TMTAaff
795
2CASS
mmiJtum . . . vHbur wrmonibu9 ChritH). From this
point (Fao nobis banc oblationem ascriptam, ratam,
lationalnlem . . .) the text of the Canon is quoted.
Then oome the Anamnesis (Ejrgq memores , . .),
joined to it the prayer of oblation (offerimus tibi hano
immaculatam hostiam . . .), i. e., practically our
"Supra quae" prayer, and the Communion with the
form: ** Corpus Christi. R. Amen", during which Ps.
xxii is sune. At the end the Lord's Prayer is said.
In the "De Sacramentis", then, the Intercession comes before the Consecration, whereas in Innocent's letter it came after. This transposition should be noted as one of the most important features in the development of the Mass. The "Liber Pontificalia" (ed. Duchesne, Paris, 1886-92) contains a number of statements about changes in and additions to the liass made by various popes, as for instance that Leo I (440-61) added the woros "sanctum sacrificium, im- maculatam hoetiam" to the prayer "Supra quad", that Sei^gius I (687-701) introduced the 4gnus Dei, and so on. These must be received with caution; the whole book still needs critical examination. In the case of the Agnus Dei the statement is made doubtful by the fact that it is found in the Gregorian Sacramen- tary (whose date, however, is agam doubtful). A constant tradition ascribes some great influence on the Mass to Gelasius I (492-6). Gennadius (De vir. illustr., xciv) sa^s he composed a sacramentary ; the Liber Pontincalis speaks of his liturgical work, and there must be some basis for the way in which his name is attached to the famous Gelasian Sacramen- tary. What exactly Gelasius did is less easy to determine.
We come now to the end of a period at the reign of St. Gregory I (590-604). Gr^ory knew the Mass poracticaily as we still have it. There have been addi- tions and changes since his time, but none to compare with the complete recasting of the Canon that took place before him. At least as far as the Canon is con- cerned, Gregory may be considered as having put the last touches to it. His biographer, John the Deacon, says that he "collected the Sacramentary of Gelasius in one book, leaving out much, changing little, adding something for the exposition of the Gospels" (Vita S. Greg., II, xvii). He moved the Our Father from the end of the Mass to before the Communion, as he says in his letter to John of Syracuse: " We say the Lord's Prayer immediately after the Canon \mox post pre- eem] ... It seems to me very imsmtable that we should say the Canon [prex] which an unknown scho- lar composed [quam schotasHcus composuerat] over the oblation and that we should not say the prayer handed down by our Redeemer himself over His body and bk)od " (P. L. , LXX VII, 956) . He is also credited with the addition: "diesque nostros etc." to the "Hanc igitiur" (ibid.; see Canon op the Mass). Benedict XIV says that "no pope has added to, or changed the Canon since St Gregory" (De SS. Missse saorificio, p. 162). There has been an important change since, the partial amalgamation of the old Roman Rite with Galilean features; but this hardly affects the Canon. We may say safely that a modern Latin Catholic who coidd be carried back to Rome in the early seventh century would — ^while missing some features to which he is accustomed — find himself on the whole quite at home with the service he saw there.
This brings us back to the most difficult question: Why and when was the Roman Liturgy changed from what we see in Justin Martyr to that of Gregory I? The change is radical, especially as regards the most important element of the Mass, the Canon. The modi- fications in the earlier part, the smaller number of lessons, the omission of the prayers for and expulsion c^ the catechumens, of the prayers of the faithful be- fore the Offertory and so on, may be accounted for easily as a result of the characteristic Roman tendency to shorten the service and leave out what had become
superfluous. The influence of the calendar has abready
been noticed. But there remains the great question
of the arrangement of the Canon. That the order of
the prayers that make up the Canon is a cardinal diffi-
culty is admitted by every one. The old attempts to
justify their present order by symbolic or mystic rea-
sons have now been given up. The Roman Canon as
it stands is recognized as a problem of great difficulty.
It differs fundamentally from the Anaphora of any
Eastern rite and from the Galilean Canon. Whereas
in the Antiochene family of liturgies (including that
of Gaul) the great Intercession follows the Consecra-
tion, which comes at once after the Sanctus, and in the
Alexandrine class the Intercession is said during what
we should call the Preface before the Sanctus, in the
Roman Rite the Intercession is scattered throughout
the Canon, partly before and partly after the Consecration. We may add to this the other difficulty, the
omission at Rome of any kind of clear Invocation of
the Holy Ghost (Epiklesis). Paul Drews has tried to
solve this question. His theory is that the Roman
Mass, starting from the primitive vaguer rite (prac-
tically that of the Apostolic Constitutions), at first
followed the development of Jcrusalem-Antioch, and
was for a time very similar to the Liturgy of St. James.
Then it was recast to brine it nearer to Alexandria.
This change was made probably by Gelasius I under
the influence of his guest, John Talaia of Alexandria.
The theory is explained at length in the article Canon
OP THE Mass. Here we need only add that it has received in the main the support of F. X. Funk (who at
first opposed it; see "lustor. Jahrbuch der Gorres-
gesellschaft", 1903, pp. 62, 283; but see also his
" Kirchengesch. Abhandlungen", III, Paderbom,
1907, pp. 85-134, in which he will not admit that he
has altogether changed his mind), A. Baumstark
("Liturgia romana e Liturgia dell' Esarcato", Rome,
1904), and G. Rauschen ("Eucharistie und Bussakra-
ment", Freiburg, 1908, p. 86). But other theories
have been suggested. Baumstark does not follow
Drews in the details. He conceives (op. cit.) the origi-
nal Canon as consisting of a Preface m which God is
thanked for the benefits of creation; the Sanctus
interrupts the prayers, which then continue (Vere
Sanctus) with a prayer (now disappeared) thanking
God for Redemption and so coming to the Institution
(Pridie autem quam pateretur . . .). Then follow
the AnamTiesis (tlnde et memores), the "Supra qua)",
the "Te igitur", joined to an Epiklesis after the words
"hsec sancta sacrificia illibata". Then the Interces-
sion (In primis quse tibi offerimus . . .), "Memento
vivorum", "Communicantes", "Memento defuncto-
rum" (Nos quo<iue pcccatores . . . intra sanctorum
tuorum consortium non eestimator meriti sed veniffi
qusesumus largitor admittc, per Christum Dominum
nostrum).
This order then (according to Baumstark) was dis- located by the insertion of new elements, the "Hanc Igitur", "Quam oblationem", "Supra quae" and " Supplices ", the list of saints in the " Nobis quoque ", all of which prayers were in some sort reduplications of what was already contained in the Canon. They represent a mixed influence of Antioch and Alexan- dria, which last reached Rome through Aquilea and Ravenna, where there was once a rite of the Alexan- drine type. St. Leo I began to make these changes; Gregory I finished the process and finally recast the Canon in the form it still has. It will be seen that Baumstark's theory agrees with that of Drews in the main issue — ^that at Rome originally the whole Inter- cession followed the Canon. Dom Cagin (Pal^o- graphie musicale, V, 80 sq.) and Dom Cabrol (Origines Rturgiques, 354 sq.) propose an entirely different theory. So far it has been admitted on all sides that the Roman and Galilean rites belong to different classes: the Galilean Rite approaches that of Antioch very closely, the origin of the Roman one being the
