Gallican Rite, the.—This subject will be treated under the following six heads: I. History and Origin; II. MSS. and Other Sources; III. The Liturgical Year; IV. The Divine Office; V. The Mass; VI. The Occasional Services.
I. HISTORY AND ORIGIN.—The name Gallican Rite is given to the rite which prevailed in Gaul from the earliest times of which we have any information until about the middle or end of the eighth century. There is no information before the fifth century and very little then; and throughout the whole period there was, to judge by existing documents and descriptions, so much diversity that, though the general outlines of the rite were of the same pattern, the name must not be taken to imply more than a very moderate amount of homogeneity. The Rite of Spain, fairly widely used from the fifth century to the end of the eleventh, and still lingering on as an archaeological survival in chapels at Toledo and Salamanca, was so nearly allied to the Gallican Rite that the term Hispano Gallican is often applied to the two. But this Spanish Mozarabic Rite has, like the allied Celtic, enough of an independent history to require separate treatment, so that, though it will be necessary to allude to both by way of illustration, this article will be devoted primarily to the rite once used in what is now France. Of the origin of the Gallican Rite there are three principal theories, between two of which the controversy is not yet settled. These may be termed (I) the Ephesine, (2) the Ambrosian, and (3) the Roman theories.
The first has been already mentioned under Ambrosian Liturgy and Rite and Celtic Rite. This theory, which was first put forward by Sir W. Palmer in his “Origins Liturgic”, was once very popular among Anglicans. According to it the Gallican Rite was referred to an original brought to Lyons from Ephesus by St. Pothinus and St. Irenaeus, who had received it through St. Polycarp from St. John the Divine. The idea originated partly in a statement in the eighth-‘ century tract in Cott. MS. Nero A, II in the British Museum, which refers the Gallican Divine Office (Cursus Gallorum) to such an origin, and partly in a statement of Colman at the Synod of Whitby (664) respecting the Johannine origin of the Celtic Easter. The Cottonian tract is of little or no historical value; Colman‘s notion was disproved at the time by St. Wilfrid; and the Ephesine theory has now been given up by all serious liturgiologists. Msgr. Duchesne, in his “Origins du culte chretien”, has finally disposed of the possibility of so complicated a rite as the Gallican having so early an origin as the second century.
The second theory is that which Duchesne puts forward in the place of the Ephesine. He holds that Milan, not Lyons, was the principal center of Gallican development. He lays great stress on the incontestable importance of Milan and the Church of Milan in the late fourth century, and conjectures that a liturgy of Oriental origin, introduced perhaps by the Cappadocian Auxentius, Bishop of Milan from 355 to 374, spread from that center to Gaul, Spain, and Britain. He points out that “the Gallican Liturgy, in the features which distinguish it from the Roman, betrays all the characteristics of the Eastern liturgies,” and that “some of its formularies are to be found word for word in the Greek texts which were in use in the churches of the Syro-Byzantine Rite either in the fourth century or somewhat later”, and infers from this that “the Gallican Liturgy is an Oriental liturgy, introduced into the West towards the middle of the fourth century”.. He does not, however, note that in certain other important peculiarities the Gallican Liturgy agrees with the Roman where the latter differs from the Oriental. Controverting the third or Roman theory of origin, he lays some stress upon the fact that Pope St. Innocent I (416) in his letter to Decentius of Gubbio spoke of usages which Msgr. Duchesne recognizes as Gallican (e.g. the position of the Diptychs and the Pax), as “foreign importations” and did not recognize in them the ancient usage of his own Church, and he thinks it hard to explain why the African Church should have accepted the Roman reforms, while St. Ambrose, himself a Roman, refused them. He assumes that the Ambrosian Rite is not really Roman, but Gallican, much Romanized at a later period, and that the Gubbio variations of which St. Innocent complained were borrowed from Milan.
The third theory is perhaps rather complicated to state without danger of misrepresentation, and has not been so definitely stated as the other two by any one writer. It is held in parts by Probst, Father Lucas, the Milanese liturgiologists, and many others whose opinion is of weight. In order to state it clearly it will be necessary to point out first certain details in which all the Latin or Western rites agree with one another in differing from the Eastern, and in this we speak only of the Mass, which is of far more importance than either the Divine Office or the occasional services in determining origins. The Eastern Eucharistic offices of whatever rite are marked by the invariability of the priest’s part. There are, it is true, alternative anaphoras which are used either ad libitum, as in the Syro-Jacobite Rite, or on certain days, as in Byzantine and East Syrian, but they are complete in themselves and do not contain passages appropriate to the day. The lections of course vary with the day in all rites, and varying antiphons, troparia, etc., are sung by the choir; but the priest’s part remains fixed. In the Western rites, whether Hispano-Gallican, Ambrosian, or Roman, a very large proportion of the priest’s part varies according to the day, and, as will be seen by the analysis of its Mass in this article, these variations are so numerous in the Gallican Rite that the fixed part even of the Prayer of Consecration is strangely little. Certain of the varying prayers of the Hispano-Gallican Rite have a tendency to fall into couples, a Bidding Prayer, or invitation to pray, sometimes of considerable length and often partaking of the nature of a homily, addressed to the congregation, and a collect embodying the suggestions of the Bidding Prayer, addressed to God. These Bidding Prayers have survived in the Roman Rite of today in the Good Friday intercessory prayers, and they occur in a form borrowed later from the Gallican, in the ordination services, but in general the invitation to prayer is reduced to its lowest terms in the word Oremus. Another Western peculiarity is in the form of the recital of the Institution. The principal Eastern liturgies follow St. Paul’s words in I Cor., xi, 23-25, and date the Institution by the betrayal, en tenukti, e paredidoto (in the night in which He was betrayed), and of the less important anaphoras, most either use the same expression or paraphrase it. The Western liturgies date from the Passion, Qui pridie quam pateretur, for which, though of course the fact is found there, there is no verbal Scriptural warrant. The Mozarabic of today uses the Pauline words, and no Gallican Recital of the Institution remains in full; but in both the prayer that follows is called (with alternative nomenclature in the Gallican) Post Pridie and the catchwords “Qui pridie” come at the end of the Post-Sanctus in the Gallican Masses, so that it is clear that this form existed in both. These variations from the Eastern usages are of an early date, and it is inferred from them, and from other considerations more historical than liturgical, that a liturgy with these peculiarities was the common property of Gaul, Spain, and Italy. Whether, as is most likely, it originated in Rome and spread thence to the countries under direct Roman influence, or whether it originated elsewhere and was adopted by Rome, there is no means of knowing. The adoption must have happened when liturgies were in rather a fluid state. The Gallicans may have carried to an extreme the changes begun at Rome, and may have retained some archaic features (now often mistaken for Orientalisms) which had been later dropped by Rome. At some period in the fourth century—it has been conjectured that it was in the papacy of St. Damasus (366-84)—reforms were made at Rome, the position of the Great Intercession and of the Pax were altered, the latter, perhaps because the form of the dismissal of the catechumens was disused, and the distinction between the missa catechumenorum and the missa fidelium was no longer needed, and therefore the want was felt of a position with some meaning to it for the sign of Christian unity, and the long and diffuse prayers were made into the short and crisp collects of the Roman type. It was perhaps then that the variable Post-Sanctus and Post-Pridie were altered into a fixed Canon of a type similar to the Roman Canon of today, though perhaps this Canon began with the clause which now reads “Quam oblationem”, but according to the pseudo-Ambrosian tract “De Sacramentis” once read “Fac nobis hanc oblationem”. This may have been introduced by a short variable Post-Sanctus. This reform, possibly through the influence of St. Ambrose, was adopted at Milan, but not in Gaul and Spain. At a still later period changes were again made at Rome. They have been principally attributed to St. Leo (440-61), St. Gelasius (492-96), and St. Gregory (590-604), but the share that these popes had in the reforms is not definitely known, though three varying sacramentaries have been called by their respective names. These later reforms were not adopted at Milan, which retained the books of the first reform, which are now known as Ambrosian.
Hence it may be seen that, roughly speaking, the Western or Latin Liturgy went through three phases, which may be called for want of better names the Gallican, the Ambrosian, and the Roman stages. The holders of the theory no doubt recognize quite clearly that the line of demarcation between these stages is rather a vague one, and that the alterations were in many respects gradual. Of the three theories of origin the Ephesine may be dismissed as practically disproved. To both of the other two the same objection may be urged, that they are largely founded on conjecture and on the critical examination of documents of a much later date than the periods to which the conjectures relate. But at present there is little else to go upon. It may be well to mention also a theory put forward by Mr. W. C. Bishop in the “Church Quarterly” for July, 1908, to the effect that the Gallican Liturgy was not introduced into Gaul from anywhere, but was the original liturgy of that country, apparently invented and developed there. He speaks of an original independence of Rome (of course liturgically only) followed by later borrowings. This does not seem to exclude the idea that Rome and the West may have had the germ of the Western Rite in common. Again the theory is conjectural and is only very slightly stated in the article.
The later history of the Gallican Rite until the time of its abolition as a separate rite is obscure. In Spain there was a definite center in Toledo, whose influence was felt over the whole peninsula, even after the coming of the Moors. Hence it was that the Spanish Rite was much more regulated than the Gallican, and Toledo at times, though not very successfully, tried to give liturgical laws even to Gaul, though probably only to the Visigothic part of it. In the greater part of France there was liturgical anarchy. There was no capital to give laws to the whole country, and the rite developed there variously in various places, so that among the scanty fragments of the service-books that remain there is a marked absence of verbal uniformity, though the main outlines of the services are of the same type. Several councils attempted to regulate matters a little, but only for certain provinces. Among these were the Councils of Vannes (465), Agde (506), Vaison (529), Tours (567), Auxerre (578), and the two Councils of Macon (581, 623). But all along there went on a certain process of Romanizing, due to the constant applications to the Holy See for advice, and there is also another complication in the probable introduction during the seventh century, through the Columbanian missionaries, of elements of Irish origin. The changes towards the Roman Rite happened rather gradually during the course of the late seventh and eighth century, and seem synchronous with the rise of the Maires du Palais, and their development into kings of France. Nearly all the Gallican books of the later Merovingian period, which are all that are left, contain many Roman elements. In some cases there is reason to suppose that the Roman Canon was first introduced into an otherwise Gallican Mass, but the so-called Gelasian Sacramentary, the principal MS. of which is attributed to the Abbey of St-Denis and to the early eighth century, is an avowedly Roman book, though containing Gallican additions and adaptations. And the same may be said of what is left of the undoubtedly Frankish book known as the “Missale Francorum” of the same date. Msgr. Duchesne attributes a good deal of this eighth-century Romanizing tendency to St. Boniface, though he shows that it had begun before his day. The Roman Liturgy was adopted at Metz in the time of St. Chrodegang (742-66). The Roman chant was introduced about 760, and by a decree of Pepin, quoted in Charlemagne‘s “Admonitio Generalis” in 789, the Gallican chant was abolished in its favor. Pope Adrian I between 784 and 791 sent to Charlemagne at his own request a copy of what was considered to be the Sacramentary of St. Gregory, but which certainly represented the Roman use of the end of the eighth century. This book, which was far from complete, was edited and supplemented by the addition of a large amount of matter derived from the Gallican books and from the Roman book known as the Gelasian Sacramentary, which had been gradually supplanting the Gallican. It is probable that the editor was Charlemagne‘s principal liturgical adviser, the Englishman Alcuin. Copies were distributed throughout Charlemagne‘s empire, and this “composite liturgy”, as Msgr. Duchesne says, “from its source in the Imperial chapel spread throughout all the churches of the Frankish Empire and at length, finding its way to Rome gradually supplanted there the ancient use”. More than half a century later, when Charles the Bald wished to see what the ancient Gallican Rite had been like, it was necessary to import Spanish priests to celebrate it in his presence.
It should be noted that the name Gallican has also been applied to two other uses: (I) a French use introduced by the Normans into Apulia and Sicily. This was only a variant of the Roman Rite. (2) The reformed Breviaries of the French dioceses in the seventeenth to mid-nineteenth centuries. These have nothing to do with the ancient Gallican Rite.
II. MSS. AND OTHER SOURCES.—There are no MSS. of the Gallican Rite earlier than the latter part of the seventh century, though the descriptions in the letters of St. Germanus of Paris (555-76) take one back another century. The MSS. are:
(I) The Reichenau Fragments. (Carlsruhe, 2531, described (no. 8) in Delisle’s “Memoire sur d’anciens Sacramentaires.”—These were discovered by Mone in 1850 in a palimpsest MS. from the Abbey of Reichenau in the library of Carlsruhe. The MS., which is late seventh century, had belonged to John II, Bishop of Constance (760-81). It contains eleven Masses of purely Gallican type, one of which is in honor of St. Germanus of Auxerre, but the others do not specify any festival. One Mass, except the Post-Pridie, which is in prose, is entirely in hexameter verse. Mone published them with a facsimile in his “Lateinische and Griechische Messen aus dem zweiten bis sechsten Jahrhundert” (Frankfort, 1850). They were reprinted in Migne’s “Patrologia Latina” (Vol. CXXXVIII), and by Neale and Forbes in “The Ancient Liturgy of the Gallican Church” (Burntisland, 1855-67).
The Peyron, Mai, and Bunsen Fragments.—Of these disjointed palimpsest leaves, those of Mai and Peyron were found in the Ambrosian Library at Milan, and those of Bunsen at St. Gall. Peyron’s were printed in his “M. T. Ciceronis Orationum Fragmenta inedita” (Stuttgart, 1824), Mai’s in his “Scriptorum Veterum Vaticana Collectio”, and Bunsen’s in his “Analecta Ante-Niceana”. All these were reprinted by C. E. Hammond: Peyron’s and Bunsen’s in his “Ancient Liturgy of Antioch” (Oxford, 1879), and Mai’s in his “Ancient Liturgies” (Oxford, 1878). The last are also in Migne’s “Patrologia Latina” with Mone’s Reichenau fragments, The Peyron fragment contains part of what looks like a Lenten Contestatio (Preface) with other prayers of Gallican type. The Bunsen fragment contains part of a Mass for the Dead (Post-Sanctus, Post-Pridie) and several pairs of Bidding Prayers and collects, the former having the title “Exhortatio” or “Exhortatio Matutina”. The Mai fragments begin with part of a Bidding Prayer and contain a fragment of a Contestatio, with that title, and fragments of other prayers, two of which have the title “Post Nomina”, and two others which seem to be prayers “Ad Pacem”.
The Missale Gothicum (Vatican, Queen Christina MSS. 317).—Described by Delisle, No. 3. A MS. of the end of the seventh century, which once belonged to the Petau Library. The name is due to a fifteenth-century note at the beginning of the book, and hence it has been attributed by Tomasi and Mabillon to Narbonne, which was in the Visigothic Kingdom. Msgr. Duchesne, judging by the inclusion of Masses for the feasts of St. Symphorian and St. Leger (d. 680), attributes it to Autun. The Masses are numbered, the MS. beginning with Christmas Eve, which is numbered “III”. Probably there were once two Advent Masses, as in the “Missale Gallicanum”. There are eighty-one numbered sections, of which the last is the first prayer of “Missa Romensif cottidiana”, with which the MS. breaks off. The details of the Masses in this book are given in the section of the present article on the liturgical year. The Masses are all Gallican as to order, but many of the actual prayers are Roman. The “Missale Gothicum” has been printed by Tommasi (Codices Sacramentorum, Rome, 1680), Mabillon (De Liturgic Gallicana, Paris, 1685), Muratori (Liturgia Romana Vetus, Venice, 1748), Neale and Forbes (op. cit.), and in Migne’s “Patrologia Latina” (Vol. LXXII).
Missale Gallicanum Vetus (Vatican. Palat. 493).—Described by Delisle, No. 5. The MS., which is of the end of the seventh, or the early part of the eighth, century is only a fragment. It begins with a Mass for the feast of St. Germanus of Auxerre (October 9), after which come prayers for the Blessing of Virgins and Widows, two Advent Masses, the Christmas Eve Mass, the Expositio and Traditio Symboli, and other ceremonies preparatory to Baptism; the Maundy Thursday Good Friday and Easter Sunday ceremonies and the baptismal service, Masses for the Sundays after Easter up to the Rogation Mass, where the MS. breaks off. The Masses, as in the “Gothicum”, are Gallican in order with many Roman prayers. The Good Friday prayers are, with a few verbal variations, exactly those of the Roman Missal. The MS. has been printed by Tommasi, Mabillon, Muratori, and Neale and Forbes (op. cit.), and in Vol. LXXII of Migne’s “Patrologia Latina.”
The Luxeuil Lectionary (Paris, Bibl. Nat., 9427).—This MS., which is of the seventh century was discovered by Mabillon in the Abbey of Luxeuil, but from its containing among its very few saints’ days the feast of St. Genevieve, Dom Morin (Revue Benedictine, 1893) attributes it to Paris. It contains the Prophetical Lessons, Epistles, and Gospels for the year from Christmas Eve onwards (for the details of which see the section of this article on the liturgical year). At the end are the lessons of a few special Masses, for the burial of a bishop, for the dedication of a church, when a bishop preaches, “et plebs decimas reddat”, when a deacon is ordained, when a priest is blessed, “in profectione itineris”, and “lectiones cotidianae”. This Lectionary is purely Gallican with no apparent Roman influence. The MS. has not been printed in its entirety, but Mabillon in “De Liturgic Gallicana” gives the references to all the lessons and the beginnings and endings of the text.
The Letters of St. Germanus of Paris.—These were printed by Martene (De Antiquis Ecclesiae Ritibus, Bassano, 1788) from a MS. at Autun, and are given also in Vol. LXXII of Migne’s “Patrologia Latina”. There appears to be no reason to doubt that they are genuine. They contain mystical interpretations of the ceremonies of the Mass and of other services. Msgr. Duchesne says of the descriptions, on which the interpretations are based, that “We may reconstruct from the letters a kind of Ordo Gallicanus “. (See section of this article on the Mass.)
Much side light is thrown on the Gallican Rite by the Celtic books (see Celtic Rite), especially by the Stowe and Bobbio Missals. The latter has been called Gallican and attributed to the Province of Besancon, but it is now held to be Irish in a much Romanized form, though of Continental provenance, being quite probably from the originally Irish monastery of Bobbio, where Mabillon found it. A comparison with the Ambrosian books (see Ambrosian Liturgy and Rite) may also be of service, while most lacunae in our knowledge of the Gallican Rite may reasonably be conjecturally filled up from the Mozarabic books, which even in their present form are those of substantially the same rite. There are also liturgical allusions in certain early writers: St. Hilary of Poitiers, St. Sulpicius Severus (d. about 400), St. Caesarius of Arles (d. about 542), and especially St. Gregory of Tours (d. 595), and some information may be gathered from the decrees of the Gallican councils mentioned above.
The above are all that exist as directly Gallican sources, but much information may also be gleaned from the books of the transition period, which, though substantially Roman, were much edited with Germanic tendencies and contained a large amount which was of a Gallican rather than a Roman type. The principal of these are:
The Gelasian Sacramentary, of which three MSS. exist, one in the Vatican (Queen Christina MS. 316), one at Zurich (Rheinau 30), and one at St. Gall (MS. 348). The MSS. are of the early eighth century. The groundwork is Roman, with Galilean additions and modifications. Evidence for the Gallican rites of Ordination and some other matters is derived from this book. The Vatican MS. was published by Tommasi and Muratori, and a complete edition from all three MSS. was edited by H.A. Wilson (Oxford, 1894).
The Missale Francorum (Vatican Christina MS. 257, Delisle No. 4).—A fragment of a Sacramentary of a similar type to the Gelasian, though not identical with it. Printed by Tommasi, Mabillon, and Muratori.
The Gregorian Sacramentary.—Of this there are many MSS. It represents the Sacramentary sent by Pope Adrian I to Charlemagne, after it had been rearranged and supplemented by Gelasian and Gallivan additions in France. One MS. of it was published by Muratori. In this, as in many others, the additions form a supplement, but in some (e.g. the Angouleme Sacramentary, Bibl. Nat. Lat. 816) the Gelasian additions are interpolated throughout.
III. THE LITURGICAL YEAR.—The Luxeuil Lectionary, the Gothicum and Gallicanum Missals, and the Gallican adaptations of the Hieronymian Martyrology are the chief authorities on this point, and to these may be added some information to be gathered from the regulations of the Councils of Agde (506), Orleans (541), Tours (567), and Macon (581), and from the “Historia Francorum” of St. Gregory of Tours, as to the Gallican practice in the sixth century. It is probable that there were many variations in different times and places, and that the influence of the Hieronymian Martyrology brought about many gradual assimilations to Rome. The year, as is usual, began with Advent. The Council of Macon, which arranges for three days’ fast a week, during that season, mentions St. Martin‘s Day as the key-day for Advent Sunday, so that, as at present in the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Rites, there were six Sundays of Advent (but only two Advent Masses survive in the Gallicanum). The Gothicum and the Luxeuil Lectionary both begin with Christmas Eve. Then follow Christmas Day; St. Stephen; St. John (according to Luxeuil); St. James and St. John (according to the Gothicum, which agrees with the Hieronymian Martyrology and with a Syriac Menology of 412, quoted by Duchesne. The Mozarabic has for December 29 “Sanctus Jacobus Frater Domini”, but that is the other St. James); Holy Innocents; Circumcision; St. Genevieve (Luxeuil Lectionary only. Her day is January 3); Sunday after the Circumcision (Luxeuil), vigil of Epiphany; Epiphany; two Sundays after Epiphany (Luxeuil); “Festum Sanctae Mary” (Luxeuil, called “Assumptio” in the Gothicum, January 18); St. Agnes (Gothicum); after which follow in the Gothicum, out of their proper places, Sts. Cecily (November 22); Clement (November 23); Saturninus (November 29); Andrew (November 30); and Eulalia (December 10); the Conversion of St. Paul (Gothicum); St. Peter’s Chair (in both. This, from its position after the Conversion of St. Paul in the Gothicum, ought to be St. Peter’s Chair at Antioch, February 22; but it will not work out as such with the two Sundays between it and the Epiphany and three between it and Lent, as it appears in the Luxeuil Lectionary; so it must mean St. Peter’s Chair at Rome, January 18, which is known to have been the festival kept in Gaul); three Sundays after St. Peter’s Chair (Luxeuil); Initium Quadragesimce; five Lenten Masses (Gothicum); Palm Sunday (Luxeuil); “Symboll Traditio” (Gothicum); Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday of Holy Week, called, by the name still used in the Ambrosian Rite, Authentica Hebdomada (Luxeuil); Maundy Thursday; Good Friday; Easter Eve; Easter Day and the whole week; Low Sunday, called in both Clausum Paschce; four more Sundays after Easter (Luxeuil); Invention of the Cross (Gothicum, May 3); St. John the Evangelist (Gothicum, May 6); three Rogation days; Ascension; Sunday after Ascension (Luxeuil); Pentecost; Sunday after Pentecost (Luxeuil); Sts. Ferreolus and Ferrutio (Gothicum, June 16); Nativity of St. John Baptist; Sts. Peter and Paul; Decollation of St. John Baptist; Missa de Novo fructus (sic, Luxeuil); St. Sixtus (Gothicum, August 6); St. Lawrence (Gothicum, August 10)
St. Hippolytus (Gothicum, August 13); Sts. Cornelius and Cyprian (Gothicum, September 16); Sts. John and Paul (Gothicum, June 26); St. Symphorian (Gothicum, August 22); St. Maurice and his companions (Gothicum, September 22); St. Leger (Gothicum, October 2); St. Martin (Gothicum, November 22). Both books have also Commons of Martyrs and Confessors, the Luxeuil has Commons of bishops and deacons for a number of other Masses, and the Gothicum has six Sunday Masses. The Gallicanum has a Mass in honor of St. Germanus of Auxerre before the two Advent Masses. In both the Gothicum and Gallicanum a large space is given to the services of the two days before Easter, and in the latter the Expositio and Traditio Symboli are given at great length. The moveable feasts depended, of course, on Easter. When the Roman Church altered the Easter cycle from the old computation on a basis of 84 years to the new cycle of 532 years of Victories of Aquitaine in 457, the Gallican Church, unlike the Celts, did the same; but when, in 525, the Roman Church adopted the 19 years cycle of Dionysius Exiguus, the Gallican Church continued to use the cycle of Victorius, until the end of the eighth or beginning of the ninth century. Lent began with the first Sunday, not with Ash Wednesday. There is a not very intelligible passage in the canons of the Council of Tours (567) to the effect that all through August there were “festivitates et miss ae sanctorum”, but this is not borne out by the existing Sacramentaries or the Lectionary.
IV. THE DIVINE OFFICE.—There is curiously little information on this point, and it is not possible to reconstruct the Gallican Divine Office from the scanty allusions that exist. It seems probable that there was considerable diversity in various times and places, though councils, both in France and Spain, tried to bring about some uniformity. The principal authorities are the Councils of Agde (506) and Tours (567), and allusions in the writings of St. Gregory of Tours and St. Caesarius of Arles. These and other details have been gathered together by Mabillon in his “De Liturgic Gallicana”, and his essay on the Gallican Cursus is not yet superseded. The general arrangement and nomenclature were very similar to those of the Celtic Rite (q.v.). There were two principal services, Matins (ad Matutinam, Matutinum) and Vespers (ad Duodecimam, ad Vesperas, Lucernarium); and four Lesser Hours, Prime, or Ad Secundam, Terce, Sext and None; and probably two night services, Complin, or ad initium noctis, and Nocturns. But the application of these names is sometimes obscure. It is not quite clear whether Nocturns and Lauds were not joined together as Matins; Caesarius speaks of Prima, while the Gallicanum speaks of Ad secundam; Caesarius distinguishes between Lucernarium and Ad Duodeciman, while Aurelian distinguishes between Ad Duodeciman and Complin; the Gothicum speaks of Vespera Paschce and Initium Noctis Paschce, and the Gallicanum has Ad Duodecimam Paschce. The distribution of the Psalter is not known. The Council of Tours orders six psalms at Sext and twelve ad Duodecimam, with Alleluia (presumably as Antiphon). For Matins there is a curious arrangement which reminds one of that in the Rule of St. Columbanus (see Celtic Rite). Normally in summer (apparently from Easter to July) “sex antiphonae biros psalmis” are ordered. This evidently means twelve psalms, two under each antiphon. In August there seem to have been no psalms, because there were festivals and Masses of saints. “Toto Augusto manicationes fiant, quia festivitates sunt et missae sanctorum”. The meaning of manicationes and of the whole statement is obscure. In September there were fourteen psalms, two under each antiphon; in October twenty-four psalms, three to each antiphon; in November twenty-seven psalms, three to each antiphon; and from December to Easter thirty psalms, three to each antiphon. Caesarius orders six psalms at Prime with the hymn “Fulgentis auctor aetheris”, two lessons, one from the old and one from the New Testament, and a capitellum; six psalms at Terce, Sext, and None, with an antiphon, a hymn, a lesson, and a capitellum; at Lucernarium a “Psalmus Directaneus”, whatever that may be (cf. the “Psalmus Directus” of the Ambrosian Rite), two antiphons, a hymn, and a capitellum; and ad Duodecimam, eighteen psalms, an antiphon, hymn, lesson, and capitellum. From this it seems as though Lucernarium and Ad Duodecimam together made up Vespers, combining the twelfth hour of the Divine Office (that is, of the recitation of the Psalter with its accompaniments) with a service for what, without any intention of levity, one may call “lighting-up time”. The Ambrosian and Mozarabic Vespers are constructed on this principle, and so is the Byzantine Esperinos.
Caesarius mentions a blessing given by the bishop at the end of Lucernarium, “ cumque expleto Lucernario benedictionem populo dedisset”; and the following is an order of the Council of Agde (canon 30): “Et quia convenit ordinem ecclesiai ab omnibus aequaliter custodiri studendum est ut ubique fit et post antiphonas collectiones per ordinem ab episcopis vel presbyteris dicantur et hymni matutini vel vespertini diebus omnibus decantentur et in conclusione matutinarum vel vespertinarum missarum post hymnos capitella de psalmis dicantur et plebs collecta oratione ad vesperam ab Episcopo cum benedictione dimittatur”. The rules of Caesarius and Aurelian both speak of two nocturns with lessons, which include on the feasts of martyrs lessons from their passions. They order also Magnificat to be sung at Lauds, and during the Paschal days; and on Sundays and greater festivals Gloria in Excel sis. There is a short passage which throws a little light upon the Lyons use of the end of the fifth century in an account of the Council of Lyons in 499, quoted by Mabillon. The council assembled by King Gundobad of Burgundy began on the feast of St. Just. The vigil was kept at his tomb. This began with a lesson from the Pentateuch (“a Moyse”), in which occurred the words “Sed ego indurabo cor ejus”, etc. (Ex., vii, 3). Then psalms were sung and a lesson was read from the prophets, in which occurred the words “Vade, et dices populo huic: Audite audientes”, etc. (Isaias, vi, 9), then more psalms and a lesson from the Gospels containing the words “Vae tibi, Corozain!” etc. (Matt., xi, 21; or Luke, x, 13), and a lesson from the Epistles (“ex Apostolo”) which contained the words “An divitias bonitatis ejus”, etc. (Rom., ii, 4). St. Agobard in the ninth century mentions that at Lyons there were no canticles except from the Psalms, no hymns written by poets, and no lessons except from Scripture. Mabillon says that though in his day Lyons agreed with Rome in many things, especially in the distribution of the Psalter, and admitted lessons from the Acts of Saints, there were still no hymns except at Complin, and he mentions a similar rule as to hymns at Vienne. But canon 23 of the Council of Tours (767) allowed the use of the Ambrosian hymns. Though the Psalter of the second recension of St. Jerome, now used in all the churches of the Roman Rite except the Vatican Basilica, is known as the “Gallican”, while the older, a revision of the “Vetus Itala”, used now in St. Peter’s at Rome only, is known as the “Roman”, it does not seem that the Gallican Psalter was used even in Gaul until a comparatively later date, though it spread thence over nearly all the West. At present the Mozarabic and Ambrosian Psalters are variants of the “Roman”, with peculiarities of their own. Probably the decadence of the Gallican Divine Office was very gradual. In the eighth century tract in Cott. MS. Nero A. II. the “Cursus Gallorum” is distinguished from the “Cursus Romanorum”, the “Cursus Scottorum” and the Ambrosian; all of which would seem to have been going on then. The unknown writer, though his opinion is of no value on the origin of the “Cursus”, may well have known about some of these of his own knowledge; but through the seventh century there are indications of a tendency to adopt the Roman or the Monastic “cursus” instead of the Gallican, or to mix them up, a tendency which was resisted at times by provincial councils.
V. THE MASS.—The chief authorities for the Gallican Mass are the Letters of St. Germanus of Paris (555-576); and by a comparison of these with the extant Sacramentaries, not only of Gaul but of the Celtic Rite, with the Irish tracts on the Mass, with the books of the still existing Mozarabic Rite, and with the descriptions of the Spanish Mass given by St. Isidore, one may arrive at a fairly clear general idea of the service, though there exists no Gallican Ordinary of the Mass and no Antiphoner. Msgr. Duchesne, in his “Origines du Culte chretien”, has given a very full account constructed on this basis, though some will differ from him in his supplying certain details from Ambrosian books, and in his claiming the Bobbio Sacramentary as Ambrosian rather than Celtic.
The Order of this Mass is as follows:
The Entrance.—Here an Antiphona (Introit) was sung. Nothing is said of any Presparatio Sacerdotis, but there is one given in the Celtic Stowe Missal (see Celtic Rite); and the Irish tracts describe a preliminary preparation of the Chalice, as does also the Mozarabic Missal. As no Antiphoner exists, we have no specimen of a Gallican Offccium, or Introit. Duchesne gives a Mozarabic one, which has something of the form of a Roman Responsory. The Antiphona was followed by a proclamation of silence by the deacon, and the salutation Dominus sit sent per vobiscum by the priest. This is still the Mozarabic form of Dominus vobiscum.
The Canticles.—These, according to St. Germanus, were: (i) The Ajus (agios) which may be the Greek Trisagion (Agios Theos, k.t.l.) or the Greek of the Sanctus, probably the latter, which is still used elsewhere in the Mozarabic, and seems to be referred to in the Ajus, ajus, ajus of the Life of St. Gery of Cambrai and the Sanctus, sanctus, sanctus of the Council of Vaison (529). In the Bobbio there is a prayer Post Ajus. (ii) The Kyrie Eleison, sung by three boys. This has disappeared from the Mozarabic. It is mentioned by the Council of Vaison (529). (iii) The Canticle of Zacharias (Benedictus). This is called Prophetia and there are collects post Prophetia.m in the Reichenau fragments, the Gothicum, and the Bobbio. The Mozarabic and Celtic books have Gloria in Excelsis here, but in the former the “Benedictus” is used instead on the Sunday before the Nativity of St. John Baptist, called Dominica pro adventu S. Johannis. A different Canticle, Sanctus Deus Archangelorum was used, according to St. Germanus, in Lent.
The Lessons.—These were the Lectio Prophetica from the Old Testament, and the Lectio Apostolica or Epistle. In Paschal time the Apocalypse took the place of the Lectio Prophetica, and a lesson from the Acts of the Apostles that of the Epistle. In Lent the Histories of the Old Testament were read instead of the Prophetical Lesson, and on Saints’ Days the Acts of the Saints. This agrees with the present Mozarabic, except in the Acts of the Saints, and with the Luxeuil Lectionary, and the Bobbio. The Acts of Saints were used as Mass Lessons in the Ambrosian Rite as late as the twelfth century. According to St. Germanus the second lesson followed immediately on the first, but in the Mozarabic the Benedicite and a Psallendo (Responsory) come between them. In the Gallican the Benedicite and a Responsorium followed the Epistle. The Bobbio has a fixed collect, Post Benedictionem, which is that which follows Benedictus es (Dan., iii) on Ember Saturdays in the Roman Missal.
The Gospel.—This was preceded by a procession in tribunal analogii, i.e. to the ambo. The word Analogion is still the Byzantine term for the desk from which the Gospel is read. A clerk again sang the “Ajus”, and seven lighted candles were carried. The clerks cried out Gloria tibi, Domine. Sanctus was sung as they returned. Nothing is said about Alleluia preceding the Gospel, nor is there any in the Mozarabic. The Celtic Rite, as shown by the Stowe Missal, included an Alleluia at that point, as do most other rites.
Here, according to St. Germanus, followed the Homily.
The Prex.—The passage of St. Germanus is “Preces vero psallere levitas pro populo ab origine libri Moysaici ducit exordium, ut audita Apostoli praedicatione levitae pro populo deprecentur et sacerdotes prostrati ante Dominum pro peccatis populi intercedant”. Duchesne makes this refer to a Bidding Litany to follow the Homily, but judging from the analogy of the Stowe Mass, which places a litany between the Epistle and Gospel, and of the Mozarabic, which on Sundays in Lent has a very similar litany between the Prophetical Lesson and the Epistle, said by the priest who “prosternat se ad pedem altaris”, it might be possible to understand “audita Apostoli praedicatione” to mean “after the Epistle“. The Roman Good Friday prayers, however, which are similar in import to this litany, follow the Gospel; and so does the Great Synapte of the Clementine, the Byzantine, and other Eastern rites, which have petitions of the same type, and one of which is probably the original source of this Prex. The Council of Lyons (517) also mentions “orationem plebis quae post evangelia legeretur”. No Gallican text of this litany exists, but it was probably much of the same type as that of the Stowe, which is called “Deprecatio Sancti Martini”, and that which takes the place of the “Gloria in Excelsis” in Lent in the Ambrosian. The Prex is followed by a prayer called most Precem.
The Dismissal of the Catechumens.—This is mentioned by St. Germanus as an ancient rite of which the form was still observed. He says, in almost the same words which James of Edessa, speaking of the Syrian Rite, used a century later, that the deacon proclaims “juxta antiquum Ecclesiae ritum”. No mention is made by St. Germanus of penitents, but the Council of Lyons just mentioned gave them permission to remain until after the Prex. In the Stowe Mass, as in the Roman, there is no allusion to catechumens or penitents.
The Great Entrance and Offertory.—It seems appropriate to give the Byzantine name to this ceremony, for, according to St. Germanus’s description, it resembled the Great Entrance of that rite rather than anything which is now found in either the Roman or the Mozarabic of today, or in the Celtic Rite; and the Procession of the Vecchioni at Milan (see Ambrosian Liturgy and Rite) is altogether a different matter. First came the closing of the doors. This took place immediately after the Dismissal of the Catechumens in the Liturgy of St. James, and is put at the same point in the description of James of Edessa. In the Byzantine Rite of today it comes after the Great Entrance. In the Roman Rite there is no sign of it. St. Germanus gives it a mystical meaning about the gates of the soul, but James of Edessa gives the real origin, the guarding of the mysteries against the heathen. Then the already prepared Elements were brought in, the bread in a vessel shaped like a tower, the mixed wine and water in the chalice. St. Germanus speaks of them as Corpus Domini and Sanguis Christi (cf. the wording of the Byzantine hymn known as the Cherubicon). While this was done the choir sang what St. Germanus calls the Sonum. The Mozarabic Missal calls the Responsory which comes at this point the Lauda, and the name Sonus is given to very similar Responsories sung at Vespers and Lauds. While the Elements were being offered the choir sang the Laudes, which included Alleluia. This is the Mozarabic Sacrificium, the Roman Offertorium. St. Isidore gives the latter name to it. The tract in the Irish “Leabhar Breac” speaks of elevating the chalice “quando canitur Imola Deo sacrificium laudes”, but the Stowe, being a priest’s book, is silent about any antiphon here, though the prayers said by the priest are given. In the Stowe Missal the Offertory, which is a good deal Romanized, is preceded by the Creed. In the Ambrosian. as in the Byzantine, the Creed follows the Offertory. In the Gallican of St. Germanus there was as yet no Creed. By the time of James of Edessa it had got into the Syrian Liturgy, but the Roman did not adopt it till much later. The Mozarabic puts it after the Consecration. St. Germanus mentions three veils, the “palla linostima” [linostema is defined by St. Isidore (Orig., 19, 22) as a material woven of flax and wool] “corporalis palla” of pure linen, “super quam oblatio ponitur”, and a veil of silk adorned with gold and gems with which the oblation was covered. Probably the “linostima” covered the chalice, like the modern pall.
The prayer that follows is not mentioned by St. Germanus, but is given in the Gallican books. It is preceded by a Bidding Prayer. The titles of the two are Prcefatio Missce and Collectio (the usual expression being “Collectio sequitur”). They vary with the day, and are found in the Gothicum, Gallicanum, Bobbio, and some of the Reichenau fragments. St. Isidore mentions them as the first two of the prayers of the Mass. In the Mozarabic the Bidding Prayer is called Missa, and is followed by “Agyos, agyos, agyos, Domine Deus Rex aeterne tibi laudes et gratias”, sung by the choir, and an invariable invitation to prayer. The variable prayer which follows is called Alia Oratio. The “Missa” is almost always a Bidding Prayer addressed to the people, while the “Alia Oratio” is nearly always addressed to God, but sometimes both are Bidding Prayers and sometimes both are prayers to God.
The Diptychs.—St. Germanus says “Nomina defunctorum ideo hor illi recitantur qua pallium tollitur”. The Gallican books and the Bobbio have variable prayers Post Nomina, and the Reichenau fragments have also prayers Ante Nomina, which are sometimes Bidding Prayers, as are sometimes the prayers Post Nomina in the Gothicum. The form of the Intercession is given in the Stowe, but moved to its Roman positions in the Gelasian Canon. The Mozarabic retains the old position, and has a prayer Post Nomina, which St. Isidore calls the third prayer. The position of the Great Intercession at this point exactly is peculiar to the Hispano-Gallican rite, but it comes very near to the Alexandrian position, which is in the middle of the Preface, where a rather awkward break is made for it. The West Syrian and Byzantine Liturgies place the Great Intercession after the Epiklesis, the East Syrian before the Epiklesis, and the Roman and Ambrosian divide it in two, placing the Intercession for the Living before, and that for the Dead after the Consecration, with Commemorations of Saints with each.
The Pax.—St. Germanus mentions that the Kiss of Peace came next, as it does now in the Mozarabic. St. Isidore associates it with the fourth prayer, which in the Gallican and Mozarabic books is called Ad Pacem. The Roman Rite, which has completely obliterated all distinction between the Missa Catechumenorum and the Missa Fidelium, associates this sign of unity, not with the beginning of the latter, but with the Communion, and this position is as old as the letter of St. Innocent I (416) to Decentius of Gubbio. The Ambrosian now follows the Roman, as did the Celtic Rite when the Stowe Missal was written; but the Bobbio retained the collect Ad Pacem in its original place, though it was probably not used with the Gelasian Canon.
The Anaphora.—St. Germanus merely mentions the Sursum Corda, and says nothing about what follows it. The dialogue was probably in the usual form, though the curious variation in the present Mozarabic Rite makes that somewhat uncertain.
Then follows the Contestatio or Immolatio, called by the Mozarabic books Illatio, which is in the Roman Rite the Prcefatio. St. Isidore calls it the fifth prayer and uses the word Illatio for it. The Gallican books, the Bobbio, and the Mozarabic Missal give a variable one for every Mass, and the Gallican books often give two. The general form is the same as the Roman, perhaps more diffuse in its expressions. Usually the words Per quern alone at the end of the proper section indicate the conclusion. The Mozarabic Illations end in varying ways, always of course leading up to the Sanctus.
The Sanctus.—The Gallican wording is not found, but there is no reason to suspect any variations unless the Mozarabic “gloria majestatis tune” was also Gallican.
The Post-Sanctus.—This takes up the idea of the Sanctus and amplifies it, leading on to the Recital of the Institution. It generally, but not always, begins with “Vere Sanctus, vere Benedictus“. There is a variable Post-Sanctus for every Mass. In the Gallican books this passage ends with some expression, generally simply “per Christum Dominum nostrum”, which serves as the antecedent to “Qui Pridie”, etc. In the Mozarabic the usual ending is “Ipse Dominus ac Redemptor aeternus”, which also seems to anticipate “Qui pridie”; but, owing to the interpolated prayer “Adesto, adesto Jesu”, etc., the Recital of the Institution begins a fresh sentence with no relative. All Liturgies except the Roman have some form of Post-Sanctus. Even the Ambrosian has one for Easter Eve, and the Celtic Stowe Missal seems to use one with or without the Roman Canon. The Bobbio, completely Romanized from the Preface onwards, does not include one among its variables. In one Mass in the Gothicum (Easter Eve) the Post-Sanctus (so called by Neale and Forbes) contains a quite definite Epiklesis, but the prayer which follows is called ad factionem panii;, so it may be really a Post-Pridie.
The Recital of the Institution.—”Qui pridie quam pro nostra omnium salute pateretur” is all that exists of the Gallican form, as catchwords, so to speak. This, except that “et” comes there before “omnium”, is the Ambrosian. The Stowe and Bobbio have the Roman “Qui pridie quam pateretur”, etc., but the corrector of the Stowe has added the Ambrosian ending “passionem meam praedicabitis”, etc. The Mozarabic, though Post-Pridie is the name of the prayer which follows, has (after an invocatory prayer to our Lord) “D. N. J. C. in qua nocte tradebatur”, etc., following St. Paul’s words in I Cor., xi, in which it agrees with the principal Eastern Liturgies. This is probably a late alteration.
The Post-Pridie, called also Post Mysterium and Post Secreta, these two being the more usual Gallican names, while Post-Pridie is the universal Mozarabic name. This is a variable prayer, usually addressed to Christ or to the Father, but occasionally in the Mozarabic in the form of a Bidding Prayer. The petitions often include something of an oblation, like the Unde et memores, and often a more or less definite Epiklesis. Of the eleven Masses in the Reichenau fragment four contain a definite Epiklesis in this prayer, one has a Post-Pridie with no Epiklesis, one is unfinished, but has no Epiklesis as far as it goes, and in the rest this prayer is wanting. In the Gothicum there. is generally no Epiklesis, but nine of the Masses there have one of some sort, in some cases vague. In the Mozarabic this prayer is usually only the oblation, though rarely there is an Epiklesis. It is followed there by a fixed prayer resembling the clause Per quern ha c omnia in the Roman Canon.
The Fraction.—Of this St. Germanus says only that it takes place, and an antiphon is sung during it. The only rite which now retains this antiphon always is the Ambrosian, where it is called Confrattorium. The Mozarabic has substituted for it the recitation of the Creed, “praeter in locis in quibus erit antiphona propria ad confractionem pans”, which is chiefly during Lent, and in votive Masses. In the Stowe there is a long responsory, apparently not variable. No Gallican Confratorium remains. The fraction is not described, but in the Celtic Rite (q.v.) there was a very complicated fraction, and in the Mozarabic the Sacred Host is divided into nine particles, seven of which are arranged in the form of a cross. The Council of Tours (567) directs that the particles shall be arranged “non in imaginario ordine sed sub crucis titulo”, so that it is probable that the Gallican fraction was similarly elaborate. The Stowe Gaelic tract speaks of two fractions, the first into two halves with a reuniting and a commixture, the second into a number of particles varying with the rank of the day. The “Leabhar Breac” tract only mentions the first. Dom L. Gougaud (“Les rites de la Consecration et de la Fraction dans la Liturgie Celtique”, in “Report of the 19th Eucharistic Congress” (p. 359) conjectures that the first was the Host of the celebrant, the second that for the communicants.
The Pater Noster.—This was preceded by a variable introduction after the plan of Praeceptis salutaribus moniti and was followed by a variable Embolism. These are entitled in the Gallican books Ante Orationem Dominicam and Post Orationem Dominicam. In the Mozarabic the introduction Ad orationem Dominicam is variable, the Embolism is not.
The Commixture.—Of the manner of this in the Gallican Rite there is no information, nor is there any record of the words used. But see Celtic Rite. In the Mozarabic the particle Regnum (see Mozarabic Rite) is dipped in the chalice with the words “Vicit Leo de tribu Juda, radix David, Alleluia. Qui sedes super Cherubim, radix David, Alleluia“, and the particle is dropped into the chalice, the priest saying “Sancta sanctis; et conjunctio corporis D.N.J.C. sit sumentibus et potantibus nobis ad veniam et defunctis fidelibus prstetur ad requiem.”
The Benediction.—This when pronounced by a bishop was variable formula, sometimes of considerable length. St. Germanus gives a form which was said by priests “Pax, fides et caritas et communicatio corporis et sanguinis Domini sit semper vobiscum.” There is a very similar form in the Stowe Missal and in the Ambrosian, but in both these it is connected with the Pax which comes at this point, as in the Roman Rite. In the Mozarabic, the deacon proclaims “Humiliate vos benediction”. This is alluded to by St. Caesarius of Arles, and is very like tas kephalas emon to kurio klinomen in the Byzantine Rite. Then follows a long variable Benediction of four clauses, pronounced by the priest, the people responding “Amen” to each clause. The Gallican Benedictions were of the same type. The practice of a Benediction before Communion continued in France long after the extinction of the Gallican Rite, and survives to this day at Lyons. It was also the practice of the Anglo-Saxon Church. Dom Cabrol (“Benediction Episcopale” in “Report of the 19th Eucharistic Congress”) considers that the Anglo-Saxon Benedictions were not survivals of Gallican (Celtic) usage, but were derived from the ancient practice of Rome itself, and that the rite was a general one of which traces are found nearly everywhere.
The Communion—St: Germanus gives no details of this, but mentions the singing of the Trecanum. His description of this is not very clear. “Sic enim prima in secunda, secunda in tertia, et rursum tertia in secunda rotatur in prima.” But he takes the threefold chant as an emblem of the Trinity. The Mozarabic on most days has a fixed anthem, Ps. xxxiii, 8 (9) (Gustate, et videte) 1 (2) (Benedicam Dominum) and 22 (23) (Redimet Dominus), and the Gloria with three Alleluias after each verse. This is called Ad Accedentes. In Lent and Easter-tide there are variants. The rather obvious Gustate et videte is given also in the Stowe Missal and Bangor Antiphoner, and is mentioned by St. Cyril of Jerusalem. It occurs in certain Eastern Liturgies. In the Mozarabic it is followed by the Communio “Refecti Christi corpore et sanguine, te laudamus, Dornine, Alleluia” (thrice), with a variant in Lent. This is found also in the Celtic books. Probably it was used in the Gallican also. In the Mozarabic the priest’s Communion, with his private devotions, goes on during these anthems. St. Cmsarius of Arles and the Council of Auxerre (about 578), quoted by Duchesne, allude to the fact that men received the Host in the bare hand, but that women covered the hand with a linen cloth called dominicalis, which each brought with her.
The Post-Communion.—This, as given in the Gallican books, is a variable Pros fatio, or Bidding Prayer, followed by a collect. The former is entitled Post Communionem, the latter Collectio. The Mozarabic has only a collect, which is variable, but with a smaller selection than the other prayers.
The Dismissal formula of the Gallican Mass is not extant. It may have been like the Stowe “Missa acta est in pace”, or one form of Mozarabic “Missa acta est in nomine D.B.J.C., proficiamus cum pace.”
It will be seen from the above analysis that the Galilean Mass contained a very small number of fixed elements, so that nearly the whole service was variable according to the day. The absence of an Ordinary is, therefore, of less importance than it would be in, for instance, the Roman or the Ambrosian. The full list of variables, as shown from the Reichenau fragments, the Gothicum, and St. Germanus’s description, is:
(I) The Introit. (2) (Collectio) post Prophetiam. (3) Lectio Prophetica. (4) Lectio Apostolica. (5) Responsorium before the Gospel. (6) Gospel. (7) Post Precem. (8) Sonum. (9) Laudes. (10) Praefatio Missae. (11) Collectio. (12) Ante Nomina. (13) Post Nomina. (14) Ad Pacem. (15) Contestatio or Immolatio. (16) Post-Sanctus. (17) Post-Pridie. (18) Con fractorium? (19) Ante Orationem Dominicam. (20) Post Orationem Dominicam. (21) Benedictio. (22) Trecanum? (23) Communio ‘ (24) Post Communionem. (25) Collectio or Consummatio Missce. Of these nos. 2, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 24, 25 belong to the priest’s part and are therefore found in Sacramentaries; 1, 5, 8, 9, as well as 18, 22, and 23, if these last were variable, belong to the part of the choir, and would be found in Antiphoners, if any such existed; and 3, 4, 6 are found in the Lectionary. No. 12 is only found among the Reichenau fragments, but it is found there in every Mass of which the MS. is not imperfect at that part of the service. Thus the fixed parts of the service would only be: (a) The three Canticles. (b) The Ajus and Sanctus, etc., at the Gospel. (c) The Prex. (d) The Dismissal. (e) The priest’s prayers at the Offertory. (f) The Great Intercession. (g) The Pax formula. (h) The Sursum Corda dialogue. (i) The Sanctus. (k) The Recital of the Institution. (I) The Pater Noster, and possibly the Confractorium, Trecanum and Communio, with probably the priest’s devotions at Communion. Most of these are very short, and the only really important passage wanting is the one fixed passage in the Player of Consecration, the Recital of the Institution.
VI. THE OCCASIONAL SERVICES.—A. The Baptismal Service.—The authorities for the Gallican Baptismal Service are the Gothicum and the Gallicanum, both of which are incomplete, and a few details in the second Letter of St. Germanus of Paris. The forms given in the Stowe and Bobbio are too much Romanized to illustrate the Gallican Rite very much. The form given in the Gothicum is the least complete. It consists of:
(I) “Ad Christianum faciendum.” A Bidding Prayer and collect, with the form of signing on eyes, ears and nostrils.
(2) The Blessing of the Font. A Bidding Prayer, a collect, a Contestatio (Preface), the infusion of chrismin the form of a cross with a triple insuffiation, and an exorcism, which here is in an unusual place.
The Baptismal formula “Baptizo te in nomine, … in remissionem peccatorum, ut habeas vitam aeternam”.
The Chrismation. The formula “Perungo te chrisma sanctitatis” seems to have been mixed up with a form for the bestowal of the white garment, for it goes on “tunicam immortalitatis, quam D.N.J.C. traditam a Patre primus accepit ut earn integram et inlibatam preferas ante tribunal Christi et vivas in saecula saeculorum”. Probably the omission is “in Nomine”, etc., in the one formula; and “Accipe vestem candidam”, or possibly “Accipe” alone, in the other. Msgr. Duchesne’s suggestion of “a special symbolism, according to which the chrism would be considered as a garment” does not commend itself, for want of a verb to govern “tunicam”. Still there is another formula for the white garment farther on.
The Feet-washing. The form here is similar to that in the Gallicanum, the Bobbio, and the Stowe: “Ego te lavo pedes. Sicut D.N.J.C. fecit discipulis suis, to facias hospitibus et peregrinis ut habeas vitam aeternam.” This ceremony is only found in Gaul, Spain, and Ireland. At the Council of Elvira in 305 an order was made that it should be performed by clerks and not by priests. This limitation, of which the wording is quite clear, has been unaccountably interpreted to mean that it was then forbidden altogether.
The Vesting with the white garment. This has a form similar to the Roman and Celtic, but not quite the same.
Two final Bidding Prayers with no collect. The Gallicanum has a much fuller form, with the Traditio and Exposito Symboli, etc. It is:
“Ad faciendum Catechumenum.” A long and curious exorcism beginning “Adgredior te, immundissime, damnate spiritus”. This is only a fragment, and probably the unction and salt came here, as in the Spanish Rite.
“Expositio vel Traditio Symboli.” An address, the Creed, a long exposition of it, and a collect. The Creed varies verbally from the Roman form. There is a second “Expositio” later on.
“Expositio Evangeliorum in aurium apertione ad electos.” An address followed by a few words of each of the Gospels and an exposition of the emblems of the Evangelists. This is found in the Gelasian Sacramentary.
“Praemissiones ad Scrutamen.” A Bidding Prayer and a collect.
“Praefatio Orationis Dominica.” The tradition and exposition of the Lord’s Prayer.
“Missa in symboli traditione.” This is imperfect, but agrees nearly, as far as they both go, with a Mass of the same title in the Gothicum.
“Expositio Symboli.” This, though on the same lines as the earlier one, differs in wording. It is very incomplete and has probably got into this place by mistake.
“Opus ad Baptizando (sic).” This is preceded by various services for Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Eve, including the Blessing of the Candle. It begins with a “Praefatio antequam exorcidietur” and a collect. Then follow the exorcism and blessing of the font, and the infusion of the chrism, this time in the form of three crosses.
The Interrogation. This includes the renunciation of Satan and a confession of faith. The latter has a peculiar form, evidently directed against Arianism:-
“Credis Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum unius esse virtutis? R. Credo.
Credis Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum ejusdem esse potestatis? R. Credo.
Credis Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum trinae veritatis una manente substantia Deum esse perfectum? R. Credo.”
The Baptismal formula: “Baptizo to credentem in Nomine, etc., ut habeas vitam aeternam in saecula sieculorum.”
The Chrismation. The formula is the same as the modern Roman.
The Feet-washing. The words are slightly different from those in the Gothicum, Bobbio, and Stowe, but to the same effect.
The “Post Baptismum”. A single prayer (without Bidding Prayer) beginning “Deus ad quern scubias veteris hominis in fonte depositas”. It will be seen that there is no giving of the white robe in the Gallicanum, and that the signing of the hand, found in the Celtic Rite (q.v.), is absent from both it and the Gothicum.
The Holy Week ceremonies which are mixed with the Baptismal service in the two books are not very characteristic. The couplets of invitatory and collect which occur in the Roman Good Friday service are given with verbal variations in the Gallicanum, but not in the Gothicum; in both, however, there are other prayers of a similar type and prayers for some of the Hours of Good Friday and Easter Eve. The Blessing of the Paschal Candle consists of a Bidding Prayer and collect (in the Gothicum only), the “Exultet” and its Preface nearly exactly as in the Roman, a “Collectio post benedictionem cerei”, and “Collectio post hymnum cerei.” There is no ceremony of the New Fire in either.
B. The Ordination services of the Gallican Rite do not occur in any of the avowedly Gallican books, but they are found in the Gelasian Sacramentary and the Missale Francorum, that is to say, a mixed form which does not agree with the more or less contemporary Roman form in the Leonine and Gregorian Sacramentaries, though it contains some Roman prayers, is found in these two books, and it may reasonably be inferred that the differences are of Gallican origin. Moreover, extracts relating to ceremonial are given with them from the Statuta Ecclesics Antiqua, formerly attributed to the Fourth Council of Carthage, but now known to be a Gallican decree “promulgated in the province of Arles towards the end of the fifth century” (Duchesne). The ceremonial therein contained agrees with that described in “De Officiis Ecclesiasticis” by St. Isidore of Seville. The forms for minor orders, including subdeacon, were very short, and consisted simply of the delivery of the instruments: keys to porters, books to lectors and exorcists, cruets to acolytes, chalice, paten, basin, ewer and towel to subdeacons, with appropriate words, followed by a Bidding Prayer and collect of the usual Gallican type, the whole being preceded by addresses. These forms, with considerable additions in the case of subdeacons, occur, Bidding Prayers and all, in the Roman Pontifical of today. In the ordination of deacons there is a form which is found in the Byzantine Rite, but has not been adopted in the Roman, the recognition by the people, after an address, with the cry of “Dignus est!” This is used for priests and bishops also (cf. Aksios, in the Byzantine ordinations). The Bidding Prayer and collect which follow are both in the present Roman Pontifical, though separated by much additional matter. The ordination of priests was of the same type as that of deacons, with the addition of the anointing of the hands. The address, with a varied end, and the collect (but not the Bidding Prayer), and the anointing of the hands with its formula are in the modern Pontifical, but with very large additions.
The consecration of bishops began, after an election, with a presentation and recognition, neither of which is in the modern Pontifical. Then followed a long Bidding Prayer, also not adopted in the Roman Rite, and the Consecrating Prayer Deus omnium honorum, part of which is embodied in the Preface in the Leonine and Gregorian Sacramentaries, and in the present Pontifical. During this prayer two bishops held the Book of the Gospels over the candidate, and all the bishops laid their hands on his head. Then followed the anointing of the hands, but apparently not of the head as in the modern rite, with a formula which is not in the Roman books.
C. The Consecration of a Church does not occur in the recognized Gallican books, and the order of it has to be inferred from later books and from prayers in the Gelasian Sacramentary and Missale Francorum. It would seem, as Msgr. Duchesne shows in his excellent analysis of both rites (Origines du culte chretien), that at a time when the Roman Rite of Consecration was exclusively funerary and contained little else but the deposition of the relics, as is shown in the Ordines in the St. Amand MS. (Bibl. Nat. Lat. 974), the Gallican Rite resembled more closely that of the modern Pontifical, which may be presumed to have borrowed from it. The commentary of Remigius of Auxerre (late ninth century), published by Martene, and the Sacramentary of Angouleme (Bibl. Nat. Lat. 816, about 800) which is mixed Gelasian and Gregorian, and the Sacramentary of Gellona (Bibl. Nat. Lat. 12048) are the other authorities from which Duchesne derives his details. The order of the Celtic Consecration given in the Leabhar Breac is very similar (see Celtic Rite). The order is:
(I) The Entrance of the bishop, with “Tollite portas, principes, vestras”, etc., which exhibits the outline of the present rite. (2) The Alphabets, as at present. (3) The Exorcism, Blessing and mixing of water, salt, ashes and wine. (4) The Lustration of the Altar and of the inside of the church. (5) The Consecration Prayers. These are the Prayers “Deus, qui loca nomini tuo” and “Deus sanctificationum, omnipotens dominator”, which occur at the same point at present. The latter prayer in the Gallican Rite is worked into a Preface (in the Roman sense of the word). (6) The Anointing of the Altar with chrism, with the five crosses as at present. The Celtic Rite had seven. (7) The anointing of the church with chrism. Nothing is said about crosses on the walls. (8) The Consecration of the Altar, with the burning of a cross of incense thereon, and a Bidding Prayer and collect. (9) The Blessing of linen, vessels, etc. (10) The Translation of the Relics which have been kept in a separate place and a night watch kept over them. This service, which is clearly the modern elaborate consecration in germ, has also many points in common with the Akolouthia eis Egkainia Naou in the Byzantine Euchologion, which is still simpler. The three are evidently three stages of the same service.
HENRY JENNER