, responsory, trope, etc.
d) The Search for the Stylistic Properties

The term “stylistics” has acquired different meanings in the course of
time.79 However, by way of a beginning80 it probably suffices to
aeternam. (294-Pc); example of two purposes with both constructions: Excita,

Domine, corda nostra ad praeparandas Unigeniti tui vias, ut, per eius adventum, purifi-
catis tibi mentibus servire mereamur. (137-C2).
76 Example of motive with quia and the subjunctive: Mentes nostras, quaesumus
Domine, Spiritus Sanctus adveniens divinis praeparet sacramentis, quia ipse est remissio
omnium peccatorum (338-So); example of motive with a relative clause: Tua nobis,
quaesumus, Domine, miseratione concede, ut in his sacris mysteriis Dominum Iesum
dignis obsequiis veneremur, in cuius nomine voluisti omne genu flecti, omnesque
homines invenire salutem (860-Pc). In this last example there is a double motive
(1st: . . . in cuius nomine voluisti omne genu flecti; 2nd: omnesque homines invenire
salutem).
77 Institutio Generalis Missalis Romani, 32.
78 For a treatment in greater depth see M. Augé, “Eucologia,” NDL, 519, n. 23.
79 See H. Lausberg, Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik (Munich, 1967); P. Guiraud
and P. Kuentz, La stylistique (Paris, 1975).

80 For the sake of brevity, we are skipping the phonological study (hiatus,
harshness, alliteration, assonance, etc.), study of the figures of speech (metaphor,

allegory, simile, irony, metonymy, synecdoche, hyperbole, litotes, antonomasia,
361
single out a few of the more important elements often found in
euchological texts. These concern the rhetorical devices of addition81
(parallelism, inclusion, hendiadys, and repetition or verbal redun-
dancy), propriety of language (concinnity, the theological passive),
and metrics (the cursus).
Parallelism means the repetition of two words, expressions, stichs,
etc., which are capable of expressing the same concept by repeating it
with different significants (synonymic parallelism).82 It can also ex-
press a concept with opposite significants (antithetic parallelism),83 or
it can express a concept in its completeness (synthetic parallelism, in
which the second member completes the first or clarifies one element
of the first).84 Parallelism includes progression85 and chiasmus.86
Inclusion is a form of parallelism in which two elements are found at
the beginning and end of the particular text.87 Hendiadys, on the
other hand, is a single concept expressed in two words.88 It must not
euphemism), study of the rhetorical devices (apostrophe, epiphonema, question,

prosopopoeia, personification, duplication, reticence, gradation, hypotyposis,
periphrasis, etc.).
81 The rhetorical device of addition is characterized by the fact that one expres-
sion is specified by another.

82 This would be Augé’s simple parallelism. The expression is no longer used.
An example of synonymic parallelism: Fac nos, omnipotens Deus, sanctis exsultare

gaudiis, et pia gratiarum actione laetari . . . (307-C).
83 An example of antithetic parallelism: . . . da, quaesumus, nobis eius divinitatis
esse consortes, qui humanitatis nostrae fieri dignatus est particeps (157-C).
84 An example of synthetic parallelism: . . . et ad intellegendum Christi proficiamus
arcanum, et effectus eius digna conversatione sectemur (184-C).

85 An example of synthetic progressive parallelism: . . . quo lavacro abluti, quo
spiritu regenerati, quo sanguine sunt redempti (299-C).

86 Chiasmic parallelism corresponds to the formula a - b + b’ - a’, as in the fol-
lowing synthetic parallelism: . . . sicut tuam cognovimus (a) veritatem (b), sic eam
(b’) dignis moribus assequamur (a’) (303-So).
87 An example of inclusion: Deus, per quem nobis et redemptio venit et praestatur
adoptio, filios dilectionis tuae benignus intende, ut in Christo credentibus et vera tribua-
tur libertas et hereditas aeterna. (303-C). The double initial syntagma (. . . nobis et
redemptio venit et praestatur adoptio) is met by an equally double final syntagma,
with ellipsis of the verb (tribuatur) by the second element (. . . et vera tribuatur
libertas et hereditas aeterna).
88 The expression gratia et veritas (grace and truth) is a hendiadys and is equiva-
lent to gratia veritatis (the gift of truth).
362
be confused with polar expression, which is an attempt to express ev-
erything that is included between the two expressed elements.89
Repetition or verbal redundancy, which is similar to Jakobson’s
principle of equivalence, consists in the repetitive and emphatic addi-
tion of one term to another.90
Concinnity refers to the equilibrium and harmony of a sentence in
which the formal symmetries correspond to the symmetries of con-
tent. It describes a literary statement in which the maximum of the
concept resides in the minimum of the significants.91
The theological passive is a feature of the Semitic languages which
has passed over into euchological texts. It refers to a verb which is
passive in form but lacks a complementary agent; the complementary
agent is understood to be God.92
Finally, the cursus93 refers to the rhythm of the clausula of a phrase,
stich, or komma. It is based on accent and is not quantitative. More
precisely, according to Mocquereau, cursus refers to “a harmonious
succession of words and syllables, which the Latin or Greek prose-
writers adopted at the end of a phrase or semi-phrase, in order to
produce cadences that are rhythmic and pleasing to the ear.”94 There
are four types of cursus: planus, tardus, trispondaicus, and velox.95
89 The expression creatorem caeli et terrae is a polar expression. It does not say
that God is creator of the heavens alone and of the earth alone; he is creator of all
that is included and found, according to ancient Jewish cosmology, within these
two extremes or poles.
90 See Augé’s example (from the First Eucharistic Prayer): Haec dona, haec
munera, haec sancta . . . (Augé, “Principi di interpretazione,” 177).

91 A short text with a good example of concinnity is perhaps 302-C: Omnipotens
sempiterne Deus, deduc nos ad societatem caelestium gaudiorum, ut eo perveniat humili-

tas gregis, quo processit fortitudo pastoris.
92 An example of the theological passive: . . . per passionem eius et crucem ad
resurrectionis gloriam perducamur (132-C). The complementary agent is understood

to be God (a te, Domine).
93 For a bibliography on the cursus, see that of Mohlberg, which although dated
by now, still remains a classic bibliography (L. C. Mohlberg, ed., Sacramentarium

Veronense [Rome, 1956] LII–LIII).
94 A. Mocquereau, “Le cursus et la psalmodie,” Paléographie musicale, I/4 (Bern,
1974) 27 (anastatic reprint of the Solesmes edition of 1894).

95 The cursus planus consists of five syllables (- - - - - ) ( < _ _ < _) and corre-
sponds to the classical clausula made up of the sequence creticus + choreus

( ¯ ˘ ¯ + ¯ ˘): libe-rán-te sal-vá-ri. The cursus tardus consists of six syllables (< _ _ < _ _)
363
These correspond in certain ways with some of the classical
clausulae.96
From an examination of the stylistics, we can, if we wish, go on to
a study of the text using the rhetorical method, which is not pre-
sented here because of the difficulty in bringing together all the ele-
ments of the method in such short, oral texts.
e) The Analysis of the Context

Our study of the literary identity of the text concludes with a study
of its literary-liturgical context. Analysis of the context is extremely
important for understanding the most salient and significant biblical-
liturgical themes. A formula is situated within a literary context
which is proximate, remote, general, and complete. The proximate
context is provided by the major and minor euchology as well as by
the texts of the Liturgy of the Word. The remote context is provided
by all the texts of the liturgical season, or by the particular part of the
sacramentary or missal in which the formula in question is found.
The general context is provided by the sacramentary or missal as a
whole. The complete context, on the other hand, includes all contem-
porary liturgical texts.
10. CONCLUSION
At the end of this process it is important to note certain essential data
that emerge from the methodology itself.
Prior to every method there is a hermeneutic. It is hard to do an
exhaustive and definitive interpretation of liturgical data today, espe-
cially now that we have seen the beginning of a fruitful dialogue
between the science of liturgy and the human sciences. As this dia-
logue gradually advances, it is proper that we should gradually open
our methodology to the new.
To integrate several methods does not mean to eliminate the previ-
ous method. It is clear that the historical-critical method prevailed
and corresponds to the classical clausula made up of the sequence creticus + creticus
(¯ ˘ ¯ + ¯ ˘ ¯): sém-per ob-tí-ne-at. The cursus spondaicus consists of six syllables
(< _ _ _ < _) and corresponds to the classical clausula made up of the sequence
paeon primus + choreus (¯ ˘ ˘ ˘ + ¯ ˘): adversi-tá-te li-be-rén-tur. The cursus velox con-
sists of seven syllables (< _ _ (<) _ < _) and corresponds to the classical clausula
made up of the sequence creticus + dichoreus (¯ ˘ ¯ + ¯ ˘ ¯ ˘): mé-ri-tis ad-iu-vé-mur.
96 H. Lausberg, Elementi di retorica, Il Mulino (Bologna, 1969) 258–9 §462–3.
364
until a few years ago. Today many of its conclusions have been over-
turned by linguistics, and what was once important has now been
reappraised. Openness to the new takes place through integration as
well as through reappraisal.
Linguistic hermeneutics offers many theoretical possibilities today.
This does not mean that all of them can be applied to euchological
texts. Indeed, there are certain peculiarities in prayer texts that do not
always fit the theoretical data. The interdisciplinary dialogue be-
tween liturgists and anthropologists is one in which neither side can
claim an exclusive right to ask the questions or give the answers.
Finally, our methodological choices are always influenced by our
aim. These few pages do not claim to exhaust all the textual riches to
be found in the prayer book. Their only aim has been to begin to dis-
cover further methods that will open the way to the riches of the eu-
chological heritage and the contemporary euchology of the Church.
Bibliography
Augé, M. “Principi di interpretazione dei testi liturgici.” Anàmnesis 1:159–179.
Turin, 1974.
Catella, A. “Analisi filologica e critico-letteraria in ordine alla dinamica stor-
ica della liturgia.” Celebrare il mistero di Cristo. La celebrazione: introduzione
alla liturgia cristiana, 1:121–130. Rome, 1993.
Maggiani, S. “Interpretare il libro liturgico.” Il mistero celebrato: Per una
metodologia dello studio della liturgia, 157–192. Rome, 1989.
_____. “Come leggere gli elementi costitutivi del libro liturgico.” Celebrare il
mistero di Cristo. La celebrazione: introduzione alla liturgia cristiana, 1:131–
141. Rome, 1993.
Merz, M. Liturgisches Gebet als Geschehen. Münster, 1988.
Nakagaki, F. “Metodo integrale: Discorso sulla metodologia nell’interpre-
tazione dei testi eucologici.” A. Cuva, ed., Fons vivus: Miscellanea liturgica
in memoria di don E. M. Vismara, 269–286. Zürich, 1971.
Schermann, J. Die Sprache im Gottesdienst. Innsbruck–Vienna, 1987.
Taft, R. “The Structural Analysis of the Liturgical Units: An Essay in
Methodology.” Wor 52 (1978) 314-329.
Triacca, A., and R. Farina. “Studio e lettura dell’eucologia: Note
metodologiche.” C. Ghidelli, ed., Teologia, liturgia, storia: Miscellanea in
onore di C. Manziana, 197–224. Brescia, 1977.
Zimmermann, J. A. Liturgy as Language of Faith: A Liturgical Methodology in the
Mode of Paul Ricoeur’s Textual Hermeneutics. New York–London, 1988.
365
Renato De Zan
18
Liturgical Textual Criticism
A great teacher of Liturgy wrote:
“In order to perform correctly textual criticism, one must have broad
erudition in several distinct branches of study, and likewise be en-
dowed with great judgment for interpreting in the light of one’s own
learning the questions that arise during the labor: to make use of it
at the right time; namely, always and only when a specific problem
requires it.”1
Liturgical textual criticism is indeed a science because of the
approach that is taken toward the text and because of the scientific
process necessary for the choices to be carried out. Yet it is also an
art2 because of the esprit de finesse that should guide the critic as he or
she, first, becomes attuned to the author and the amanuensis and,
thereafter, in evaluating what text is to be kept and what is to be left
aside. This latter operation consists in evaluating rigorously what is
an actual error to be corrected as opposed to what is a variant that
1 J. Pinell, Critica testuale. Corso di iniziazione per il buon uso delle edizioni critiche e
diplomatiche liturgiche (Rome, 19914) 15 (lecture notes for the course in textual criti-
cism at the Pontifical Liturgical Institute; abbreviation: Pinell, Critica). The critics
of biblical texts also are set along the same line. Metzger states that teaching an-
other person how to become a text critic is like teaching him or her to become a
poet (B. M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament [New York-London, 1964] 211.
The third edition is from 1992).
2 Cf. A. Passoni Dell’Acqua, Il testo del Nuovo Testamento (Leumann-Torino,
1994) 27–8.
367
should be respected, understood, and retained.3 In contrast with the
biblical (and profane) textual criticism that seeks to reconstitute, by
eliminating errors and variants, the archetype or, if possible, the holo-
graph itself of the author or of the final editor, liturgical textual criti-
cism examines texts of a different kind: the liturgical variant does not
separate the copy4 from the exemplar,5 but makes the copy a new text
with respect to the exemplar. The copy, therefore, is to be corrected of
errors and not of variants.6
A good critic of a liturgical text7 in our time should possess some
notions8 that go beyond philology9 and pure textual criticism: knowl-
3 In 1994 F. Dell’Oro published in two articles a nearly complete list of editions
of liturgical manuscripts from 1960 to 1992. F. Dell’Oro, “Recenti edizioni di

Sacramentari della Liturgia occidentale,” in La preghiera della Chiesa (Bologna,
1974) 261–78; F. Dell’Oro, “Recenti edizioni critiche di fonti liturgiche,” Liturgia
delle ore. Tempo e rito (Rome, 1994) 197–303.
4 Manuscript copied from the exemplar.
5 Manuscript that the amanuensis transcribes in his copy.
6 Of interest is what the editors of the Greek Barberini Euchology 336 write: “The
edition of a euchological text, by its nature eminently oral, cannot be approached

by the same criteria under which a classic text is critically published. What fol-
lows, then, is not a critical edition in the strict sense of the term, but rather an
edition of the text of the Barberini Euchology that avails itself of other manu-
scripts only in the event that the reading of the codex evidently proves to be
uncertain, corrupt or containing gaps.” Eds. S. Parenti - E. Velkovska, L’Eucologio
Barberini qr. 336 (Rome, 1995) XXV–XXVI.
7 See the interesting contribution of B. Baroffio on the nomenclature of litur-
gical books and of their parts: B. Baroffio, “I manoscritti liturgici,” V. Jemolo -

M. Morelli, Guida a una descrizione uniforme dei manoscritti e al loro censimento
(Rome, 1990) 143–92 (abbreviation: Jemolo - Morelli, Guida).
8 See the overview in A. D’Agostino, ed., La critica dei testi medievali e umanistici
(Rome, 1984) trans. from the German of the collective work Probleme der Edition
mittel- und neulateinischer Texte (Bonn, 1978).
9 It seems unnecessary to point out that a good critic of liturgical texts should
know, in addition to classical Latin, also the Christian and especially the medi-
eval liturgical Latin. Cf. J. Schrunen, Charakteristik des Altchristlichen Latein
(Nijmegen, 1932); C. Mohrmann, Études sur le latin des Chrétiens, vol. III: Latin
chrétien et liturgique (Rome, 1965); M. P. Ellebracht, Remarks on the Vocabulary of the
Ancient Orations in the Missale Romanum (Nijmegen, 19662); V. Väänänen,
Introduction au latin vulgaire (Paris, 19672); D. Norberg, Manuel pratique de latin
médiéval (Paris, 1968).
368
edge is also needed of codicology and paleography. The task of tex-
tual criticism, therefore, proceeds by stages, briefly summarized here.
1. Codicology10 is concerned basically with the materials for writ-
ing which, by way of summary, are analyzed in line with this brief
scheme:11
a) Every manuscript has its own “shelf mark.”12 It is rare for
a liturgical manuscript not to have a shelf mark, and there-
fore to be unknown.13 It is necessary to assign one to it in
order for it to be identified.
b) A liturgical manuscript is normally a codex14 consisting of
two fascicles of sheets of parchment. Parchment is an animal
skin (sheep or, less commonly, horse or cow), treated with
lime, dried, and then smoothed with a pumice stone. It has a
flesh side or side c (which adhered to the animal’s flesh) and
a hair side or side p (where the animal’s hair lay). The flesh
side is of a lighter color, the hair side of a darker color. As
they age, the flesh side tends to become convex, and the hair
side concave. The sheets were sewed together to form a
fascicle so that the flesh side of a sheet would touch the flesh
side of another sheet (preceding or following) and the hair
10 Among the innumerable studies of codicology, mention should be made of
A. Dain, Les manuscrits (Paris, 19753); ed. J. Glenisson, Le Livre au moyen âge (Paris,
1988); J. Lemaire, Introduction à la codicologie (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1989).
11 For a complete description of a manuscript, see Jemolo - Morelli, Guida.
12 By “shelf mark” is meant the abbreviation and/or the number by which the
manuscript is known in the library where it is kept. The Reginensis latinus 316 of
the Vatican Library is the Gelasian Sacramentary, while the D. 47 of the Capitular
Library of Padua is the Paduense Gregorian Sacramentary.
13 Cf. K. Gamber, Codices liturgici latini antiquiores, vols. I-II (Freiburg, 19682);
K. Gamber, Codices liturgici latini antiquiores / Supplementum (Freiburg, 1988);

(this is a completion of the work with contributions by B. Baroffio, F. Dell’Oro,
A. Hänggi, J. Janini, A. M. Triacca).
14 In the liturgical sphere a little less than twenty scrolls are known: the scrolls
of the Exultet, the Ravenna scroll, the scroll with the Benedictio fontis, and the
scroll of the pontifical for the ordination of a bishop. Cf. G. Cavallo, Rotoli
dell’Exultet dell’Italia meridionale (Bari, 1973); G. Battelli, Lezioni di paleografia
(Vatican City, 19493) (there have been successive reprintings, without corrections:
the eleventh was in 1991; abbreviation: Battelli, Lezioni ) 142.
369
side, obviously, the hair side of the (preceding or following)
sheet.15
c) The parchment was folded several times 16 and then cut.
Normally every fascicle consists of four double sheets (eight
sheets) and is called a quaternion.17 Each sheet has a side
called recto (for Latin books, it is the face of the sheet with the
stitching on the left) and the other, called verso (for Latin
books, it is the face of the sheet with the stitching on the
right). The abbreviations are r and v. A formula usually indi-
cates the composition and the state of the fascicle: IV R r1v
r2v TP r3v ⁄ r4v r5v r6v r7v R. This is the fourth fascicle (IV) of
the manuscript with the stitching reinforcement (R . . . R).
This stands for a quaternion, which should have eight sheets.
It has seven of them, three before the stitch (⁄) and four after,
since the third sheet has been removed. The trace of this
removal is the stub (T) of the lost sheet (P).18 Every fascicle of
a codex is examined and represented by a diagram such as
the following:
15 The philologist Casper Renatus Gregory noticed this order (the “face to face”
rule) in 1885. His work of 1885, Les cahiers des manuscrits grecs, was reprinted in
L. Gilissen, Prolégomènes à la codicologie (Ghent, 1977) 15–9 abbreviation: Gilissen,
Prolégomènes. The “face to face” rule is called the Gregory rule, and it helps in
seeing whether the manuscript is entire or if it has been subject to alteration
(for example, by removal of a sheet or double sheet). The removal of just a sheet
is unfortunately common. This appalling practice leaves a trace on the fascicle at
the stub, a small strip of remaining parchment near the stitch. The small strip,
however, that binds the fascicle from the outside, along the stitch, is called the
reinforcement.
16 The skin can be folded in folio (with one fold, yielding two sheets or one
double sheet), in quarto (with two folds, yielding four sheets in two double
sheets), in octavo (with three folds, yielding eight sheets in four double sheets).
17 If the fascicle is composed of two double sheets (4 sheets), it is called a binion;
composed of three double sheets (6 sheets), it is called a ternion; of four double

sheets (8 sheets), quaternion; of five double sheets (10 sheets), quinion. Then there
are a senion, a septenion, and an octonion. Thereafter it is said that a fascicle is com-
posed of nine double sheets, of ten double sheets, etc.
18 In applying the Gregory rule to the codicology formula, one notes that the
flesh side of sheet 2v touches the hair side of sheet r3: R c1p p2c TP p3c ⁄ c4p p5c
c6p p7c R.
370
R r1v r2v TP r3v ⁄ r4v r5v r6v r7v R
d) After the composition of the codex is determined in the

individual fascicles, the cover and the back are also studied
with their respective decorations or letterings.
e) Attention then shifts to the line pattern, which is the set of
horizontal or vertical lines that delimit the writing frame. An
old manuscript has provided us the general formula by
which the amanuenses would proceed in setting the line pat-
tern:19 the page is made four units wide and five high (4/5);20
the vertical line patterns: from the left side to the second
vertical line, there should be 4/9 of a unit; the writing zone
follows, delimited by a second vertical line that is a whole
unit distant from the right margin; the horizontal line pat-
terns: the first line lies 2/3 of a unit from the upper margin,
while the last is a whole unit distant from the lower margin;
between these two lines run the lines of writing within the
frame in parallel order.21
f) Finally, the study of ink can yield more information for de-
termining the place and time of a manuscript’s composition.22
19 The formula is contained in the ms. Parisinus latinus 11884.

20 The criteria for line patterns have undergone various changes over the course
of time, cf. J. Lemaire, Introduction à la codicologie (Louvain-la-Neuve, 1989); the
ratio between width and height can also correspond to the golden section
(0.618/1), to the Pythagorean rectangle (3/4), and to the proportions of Leonardo
Fibonacci (5/8). These models almost never were executed exactly (Gilissen,
Prolégomènes, 224–7).
21 The mathematical formula of this simple line pattern is: (4/9:1) + (2+5/9:1) +
(1/1) x (2/3:1) + (3+1/3:1) + (1:1). The first part of this formula comprises the
horizontal reading, from right to left, of the vertical lines. After the x sign the
vertical reading of the horizontal lines begins from the top.
22 Cf. M. Zerdoun Bat-Yehouda, Les encres noires au Moyen Age (jusqu’à 1600)
(Paris, 1983).
371
2. Paleography23 is the science that studies and deciphers ancient
writings. For liturgical texts, there are three especially important peri-
ods: the first (7th-9th centuries), during which the copying centers,
the scriptoria, lie in the centers of Roman culture and the abbeys, is
characterized by the survival of some handwriting forms of the pre-
vious period (especially cursive minuscule, half-uncial, and uncial)
and by the use of new forms (Beneventan, Merovingian, Visigothic)
of handwriting, the Carolingian and, in some particular places
(Ireland, England) the insular script; the third period (13th-14th cen-
turies) is dominated by the Gothic script that is used both by the
abbeys and by the new copying centers that are the scriptoria of the
universities. This simple classification aids in understanding the use-
fulness of knowledge of forms of writing which, together with a
knowledge of inks and of other content elements, can lead to a good
dating of a manuscript.
Each of these forms of writing, characterized by identifying letters,
presents two large difficulties to the contemporary reader: the abbre-
viations and the ligatures. The former consist in reducing, according
to a certain conventionality, the number of letters that make up a
frequent word (Ds for Deus, IHS for Iesus, SPS for Spiritus, etc.). The
latter are special ways of joining a sequence of letters one to another.
In working with the writing on a manuscript, the following general
rules should be observed in transcribing into typographic lower-case
letters:
a) A number is assigned to each liturgical text (from the eu-
chological to the rubrical) of the codex under examination.
b) Words are separated, abbreviations and ligatures are writ-
ten in full.24
c) Every letter is transcribed as it is recognized in the manu-
script; it is more correct to write j as i and to distinguish
between u and v.
23 Among the numerous studies of paleography, noteworthy are: Battelli, Lezioni;

A. Cappelli, Dizionario di abbreviature latine ed italiane (Milan, 19616); G. Cencetti,
Paleografia latina (Rome, 1978); G. Tognetti, Criteri per la trascrizione di testi
medioevali latini e italiani (Rome, 1982); B. Bischoff, Paläographie des römischen
Altertums und des abendländischen Mittelalters (Berlin, 1986).
24 The accepted meaning is usually gained through the Vere dignum.
372
d) Attention is needed as to whether each line of writing has
been done by one25 or more hands26 and whether there are
corrections above the text or over an erasure.27
e) The interlinear and marginal glosses, when they belong to
a text, are written between squared brackets È ∪.
f) The upper case should be used: at the beginning of a text
and after every period; for personal and place names; for
names of peoples (and religions); for sacred persons (God,
Persons of the Trinity, the Virgin . . .); for solemnities, feasts,
and liturgical times; for Ecclesia (when it indicates the whole
Church and not a particular church); sanctus and beatus,
when they are applied to persons, should not be written with
an upper-case letter.
g) It is preferable to employ modern diacritical signs: punctu-
ation in manuscripts is almost always arbitrary.
h) During the transcription the sign of a page turn is placed
in the text exactly where this action is done in a manuscript;
the sign lies between brackets which contain the number of
the sheet and its respective recto or verso [f.6v].
i) In the case of a text mutilated due to the decay of the writ-
ing materials, steps are taken for the hypothetical reconstruc-
tion of the text, by taking into account three basic elements:28
the characteristics of the writing (abbreviations or ligatures)
and its relation to the missing line pattern; the characteristics
of the kommata or stichs (the length and the cursus,29 when
25 This concerns the text by the first hand.

26 This concerns the text or additions by the second hand or the third, etc.
27 The corrections can be by the first hand or by another hand. They are above
the text when the mistaken word has been struck (but is still legible) and the cor-
rection has been made above it, by writing the correct word or whatever was
deemed to be so. They are corrections over erasures when the mistaken word has
been scraped off with a scriptorium knife, and the correct word or whatever is
deemed to be so has been written over the erasure.
28 J. Pinell, “Reliquias del Psalmographus,” Hispania Sacra 25 (1972) 185–208.
29 Cf. H. Lausberg, Elemente der literarischen Rhetorik (Munich, 19673);
A. Mocquereau, “Le cursus et la psalmodie,” Paleographie musicale, I/4 (Berne,

1974) 27 (photomechanical reprint of the Solesmes 1894 edition).
373
possible); the connection of the text to be reconstructed with
similar biblical, patristic, and euchological texts.
j) Particular attention is then paid to palimpsests.30 The
underlying text (scriptio inferior) is difficult to reconstruct
given the possibility that the amanuensis might have altered,
for whatever reason, the earlier order of the fascicles.
k) Musical notations31 and decorations (capital letters, minia-
tures, etc.)32 make up part of a special branch of paleography.
3. In the copying process, an amanuensis would perform textual

alterations. There are involuntary alterations (errors) and voluntary
ones (variants).33 Errors can be due to sight (from two phenomena,
homeoarcton and homeoteleuton,34 there usually derive haplography
and its opposite, dittography35), to hearing and to dictation
(homophony, alteration of sound, and environmental phonetic condi-
tioning36), to ignorance (grammatical, syntactical, and theological
errors), and to psychological factors (inversions, metatheses, harmo-
30 Alban Dold, O.S.B., has given particular attention to this kind of liturgical
manuscript. See, for example, A. Dold, ed., Palimpseststudien I (Beuron, 1955);

II (Beuron, 1957).
31 Cf. M. G. Tedeschi, “I manoscritti musicali,” in Jemolo-Morelli, Guida, 103–42.
The bibliography is very good, albeit basic.

32 Cf. L. Donati, Bibliografia della miniatura (Florence, 1972); G. Bologna,
Manoscritti e miniature. Il libro prima di Guttemberg (Milan, 1994).

33 The Gelasian textual tradition is marked by many errors and few corrections,
while the Gregorian textual tradition counts few errors and many corrections (cf.
Pinell, Critica, 17).
34 Homeoarcton or homeoarctia is a graphic phenomenon that consists in two suc-
cessive words (expressions, phrases, pericopes) beginning with the same letters
(words, expressions, phrases). Homeoteleuton or homeoteleutia is the same phenom-
enon, but it involves the ending of words, expressions, phrases, and pericopes.
The eye does not perceive two literary elements but just one.
35 Haplography is the omission of the repetition of some element of writing
(letter, syllable, word, expression, phrase, pericope when the correct form in the
exemplar is double; dittography is the improper repetition of an element when
the correct form in the exemplar is single.
36 The copyist writes preces instead of praeces, or else umanitas instead of human-
itas (homophony); he writes monimentum instead of munimentum; creatur instead

of creator (alteration of sound); he writes salba or mici instead of salva or mihi
(phonetic conditionings of the cultural environment within which he lives).
374
nizations37). Variants are voluntary alterations, due to the culture of
the time and environment of the amanuensis. They make the text con-
tained in the copy a new text with respect to the text of the exemplar.
A comparative study (reasons that have led to: additions, deletions,
expansions, modifications on a semantic, linguistic, stylistic, and
theological level) between the text of the exemplar and the volun-
tarily modified text contained in the copy does not belong to the field
of liturgical textual criticism. Rather, it belongs to the field of literary
criticism of the sources, which liturgical textual criticism makes use
of. These variants can be literary (stylistic perfecting or simplification
of the text), hermeneutical (expansions, replacement of obsolete
terms, alteration of meaning), and theological. When the variants
present in the copy are drawn from an exemplar different from the
one that the amanuensis is copying, there is the phenomenon of con-
tamination; this phenomenon makes difficult the reconstruction of
the lineage of the manuscript being examined.
Every manuscript has a genealogy behind it. Reconstructing this
genealogy or lineage38 is essential for non-liturgical textual criticism:
only thus can the archetype of the text or even the original text be estab-
lished. For liturgical textual criticism, precisely because of the character-
istics of the text being examined, rather than reconstruct the lineage that
leads to the archetype, one can normally reconstruct a segment of
lineage that places the manuscript being examined within a family. A
liturgical manuscript normally does not have an archetype but rather a
model. The lineage is determined after a collection (collatio) of manu-
scripts close to the one being examined is made, and after examining
the textual alterations (errors and variants). The errors-variants
serve as guides. They are called conjunctive errors-variants when they
are found in more manuscripts that make them related. They are called
disjunctive errors-variants when they are present in some manuscripts
37 The copyist writes praecipio instead of percipio (metathesis), Iesus Christus in-
stead of Christus Iesus (inversion), or else he expands the text in the copy because,
after reading some words, he thinks he remembers well the text of the exemplar,
while instead he writes another text from memory.
38 The classic text on lineage is P. Maas, Textkritik (Leipzig, 19573). There is an
Italian trans. by N. Martinelli of the second German edition, with a presentation

by G. Pasquali: P. Maas, Critica del testo (Florence, 1972). The new feature of the
third German edition, the Rückblick [retrospective], has been translated in Belfagor
23 (1968) 358–60.
375
but absent in others, thus creating a separation between one group and
the other. By examining the textual alterations, conjunctive and disjunc-
tive errors-variants, and by dating the manuscripts normally through
the script and the ink, it is possible to reconstruct a segment of lineage
(linear, divaricate, branched) where the capital letters of the Latin alpha-
bet (A; B; C; etc.) indicate the real manuscripts, and the small letters of
the Greek alphabet (a; b; g; etc.) indicate the hypothetical manuscripts.
It must be kept in mind that contamination often turns the lineage, or
rather the segment of the lineage, into a very difficult task. At this point,
the critic accepts the lesser evil: he or she carries out some simple com-
parisons among the texts he or she possesses, choosing a primary source
for comparing with the others.39
4. The rules of textual criticism of a liturgical text basically involve
the recomposition of a liturgical text, with errors corrected, according
to the final redaction of the text itself. This simple statement has
some consequences:
— to restore a liturgical manuscript through textual criticism

means to leave the order of the texts as it is, unless there are
proofs to the contrary that emerge from codicology;
— each text is respected for what it is and any comparison
with texts of more archaic manuscripts serves for the correc-
tion of errors and not for the modification of variants; this
can be useful for the delicate work of reconstructing a text
containing gaps (cf. 2i).
Liturgical textual criticism for certain aspects is simple: it in-
volves correcting in general errors in spelling, grammar, and
syntax. Rarely are there theological errors. More often there
may be haplographs, dittographs, and metatheses. Even rarer
are instances of a nonsensical reading. All these errors can be
corrected, quite frequently, without resorting to parallel
sources. Sometimes, however, it is necessary to refer to paral-
lel sources: in this case, use is made of some rules, prudently
applied. None of these rules, taken individually, is determi-
native for the choice of the textus receptus or the editor’s read-
39 “If the discrepancies between A and B are greater than between A and C, and
furthermore C, with its particular variants, appears closer to B than to A, then C
could be a good primary text” (Pinell, Critica, 9).
376
ing. Rather, it is the convergence of the entire set of these
rules that is determinative. The external rules, that prescind
from the content of the text, can be summarized as follows:
— the best-documented reading is the most original, taking
into account the identity and the connection among
manuscripts;
— the influence of parallel texts (euchological, patristic, bibli-
cal) of the connected readings and of the theological mental-
ity must be taken into account;
— consideration must be given to the cursus and the concinni-
tas (grammar, syntax, phraseology, sentence division).
The internal rules, which take into account the content of the
text, can be briefly presented as follows:
— the more difficult reading has the greater probability of
being the original;
— the shorter reading has the greater probability of being the
original;
— the preferred reading ought to be in harmony with the
context;
— the other variants should be explained by the preferred
reading.
Only in extreme cases (in case of a nonsensical reading) can re-

course be made to conjectures.
5. The critical apparatus in the liturgical context has not yet as-
sumed a canonical character inasmuch as a liturgical text cannot fol-
low the rules of editions of biblical or profane texts.40 A transition has
been made from Mohlberg’s skeleton notes to Canals’ copious notes.
The accumulated experience in these recent decades permits gather-
ing some constants, capable of being summarized,41 within the
40 See note 7.
41 By way of example, two publications may be read. For a calendar, see
F. Trolese, “Usanze liturgiche del monastero de santa Giustina nel sec. XV: dal
codice 1389 della Biblioteca Universitaria di Padova,” in A. Catella, Amen Vestrum.
Miscellanea di studi liturgico-pastorali in onore di P. Pelagio Visentin o.s.b., (Padua,
1994) 13–68. For a sacramentary, see Monumenta liturgica ecclesiae tridentinae,
vols. I–III (Trent, 1983–1985).
377
critical apparatuses of different published liturgical texts.42 In the edi-
tor’s reading, also called the textus receptus:
a) the identifying number of each text (liturgical, rubrical,

musical) is placed in the margin;
b) the progressive line number is always placed in the mar-
gin (the number is written out every three lines: 3; 6; 9; etc.);
c) the sign of a page turn with brackets [], and the number of
the sheet with the specification r or v are placed in the text;
moreover brackets are used to enclose dittographs; acute
brackets <> are use for enclosing haplographs; between
squared brackets, È ∪, interlinear or marginal glosses are en-
closed; a bar ⏐ can be employed for indicating in the textus
receptus the point at which the amanuensis goes to the head of
the manuscript.
At the foot of a page, however, two registers are normally
placed: the one for parallel passages and the other for textual
criticism. In the register of parallel passages, mention is
made of the texts closest to the text being examined, or even
the same text present in other manuscripts. In the register of
textual criticism, however, these elements are usually found:
d) the line number written as an exponent to indicate where
to find the problem of textual criticism that is sought for dis-
cussion;
e) written immediately thereafter is the word or expression
of the textus receptus that is sought for discussion, followed
immediately by a single bracket ];
f) what comes next indicates the variant that was not chosen
for the textus receptus but that is present in other manu-
scripts; for the Latin text, normal type is used, while for
everything else (critical abbreviations,43 abbreviations of
codices, etc.) italics are used;
42 The most important series of liturgical texts are: Henry Bradshaw Society,
Liturgiegeschichtliche (Liturgiewissenschaftliche) Quellen und Forschungen,
Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, Spicilegium Friburgense, etc.
43 For example, add. (addition), marg. (marginal), om. (omission), p.m. (first
hand), ras. (erasure), s.m. (second hand), trans. (transposition), etc.
378
g) the individual problem of textual criticism, whenever
there might be more than one in one line, is enclosed by a
vertical bar ⁄; the double bar ⁄⁄ is used to enclose a problem or
problems of textual criticism of a line of the textus receptus.
At the end of his or her work, the liturgical text critic is called
to the true humility of the knowledge that is able to accept
constructive criticism with gratitude. Indeed, it is difficult for
the first edition of a liturgical critical text to be published
without errors.
Bibliography
Agostino, A., ed. La critica dei testi medievali e umanistici. Rome, 1984.
Avalle, D. S. Principi di critica testuale. Padua, 1972.
Fränkel, H. Testo critico e critica del testo. Florence, 1969.
Pasquali, G. Storia della tradizione e critica del testo. Florence, 19522. This is a
classic manual for profane (and biblical) texts. Not all the criteria are
useful for liturgical texts. It creates in the reader a good critical mindset,
very useful for resolving typical cases of liturgical textual criticism.
There is a reprint of the Italian edition: Milan 1974.
Pinell, J. Critica testuale:. Corso di iniziazione per il buon uso delle edizioni critiche
e diplomatiche liturgiche. Rome, 19914 (lecture notes).
Reynolds, L. D., ed. Texts and Transmission: A Survey of the Latin Classics.
Oxford, 1983.
Sabbadini, R. Storia e critica dei testi latini. Padua, 19712.
Salvatore, A. Edizione critica e critica del testo, Rome 1983.
379
19
The Translation of Liturgical Texts
I N T R O D U C TO RY N O T E S
The liturgy uses a variety of texts, both biblical and extra-biblical.
These texts are proclaimed as part of public worship and hence, to-
gether with the other ritual components of the celebration, contribute
to the spiritual edification of the hearers. Sacrosanctum Concilium 33
teaches: “Not only when things ‘that were written for our instruction’
are read (Roman 15:4), but also when the Church prays or sings or
acts, the faith of those taking part is nourished and their minds are
raised to God.” Liturgical texts are intended to nourish the faith of
the assembly. That is why, they should be theologically rich and
spiritually uplifting. At the same time they should be formulated that
they serve as effective means of communicating the message of the
liturgy to a given assembly.
It is useful at this point to compare liturgical texts with the other
liturgical components. In a broad sense the texts and ritual elements
of worship belong to the category of language: they all speak to the
assembly and convey, in their particular way, the message of the lit-
urgy. Both fall under the category of sign. They indicate the presence
of God and of his salvation in the liturgical assembly. Some texts and
ritual elements belong also to the category of sacraments. They
“contain what they signify.” Such are the sacramental formulas and
gestures like the handlaying at ordination rites. Generally speaking,
texts and ritual elements are plurivalent or open to a variety of inter-
pretations. Exception should be made in those situations where they
381
express a doctrine or perhaps even a dogmatic statement and hence
must be interpreted according to the intention of the Church.
But there are differences. While non-verbal elements, such as
symbols and gestures, address the assembly through the tactile and
visual senses, liturgical texts are words that are communicated orally
through aural contact.1 While certain symbols and gestures are trans-
cultural and do not need to be “translated” in order to be understood
cross-culturally, liturgical texts require the use of the local assembly’s
words, phrases, and language patterns in order to pass on their mes-
sage. In those instances — and today they constitute the majority of
cases — where the texts originate in another epoch and in another
theological and cultural milieu, translation becomes a necessity,
unless new texts are composed locally. The decision of Vatican II to
allow the use of the vernacular is surely one of its precious gifts to
local churches.2
L A N G UA G E S U S E D I N T H E L I T U R G Y
We may presume that the first Christian community at Jerusalem
worshiped in Aramaic, though it is expected that the scriptural read-
ings were in Hebrew.3 As the Church spread to other centers of the
Roman Empire, a popular type of Greek became the language for
worship. It was the language spoken throughout the major cities of
the empire, including Rome itself. Greek koinhv, on the other hand,
was the language in which the books of the New Testament were
read. In Jerusalem the situation was somewhat different in the fourth
century. The bishop spoke to the assembly in Greek while an inter-
preter translated into Syriac.4 Eventually the biblical readings were
translated also in Syriac and Latin for those who did not speak
Greek.
But Christianity reached also the other parts of the world where
Greek was less familiar. In the peripheries of Antioch people contin-
ued to speak Syriac and this became the established liturgical lan-
guage. Alexandria spoke Greek, but by the sixth and seventh century
1 K. Larsen, “Language as Aural,” Wor 54 (1980) 18–35.
2 J. Lamberts, “Vatican II et la liturgie en langue vernaculaire,” QL 66 (1985)
125–54.
3 A.-G. Martimort, “Essai historique sur les traductions liturgiques,” MD 86
(1966) 75–105.
4 Ethérie, Journal de voyage 47, SCh 21 (Paris, 1948) 260–3.
382
Coptic was introduced into the liturgy for nationalistic and sectarian,
that is monophysite, motives. Today it uses Greek, Coptic, and
Arabic. Ethiopia still celebrates the liturgy in ancient Ge’ez, which
is a Semitic language, although the local Church was influenced by
Coptic, Greek, and Syrian missionaries. Seleucia on the lower Tigris,
the center of the Nestorian Church which brought the Gospel as
far as India, Java, and China, used Syriac, the language in which
Mesopotamia and Persia were evangelized. However, the missionary
demands constrained the Nestorian Church to translate the biblical
readings and its liturgical books into the local languages. Armenia
which was evangelized in the third century and received influences
from Antioch and Constantinople has kept its ancient Armenian
language in the liturgy. Georgia still celebrates the Byzantine liturgy
in the Georgian language. Lastly, most of the other churches in
Eastern Europe from Bulgaria to Russia, which inherited the liturgy
of Constantinople, continue to use Slavonic for their liturgical
language.5
The use of native or local languages for the liturgy is thus a signifi-
cant tradition of the early Church. The obvious motivation was
clearly the absolute need to communicate the message to the liturgi-
cal assembly. In the second half of the ninth century the Thessalonian
brothers Cyril and Methodius started their missionary work in
Moravia by translating the Latin and Greek liturgies there into
Slavonic. Their effort was met with hostility on the part of the
Frankish clergy, the original missionaries of Moravia, who argued
that God could be worshiped only in Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, the
three languages in which Pilate wrote the cause for which he con-
demned Christ to the cross.6 Such principle of “trilinguism” blatantly
ignored both tradition and pastoral concern.
When the Christian community was established in Rome before
the year 60, Greek was the dominant language among the inhabitants
of the city. This is explained by the cosmopolitan and international
character of the city which attracted the Orientals in great numbers.
In fact during the first two centuries the Church of Rome raised ten
5 T. Federici, “Le liturgie dell’area orientale,” Anàmnesis 2 (Casale, 1978) 110–28.

6 A. Dostal, “The Origins of the Slavonic Liturgy,” Dumbarton Oaks Papers 19
(1965) 67–87.
383
Greek-speaking bishops to the throne of Peter. The Romans them-
selves learned and preferred to speak Greek as the language of
culture and civilization.
The process of latinization in the liturgy began, not in Rome, but in
the churches of North Africa.7 The writers who contributed to the
process were Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Arnobius, Lactantius,
and Augustine of Hippo. From them the Church in the West inher-
ited such liturgical words as sacramentum, ordo, plebs, disciplina, and
institutio. The first official Latin version of the Bible for use in the
liturgy appeared in North Africa around the year 250. In his writings
Cyprian constantly cited from this translation.
The first attempt to introduce Latin in the Roman liturgy was made
during the pontificate of Victor I († 203), an African by birth. It was
toward the year 250 when the Latin bible made its appearance in the
city. By the second half of the third century, when the number of
migrations from the oriental part of the empire dropped, Latin
gained ascendancy. The Roman Church then adopted a bilingual
liturgy: Greek for the Eucharistic Prayer, at least until the appearance
of the Roman canon in the fourth century, and Latin for the biblical
readings. This transitional stage lasted until the end of the fourth
century, when Pope Damasus I († 384) initiated a definitive transition
from Greek to Latin. He authored the famous Latin epigrammata and
several Latin formularies that have been preserved in the Veronese
Sacramentary. It is now commonly held that the shift involved the
composition of new liturgical texts in Latin, not translation from
Greek.8 This was the way the Latin liturgical language evolved, thanks
to the authorship of the Roman bishops, especially Pope Leo I († 461).
In the seventh century the Church of Rome returned to some form
of bilingual liturgy to accommodate Orientals who poured back into
the city. In fact from 638 to 772 nine popes were from the East.
Rome’s bilingual liturgy referred to the readings and to some rites of
the catechumenate. Greco-Roman readings continued to be practiced
in Rome for such occasions as Easter and Christmas, at the Vigils of
7 C. Vogel, Medieval Liturgy: Introduction to the Sources (Washington, D.C., 1986)
294–7; T. Klauser, A Short History of the Western Liturgy (Oxford, 1979) 18–24,
37–47.
8 C. Vogel, Medieval Liturgy, 295–6.
384
Easter and Pentecost, on Ember Saturdays, and at the Mass for the
ordination of a pope.
In conclusion we recall that in the third century the liturgy of
Rome was still in Greek, although the city spoke Latin. It took the
Roman Church one century to adjust painfully to the inevitable, but
it did so courageously, fully aware that it was abandoning the lan-
guage of the apostolic times and the language of its martyrs. Yet the
liturgy had to speak the language of the people, if the gospel mes-
sage it contains was to be communicated at all. This same pastoral
spirit came alive in the seventh century when the Roman Church
shifted back to a bilingual liturgy in favor of migrants from the East.
It took the Roman Church several hundred years to adjust again to
the fact that its liturgical assemblies no longer spoke nor understood
Latin. This time it had to be a decision of an ecumenical council.
T H E T R A N S I T I O N F R O M L AT I N T O T H E V E R N A C U L A R
When Vatican II approved the use of the vernacular in the Roman
liturgy, it was implied that the Latin liturgical books would have to
be translated into the local languages. This underpinned Sacrosanctum
Concilium 36 whose formulation drew much debate in the council
hall.9 The final text is a classic example of the via media which
reaffirmed, on the one hand, that “the use of the Latin language is to
be preserved in the Latin rite,” although the use of the vernacular
may be extended, and empowered, on the other, the conferences of
bishops “to decide and to what extent the vernacular may be used.”10
While emotional attachment to the Latin liturgy on the part of
some Fathers was present during the council discussion, the implica-
tions of a translated liturgy were not lost to others. Norms were
needed to safeguard the liturgy’s doctrinal purity as well as its
authentic message. A petition was submitted to the conciliar
commission to add a clause requiring that “translations from the
Latin text into the mother tongue intended for use in the liturgy
9 A. Chupungco, “The Translation, Adaptation and Creation of Liturgical
Texts,” Not 208 (1983) 694–700.

10 For a 1979 listing of the various approved liturgical languages after the coun-
cil, see J. Gibert, “Le lingue nella liturgia dopo il Concilio Vaticano II,” Not 15
(1979) 387–520. See A.-G. Martimort, “L’Histoire et le problème liturgique contem-
porains,” Mens concordet voci (Tournai, 1983) 177–92.
385
must be approved by the competent, territorial authority.” The reason
for the petition was “to avoid dangerous freedom and variety of
translations which can threaten the true meaning and beauty of the
texts.”11
The first area of liturgy for which the vernacular was allowed is
the divine office. In his celebrated Motu proprio “Sacram Liturgiam”
of 1964 Pope Paul VI put into effect the use of the vernacular in-
stead of Latin in the recitation of the hours. He defined the norm
that the translated version should be drawn up and approved by
the conferences of bishops and submitted to the Holy See for due
approval, that is, confirmation. “This is the course to be taken
whenever any Latin liturgical text is translated into the vernacular
by the authority already mentioned.”12 In the same year the
Consilium issued the Instruction Inter Oecumenici where it gave the
criteria for vernacular translations.13 Among other things, the
Consilium made it clear that “the basis of the translations is the
Latin liturgical text” (XI, 40a), that the work of translations should
involve institutes of liturgy or persons who are experts in Scripture,
liturgy, the biblical languages, Latin, the vernacular, and music (XI,
40b), that where applicable, “there should be consultation with
bishops of neighboring regions using the same language” (XI, 40c),
that “in nations of several languages there should be a translation
for each language” (XI, 40d), and that the liturgy may be celebrated
anywhere in the language of migrants, members of a personal
parish, or other like groups (XI, 41).
In his address to the translators of liturgical texts in 1965 Pope Paul
VI summed up the conciliar and postconciliar thinking on the
matter.14 The address is brief, but it covers the basic principles of
liturgical translations. In many ways, the 1969 Instruction on the
translation of liturgical texts is an elaboration of several of its points.
First, the pope reminded the translators that the work of translation
aims principally to promote active participation in the liturgy, as de-
sired by the council. For this reason, the Church was willing to let go
11 Schema Constitutionis de Sacra Liturgia, Emendationes IV (Vatican City, 1963)
15.
12 AAS 56 (1964) 144.
13 AAS 56 (1964) 877–900.
14 Not 1 (1965) 378–81.
386
of its centuries-old Latin liturgy, permitting “the translation of texts
venerable for their antiquity, devotion, beauty, and long-standing
use.” Yet active and devout participation stems chiefly from the
understanding of the rites themselves. The sacrifice of so noble a
heritage should thus be compensated by vernacular texts that are
“within the grasp of all, even children and the uneducated.”
Translations should bridge the cultural gap between the Latin liturgy
and the local churches everywhere.
Second, while the preconciliar translations assisted the faithful to
understand the Latin rite, the official translations after the council
“have become part of the rites themselves; they have become the
voice of the Church.” In other words, vernacular translations enjoy
the same value and respect as the original version: they too are the
Church’s official languages in which God is worshiped. That is why,
translated texts, approved by the local authority and the Holy See for
liturgical use, “are as such to be held in all reverence.” To take liber-
ties with them is to disregard the nature of liturgical text as the
prayer of the Church. After the council many new languages have
been introduced for use in the liturgy. This does not mean that the
Church has instituted new liturgical families. “The voice of the
Church remains one and the same in celebrating the divine mysteries
and administering the sacraments, although that voice speaks in a
variety of tongues.” In short, translations do not produce new rites.
Third, the type of language to be used in the liturgy “should
always be worthy of the noble realities it signifies, set apart from the
everyday speech of the street and the marketplace.” This requires
that translators “know both Christian Latin and their own modern
language,” and in view of a truly musical liturgy, also take the rules
of music into account and so choose words that can be set to music
suited to the culture of each people. At this point the pope once again
reminds translators of the sacrifice the Church has made: “for pasto-
ral reasons, the beauty and richness of Latin, which the Latin Church
used for centuries for prayers, petitions, and thanksgiving to God,
have been partially lost.” The challenge for translators is to “make a
similar clarity of language and dignity of expression shine forth in
the vernacular translations of liturgical texts.” The message or
content should always be the chief consideration of translators.
However, it is not enough to translate the message faithfully. In the
387
tradition of the Latin texts, especially those belonging to the classical
period of the Roman liturgy, translators should develop the kind of
liturgical language that reflects the best in local culture. In their pre-
occupation to be faithful to the doctrinal message translators might
lose sight of their obligation to be faithful to the artistic form or
vesture of liturgical texts. The liturgy is not content alone nor form
alone, but the interplay of both.
P R I N C I P L E S O F L I T U R G I C A L T R A N S L AT I O N
A. A Definition of Translation
“If I translate word by word, it sounds absurd; if I am forced to
change something in the word order or style, I seem to have stopped
being a translator.”15 With these words St. Jerome articulated the ex-
perience of every conscientious translator. Word-by-word translation
often does not make sense, but a change in the meaning of the word
betrays the message. The translation of liturgical texts is perhaps the
most delicate and complicated matter arising from the Council’s deci-
sion to shift from Latin to the vernacular languages.
To define translation it is useful to review several of its components.16
Translation consists basically of rendering into the receptor language
the message of the source language. In our context the vernacular is the
receptor language, while liturgical Latin is the source language. The
message is the doctrinal and spiritual content of the Latin text, that is,
the message which the Church intends to communicate to a particular
assembly. This assembly is the addressee for whom the Latin text has
been originally prepared.17 In order that the assembly will grasp the full
meaning of what is communicated, it is necessary that the content be
expressed in the values, traditions, and linguistic patterns proper to the
15 Jerome, Eusebii Interpretata Praefatio, Einleitung des Hieronymus, Eusebius
Werke VII, 1, GCS 47, ed. R. Helm (1954) 2: Si ad verbum interpretor, absurde resonat:
si ob necessitatem aliquid in ordine, in sermone mutavero, ab interpretis videbor officio
recessisse.
16 G. Venturi, “Fenomeni e problemi linguistici della traduzione liturgica nel
passaggio da una cultura ad un’altra,” EphLit, 92 (1978) 12–3; see also for back-
ground material, E. Nida - C. Taber, The Theory and Practice of Translation (Leiden,
1982) 12–4; P. Newmark, Approach to Translation (Oxford, 1981) 38–46.
17 Consilium, Instruction “Comme le prévoit,” Not 5 (1969) 3–12. English text in
Documents on the Liturgy 1963–1979 (Collegeville, 1982) no. 6, 284–5.
388
assembly. This vesture is the cultural form with which the doctrinal
content is expressed. It is through the form that the content is effectively
communicated to the audience or assembly.
Although it is impossible to separate physically the doctrinal con-
tent from the cultural form, it will be necessary to make a mental
distinction between them in order to allow the content to take on
another cultural form. Sometimes the original text will undergo the
process of what authors call “decomposition,” “decoding,” or “dehis-
torization,” in order to establish the “kernel” or the basic doctrinal
content. This process also aims to discover the relationship between
the “kernel” and the other segments of the text or, in other words, its
global historical, cultural, doctrinal, and literary context. The process
concludes with the “recomposition” of the text in the new form of the
receptor language.18
With its particular cultural and linguistic qualities the new form
should be able to clothe the content in the same manner as the
original form has done. It is implied that the new form possesses
equivalent qualities wherewith the content can be adequately
expressed. In a way, we can describe the process of translation as the
passage of the content from one cultural form to another that repre-
sents equivalently the original form. A good translation is thus able
to produce in the audience of the receptor language the same effect
as the source language has on its original audience. In short, it
achieves the same purpose as does the original text.19
This type of translation follows the theories of “dynamic equiva-
lence,” and has gained the approval of the Concilium in its 1969
Instruction Comme le prévoit on the translation of liturgical texts. The
Instruction may be “dated,” as some Church sectors snipe, but its
value as guidelines for liturgical translation stands on solid scientific
grounds. According to the Instruction, “a faithful translation cannot
be judged on the basis of individual words: the total context of this
specific act of communication must be kept in mind, as well as the
literary form proper to the respective language.”20 The context, ac-
18 N. Chomsky, Syntactic Structures (The Hague, 1964); see the application of
this method in A. Echiegu, Translating the Collects of the “Sollemnitates Domini” of
the “Missale Romanum” of Paul VI in the Language of the African (Münster, 1984).
19 C. Rabin, Cultural Aspects of Biblical Translation (Jerusalem, 1971) 238.
20 Instruction “Comme le prévoit,” no. 6.
389
cording to the Instruction, includes the message itself, the audience
for which the text is intended, and the manner of expression.
The foregoing definition obviously discredits the type of transla-
tion that does not take into account the culture represented by both
the source and the receptor languages. Such type merely renders the
original text word by word or phrase by phrase, unmindful of the
cultural underpinnings in them. It follows the method of “formal cor-
respondence.” Although it aims to be faithful to the original text, its
fidelity centers almost exclusively on the surface level of the source
language and on literal transference into the receptor language.21
Sometimes formal correspondence tries to recast the system of the
receptor language in order to conform to the source language. This
often does untold violence to the receptor language. Apropos S.
Marsili remarks: “We would not regard as scientific a translation
based on the belief that the sense of a Latin text could be captured by
a simple recourse to a dictionary and the study of the grammatical
and logical form in question.”22 He points out that the text possesses
a “genius” of its own, “which is in turn the genius of the people, the
age, and the culture giving rise to the text.”
B. Some Premises of Liturgical Translation

The work of liturgical translation rests on several premises. The first
refers to the nature of translation as a scientific endeavor that follows
a system of principles and procedures.23 This involves two camps,
namely linguistics and liturgy. Translators should possess adequate
knowledge of the principles and structure of language. F. de
Saussure, among others, has contributed immensely to the under-
standing of language.24 Modern linguistics has moved away from the
traditional notion of language as nomenclature, which means that the
words used by different languages are regarded merely as sound
labels for the same reality, and hence translation as only a matter of
21 C. Kraft, Christianity in Culture. A Study in Dynamic Biblical Theologizing in

Cross-cultural Perspective (New York 1979/1994) 265; see chapters 13–5, 261–312.
22 S. Marsili, “Liturgical Texts for Modern Man,” Concilium 2/5 (1969) 26.
23 E. Nida, Towards a Science of Translating with Special Reference to Principles and
Procedures Involved in Bible Translating (Leiden, 1964).

24 F. de Saussure, Course in General Linguistics, trans. from the French Cours de
linguistique générale, (Glasgow, 1974).
390
transferring names. On the contrary, every language has its distinc-
tive cultural patterns and unique genius which the translators should
know, respect, and work in terms of. The syntax, literary genres, and
idioms manifest the receptor language’s cultural patterns and linguis-
tic uniqueness, while at the same time they provide the users of the
language a prism wherewith to view reality.
The other camp is the liturgy. Translators work on existing liturgi-
cal texts. We know that these originate in different epochs of Church
history, and were authored by various people for the use of a given
assembly at a given occasion. Their authentic and original message
will be understood better, if these considerations are known and kept
in mind. In this connection, the Instruction Comme le prévoit (no. 8)
exhorts that “to discover the true meaning of a text, the translator
must follow the scientific methods of textual study as used by
experts.” Liturgical hermeneutics is now regarded as a foundational
component of the study of liturgy. It consists, among other things,
of philological analysis of the text, textual identification (authorship,
theological and cultural ambient, literary qualities), and establish-
ment of the redactional sources of the text and its ritual context.
The Instruction (no. 10a) asks that “if need be, a critical text of the
passage must first be established so that the translation can be done
from the original or at least from the best available text.” Such is the
seriousness with which translations are to be made.
It is understood that translators read Latin. A translation from a
translated text is anomalous, yet alas it is a regrettable reality in some
local churches. The importance of Latin was vindicated by Pope Paul
VI who himself “had taken every step to have all the modern lan-
guages introduced into the liturgy.” He affirmed that “without the
knowledge of Latin something is altogether missing from a higher,
fully rounded education—and in particular with regard to theology
and liturgy.”25
The second premise is that liturgical translation is a work of art.
It requires creative skill for producing translations that display form,
beauty, and perception. Aesthetic in the best sense of the word is an
integral element of Christian worship. Liturgical tradition has always
put stock in the beauty and nobility of texts, ceremonies, vestments,
25 “Address to Latinists,” (1968) 144–5; Documents on the Liturgy, 282.
391
music, sacred images, books, architecture, and environment. A trans-
lation may be doctrinally faithful and linguistically correct, but if it
lacks beauty or aesthetic form and is banal or trite, it is not suitable
as a liturgical text. Prayers proclaimed in assembly should be pleas-
ing to the ears, evoke beautiful images of God and his creation, and
raise the hearts to what is sublime and noble. No wonder then that
the Latin prayers, especially during the classical period, employed
the finest rhetorical figures in the Latin language, such as redun-
dancy, repetition, sound, vivacity, parallelism, argumentation, and
imagery.26 The Roman assembly took special pleasure in rhetorical
devices like binary succession, antithesis, cursus, and concinnitas or
symmetry. There is no reason to think that modern congregations are
indifferent to the beauty and nobility of liturgical prayers said in
their own language.
The third premise deals with the nature of translation as a living
interpretation of a text in the context of a particular assembly. We are
dealing, in other words, with the need for contextualized translation.
Supposing that the critical text is established and the rules of herme-
neutics are applied, translators should still pose the question whether
the translated text communicates to a given assembly and in their
own particular circumstances the message intended by the original
text for its original audience. This seems to be the concern voiced out
by the Instruction Comme le prévoit (no. 7), when it remarks that
“in the case of liturgical communication, it is necessary to take into
account not only the message to be conveyed, but also the speaker,
the audience, and the style.”
Liturgical texts have a performative quality which goes beyond the
communication of doctrine. In liturgical celebrations they become
actions expressing the relationship between God and the assembly in
the here-and-now of a local Church. In the words of Comme le prévoit
(no. 27), “a liturgical text is a linguistic fact designed for celebration.”
Thus, it is not enough to transmit the original message. It is essential
that the message be contextualized, made alive and relevant to the
particular ecclesial situation. After all, the liturgy is not an historical
celebration nor is it merely a remembrance of what God did in ages
past. It is also the celebration of what God does for the people gath-
392
ered here and now. As the Instruction (no. 20) points out, “the prayer
of the Church is always the prayer of some actual community, assem-
bled here and now. It is not sufficient that a formula handed down
from some other time or region be translated verbatim, even if accu-
rately, for liturgical use. The formula translated must become the
genuine prayer of the congregation and in it each of its members
should be able to find and express himself or herself.”
To achieve this the translated text must recreate or reshape the
original message, though without departing from it, so that the
assembly is able to perceive the vernacular text as if it had been
thought out and written with their present situation and needs in
mind.27 Implied in this is the use of the current style of speech or the
avoidance, where liturgically possible, of archaic and antiquated
speech that creates the impression of transporting the assembly to
some remote past. As Pope Paul VI exhorted translators, the vernacu-
lar texts should be “within the grasp of all, even children and the un-
educated,” though “set apart from the everyday speech of the street
and the marketplace.” Without this work of interpretation translated
texts, especially from the earlier strata of the corpus of liturgical texts,
will hardly speak in context to the assembly and enjoy ownership by
the local Church.
The fourth premise, which is related to contextualized translation,
is inculturation. The fact that good translations are generated by
dynamic equivalence argues for the application of the principles of
inculturation. The subject is broad, but the following couple of points
may be useful.
Liturgical texts are shaped, already in original Latin, for public
proclamation. They are meant to be recited aloud in the assembly and
be attentively listened to. Unlike novena prayers which are recited in
unison by the devotees, most liturgical texts, especially the presiden-
tial, are ministerially proclaimed. In other words, liturgical texts fall
under the category of ritual language which is the type of speech em-
ployed for the performance of a rite.28 Speech is composed of words
27 A.-M. Roguet, “I generi letterari dei testi liturgici, loro traduzione e uso,” RL
53 (1966) 19–31.
28 G. Ramshaw, Christ in Sacred Speech: The Meaning of Liturgical Language
(Philadelphia, 1986).
393
and phrases, but these are not independent units. They combine to
create a denotation, a connotation, a context or, in short, a message.
In the liturgy ritual language assumes various forms. It can consist
of formularies, acclamations, poetic compositions or hymns, and
addresses in the form of homilies or instructions: in other words,
of anything spoken, read aloud, proclaimed, or sung. By calling this
type of language ritual we stress the fact that liturgical language is
spoken language. It is primarily intended to be performed orally in
celebrations with an assembly. Most of the liturgical texts, especially
formularies and hymns, have been put down in writing. This should
not lead us to regard them as literary pieces for private reading.
Liturgical texts are always meant to be read or sung in public. The
history of the sixth-century Veronese Sacramentary, for example,
shows that its original was a folder wherein loose pages of Mass for-
mularies had been inserted day after day in the course of the liturgi-
cal year. They were prayers written to be read aloud at papal Masses.
Vernacular versions should not obscure this trait of the liturgical
texts. In every language there is a literary genre for speaking in large
assemblies and on solemn occasions, or even in the intimacy of a
family circle. Although the context often dictates the mode or style of
recitation, the language itself stays on the level of ritual proclama-
tion. Translated texts should thus be attentive to the local pattern of
proclamation. Depending on the culture’s oral and aural tradition,
texts will opt for rhythmic cadences, use of rhyme or slightly poetic
language, accent on key as well as final words in a line, and avoid-
ance of too many unaccented syllables in a row.29 In most cases the
nature of public reading will call for the adoption of sense lines and
of “user-friendly” words and phrases.
The depth of inculturation is shown in the way the receptor lan-
guage employs idiomatic expressions and elements of local proverbs,
maxims, and aphorisms. These are integral components of a people’s
29 The revised translations of the sacramentary by the International Commis-

sion on English in the Liturgy are attentive to the properties of formal spoken
English: accent on key words, avoidance of internal rhyme and of too many un-
accented syllables in a row, effort to end each line strongly on an accented syllable.
These and the other properties of modern English language have in a number of
instances resulted in English formularies that are akin to the original Latin in
beauty and nobility.
394
linguistic patterns and reveal their innermost attitude toward God,
history, and experiences of life. It is useful to remember that ritual
language is not intended for making dogmatic statements on the
faith of the Church. Although the lex credendi sometimes weighs
heavily on the lex orandi, as in such feasts as the Corpus Domini and
the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, ritual language is not
constructed out of systematic theology. The only written element of
the liturgy that can be considered dogmatic is the formula of the
creed, but we know that it was not composed originally for liturgical
proclamation. This does not mean that liturgical texts do not contain
doctrine. However, the liturgy instructs, not in the language of sys-
tematic theology and speculative philosophy, but in the language
used for acclamations and narrations. The liturgy is not primarily an
exposition but a persuasion: we “remind” God of his deeds in order
to persuade him to repeat them in our day. Persuasion is strongly
captured by the translated texts by the way they use idioms and the
elements of value language. Those who are excessively fastidious
regarding the use of abstract and technical terms miss the basic
premise that the liturgy is expressed in persuasive language.
In some local churches there is a tradition of popular religious
language, which should be neatly distinguished from colloquial lan-
guage. The language of popular religiosity, like those used for nove-
nas, can be solemn, though often florid, discursive even to the point
of rambling, and is vividly picturesque. The language of popular reli-
giosity and that of the liturgy belong to different genre, but they are
not enemies. In situations where the local people are more at ease
with the language of popular worship it might not be altogether un-
called for to allow liturgical language to assimilate some characteris-
tic traits of popular religious language.30
Finally, inculturation in certain receptor languages will necessarily
touch the question of inclusive language. This is a delicate but basic
matter which must be addressed by translators, and some confer-
ences of bishops have already issued guidelines regarding the verti-
cal language (when addressing God) and the horizontal (when
30 A. Chupungco, Liturgical Inculturation. Sacramentals, Religiosity, and Catechesis
395
referring to humans).31 The question is related not only to the evolu-
tion of verbal and lexical usage, but also to the cultural underpinning
of modern society. Inclusive language is a modern protagonist of the
centuries-old movement working for the recognition of the equality
of human persons, male or female, and the promotion of their right-
ful place in Church and society. To ignore this amounts to a lamen-
table disregard of culture and the historical process.32
The fifth premise concerns the tradition of the Latin liturgical lan-
guage. The Instruction The Roman Liturgy and Inculturation makes the
timely reminder that “liturgical language has its own special charac-
teristics.”33 Examples are its biblical content and inspiration and its
possession of “certain Christian expressions that can be transmitted
[by transliteration] from one language to another, as has happened in
the past, for example in the case of: ecclesia, evangelium, baptisma,
eucharistia.” The other details are laid out in the preceding Instruction
Comme le prévoit (nos. 11–29). This document is an authoritative expo-
sition of the criteria that govern the translation of those Latin texts
which create special difficulties for modern languages. It recom-
mends, however, that “in many modern languages a biblical or litur-
gical language must be created by use. This will be achieved rather
by infusing a Christian meaning into common words than by import-
ing uncommon or technical terms.”
Conclusion
Translation was the immediate task that faced local churches after the
council. Yet, the Instruction Comme le prévoit (no. 43) does not con-
sider this the ultimate goal: “Texts translated from another language
are clearly not sufficient for the celebration of a fully renewed liturgy.
The creation of new texts will be necessary. But translation of texts
transmitted through the tradition of the Church is the best school and
31 M. Collins, “Naming God in Public Prayer,” Wor 59 (1985) 291–304; L. Roy,
“Inclusive Language Regarding God,” Wor 65 (1991) 207–15.
32 It is useful to note that other receptor languages, especially outside the
Western hemisphere, do not encounter this problem. In Tagalog language, for ex-
ample, God in the third person is siya, which is inclusive. People are tao, brothers
and sisters are mga kapatid, and sons and daughters are mga anak. These are all
inclusive. To refer specifically to brother one needs to say kapatid na lalaki, and to
sister kapatid na babae.
33 Instruction “The Roman Liturgy and Inculturation” (Rome, 1994) no. 53.
396
discipline for the creation of new texts so “that any new forms
adopted should in some way grow organically from forms already in
existence” (Sacrosanctum Concilium no. 23).
Bibliography
D’Haese, P. “Traduction et version après Vatican II; à la recherche d’une
langue maternelle liturgique.” QL 73 (1992) 97–111.
Lamberts, J. “Vatican II et la liturgie en langue vernaculaire.” QL 66 (1985)
125–154.
Lebrun, D. “Les traductions liturgiques: statut et enjeux.” MD 202 (1995) 19–
33.
“Les traductions liturgiques.” MD 86 (1966).
Le traduzioni dei libri liturgici. Acts of the congress held in Rome, November
9–13, 1965. Vatican City, 1966.
“Problemas de lenguaje.” Ph 10 (1970) 422–494.
Roguet, A.-M. “I generi letterari dei testi liturgici, loro traduzione e uso.” RL
53 (1966) 19–31.
_____. “Essai historique sur les traductions liturgiques.” MD 86 (1966) 75–
105.
Venturi, G. “Fenomeni e problemi linguistici della traduzione liturgica nel
passaggio da una cultura ad un’altra.” EphLit 92 (1978) 5–75.
397
Frederick R. McManus
20
Liturgical Law
INTRODUCTION
Liturgical law is properly understood as an integral part of the canon
law, in some ways the same as the rest of the Church’s law, in some
ways different. The purpose of this section of the Handbook is to ex-
plain the laws that govern liturgical celebration: their nature, kinds
and sources, interpretation and force, and rationale or purpose. It is
directly concerned with the Roman and other rites of the Latin or
Western Catholic Church, not with liturgies of the Eastern Churches.
Liturgical history reveals orders or rules of celebration from
ancient times,1 whether these developed through the usage of the
Christian community filled with the Spirit of God or were regulated
at diverse levels of the Church, especially local and regional. This
order of celebration may be governed loosely or rigidly, and it may
be regulated by intervention or supervision on the part of those who
hold the pastoral office. The latter preside over the celebrations them-
selves and exercise a corresponding role in proposing or accepting
the rules (laws) of celebration. Our concern is with the existing litur-
gical law, in particular as this has moved in recent years from its
post-Tridentine inflexibility to the norms of a renewed liturgy, one
that has now been profoundly reformed and in the process made
more flexible and open to creativity and inculturation.
1 For the development of juridical sources, including liturgical sources, through

the medieval period, see James A. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law (London and
New York, 1995) especially chapters 1–3.
399
N AT U R E O F L I T U R G I C A L L AW
Liturgical law directly embraces the rule of celebration, affecting the
actions (words, song, ritual acts) and the circumstances or environ-
ment (churches and baptisteries, furnishings, vesture, and the like).
This legal or canonical scope presupposes an understanding of the
holy liturgy itself: the divine act of sanctification and the public,
corporate human response. It is the public worship of God by the
Church, Christ the Head and his members — done through signs, the
deeds and words that articulate communally the inward faith and
worship and the divine gift or grace.
Large areas of church law related closely to sacraments and other
liturgical services — from matrimonial dispensations to the require-
ments for ordination — are sufficiently extrinsic to the actual celebra-
tion of the holy mysteries that they are not counted as liturgical law
in the strict or conventional sense. Despite evident overlapping be-
tween the norm of celebration and the church discipline related to
the sacramental life of the Church, this distinction is useful. It is
reflected in the name of the body within the Roman curia now re-
sponsible for the Roman and other Latin rites: the Congregation for
Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments.
Another key to this distinction between the law of liturgical cele-
bration and the discipline of the seven sacraments lies in canon 2 of
the Code of Canon Law of the Latin Church (1983). This canon
largely excludes the canon law of liturgical celebration from the code,
noting that the liturgical laws lie outside it “for the most part
[plerumque].” Nonetheless the code does contain many canons, chiefly
definitions and foundational canons, that directly affect the liturgy’s
celebration.
The same canon 2 provides that “current liturgical norms retain
their [canonical, juridically binding] force unless a given liturgical
norm is contrary to the canons of the code.” About two months be-
fore the 1983 code was to go into effect, the competent curial depart-
ment issued a list of variations or emendations that had to be made
in the new Roman liturgical books in view of the codification (decree,
September 12, 1983). The variations, however, were largely minor or
merely formalistic. (Something similar had happened earlier this
century when the first code of the Latin Church was promulgated in
1917. That code had many norms derived from the existing liturgical
400
books; the changes it made — the later law superseding prior norms
— were then introduced into a new edition of the Roman Ritual in
1925.)
Despite differences between the liturgical law and other elements
of the canon law, many canonical institutes are equally applicable to
it. These include custom or unwritten law, the promulgation and
interpretation of law, dispensations and commutations by church
authority, concessions of privileges and indults, and the like. They are
largely defined by the canons on general norms in Book I of the
present code (especially canons 1–95 and 129–144).2
“ N E W S T Y L E , N E W S P I R I T ” I N L I T U R G I C A L L AW
Contemporary liturgical law shares the pastoral approach of canoni-
cal revision in general, but often with a stronger base derived from
the conciliar liturgical renewal. A postconciliar phenomenon called
“new law, new spirit” demands that directly pastoral (and spiritual)
dimensions be considered, such as the vast diversity among the as-
semblies where the liturgy is celebrated. Or it may be questions of the
need for authenticity of celebration, distinctions between what is es-
sential or truly necessary and what is worthwhile but not necessary,
and the new ecclesiological insights of Vatican II, from collegiality to
subsidiarity.
Another aspect is the artistic and esthetic dimension. In the liturgy
this affects language, song and other musical forms, ritual gestures
and actions, and material objects of every kind. On the one hand, it
may be easy to state “norms” of beauty, dignity, intelligibility, perti-
nence to the reality of cult or sacrament, relationship of persons in
celebration (ordained ministers who hold the pastoral office, special
lay ministers, and the whole assembly), and more. On the other hand,
these facets of the liturgy are less susceptible than other kinds of
church law to strict or narrow regulation, which is a matter to be
considered in attempting to understand the law and even to discern
its canonically binding force.
All this, whether seen as new spirit or approach or even mindset,
is amply confirmed by the way in which the revised liturgical books
have been designed: the wealth of alternatives, the overall flexibility
2 For these and other canons, see James A. Coriden et al., eds. The Code of Canon
Law: A Text and Commentary (New York, 1985).
401
and openness to creativity, the choices allowed or encouraged among
prayer texts and even more so among liturgical songs (especially by
way of substitution), the opportunities afforded to employ “these or
similar words,” and the very language of prescriptions or precepts.
This new style may also be seen as a major development of older
categories of liturgical decrees and other norms: the facultative, con-
cessionary, or discretionary decrees, allowing for choice, as is now
much more common; the distinction once made between preceptive
norms and directive norms, the latter serving as important guidelines
without the weight of a canonical precept.
S O U R C E S O F L I T U R G I C A L L AW
The principal sources of the general law governing Catholic worship
are the liturgical service books that are formally and officially ap-
proved, together with papal and curial documents that supplement
the books themselves. Particular liturgical law, especially at the
national level, has parallel sources in particular service books and in
ancillary decrees or the like.
In the liturgical books themselves two styles of rule or regulation
are ordinarily found: the rubrics that run through the prayer texts
and rites themselves, determining both word and action, and the
substantial introductions to each book. The introductions are called
prenotes (praenotanda) or, in the most important books, general in-
structions (institutiones generales). In the post-Tridentine period the
four principal liturgical books of the Roman rite were the missal,
breviary, ritual, and pontifical. These categories were retained in the
post-Vatican II reform as serial titles, although each one now covers
multiple sections or volumes.
Besides the Roman books (in Latin), the particular liturgical books,
whose “typical” or basic editions are in the various vernaculars, have
the canonical approbation of individual conferences of bishops for
the local churches or dioceses of their respective territories. Mostly
they parallel the Roman books but may contain additional introduc-
tory matter, along with national or regional variations or adaptations,
formularies for regional feast days, and supplementary, original
prayer texts.
Sources outside the books themselves include papal documents
(especially apostolic constitutions and apostolic letters on papal ini-
402
tiative, motu proprio) and a variety of curial documents, from directo-
ries and instructions to simple notifications. Only by exception are
the latter counted as general decrees (laws): their juridically binding
force cannot be presumed, but they may have their own obligatory
weight. Today the principal category is the apostolic or papal consti-
tution, used, for example, to approve the revised Roman Missal or to
alter the central matter and form of sacraments, something reserved
to the supreme authority of pope or council, as canon 841 states.
Particular liturgical law may take the form of general decrees of
conferences of bishops and of individual diocesan bishops, although
the latter do not promulgate liturgical books as such. It too may be
supplemented by other documents, such as guidelines for celebration
and doctrinal expositions concerning the liturgy.
In the mid-1960s the Consilium ad exsequendam or commission to
implement the council’s liturgical decisions had a project of codifying
the general liturgical law, but the plan was not carried out. Instead
collections of documents have been privately published in various
languages.3
L I T U R G I C A L L AW I N T H E C O N S T I T U T I O N
SACROSANCTUM CONCILIUM
The conciliar constitution on the liturgy of December 4, 1963 is called
Sacrosanctum Concilium (= SC).4 It is a disciplinary constitution and
contains decrees on both celebration and reform of the Roman
liturgy, but it also has substantial expository material of a doctrinal
3 A chronological collection in the original languages is edited by Reiner
Kaczynski, Enchiridion Documentorum Instaurationis Liturgicae (Turin, vol. 1, 1975;

vol. 2, 1988). An English collection in a topical arrangement, edited by the
International Commission on English in the Liturgy (ICEL), is Documents on the
Liturgy 1963–1979: Conciliar, Papal, and Curial Texts (Collegeville, 1982). Papal and
curial documents are ordinarily promulgated in the official commentary of the
Roman See, Acta Apostolicae Sedis, and also published in Notitiae, the journal of
the congregation competent in this area.
4 For commentaries on the constitution, see Joseph A. Jungmann, “Constitution
on the Sacred Liturgy,” Commentary on the Documents of Vatican II, ed. Herbert
Vorgrimler (London, New York, 1967) 1:1–88; Annibale Bugnini and Carlo Braga,
eds., The Commentary on the Constitution and on the Instruction on the Sacred Liturgy
(New York, 1964); Congregazione per il Culto Divino, ed., Costituzione Liturgica
“Sacrosanctum Concilium” (Rome, 1986).
403
nature. This follows the best canonical tradition of offering the ratio-
nale for the law and only then the “dispositive” norms or laws;
a similar pattern is followed in the prenotes of the service books
already mentioned.
Most of the norms of SC in the formal sense are mandates for the
initial postconciliar reform of the Roman rite, which was largely
achieved through the revision of the Roman liturgical books in the
two decades following the council. The basic principles of reform in
SC continue in force, as do its other normative dispositions.
Besides the reform decrees, the principal areas of new church law
affecting worship in SC are (1) the broad norms for liturgical celebra-
tion and the promotion of better celebration and catechesis (parts 2, 4,
and 5 of chapter 1); (2) a new determination of the locus of canonical
power to moderate or govern the liturgy (especially article 22 of
chapter 1); (3) the articles on future cultural adaptation (now called
inculturation: SC 37-40 , in chapter 1). These norms of Vatican II are
unaffected by the subsequent Code of Canon Law (1983) or other leg-
islation. Some fundamental texts of SC, however, are also redacted in
canons like 834–839 at the beginning of Book IV of the code, which is
about the sanctifying (worshiping or priestly) office in the Church.
SC 22, §1
The first paragraph of article 22 determines that the moderation,
ordering, and governance of the liturgy belong to the Church, that is,
not to some non-ecclesial agent such as a civil authority; this law is not
new. The text, however, goes on to alter radically the post-Tridentine
rule (ultimately embodied in canon 1257 of the 1917 code) that
reserved the regulation of the liturgy exclusively to the Roman See
and placed the diocesan bishops in the position of mere enforcers of
the liturgical law (canon 1261 of that code). Now this power resides
in the Roman pontiff “and, in accord with the law [ad normam iuris],
the [diocesan] bishop.”5
Although the diocesan bishop may add to the general liturgical
law and dispense from it, his power still remains limited. The very
extent and breadth of the law in the revised liturgical books weaken
the presumption of subsidiarity, namely, that the diocesan bishop has
5 See Ignatius Gordon, “Constitutio de Sacra Liturgia et Canones 1256–1257,”
Periodica 54 (1964) 89–140; 352–405; 517–82.
404
all the power required to exercise his pastoral office unless the
Roman pontiff withdraws that power by reservation. 6 It is impos-
sible to foretell how the two authorities, primatial and diocesan, will
resolve future conflicts or liturgical tensions, but the change in SC 22,
§1, is radical in its recovery of the nature of the particular or local
church, shepherded by its bishop.7
SC 22, §2
Equally radical is the new determination of an intermediate authority
in paragraph 2, namely, the national or regional conferences of bish-
ops — although the conferences are only a new form of the conciliar-
ity that was found in the ancient Church long before the assembly of
the episcopal college at the ecumenical council of a.d. 325. This sec-
ond paragraph recognizes “territorial bodies of bishops” (in practice,
episcopal conferences) as also having the same governing power as
in paragraph 1, but only “within certain defined limits.” Thus these
bodies are not presumed to possess binding authority over liturgical
celebration unless this is somehow defined: by liturgical or other
general laws, by new papal concessions, or by custom. In many such
areas, however, the responsibility of the conferences is substantial
and extensive, above all in the approbation of liturgical books
(below).8
An additional note to both paragraph 1 and paragraph 2 of article
22: Both conventionally and in canonical tradition, the distinction be-
tween the liturgy itself and other forms of devotional life, both public
and private, has been made explicitly on the basis of inclusion in, or
exclusion from, the official liturgical books. While this distinction be-
tween liturgical and non-liturgical continues to be important, it does
not affect the moderating or governing power within the church
6 To appreciate this point, it is necessary to study the text of the conciliar decree
Christus Dominus, October 28, 1965, n. 8, and, for SC 22, §2, nn. 36–8 of the same
decree. The two matters may also be pursued in commentaries on canons 381 and
447–59, respectively, of the present code, as these canons are applicable to the en-
actment of liturgical laws at local and regional levels.
7 See dogmatic constitution Lumen gentium, chap. 3 (nn. 18–27).
8 See Hervé Legrand et al., eds., The Nature and Future of Episcopal Conferences
(Washington, D.C., 1988; also The Jurist 48 [1988] 1–412); Thomas J. Reese, ed.,
Episcopal Conferences: Historical, Canonical, and Theological Studies (Washington,
D.C., 1989).
405
community, as envisioned in the first two paragraphs of article 22.
SC 13 (and now canon 839) makes clear that “pious” devotions of the
Christian people (especially when ordered by the Roman See) and
“sacred” devotions (mandated by bishops) are equally subject to
church regulation or law.9 They are important to the Church’s cultic
life, but “the liturgy by its very nature surpasses any of them.”
SC 63
Another specific matter is the power of the conferences of bishops to
give their approbation to particular (national, regional) liturgical
books in the respective vernaculars, which are to be “in harmony
with the revised Roman Ritual” in the case of sacraments and sacra-
mentals and, an important decree, are to include the pastoral, eccle-
sial, canonical, and doctrinal prenotes from the Roman books.
Of critical canonical significance is the further requirement that the
books (or, for that matter, other particular liturgical laws of confer-
ences and councils, but not of diocesan bishops) receive a canonical
recognition (recognitio) or confirmation by the Roman See before they
may be promulgated. The nature of this review is formally deter-
mined by SC 35, paragraph 3, in the context of the vernacular conces-
sions: it is a species of approval best described as confirmation, that
is, it adds a further juridical and moral weight to the decrees of the
conferences of bishops but is different from any Roman approbation
or enactment. A decree promulgating a vernacular liturgical book
thus emanates from the lawmaking power of the conference of
bishops, not that of the Roman See which reviews it. The distinction
is a close one but of major significance in the relationship between
the Apostolic See and the group of local churches that make up a
given episcopal conference.
SC 37-40
The distinction becomes sharper when SC defines the responsibility
for future cultural adaptation or liturgical inculturation.10 A careful
9 Another example is indulgenced prayers and practices. See canons 992–7,
derived from Paul VI’s reform of teaching and practice about indulgences, in the
apostolic constitution Indulgentiarum doctrina, January 1, 1967: AAS 59 (1967) 5–24.
10 See Anscar Chupungco, Cultural Adaptation of the Liturgy (New York, 1982);
Liturgies of the Future: The Process and Methods of Inculturation (New York, 1989);
Liturgical Inculturation: Sacramentals, Religiosity, and Catechesis (Collegeville, 1992).
406
division is made between, first, the “legitimate variations or adapta-
tions to different groups, regions, and peoples” within the “substan-
tial unity of the Roman rite” (SC 38–9) and, second, more profound
or radical developments (SC 40). The former adaptations, foreseen
and spelled out in the reformed Roman liturgical books, all fall
within the competence of the conferences of bishops, which may
enact them as law. The latter, on the other hand, require not simple
Roman recognition or confirmation but the consent or canonical ap-
probation of the Roman See — and thus are papal particular laws.11
(Going even further toward liturgical inculturation, SC 4 acknowl-
edges the possibility of new non-Roman rites with the same, equal
right and dignity as the existing rites of East and West.)
L I T U R G I C A L AU T H O R I T I E S A N D S T R U C T U R E S :
GENERAL
If the power to supervise or regulate liturgical celebrations belongs to
the Roman pontiff and the diocesan bishop, as well as to the confer-
ences of bishops, institutional structures both old and new play an
executive or at least consultative role in the liturgical law and its
carrying out.
In the modern period, as the bishops of Rome carried out the de-
crees of the Council of Trent, a commission of cardinals supervised
the preparation of the new Roman breviary and missal. The commis-
sion was succeeded, in the complete structure of curial congregations
reformed by Sixtus V, by the Congregation of Sacred Rites, SRC. This
curial department or dicastery was established in the bull Immensa
aeterni Dei of January 22, 1588, and its competence embraced, among
other matters, “vigilance for the observance of sacred rites . . . [con-
tinuing] reform and correction of the liturgical books . . . canoniza-
tion of saints.”12 Throughout its long history (until 1969), the member
cardinals, with a cardinal prefect at their head, dealt with two broad
11 A document of the Roman Congregation for Divine Worship and the

Discipline of the Sacraments has further defined this doctrine and discipline:
“The Roman Liturgy and Inculturation: IVth Instruction for the Right Application
of the Conciliar Constitution on the Liturgy (nn. 37–40)” January 25, 1994: AAS 87
(1995) 288–314.
12 See Frederick R. McManus, The Congregation of Sacred Rites (Washington, D.C.,
1954).
407
areas: the liturgies of the Latin Church and the processes or causes of
saints.
In his general reform of the Roman curia, Pius X partially restricted
the breadth of SRC’s venerable competence (constitution Sapienti
consilio, June 29, 1908). Matters of sacramental “discipline” were
transferred, for example, to the new Congregation for the Discipline
of the Sacraments, and the older body’s role was restricted to
“matters pertaining proximately to sacred rites.” The full 1908 defini-
tion of the congregation’s responsibility was carried over into canon
253 of the 1917 code.
It was only later that the two chief areas of SRC’s competence were
formally recognized as two separate sections of the dicastery (1914):
one for the causes of saints, which had long been the principal occu-
pation of the congregation, the other for “sacred rites.” The latter sec-
tion had become so weak that Pius X’s predecessor, Leo XIII, had to
establish ancillary commissions for liturgical matters. Finally, in 1930 a
third “historical” section was added by Pius XI, to provide historical
research in the causes of saints and for the revision of liturgical books.
Over the centuries since 1588 the Congregation of Rites oversaw
new editions of the liturgical books, but its work was also repre-
sented by its decrees, both general and particular, which were (selec-
tively) collected and published — first, in private collections, then
officially under Leo XIII as Decreta Authentica Congregationis Sacrorum
Rituum (five volumes, 1898-1901; two later volumes, 1912, 1927).
Because most decrees were addressed to particular dioceses, religious
institutes, etc., the classifications of general or universal, particular,
and “equivalently general” decrees arose — the latter being particular
decrees judged as general because of their nature and thus consid-
ered binding universally. This helped add even greater narrowness to
liturgical law, since commentators and rubricians treated particular
responses to minute questions like precedence as if they were univer-
sal law.
When the reform of the Roman liturgy, left dormant after Pius X,
was taken up again by Pius XII, he created a commission of general
liturgical restoration in 1948, ancillary to SRC.13 In effect, the work of
13 For the 1948 commission and later curial developments through 1975, see
Annibale Bugnini, The Reform of the Liturgy 1948–1975 (Collegeville, 1990) esp.
“The Beginning of the Reform,” 3–95.
408
this important reform body was taken over by John XXIII’s liturgical
commission preparatory to the council (1960–1962), which drafted
SC, and in turn by the conciliar commission (1962–1963). After the
general conciliar debate on the draft, the commission revised it for
many votes and ultimate enactment by Vatican II.
Next in sequence was the postconciliar commission created by
Paul VI in January 1964. This Consilium of implementation had the
responsibility of preparing the new Roman liturgical books and
many documents of reform; it also reviewed the decrees of the con-
ferences of bishops. An anomaly was that the Consilium had to
submit its revised texts for at least nominal acceptance by the
Congregation of Rites, which then received authorization from the
pope to issue the individual liturgical book or other document. This
structural situation was ultimately resolved by the suppression of
SRC in 1969 by Paul VI. In succession to SRC and the Consilium the
new Congregation for Divine Worship was created; matters of beatifi-
cation and canonization were transferred to a new Congregation for
the Causes of Saints.
Although this appeared to be a final resolution, other structural
changes followed: Paul VI merged the new Congregation for Divine
Worship with the Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments,
resulting in the Congregation for Sacraments and Worship (1975); the
Congregation for Divine Worship was restored to separate status by
John Paul II (1984); finally, the same pope again merged the depart-
ments as the present Congregation for Divine Worship and the
Discipline of the Sacraments (1989).
Today the liturgical competence of the congregation includes
“moderation and promotion of the sacred liturgy, first of all the sac-
raments,” with the specific details listed in the most recent reform of
the Roman curia by John Paul II (constitution Pastor bonus, June 28,
1988, articles 62–70). In part these are responsibilities going back to
1588, such as the maintenance of liturgical order and the extirpation
of abuses, preparation of liturgical texts, examination of particular
calendars, and the like. Others are contemporary additions, such as
the review of adaptations made by authority of the conferences of
bishops. The promotional function introduced in 1969 — relating to
commissions, institutes, associations, etc. — is only occasionally
carried out.
409
L I T U R G I C A L AU T H O R I T I E S A N D S T R U C T U R E S :
PA R T I C U L A R
On the particular diocesan and supradiocesan levels, papal and other
efforts culminated in various determinations of Vatican II. SC 44 recom-
mends that national liturgical commissions (desirably assisted by an
institute or center) be set up to direct pastoral liturgical activity, with
whatever executive (but not legislative) power as may be delegated by
the episcopal conference. The role of such commissions is defined in a
Roman instruction of September 26, 1964 (Inter oecumenici, n. 44).
Other supradiocesan structures exist, such as the joint or (“mixed”)
international commissions in the several major language groups.
Their power or responsibility depends on the action of the episcopal
conferences that create them. Such commissions propose liturgical
texts, books, and adaptations to the participating conferences of bish-
ops of a given language, which approve them and then individually
transmit them for recognition or confirmation by the Roman See;
alternatively, a joint commission may assemble the national decrees
of approbation within a given language group and submit all of them
directly to the Roman congregation.
Culminating papal injunctions of six decades, SC 46–47 requires
diocesan (or interdiocesan) liturgical commissions and, if possible,
commissions on music and art, either acting collaboratively or being
combined.
C U S T O M A N D L I T U R G I C A L L AW
Many liturgical laws, like rites and texts themselves, have their ulti-
mate origin in the usage and practice of local communities under the
movement of the Spirit of God, with greater or less initiative or inter-
vention by church authorities. The code of the Eastern Catholic
Churches (1990) expresses it best by speaking of Christian custom
insofar or inasmuch “as it responds to the action of the Holy Spirit
in the ecclesial body” (canon 1506, §1).
Canonically the institute of custom, understood as unwritten law,
is now determined by canons 23–28 of the Latin Church’s code:
(1) to govern the custom by which a community gives itself additional
norms of church order and (2) to govern the customs by which a
community alters or abrogates the written law. In particular, the
canons define the period of uninterrupted usage necessary for the
410
unwritten canon law. These terms are also applicable to unwritten
liturgical law.
Beyond this, it is not uncommon for the liturgical books to speak of
custom (or usage or tradition) in contexts that do not mean the
canonically enforceable customs referred to in the regulatory canons
of the code. Instead they are the factual or actual usages, of whatever
duration, that simply show how the Christian people act in their
common worship. Technically these are called consuetudines facti:
they may be simply the ongoing practice of the Church or of local
churches or even congregations, and they are acknowledged in
church documents that otherwise may seem fixed and inflexible.
The matter is expressed in the new edition of the Ceremonial of Bishops
(1984): the directions given in that book are qualified by the clause:
“in such a way that the traditions and requirements proper to each
place can be retained.”
I N T E R P R E TAT I O N O F L I T U R G I C A L L AW
The purpose of interpretation is to enable the Christian, affected by
or bound to observe church law, to uncover the genuine meaning of a
law.14 To begin with, the canons themselves embrace the venerable
rule, which began as a medieval aphorism, that the custom or usage
of the Christian community is the “best interpreter of laws” (canon
27) — a canon of direct and obvious application to the law of the
liturgy that is celebrated by the whole community.
Another significant rule for interpretation has been repeatedly em-
phasized for the canons of the present code, beginning with the apos-
tolic constitution of promulgation, Sacrae disciplinae leges (January 25,
1983). It is that the canons are always to be understood in the light of
the Vatican II conciliar documents and their spirit, not vice versa. The
same principle works for liturgical laws as well, for example, those
found in the liturgical books or in postconciliar documents: these too
are to be understood in the light of Vatican II’s decisions, not vice
versa.
14See Ladislas Örsy, “The Interpreter and His Art,” The Jurist 40 (1980) 27–56;
John M. Huels, “Interpretation of Liturgical Law,” Wor 55 (1981) 218–37; idem,
One Table, Many Laws: Essays in Catholic Eucharistic Practice (Collegeville, 1986),
chap. 1.
411
Words in Text and Context
When the text or language of any church law is examined for its
genuine meaning, the formal norm is that laws “are to be understood
in accord with the proper meaning of the words considered in their
text and context”; if this fails, then “recourse is to be taken to parallel
passages [of the law], if such exist, to the purpose and circumstances
of the law, and to the mind of the legislator” (canon 17). Another fun-
damental rule, also applicable to liturgical laws, is that a strict inter-
pretation (that is, limited to the smallest number of cases) is to be
followed for laws which “. . . restrict the free exercise of rights or
which contain an exception to the law” (canon 18); the burdens of the
law must be minimized, especially as they may limit the rights of
believers. Ordinarily, for example, the language will make it clear
whether a norm is a canonically obligatory law as opposed to an
exhortation or recommendation. By exception, the running rubrics of
liturgical books are usually couched in descriptive language (that is,
in the indicative mood) rather than preceptively; such rubrics are pre-
sumed to be precepts to carry out the action described.
The sense of the rule about “text and context” is evident. Although
individual words may have several meanings, ordinarily there is a
simple, conventional meaning of words and phrases used in church
law, including of course liturgical law. The immediate context of the
legal text, in this case liturgical laws, is again evident: the language
that surrounds the given text, the important expository statements
made in the prenotes of the respective liturgical book, the placement
of a norm in a larger section or complete document, and the other
rubrical directions in a rite.
This primary determination may suffice. But often it may be use-
ful or necessary to examine analogous legal texts, legislative history
(when this is available, as with the decrees of Vatican II and some-
times with the drafts of liturgical books), the language of superseded
laws (most likely deliberately abrogated or replaced), as well as
what stands behind the law: the purpose (expressed or unexpressed)
and circumstances, the mind of the legislator (again, expressed or
unexpressed). Yet it is always the responsibility of the legislator (or
legislature) to express clearly this “mind” or intent: none of the
Christian people is bound by a law that remains truly doubtful
(canon 14).
412
The Broader Context
A recent development in the understanding of the canon law has
been greater appreciation that laws exist in a much broader context,
one already suggested as new style and spirit.15 This allows for
(1) the important theological (and even philosophical) underpinnings
of the law, especially sacramental theology and ecclesiology in the
case of liturgical law; (2) the findings of the social sciences, especially
the anthropology of rites and ritual; (3) the time and culturally condi-
tioned nature of the period to which a written law or unwritten
custom belongs; (4) the changing reasonableness or unreasonableness
of a law (which is an “ordinance of reason”); and (5) the form or type
of law, now clearly normative, now hortatory.
T H E B I N D I N G F O R C E O F L I T U R G I C A L L AW
Once the meaning of a law has been determined, the question of its
canonically binding force may arise.16 On the face of it, church laws
presumptively bind the members of the community, each with his or
her own responsibility. Even when a law is clear and certain (rather
than “doubtful and obscure”), this may not speak to the relative
weight or force of the law, much less to the moral (as compared to
the canonical) obligation of observing the law. It may be that there is
a real but lesser weight or binding force in documents that are execu-
tory in nature but not laws in the strict sense, namely, the laws that
are found in the liturgical books or papal documents or general
decrees of episcopal conferences and diocesan bishops.
The question of the degree of gravity of violating a law or the sin
of transgressing the law is ordinarily a matter of moral theology, left
to the moralists to define and propose. An example in which the
liturgical law carefully avoids the judgment of degree of gravity is
found in the canonical mandate for the ordained and others to cele-
brate the liturgy of the hours. Instead of saying that the failure to
pray morning or evening prayer is a grave moral transgression, the
general instruction on the office carefully states that these hours
“should not be omitted except for a serious reason” (n. 28).
15 See Ladislas Örsy, Theology and Canon Law: New Horizons for Legislation and
Interpretation (Collegeville, 1990).
16 See Walter J. Kelly, “The Authority of Liturgical Laws,” The Jurist 28 (1968)
397–424; John E. Rotelle, “Liturgy and Authority,” Wor 47 (1973) 514–26.
413
In certain circumstances a law may become, in the course of time,
unreasonable or obsolete — and thus no law. To take small examples,
the so-called Sanctus-candle and the handing around of the “instru-
ment” of peace became obsolete in the centuries after the issuance of
the 1570 Roman Missal. Nevertheless the primary concern must
always be to understand the law as it is; only then does it become
possible to discover its application or non-application in particular
circumstances.
The new tone and spirit of postconciliar liturgical law implicates
more than mere interpretation or a better context for determining the
relative weight of liturgical precepts. The fresh spirit may help to re-
lieve the pastoral burden of some laws, along with very traditional
means.17 Among these traditional means are some principles inherent
in the law: (1) Matters so minute or insignificant as not to be the
proper object of the lawmaking power — the principle is de minimis
non curat lex — will not be true law. (2) In some cases there is only an
exhortation, recommendation, expression of a preferable course of ac-
tion, or purely descriptive rather than prescriptive or preceptive lan-
guage. (3) Another, already mentioned in a different context, is what
canonists call the intrinsic cessation of law — when the law ceases
through total lack of purpose or reasonableness or reasonable appli-
cability. (4) Other means may involve the decision of church authori-
ties, like dispensation or commutation of laws, based on the conciliar
norm that moderation of the liturgy is now attributed presumptively
to the diocesan bishop in the particular church. (5) Still other in-
stances may arise from moral principles such as the existence of ex-
cusing causes sufficiently grave in relation to the purpose of the law.
(6) Even the virtue of epiky may be exercised, with the effect of ren-
dering virtuous the non-observance of law, in particular cases and for
genuine cause.
This elaboration of reasons for mitigating the obligatory weight of
the law should not be taken to minimize in any way the significance
of the Church’s liturgical law. In particular, the reasons for such order
(below) work to the contrary: they favor exact observance of the law
as it is. The same holds for recognizing the human self-deception of
finding reasons to weaken the force of law in favor of oneself or one’s
17See Frederick R. McManus, “Liturgical Law and Difficult Cases,” Wor 48
(1974) 347–66.
414
community. The principle is that no one is a (sound) judge in his or
her own case (nemo iudex in propria causa). Thus the starting point
must be the greatest effort to discern what the law truly means, with
the expectation and likelihood that it may be feasibly and responsibly
followed by pastoral officeholders and other members of the
Christian community.
T H E R AT I O N A L E O F T H E L I T U R G I C A L L AW
Since many norms affecting liturgical celebration are far from essen-
tial either to the genuineness (validity) of sacraments or to the inte-
gral nature or unity of the several rites, it may seem that a strong
presumption of freedom from law might often prevail. The purpose
of this final section is to balance legitimate freedom with the case for
observance of the law, namely, its aim and reasonableness. (This is
said authoritatively in SC 22, paragraph 3, derived from the 1947
encyclical Mediator Dei: “Therefore no other person [other than the
Roman pontiff, the diocesan bishop, or a conference of bishops — in
accord with SC 22, paragraphs 1-2], even if a priest [sacerdos], may
add, remove, or change anything in the liturgy on that person’s own
authority.”)
A prenote is needed. Although in recent centuries canonists have
placed most weight upon the “will of the legislator” (extrinsic au-
thority) as determining the law, it is the law as ordinance of reason
that has the greater tradition and substance. This is why the church
authorities are understood as publishing or promulgating the canon
law, including the liturgical law, for the common good of the
Christian community. Paul VI made this point in the promulgation of
the revised liturgy of the hours: Those mandated to celebrate the
daily ecclesial prayer “should celebrate the hours not only through
obedience to law, but should also feel drawn to them because of the
intrinsic excellence of the hours and their pastoral and ascetic value”
(constitution Laudis canticum, November 1, 1970).
1. Relationship of the Pastoral Office and Liturgical Presidency

The act of presiding over the eucharistic and other assemblies of wor-
ship, whether by the bishop or by the presbyter who takes his place,
is closely related to the episcopal pastoral office known as oversight
(ejpiskophv). It is not necessary to resolve the question whether those
who exercise that pastoral office therefore preside over the Eucharist
415
or whether those who preside over the liturgy on that account shep-
herd the community of Christian believers.
The relationship between the offices or roles is attested to in SC 41.
There the participation of the whole assembly “in the same eucharist,
in a single prayer, at one altar at which the bishop presides sur-
rounded by his college of priests and by his ministers” is seen as “the
preeminent manifestation of the Church.” The role of the bishop is
not monarchical: the full sign is the assembly of believers, where the
bishop presides together with the order of presbyters and the other
ministers. Nor is the ordinary, parochial assembly neglected as the
authentic sign of the Church, that is, the local congregation headed
by “a pastor taking the place of the bishop” (SC 42). And the epis-
copal power is expressed canonically by describing the bishops as
“principal dispensers of the mysteries of God” and equally “modera-
tors, promoters, and custodians of the whole liturgical life of the
church committed to them,” together with the presbyters, who also
“exercise the office of sanctifying . . . under the authority of the
[diocesan] bishop” (canon 835, paragraphs 1–2).
This is a recovery of eucharistic ecclesiology, or at least of the
eucharistic dimension of ecclesiology, although not at the expense of
baptismal or communion ecclesiology. It helps explain and support
the enactment of liturgical laws by the pope and the other bishops
individually or by the bishops gathered in conference or council.
2. Public Order and Common Good

Like the rest of the canon law, liturgical law is directed toward the
common good and the public order of the church community when
the Church is assembled in a given place and at a given time for
divine worship. If anything, supporting this order of the church com-
munity is all the stronger reason for law in the case of the celebration
of rites, words, and actions, since that cultic activity needs to be
externalized if it is to be the public and communal act of the commu-
nity in union with its head, the Lord Jesus.
The need for order or discipline may thus be equated with the so-
called incarnational principle. Despite past rubricism, which seemed
to identify the liturgy with externals or even rubrical directions, the
relationship of the external signs and symbols with the internal faith,
cult, and devotion, demands that those things which can be touched
416
by law — the externals of church order and discipline — be subject to
legitimate moderation or regulation.
3. The Quality of Liturgical Celebration

This may be the most elusive of the reasons why liturgical laws are
necessary or useful. The goal is surely desirable, that each celebration
of the mysteries should be of the highest quality possible in the
circumstances and within the capabilities of the individual gathering.
Thus, in matters that are proper to a worthy and suitable liturgical
service, laws may govern the rite. These include the active participa-
tion of all the members of the assembly, each in his or her own role or
ministry; the choices of prayer and song that are allowable; the mate-
rial elements that provide the setting for the action; etc.18
Yet there is an inevitable degree of subjectivity in judgments
concerning the quality of celebration, especially given the language,
musical, and visual arts involved. It is nearly impossible to make
effective legislative decrees about the excellence of carrying out litur-
gical services or liturgical catechesis and other preparations or plan-
ning. No lawmaker can by fiat insure a high quality of preaching or
song, of art or architecture. Paradoxically this goal of worthy celebra-
tion may be most important, but one not easily pursued legally with
any specificity or effectiveness.
Nevertheless, it is possible to introduce desirable prohibitions into
the liturgical law; these are perhaps weightier than affirmative pre-
scriptions. They may proscribe aberrational practices (for example,
the needless giving of the Holy Eucharist in Communion from pre-
consecrated elements) or outlaw unsuitable forms of music or art.
The law can prohibit specific kinds of abuses, some of which may
arise from sheer liturgical and theological ignorance. Or the law may
offer normative direction, affirmative or negative, for the specific
responsibilities of the ordained ministers of the Church to foster
excellence in celebration and communal participation.
18 For a history of the law of liturgical music, see Robert F. Hayburn, Papal
Legislation on Sacred Music 95 A.D. to 1977 A.D. (Collegeville, 1979). For contempo-
rary commentaries on the law of what is now called the liturgical environment,
see G. Thomas Ryan, The Sacristy Manual (Chicago, 1993); Mark G. Boyer, The
Liturgical Environment: What the Documents Say (Collegeville, 1990).
417
4. Manifestation of the Common Christian Faith
The entirety of the Christian liturgy is a confession of Christian faith,
from the eucharistic anaphoras to the core of the other “sacraments
of faith,” from the celebrations of the inspired word of God to the ex-
plicit creeds or symbols that define faith, from the communal singing
and acclamation to the prayers to which the people give assent by
the common Amen. The need to express authentic and orthodox faith
calls or may call for norms and interventions by church authority —
for non-liturgical public devotions as well, but far more for the holy
liturgy itself (SC 13).
This is an aspect of the fifth-century axiom, “law of prayer, law of
belief” (lex orandi [supplicandi], lex credendi).19 In recent times the ef-
fort to characterize this ancient assertion as demanding that the rule
of faith be prior and determinative has been confusing and problem-
atic: the liturgy is itself a source in which the traditional, received
faith is professed and in which the articulations or understanding of
faith may be found.
Perhaps it is best to see the relationship of prayer or liturgy to the
orthodox determination of faith as reciprocal. Nonetheless, the rela-
tionship gives rise to the possibility or need for the liturgy and its
forms to be judged by the received doctrine of faith and then gov-
erned by church authorities and law.
5. The Communion of Churches

Possibly communion, a sense of the Church recovered by Vatican II
both in the abstract and in the concrete formula of the People of God,
is the chief reason for liturgical law and order. Communion is main-
tained within a diversity of liturgical rites and uses of East and West,
but nothing can be done or permitted that weakens such com-
munion. This in turn gives rise to the need for moderation and direc-
tion by law.
Within the particular church shepherded by the diocesan bishop, it
is a matter of communion among parishes, congregations, communi-
ties, and other liturgical assemblies, one with the other and all with
the bishop. The degree of the essential unity in the liturgical celebra-
tions may differ, as an allowable and valuable diversity may dictate,
19 See Geoffrey Wainwright, Doxology: The Praise of God in Worship, Doctrine, and
Life (New York: Oxford, 1980) chaps. 7–8, 218–83.
418
but both guidance and supervision may be required lest diversity
offend communion or unity.
The same considerations of communion prevail among the local
churches of a region (province, nation, or larger area of church life) or
of a rite — and with the full ecclesia, which is the communion of
churches represented by the college of bishops together with its head,
the chief bishop. Again, diversity may be most desirable in the forms
of liturgy, especially as this is inculturated in innumerable ways, but
even this diversity (for example, within a rite such as the Roman)
may also demand the kind of governance found in liturgical laws of
celebration.
Somewhat analogous to this communion of the Church and
churches is the need for some continuity of ritual actions and com-
monly used prayer texts.20 This is in accord with anthropological
findings about the human nature of repetitiveness in rites and ritual
and may be the occasion for law. While not necessarily a matter of
communion, the point is strongly affirmed in SC 23, which demands
that change should somehow “grow organically from forms already
existing.”
The quantity or rigidity of liturgical laws is not truly at issue, and
judgments on this point are necessarily subjective. Most would see in
the preconciliar liturgical law an extreme and needless rigidity, prob-
ably greater in the previous hundred years than in the immediate
post-Tridentine period. Nevertheless, in the postconciliar Church, for
all its moderation and openness to variation and change, much litur-
gical law of substance remains, and nothing in the reform should be
seen as any repudiation of law or acceptance of antinomianism.
The principal reasons or justifications for liturgical law do not pre-
judge the objective value and worth of specific laws, much less the
desirable mean between greater and lesser firmness, between unifor-
mity (an excess as opposed to unity) and a near total absence of law.
A willingness to understand and observe the liturgical law as it is,
along with all the postconciliar openness to change and creative
growth, is a true sign of liturgical renewal.
20See Aidan Kavanagh, Elements of Rite: A Handbook of Liturgical Style (New

York, 1982).
419
Bibliography
Huels, J. M. Liturgical Law: An Introduction. Washington, D.C., 1987.
Manzanares Marijuan, J. Liturgias y decentralizacion en Concilio Vaticano II.
Rome, 1970.
Martimort, A.-G. “Structure and Laws of the Liturgical Celebration.”
Martimort, ed., The Church at Prayer, 1:113–129. Collegeville, Minn., 1987.
McManus, F. R. “Book IV: The Office of Sanctifying in the Church [cc. 834-
1253].” The Code of Canon Law: A Text and Commentary, ed. J. A. Coriden
et al., 593–642, 673–712, esp. 593–614. New York, 1985.
Richstatter, T. Liturgical Law: New Style, New Spirit. Chicago, 1977.
Schmidt, H.A.P. Introductio in liturgiam Occidentalem, 140–147. Rome, 1960.
Seasoltz, R. K. New Liturgy, New Laws. Collegeville, Minn., 1980.
420
Subject Index
The following pages list the more commonly treated subjects that are perti-
nent to the introductory study of the liturgy. This index does not contain the
names of persons, events, and places recorded in this volume.
African Liturgy, 27, 315 Books, Byzantine Rite

Alexandrine Rite, 12 Cathedral tradition of
Amanuensis, 374 Constantinople, 225
Ambrosian Liturgy, 28, 182, 317 Palestinian monastic tradition, 229
Anàmnesis, 7 Studite and Sabaite, 230
Antiphonals, 258, 270 Unification, 232
Antiphonary of Bangor, 316 Books, Other Eastern Rites, 241
Antiochene or West Syrian Family, Books, Roman Liturgy
14, 123 Antiphonal, 258, 270
Armenian Family, 18, 126 Breviary, 286
Assisi Congress, 175 Calendar, 261
Assyrian or Chaldean Rite, 20, 121 Capitula, 276
“Autumn of the Middle Ages,” 150 Ceremonials, 295
Collectar, 274
Baroque Period, 161 Hagiography, 281
Bible Hymnal, 272
Bible in the liturgy, 34 Lectionaries, 254, 283
Biblical blessing, 41 Libellus, 246
Covenant, 39 Martyrology, 285
Christological interpretation, 48 Missals, 262
Liturgy in the Bible, 34 Necrology, 286
Passover meal, 40 Ordinals, 292
Patristic exegesis, 63 Ordines, 291
Patristic commentaries, 210 Pontificals, 296
Reformulation of Scripture, 43 Psalter, 268
Relationship between readings, 48 Sacramentaries, 245
Book of the Gospels, 225, 256 Rituals, 301
421
Breviaries Church Orders, 200
Breviary of Quiñonez, 289 Historiography and hagiography,
Regula Breviary, 288 213
Roman Breviary of Pius V, 290 Mystagogical catecheses, 205
Byzantine Family, 17, 127 Patristic letters, 216
Patristic preaching, 208
Caeremoniale Episcoporum, 296
Patristic poetry, 216
Calendar, 261
Patristic treatises and
Cantatorium, 259
commentaries, 210
Capitula, 274
Domestic liturgy, 106
Carolingian reform, 141
Domus ecclesiae, 132
Celtic Liturgy, 30, 316
Didache, 202
Chaldean or Assyrian Rite, 20, 121
Didascalia Apostolorum, 204
Chalcedonian, Anti-Chalcedonian
Dramatization, 147
Churches, 118
Chinese Rites controversy, 163 East Syrian or Persian Family, 20
Church Orders Ecumenism
Didaché, 202 Biblical basis, 82
Didascalia Apostolorum, 204 Faith and Order Commission, 86
Canones Ecclesiastical Liturgical collaborations, 89
Apostolorum, 204 Roman Catholic documents, 83
Canones Hippolyti, 204 Editio princeps, 267 (Missal);
Constitutiones Apostolorum, 205 300 (Pontifical)
Testamentum Domini, 14 Epiclesis, 7
Traditio Apostolica, 203 Epistolaries, 256
Classical era, Roman, 134 Ethiopian Rite, 13, 124
Classical Liturgical Movement, 167 Eucharistic hospitality, 84
Codicology, 369 Euchologion, 227, 242
Collectar, 274 Euchologion of Serapion, 108, 118
Collectio, Hispanic, 185 Euchology, 331, 341
Comes of Alcuin, 256 Evangeliaries, 256
Comes of Murbach, 257
Comes of Würzburg, 256 Families (Eastern), liturgical
Commissions, liturgy Alexandrine, 12
Conciliar Preparatory Antiochene or
Commission, 176 West Syrian, 14, 123
Consilium ad exsequendam, 177 Armenian, 19, 126
Post-tridentine Commission, 157 Byzantine, 17, 127
Congregation of Rites, 160 Persian or East Syrian, 20, 121
Constantinian era, 107 Fermentum, 140
Coptic Rite, 12, 124
Critical apparatus, 377 Gallican Liturgy, 28, 184, 320
Cursus, 363 Gelasian Sacramentary, 248
Gellone Sacramentary, 250
Decodification of liturgical texts, 350 Graduale, 259
Documents, first-four centuries Greco-Roman Period, 102
422
Gregorian reform, 148 Kontakia, 228
Gregorian Sacramentary, 251 Koiné, 105
Hispanic Liturgy, 29, 187, 321 Languages, 132, 382
Historical identity of texts, 354 Laus cerei, 315
Historiography and Law, liturgical
hagiography, 213, 281 Authorities and Structures, 407
History until the fourth century Binding force, 413
Constantinian era, 107 Constitution on the Liturgy, 403
Earliest period in the East, 117 Custom and liturgical law, 410
Greco-Roman period, 102 Interpretation, 411
Jewish roots, 40, 98 Nature, 400
History, Other Rites Sources, 402
Consolidation in the East, 118 Rationale, 415
Formation of Latin Rites, 179 Lectionaries, 254, 283
History, Roman Liturgy Capitularia, 317
Baroque period, 161 Comes of Alcuin, 256
Classical era, 134 Comes of Murbach, 257
Classical Liturgical Comes of Würzburg, 256
Movement, 167 Lectionary of Corbie, 257
Congregation of Rites, 160 Liber comitis of Paris, 257
Dramatization, 147 Luxueil, 186, 321
Early shape, 131 Wolfenbüttel, 184, 321
Enlightenment, 164 Libellus, 246
Franco-Germanic period, 141 Liber
High Middle Ages, 146 Antiphonarius, 259
Languages, 132, 382 Commicus, 322
Late Middle Ages, 149 Gradualis, 259
Protestant Reformation, 153 Horarum, 324
Restoration, 166 Manuale, 322
Rhetorical Style, 137, 361 Misticus, 323
Roman “genius,” 136 Orationum psalmographus, 324
Synod of Pistoia, 165 Ordinum, 325
Tridentine reform, 156 Politicus, 294
Uniformity in the liturgy, 158 Psalmographus, 323
Vatican II reform, 178 Literary criticism, 344
History, textual tradition, 356 Literary identity of liturgical texts,
Homilary, 278 358
Horologion, 229 Liturgies, see Rites
Hymnals (Byzantine) 230, Liturgy, Definition
(Roman) 272 Anàmnesis and epiclesis, 7
Constitution on the Liturgy, 4
Jacobites, 15, 121
Ecclesiological aspect, 5
Jansenist Movement, 163
Encounter with God, 6
Jewish roots, 40, 98
Liturgy and non-liturgy, 8
423
Mediator Dei, 4 Lex orandi, lex credendi, 60
Priestly office, 4 Piety, 74
Trinitarian aspect, 6 Poetry, 216
Preaching, 208
Malabar Rite, 22
Theological treatises, 210
Malankara Rite, 17
Witnesses, 54
Manuale Ambrosianum, 319
Persian or East Syrian Family, 20
Maronite Rite, 16, 128
Philological analysis, 345
Martyrology, 285
Pontificals
Melkites, 12, 127
Durand, 299
Menologion, 231
Editio princeps, 300
Methods of textual
Roman Curia, 299
interpretation, 332, 342
Roman-Germanic, 297
Missals
Twelfth Century, 299
Bobbio Missal, 320
Praefatio, Galican, 185
Editio princeps, 267
Praxapostolos, 226
Missale Ambrosianum, 319
Prophetologion, 227
Missale Romanum,
Protestant Reformation, 153
Roman Curia, 266
Psalter, 225, 268
Missale Romanum, Pius V, 267
Psalterium Gallicanum, 268
Missale Francorum, 320
Psalterium Romanum, 268
Missale Gallicanum Vetus, 320
Missale Gothicum, 320 Quartodeciman controversy, 102
Missale Hispano- Quarbana, 23
Mozarabicum, 193, 326
Renaissance Era, 154
Stowe Missal, 316
Reviews, liturgical, 167
Mozarabic Liturgy, 29
Rhetorical Style, Roman, 137, 361
Mystagogical catecheses, 205
Rites or Liturgies
Mystery religions, 104
African, 27, 315
Ordinals, 292 Ambrosian, 28, 182, 317
Ordines romani, 136, 277, 291 Armenian, 19, 126
Ordo officiorum, 294 Celtic, 30, 316
Ordo Romanae Curiae, 294 Chaldean or Assyrian, 20, 121
Ottonian reform, 146 Coptic, 12, 124
Ethiopian, 13
Paduense Sacramentary, 252
Gallican, 28, 184, 320
Paleography, 372
Hispanic, 29, 187, 321
Patriarchates, 116
Malabar, 22
Patristic liturgical writings
Malankara, 17
Biblical commentaries, 210
Maronite, 16, 128
Biblical exegesis, 63
Melkites, 15, 127
Christian life, 58
Roman, 26, see also History
Christocentrism, 65, 75
Syrian or Syro-antiochene, 14, 123
Church, 70
Rituals
Letters, 216
Liber sacerdotalis of
424
Castellani, 303 Synaxarion, 228
“Pure” rituals, 302 Syrian Rite, 14, 123
Rituale Romanum of Paul V, 303 Syro-Malabar Rite, 122
Rituale of Santori, 303
Textual criticism, rules, 376
Sacerdotale of Samarino, 303
Textual tradition, 356
Sacramentaries
Textual interpretation,
Bergamo, 316
methods, 332, 342
Gelasian, 248
Textus receptus, 378
Gelasians of the
Traditio Apostolica, 203
Eighth Century, 249
Translation of texts
Gellone, 250
Definition, 388
Gregorian, 251
Dynamic equivalence, 389
Hadrianum, 253
Premises, 390
Mixed Gregorians, 254
Principles, 386
Paduense, 252
Tridentine reform, 156
Triplex, 317
Typikòn, 120, 127, 232
Veronense, 245
Semasiological analysis, 347 Vernacular, 385
Structure of liturgical texts, 359 Veronense Sacramentary, 245
Visigothic, 29
425

Handbook For Liturgical Studies Introduc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook For Liturgical Studies Introduc

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Handbook For Liturgical Studies Introduc

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

All content available from the Liturgical Press website is protected by copyright

and is owned or controlled by Liturgical Press.

UNAUTHORIZED COPYING, REPRODUCTION, REPUBLISHING, UPLOADING,

FOR LITURGICAL STUDIES

Introduction to the Liturgy

Introduction to the Liturgy

ANSCAR J. CHUPUNGCO, O.S.B.

Design by Frank Kacmarcik, Obl.S.B.

The Library of Congress has cataloged the printed edition as follows:

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Handbook for liturgical studies / Anscar J. Chupungco, editor.

This handbook, in five volumes, represents a complete course of

A Ambrosius. Milan, 1925–.

EVOLUTION OF THE WORD “LITURGY”

1 S. Marsili, “Liturgia,” 33–44.

2 AAS 39 (1947) 528–9; see A. Adam, Foundations of Liturgy, 3–11; A. Vagaggini,

Theological Dimensions of the Liturgy, 21–34.

LITURGY AS ENCOUNTER WITH GOD

7 For the liturgical actions in the Oriental Churches, see A. Schmemann,

Introduction to Liturgical Theology, 150–220.

Liturgical Families in the East

1. The Coptic Rite

2. The Ethiopian Rite

1. The Syrian or Syro-Antiochene Rite

2. The Maronite Rite

3. The Malankara Rite

1. The Assyrian or Chaldean Rite

2. The Malabar Rite

Churches: Adaptation to Different Ecclesial-Liturgical Ambients,” in L’adattamento

Liturgical Families in the West

THE ROMAN LITURGY

1E. Cattaneo, Il culto cristiano in Occidente. Note storiche = BEL. Subsidia 13

2 B. Botte, “Liturgie dell ‘Occidente,” in A-G. Martimort, La Chiesa in preghiera

(Rome, 1963) 28–36; J. B. Thibaut, “La liturgie romano-africaine,” in AA.VV.

(Milan, 1990); A. M. Triacca, “La liturgia ambrosiana,” in AA.VV. Anamnesis 2, 88–

Liturgie Gallicane, DACL VI/1 (Paris, 1924) 473–596; J. B. Thibaut, L ‘ancienne

OTHER WESTERN LITURGIES

Bible and Liturgy

1 An important place is given to the liturgy in the document of the Pontifical

Theol.” 27 (1967) 318–6; A. Vanhoye, La structure littéraire de l’Epître aux Hébreux

Dizionario Teologico dell’Antico Testamento, vol. I (Turin, 1978) coll. 375–83.

A. The Underlying Structure of the Celebration

19 J. P. Audet, Genre littéraire et formes cultuelles de l’Eucharistie. “Nova et vetera,”

125 (1976) 1–39.

MD 123 (1975) 7–28.

lent article by B. Neunheuser, Memoriale, in NDL, 820–38, with ample bibliography.

B. The Reformulation of Scripture in the Celebration

26 See J. Vella, La giustizia forense di Dio, (Brescia, 1964); J. Harvey, Le Plaidoyer

as a divine and accusing word.

1941) 234–40; C. Westermann, jdh - esaltare, in Jenni-Westermann, Dizionario

expressed by various prayer terms). An example of such work can be found in A.

(Vatican City, 1993), 110–1.

36 Praenotanda Ordo Lectionum Missae, n. 13.

41 Praenotanda Ordo Lectionum Missae, n. 67.

(ed.), Dall’esegesi all’ermeneutica attraverso la celebrazione. Bibbia e Liturgia I (Padua,

Liturgy and the Fathers

In their discussions and acceptance of the faith of Nicaea (325),

3 For criteria to ascertain the degree of trustworthiness of Christian writers, see

B. Studer, in J. Feiner and M. Löhrer (ed.), Mysterium Salutis I (Einsiedeln, 1965)