A history of the Mass : and its ceremonies in the Eastern and Western church

Front matter

Place of the faithful and CoSTANDERS

Place of the Prostrates k

Hearers Station

Preface

As the question will doubtless be asked why we have presumed to write upon a subject which lias already been treated so largely and so often by others, we make the same reply that one of the ancient Fathers did when a similar question was proposed to him. “ This advantage,” said he, “we owe to the multiplicity of books on the same subject : that one falls in the way of one man, and another best suits the level or comprehension of another. Everything that is written does not come into the hands of all, and hence, perhaps, some may meet with my book who have heard nothing of others which have treated better of the same subject.”

Although it cannot be gainsaid that the subject which we have undertaken to touch has been largely treated already, and that by more eminent writers than we, still, when it is borne in mind that all those learned treatises have been written in one or other of the dead languages, and that, too, more for the sake of embellishing some public institution or library than for the enlightenment of the masses of the people, we think we owe no apo-

V vi Preface .

logy for writing a book of the present nature in English suited to the capacity of all. Another advantage, too, that our book has over any other which has hitherto appeared is this: that it does not confine itself to the ceremonies and liturgical customs of any church in particular, such as the Latin or the Greek, but gives the reader a general survey of all the churches of the East and West where a true Sacrifice of the Mass really exists. It therefore comprehends in its scope several churches which have long been separated from the centre of unity.

We wish our readers further to understand that the information embodied in these pages has been taken from the most approved sources, and but in a few cases, and these of minor note, taken second-hand. Where there was a doubt we have expressed it, and whenever we found ourselves obliged to copy the remarks of an author upon whom we could place but little reliance we have always noted the fact, in order not to give as certain what was at best but doubtful, and thus be made responsible for statements which could not stand the test of criticism.

We wish to remark, also, that our work has not been given to the public in undue haste. It has been compiled with a great deal of care and calm deliberation, and has been written over and over again, with new corrections and additions each time, in order that nothing might be asserted without proof and nothing stated at

Preface . vii

random ; and although we have not followed to the letter the advice of the pagan poet to keep it in our drawer unto the ninth year, yet we can assure our readers of this much at least : that seven years of earnest and anxious labor have been expended on it. There is hardly a writer on sacred liturgy that we have not consulted ; certainly we have passed over no one of any note ; and in order that our readers, should they feel so inclined, may be enabled to collate our remarks with the sources from which we have drawn them, besides giving our' authorities through the work, we have deemed it well also to attach an alphabetical list of them to the end of our treatise.

Regarding the order of the subject-matter, we have only to say that we have endeavored to treat each particular portion as fully as possible by itself, without running one part into another, and thus embarrassing the reader ; and in order to aid the latter still more, we have appended so copious an index of words that it serves, in a measure, as a sort of compendium to the entire work.

As to the book’s originality, we humbly confess that it is not new ; and this confession we make, not through fear of running counter to what the Wise Man says, that “ there is nothing new under the sun,” but simply because we wish our readers to lay more stress upon the fact that it is a compilation of what the most learned writers have said upon the subject in hand rather than any effort of our own. Our book, then, can be called

Preface .

yiii

original only in so far as its name and tlie arrangement of parts are concerned. The labor of all this is ours, and ours only ; as for the rest, we say in all sincerity with Montaigne: “I have here only made a nosegay of culled flowers, and have brought nothing of my own but the string that ties them.”

the title of the book.

We have called our book A History of the Mass and its Ceremonies in the Eastern and Western Church . At first sight it seems an easy matter to hit upon such a title as this, but we assure the reader that it did not seem so to us. Many an hour of serious meditation it cost us before we had satisfied ourselves that the designation was a happy one; and all this principally on account of the appellations of Eastern and Western Church. Almost every book that we take in hands certainly every book of travels— has something to say about the Eastern Church and its liturgical customs; yet we candidly confess that we have never met with one which told us with any degree of satisfaction or clearness what this Eastern Church was, or which did not blunder from beginning to end in attempting to describe its ceremonies. Some are perpetually confounding the Eastern Church with the Creek Church, and the latter with the Russian, wholly forgetting that out of Greece itself no Greek Church exists, and that the

Preface.

IX

Russian Church is no more Greek than it is English or Irish. Others imagine that by the Eastern Church is meant that which is included within the Patriarchate of Constantinople ; but this, after all, would be only a fraction of the East, for it would leave out both the Greek Church proper and the Russian Church, each of which is wholly independent of Constantinople and independent the one of the other. We have met some even who have gravely committed it to writing that by the Eastern Church is meant the Syrian and all its branches. Then add to this those neverending and high-sounding titles that are constantly dinning our ears and seen at the head of almost every review that we take in hand, such as “Holy Orthodox Church,” “ Orthodox Imperial Church,” “ Orthodox Church of the East,” “ Holy Eastern Church,” and so on ad indefinitum j each, no doubt, meaning something, but quite unintelligible without much explanation. The fact is that since the fall of Constantinople, in 1453, there has existed no national church, if we except the Maronite alone, to which the appellation of Pastern could, with strictness, be given ; and it is but too well known that the correlative appellation of Western Church went into desuetude centuries before that time. The two designations originally sprang up naturally and necessarily from the division of Constantine’s empire in the fourth century, into that of the East, with Constantinople as capital, and that of the West, with Rome. Strictly

X

Preface.

speaking, then, there are no such organizations now as the Eastern and Western Church, and here was our difficulty in choosing a title. “How, then/’ somebody will say, “ can you justify the name of your book ? ” The question is answered in this way : If the book were a history, or a geography, or anything of that nature, it could not be justified at all, it would be a misnomer ; but inasmuch as it is confined solely to ecclesiastical ceremonies and customs, all of which are the same to-day, with scarcely a perceptible difference, as they were when a real Eastern and Western Church existed, it cannot mislead as to its meaning, nor can it be said of it that it has been unaptly chosen. But it can be justified upon other grounds : Although the Catholic Church recognizes no Church to-day to which she gives the name of Eastern in its original acceptation, still it must not be forgotten that she has at this time several within her communion whose location is wholly in the East, and which yet retain all their ancient ceremonies and customs. The Maronite Church is one of these. It celebrates Mass and the Divine Office in Syriac ; administers Holy Communion in both kinds to the laity ; has a married clergy, and enjoys the privilege of electing its own patriarch. The Chaldean Church is another : it says Mass in the ancient Syro-Chaldaic ; uses leavened bread in the Holy Eucharist ; has a married clergy also ; and, like all the other churches of the East, is under the immediate jurisdiction of a patriarch. Then

Preface.

xi there is the Church of the Uniat or Melchite Greeks ; it still celebrates in the ancient Greek ; like the Maronite and Chaldean, it has a married clergy ; like them, also, it administers Holy Communion under both species, and enjoys the singular privilege of reciting the Creed, even in presence of the Pope himself, without being obliged to add the celebrated “ Filioque.” These are but a few of the many churches in the East which still retain their ancient ceremonies and customs; but as we shall have frequent occasion to refer to them again in course of the present work, this passing notice must suffice here.

THE ORIENTAL SCHISMATIC CHURCH.

Our duty would be but half discharged did we pass by unnoticed the Oriental Schismatic Church, which forms so large a part of Eastern Christendom and runs side by side with the Catholic Church in all the Eastern regions. This Church may be thus divided : First, into the Church of the Russian Empire ; secondly, into that within the Turkish Empire, with Constantinople as capital ; thirdly, into the Church of the kingdom of Greece. We ask the reader to bear this division carefully in mind, for numberless mistakes are made for want of due attention to it, and to remember at the same time that all these churches are wholly independent of one .another, in temporals as well as in spirituals ; and

Preface .

xii

that they hold no intercommunion whatever, unless in so far as common charity or civility would dictate. The Church of the Russian Empire, at one time under the immediate control of the Archbishop of Moscow, and subsequently ruled by a patriarch, is now at the sole mercy of the “ Holy Synod of St. Petersburg,” and, though it would scorn to avow it, is to all intents and purposes a tool in the hands of the Czar, for without his sanction no change in the existing order of things can be made — not even can a council be convoked without first humbly asking his permission. This church uses the same liturgies and ceremonies as the Greek Church, and agrees with it in every point of discipline, save that it says Mass in the Sclavonic language.

The church within the Turkish Empire is made up of the four Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. Constantinople, the headquarters of the Ottoman Empire, is also the chief patriarchal seat, and still rejoices in the proud title of New Rome. The Sultan is virtually the head of this church, and, though they would fain deny it, its bishops and patriarchs are forced to confess that he is the supreme and final arbiter in every important dispute. Of so vast an extent is this division of the Eastern Church that it includes within its jurisdiction people who celebrate Mass in nine different languages — viz., in Latin, Greek, Syriac, Armenian, Coptic, Ethiopic, Chaldean, Sclavonic, and 'Wallachian,

Preface.

xiii

The Church of the kingdom of Greece, though nominally governed by the Synod of Athens, is as much a creature of the state as that of Constantinople or Russia, for it depends for its entire movement and being upon the will of the reigning monarch. It acknowledges no submission whatever to Constantinople, nor to any other branch of the Eastern Church.

Although these three great divisions of the Oriental Church include within their jurisdiction several churches which are both heretical and schismatical at the same time, still, as far as validity of orders is concerned, the Holy See has expressed her doubt of none save of the Abyssinian. The so-called Eastern Church has, therefore, a true priesthood, a true sacrifice of the Mass, and valid sacraments ; hence its claim to our attention. But it has another claim which ought not to be passed by unnoticed here ; its singular devotion to the ever-blessed Mother of God. This may be considered the great redeeming feature of the Eastern Church, and it is to be hoped that, in consideration of it, she whose glorious prerogative it is to destroy all heresies in the Church may, by her powerful intercession at the throne of her Divine Son, establish a lasting union between the East and West, so that Christ’s Vicar may sing once more, as he sang at the Council of Florence, “ Let the heavens rejoice and the earth burst forth in songs of gladness.”

In concluding our Preface we beg leave to remark that no attempt whatever at what is called style has

XI Y

Preface .

been made in the following pages. Our aim has been, from beginning to end, to give the reader plain facts, with little or no dressing, and to keep steadily in view that golden advice of St. Augustine, to wit, that it is better to endure blame at the hands of the critics than say anything which the people might not understand — “ Melius est reprehendant nos grammatici, quam non intelligent populi ” (ad Ps. cxxxviii. )

Whatever we have stated may be relied upon — if not relied upon as absolutely true, yet at least in the sense that it is a faithful rendering of the views of the author from whom it was taken. Further than this it would not be fair to hold us responsible. J. O’B.

Mt. St. Mart’s College, Emmittsburg, Maryland,

Feast of the Immaculate Conception, December 8, 1878.

A BRIEF DISSERTATION

ON THE

Principal Liturgies in use in the Past and West at the Present Day.

For the better understanding of the matter treated of in the following pages we deem it well to give the reader a brief account of the Liturgies in use in the Eastern and Western Church at the present day.

To give anything like a full history of the various Eastern Liturgies would, indeed, be a very laborious undertaking, and, we have serious reasons to fear, a very unsuccessful one also, for their name is legion — the Jacobites alone using as many as forty. We shall, therefore, wholly confine ourselves to such as are in general and daily use, and leave the rest to be treated of by those writers who make pure Liturgy the burden of their writing.

It would not be very bold to assert that the only living Liturgies in free circulation throughout the East at the present day are those of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great. Both of these are used now in their entirety, such as they were when they came from the hands of the great men whose names they bear ; and this can be said of none of the other Eastern Liturgies. The Liturgy of St. Basil is very often called the Caesarean Office, from the fact that its author was Bishop of Caesarea, in Cappadocia. It is the

XV xvi A brief Dissertation on the Principal Liturgies.

parent of the Armeno- Gregorian Rite. The Liturgy of St. Chrysostom is usually inscribed “ the Divine Liturgy of our Holy Father among the Saints, John of the Golden Mouth.” From this many of the later forms in use among the Nestorians are derived. The Liturgy of St. James, first Bishop of Jerusalem, is very frequently spoken of in connection with the Maronites and Syrians, but it is a well-known fact that the living Liturgies of both these peoples have little more of St. James’s in them than a few shreds. The Maronites are very fond of referring their Liturgy to that venerable norma because it has the impress of antiquity, it being the general opinion of liturgical writers that it is the oldest in existence ; but in reality their Liturgy as it stands now is nothing else but a collection of excerpta taken from other Liturgies, and as often called by the name of St. John Maro as by that of St. James the Apostle. The fact is that, if we except the Church of Jerusalem and a few islands in the Archipelago which employ it on certain occasions, the Liturgy of St. James has no circulation to-day in its original form anywhere. The same may be said of the Liturgy of St. Mark, at one time in exclusive use throughout the Patriarchate of Alexandria, and, in fact, of every other primitive Liturgy known ; so that we repeat what we stated at the outset, that the Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil the Great have almost undisturbed sway in the East to-day. They are used by Catholics and schismatics alike. Dr. Neale attributes all this to the influence of Balsamon, Catholic Patriarch of Antioch in the beginning of the thirteenth century, who, it appears, went heart and soul for shaping everything Eastern by the standard of the New Rome. Although Neale speaks somewhat disparagingly of this learned prelate, still, as he tells the story in full of how the Liturgies of Constantinople made their way into the East, we give his words without change of any kind. He

A brief Dissertation on the Principal Liturgies, xvii

speak? as follows : “ Of the normal Liturgies, those of St. James and St. Mark were used by the churches of Antioch and Alexandria, respectively, till the time of Theodore Balsamon. This prelate was a complete Oriental Ultramontane ; everything was to be judged by and squared to the rule of Constantinople. The Bellarmine or Orsi of the Eastern Church, he was for abolishing every formulary not adopted by the oecumenical patriarch, and endeavored successfully to intrude the forms of Constantinople on the whole East. Consulted by Mark of Alexandria as to the degree of authority which attached to the Liturgies of St. James and St. Mark, he wholly condemns them as not mentioned by Holy Scripture or the Canons, ‘but chiefly beoause,’ says he, ‘the Catholic Church of the most holy oecumenical throne of Constantinople does in nowise acknowledge them. ’ The way in which Balsamon treats these oflices, more venerable than his own, and that in which Rome has abrogated the Gallican and Mozarabic missals, are surely marvellously alike. From that time the Constantinopolitan Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom have prevailed over the whole orthodox East, except that the Office of St. James is used in the Church of Jerusalem and in some of the islands of the Archipelago on the festival of that Apostle 99 ( History of the Holy Eastern Church , General Introduction, vol. i. p. 318).

To enter, then, into more specific detail, the Liturgy of St. Chrysostom is used, first, by the Russian Church in the empire of Russia itself and throughout all the imperial dominions ; not, indeed, in its Greek form, but in the Sclavonic, for that is the liturgical language in all those parts. It is also used in the kingdom of Greece and its dependencies, and possesses universal sway among the Mingrelians, AVallachians, Ruthenians, Rascians, Bulgarians, and Albanians, as well as with all the Uniat or Melchite Greeks xviii A brief Dissertation on the Principal Liturgies.

of the four Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. The United Greeks of Italy and those of the Austrian Empire use it also.

Together with this Liturgy, in all the places mentioned, runs that of St. Basil the Great, but it is not called as often into requisition. The Liturgy of St. Chrysostom is employed throughout the entire year, on week-days as well as on Sundays and festivals, with the following exceptions : viz., the vigils of Christmas and the Epiphany, the Feast of St. Basil (January 1), all the Sundays of Lent except Palm Sunday, Holy Thursday and Holy Saturday. On these excepted occasions the Liturgy of St. Basil is used, and on the ferial days of Lent the service of the Presanctified — called also the Presanctified Liturgy — is used instead of both.

THE LITURGIES OF THE WESTERN CHURCH.

The Liturgies of the Western, or Latin, Church need nothing more at our hands than a passing notice ; for, with the exception of one or two normas, which are better called rites than Liturgies — viz., the Ambrosian and Mozarabic — the Roman has undisturbed and universal sway. Of the two exceptions named — the former peculiar to the ancient Church of Milan, the latter confined to the city of Toledo, in Spain — a full account is given in another part of our work, so that more need not be said of them here. As for the so-called Gallican and Lyonese Liturgies, they are now things of the past. The few vestiges that yet remain to tell that they had at one time a place in the Church will be noticed in due course ; as will also the fragments that are left us of the celebrated Rite of Sarum, which at one time formed the chief glory of the English Church.

In concluding our dissertation we beg leave to direct the reader’s attention to the following important fact : viz..

A brief Dissertation on the Principal Liturgies . xix

that throughout the entire East the word Liturgy (from the Greek Xsirov , public, and epyov, a work) means always the norma of the Mass, and no more ; but in the West it is the complexus of all the rites and ceremonies that are used by the Church in the administration of the Sacraments and in all her sacred offices. It is well to keep this in mind, for some are perpetually confounding Liturgy and Rubrics , thinking that both mean one and the same thing. There is about the same difference between them as between mathematics and arithmetic. The one includes the other and a great deal more besides. The Bubrics, according to the primitive acceptation of the word, are nothing but the directions given in red letters for the due performance of any particular ceremony ; when reduced to a regular system or science they are the elucidation of these directions, and nothing more. But the aim of Liturgy is of a far more comprehensive and elevated nature, for it takes in everything that is in any way connected with the sacred functions of the Church.

HISTORY OF THE MASS,

Chapter I. The Mass— Origin Of The Word , Etc

As to tlie origin of the word Mass liturgical writers are not entirely agreed. According to some, it comes from the Hebrew Massah , a debt or obligation; others

derive its name from the Greek “ ftvrj a zs,” Myesis, initiation ; whilst a third class maintain that it is nothing else but an improved form of the old obsolete Mes or Messe,1 which, with the people of Northern Europe, meant a banquet or convivial gathering, and not unfrequently also a sacrifice.

The great body, however, of liturgical writers are in favor of deriving it from the Latin “ Missa” or “ Missio,” a dismissal, referring to the custom in vogue during the first five or six centuries of the Christian Church— when the Disciplina Arcani, or Discipline of the Secret,2 prevailed — of dis-

1 From the same root are the affixes in such words as Christmas , Childermas , Michaelmas , Lammas , etc. (Holy Days of the English Church, p. 154).

2 The Disciplina Arcani, or Discipline of the Secret, was a law enforced by the early Christian Church, in virtue of which the principal mysteries of our holy faith were concealed from pagans, infidels, and all who had not been regenerated by the saving waters of baptism ; and this in accordance with the solemn admonition of our Divine Lord himself not to cast pearls before swine or give what was holy to dogs (Matt. vii. 6). This discipline prevailed in the Eastern Church until the end of the fifth century, and in the Western until about the middle of the sixth (Ferraris, art. Discip. Arcani , 735-12),

The Mass — Origin of the Word , Etc .

missing the Catechumens3 and Public Penitents4 from the house of God before the more solemn part of divine service began.

From the twofold dismissal — viz., that of the Catechumens at the beginning of Mass, and the other, of the faithful, at the end — the entire service used to be known by the plural appellations of Missce or Missiones (that is, the dismissals) ; and hence the import of such phrases so often to be met with in the writings of the early Fathers, as “ inter Missarum solemnia,” “ Missas facere,” and “ Missas tenere.” Hence, also, the twofold division known as the “ Mass of the Catechumens” and the “Mass of the Faithful,” the former extending from the beginning to the Offertory, the latter from the Offertory to the end.

THE NAMES BY WHICH THE MASS WAS KNOWN IN THE GREEK CHURCH IN EARLY TIMES.

One of the strongest arguments against the Hebrew origin of the word Mass is that none of the Oriental Fathers ever made use of Massah , but always employed a different word. With them it was styled indifferently by the following names : Mystagogia , Synaxis, Anaphora , Eulogia , Hiernrgia , Mysterion, Deipnon, Teleion, Agathon, Prosphora, and Liturgia .

It was called Mystagogia by St. Dionysius, from the fact

3 Catechumen, from the Greek icanjxew, I teach by word of mouth. Under the denomination of Catechumens came all those who were undergoing instructions at the hands of catechists previous to their reception of baptism. According to the most generally received opinion, there were two orders of Catechumens : the Hearers, or those who merely expressed a wish to become Christians ; and the Elect or Competent, who had passed through the course of training that was necessary for the reception of baptism.

4 Of the Public Penitents there were four distinct classes, viz. : the Weepers, whose place was in the porch, or first narthex ; the Hearers , who stood in the second narthex ; the Prostrates, whose place was near the ambo ; and the Costanders, who stood with the faithful in the lower part of the nave. (See frontispiece,)

Different Kinds of Mass.

that it was a divine participation of, or initiation into, the sacred mysteries. It was termed Synaxis , or the union , because in virtue of it we are all united with Christ our Saviour. The name Anaphora was applied to it from the fact that it raises our minds and hearts to God. The term Eulogia was given it from its propitiatory nature ; Hierur - gia, because it was a sacred action ; Mysterion , from the mysteries it contained ; and Deipnon , or banquet , from the fact that it gave us the living Bread unto the eternal nourishment of our souls. Then, again, it was called Teleion , or ; perfection , because it was the sacrifice of that Holy Lamb, without spot or blemish, who came upon earth to be the perfection and completion of the ancient law. Its name Agatlion , or good, was given it because it is the only lasting good upon which man can count ; and from the fact that it finally conducts us to the happy end for which we were created, the appellation of Prospliora was given it also. Of all these names enumerated, that of Liturgia was most frequently used, and is exclusively used at the present day throughout the entire East.

DIFFERENT KINDS OF MASS.

From the various circumstances attending the celebration of Mass, from the ceremonies5 employed, and the peculiar end for which it is offered, different names have been given to qualify it, such as Solemn High Mass, Simple High Mass, Low Mass, Conventual Mass, Bridal or Nuptial Mass, Golden Mass, Private Mass, Solitary Mass, Votive Mass, Dry Mass,

6 The word ceremony owes its origin to a singular circumstance. When Rome was sacked by the Gauls, the Vestal Virgins, in order to escape with their lives and preserve their honor, fled the city, carrying with them all their sacred utensils, and repaired to the ancient city of Caere, in Tuscany. Here they received a most cordial reception, and here they remained until quietness reigned at Rome. To perpetuate the kind hospitality of the people of Caere towards the Vestals, the sacred rites, and all pertaining to them, were called ceremonies ever after (Gavantus, T/iesaur. Sacr, Hit,, 2),

The Mass — Origin of the Word , Etc .

Evening and Midnight Mass, Mass of the Presanctified, Mass of Requiem, and Mass of Judgment.

Solemn High Mass. — When Mass is celebrated with deacon and subdeacon and a full corps of inferior ministers, it is denominated a Solemn High Mass. In many places of Europe the name grand is given it on account of its ritualistic display. It is called high from the fact that the greater part of it is chanted in a high tone of voice. When there is neither deacon nor subdeacon ministering, a Mass of this kind receives the name of Simple High Mass, or Missa Cantata.