A Medieval Hymn of St Bernard

Here is a very nice medieval hymn for the feast of St Bernard of Clairvaux, which is used in the Cistercian Divine Office at both Vespers of his feast. According to the Analecta hymnica, the great catalog of medieval liturgical hymns, both the author and the date of composition are unknown, but it appears in several Cistercian sources in the 13th century, and has been in continual use within the order ever since. (It does not seem that any of the great translators like Neale or Caswell ever put their pens to this, so we must be content with my poor English prose translation.) This recording from the abbey of Marienstatt in Germany also includes the versicle that follows the hymn, “Ora pro nobis, sancte Bernarde”, in a more solemn tone which is different from the Roman one.

Bernardus Doctor inclytus, Caelos conscendit hodie, Quem attraxit divinitus Splendor paternae gloriae.	Bernard, the renowned doctor ascends the heavens today Whom the splendor of the Father’s glory drew from on high.
Exsultet caelum laudibus De Bernardi consortio, Quem conjungis caelestibus, Jesu, nostra redemptio.	Let heaven exult in praises for Bernard’s company, Whom You join to the citizens of heaven, Jesus, our redemption.
Rufum dorso per catulum Praefigurasti puerum Fore Doctorem sedulum, Conditor alme siderum.	By the figure of a dog with a red back, you showed that the boy would be a zealous teacher, O maker of the stars.
Nascentis ei claruit Clara Christi nativitas, Hoc a te donum habuit, O lux, beata Trinitas.	For him shined most brightly The glorious birth of Christ; This gift he had from you, o light, o blessed Trinity.
Arcana sacrae paginae Declarat, et mysterium Quod effecit in Virgine Deus, creator omnium.	He set forth the mysteries of the holy book, which God, the creator of all things, wrought in the Virgin.
Rore perfusum gratiae Monstrat dulcor eloquii; Per te fons sapientiae, Summi largitor praemii.	The sweetness of his speech showed him to be filled with grace, though Thee, o font of wisdom, giver of the highest reward.
Detentos a daemonibus Sanat, morbos languentium Curat, confert doloribus Magnum salutis gaudium.	He heals those held by devils, he cures the ailments of the sick, and gives the great joy of salvation to their griefs.
Vita vivit feliciter Cum Maria Christifera Cum qua degustat dulciter Aeterna Christi munera.	Happily he lives (eternal) life with Mary, the bearer of Christ, with whom he sweetly tastes the eternal gifts of Christ.
Summae Deus potentiae, Tibi sit laus et gloria: Da post cursum miseriae Beata nobis gaudia. Amen.	God of highest power, to thee be praise and glory: after the way of wretchedness give us blessed joys. Amen.

There are some interesting things to note. The hymn is an acrostic, the first letters of each stanza spelling his name BERNARDVS. The meter is the iambic dimeter, that of the original hymns of St Ambrose and other early Christian poets, short and long syllables alternating four times for a total of eight. (Substitutions are very common, especially since vowel quantities were already weakened in the 5th century, and hardly perceived as such in the High Middle Ages.) As such, it could in theory be sung in any one of a great many melodies, and other common hymns in this meter were often sung with different music from one church to another. However, it was an essential characteristic of the medieval Cistercians to keep a strict uniformity of observance in all their houses, and it is almost certain that they would have all used the same music.

The words of the third stanza “By the figure of a dog with a red back” refer to an episode recorded in the life of St Bernard. When his mother Aleth was pregnant with him (the third of her seven children, of whom four others are Blesseds), she dreamt that she was carrying a barking white dog with some red hair on its back. A religious man whom she consulted explained this dream to mean that the child she bore would be like the dogs mentioned in Psalm 67, “The tongues of your dogs lick the blood of their enemies”, guarding the house of God against its enemies, a preacher, and a healer of souls. This latter idea derives from St Gregory the Great’s symbolic interpretation of the dogs that licked the sores of Lazarus (hom. 40 in Evang.), in a passage which is read in the Roman Breviary on Thursday of the second week of Lent. “A dog’s tongue heals the sore which it licks; and so do holy teachers, when they instruct is in the confession of our sins, touch the sores of our souls by their tongues (i.e. their speech).” The following stanza refers to a vision of the Child Jesus which Bernard himself had when he was a boy, and fell asleep while waiting with his family to go out to Matins and the Midnight Mass of Christmas.

Christ Embracing St Bernard, ca. 1625, by Francisco Riablta (1565-1628). Public domain image from Wikimedia Commons.

Medieval hymnographers loved the trick performed by the author of this hymn, in which the last line of each stanza is the title (i.e. first line) of another hymn. (A similarly constructed piece is sung in the proper Office of St Anthony the Abbot.)

Splendor paternae gloriae – an original hymn of St Ambrose himself, which the
      Cistercians sing at Sunday Lauds, the Roman Office at Monday Lauds.
Jesu, nostra redemptio – from the feast of the Ascension, pre-Urban VIII
Conditor alme siderum – from Vespers of Advent, pre-Urban VIII
O lux, beata Trinitas – Saturday Vespers, pre-Urban VIII
Deus, creator omnium – the Ambrosian hymn for Sunday Vespers
Summi largitor praemii – a hymn for Lent sung by the Cistercians at Matins;
      also used at Sarum, but not in the Roman Office.
Magnum salutis gaudium – processional hymn for Palm Sunday
Aeterna Christi munera – Matins hymn of the Apostles.
Beata nobis gaudia – Lauds hymn of Pentecost.

In addition, the first line of the second stanza, “Exsultet caelum laudibus”, is the title of the pre-Urban VIII version of the Vespers hymn of the Apostles. (Like all the religious orders that retained their own Uses of the Divine Office, the Cistercians never adopted Pope Urban VIII’s reform of the hymns.)

The difficulty of this trick is to integrate the titles into the words of a new composition in a new sense. Some of the expressions in the vocative case, such as “Jesu, nostra redemptio,” could be interchanged with any of the others, (I do not say this as a critique of the author; medievals valued originality far less than we do,) but the last three are particularly well chosen.

The Cistercians were founded at the very end of the 11th century as “strict constructionalists” of the original Rule of St Benedict, which they felt had been unhappily compromised by later developments and customs that emerged within the Cluniac monastic empire. The term which St Benedict uses for “hymn” in the Rule (capp. 9, 12, 13 and 17) is “ambrosianum”, since it was St Ambrose who first introduced the use of hymns into the West. This led the Cistercians to the believe that St Benedict’s original intention was not merely that monks should sing “a hymn” at certain Hours, but that they should use the specific corpus of hymns used by Ambrose himself. This corpus would be found, as they thought, in the Ambrosian Divine Office; they therefore sent people to Milan to copy out the Ambrosian hymnal then in use, and bring it back to Citeaux. It was incorporated into their Office to the despite of many hymns which at that point had long been in general use within the broad liturgical family of the Roman Rite. This was very controversial, even for an age in which there was a great deal of liturgical variation, and the Order was eventually pressured into adopting the traditional corpus of hymns, with some variations. This is why some of the original Ambrosian hymns such as “Splendor paternae gloriae” are given a more prominent place within the Cistercian Office than they were elsewhere.

Eucharistic Prayer II and the Anaphora of Hippolytus: A Critical Analysis (Conclusion)

We complete today the publication of Ignacio Gallardo Tampe’s guest article on the history of the so-called Anaphora of Hippolytus and its relationship to the Second Eucharistic Prayer. Part one was published last Wednesday, and part two on Friday.

Observations on Liturgical Practice

In this final section, I will offer some observations on the ars celebrandi and liturgical practice, as well as make a proposal for normative guidelines.

First, the Missale Romanum, reformed after the Second Vatican Council, has four core Eucharistic prayers, to which are added those contained in its appendix, some of which are recognized to be quite regrettable, such as the Eucharistic prayers for children’s Masses.

Second, the use of these is regulated poorly in Article 365 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, which says that “the choice” between them is merely “guided” by the following norms.

Article 365 letter a) of the GIRM states that “Eucharistic Prayer I, or the Roman Canon, which may always be used, […]; likewise it is especially suited for use on Sundays, unless for pastoral reasons Eucharistic Prayer III is preferred.”

The Sanctus and the beginning of the Canon in the Gellone Sacramentary, one of the oldest of the Roman Rite, ca. 780 AD. 

For its part letter b) states that “Eucharistic Prayer II, on account of its particular features, is more appropriately used on weekdays or in special circumstances.”

In turn, letter c) states that “Eucharistic Prayer III may be said with any Preface. Its use should be preferred on Sundays and festive days.”

Letter d) concludes by stating “Eucharistic Prayer IV has an invariable Preface and gives a fuller summary of salvation history. It may be used when a Mass has no Preface of its own and on Sundays in Ordinary Time.”

The problem with this norm is that it merely makes suggestions (“The choice between the Eucharistic Prayers […] is suitably guided by the following norms”) instead of establishing a clear rule, rendering it useless as such; moreover, this is evident in the fact that many priests use Eucharistic Prayer II almost exclusively, as it is the shortest and takes the least time, seemingly overlooking the fact that the Eucharistic Prayer is precisely the most important part of the Mass, for it is here that the transubstantiation of the elements takes place, transforming the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ.

This is disconcerting, considering that the GIRM recommends Eucharistic Prayers I and III, and, with certain limitations, IV, for Sundays and other major days, yet Eucharistic Prayer II, which is recommended for weekdays, is used as the standard.

This must change; it should be clearly established that Eucharistic Prayer I is the one to be recommended. Let us recall the Council of Trent’s description of it as the perfect prayer, free from error: “If any one saith, that the Canon of the Mass contains errors, and is therefore to be abrogated; let him be anathema.” [1]

Furthermore, it should be established that Eucharistic Prayer II may only be used on weekdays, and its use on Sundays or solemnities should be definitively prohibited. It would also be advisable to prohibit bishops from using it at any Mass with a congregation, even on weekdays, in order to give their Masses a more “pontifical” character, thereby restoring the distinctions that existed between priests and bishops prior to the reform. [2]

The restrictions on Eucharistic Prayers III and IV should be maintained and made stricter.

It is important to regulate this aspect, for never in the history of the Roman Rite has there been more than one Eucharistic Prayer; this anomaly has led to the heritage of the Western Church (the Roman Canon) being replaced by an imitation of a Eucharistic Prayer that not only originates from the East, but (as mentioned earlier) was likely never used in actual practice.

For their part, the Churches of the Eastern rites, which do have the custom of using multiple Eucharistic prayers, do not leave the choice to the discretion of their priests; in all of them, it is expressly regulated. Let us look at some examples, though this list is not exhaustive of all rites:

First, the Churches of the Greek (or “Byzantine”) rite routinely use the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom. This liturgy is said every Sunday and weekday of the year, unless it is expressly stipulated that another must be used, the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, which is said only ten times throughout the year: on the five Sundays of Great Lent, Holy Thursday, Holy Saturday, on the vigils of Christmas and Theophany (January 6), and the feast of St. Basil (January 1). [3]

The beginning of the liturgy of St John Chrysostom in a Byzantine euchologion, printed in Venice in 1602.   

The Liturgy of Saint Basil is characterized by longer prayers, especially in the anaphora, which is much longer than that of St. John Chrysostom. It is worth noting that the Churches of the Greek rite did not abolish the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil, which was their original liturgy for Sundays and feast days, when that of St. John Chrysostom was introduced, but rather relegated it to the most important days. Could this also be a lesson for us? Should we require that on certain days only Eucharistic Prayer I be used, given its antiquity and length?

For their part, the Copts use three liturgies: that of St. Basil the Great, that of St. Gregory of Nazianzus, and that of St. Cyril I of Alexandria. According to this rite, the choice is not free either; the liturgy of St. Basil is the general rule and is used for most of the year, while that of St. Gregory is used at midnight on Christmas, Theophany, and Easter. This liturgy is characterized by being deeply Christ-centered, which is why it is reserved for the so-called “feasts of the Lord.” Finally, the Liturgy of St. Cyril, the longest of the three, is reserved exclusively for Great Lent.

The Churches of the East Syriac rite use three anaphoras: the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which is said to date back to the third century, making it the oldest anaphora still in use [4], the Anaphora of Theodore of Mopsuestia, and finally that of Nestorius. According to this rite, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is the general rule and is used unless it is specified that another is to replace it; as for the Anaphora of Theodore of Mopsuestia, it is used from the first Sunday of the season of the Annunciation (equivalent to Advent) through Palm Sunday; finally, Nestorius’ anaphora is used five days a year: on Epiphany, the feast of St. John the Baptist, the Commemoration of the Greek Fathers, the Wednesday of the Fast of the Ninevites, and on Holy Thursday.

Given the above, it follows that the Church, in its current liturgical maturity [5], establishes strict criteria for determining which Eucharistic prayer is to be used. The freedom of the modern Roman rite is an anomaly in comparison to the Eastern rites.

But, on the other hand, as mentioned earlier, the very existence of multiple Eucharistic Prayers in the Roman Rite is also an anomaly, since we know that this rite has always had only one, the famous Roman Canon, which, due to its exclusivity, came to be simply called the Canon Missæ (the Canon of the Mass) in the liturgical books prior to the post-conciliar reform.

This exclusivity does not indicate “liturgical poverty” in comparison to the Eastern rites, but rather a legitimate difference in them, for, as is well known, the Roman Rite has always been characterized by its simplicity compared to the Eastern rites or the now defunct Gallican rites of the West; therefore, introducing multiple Eucharistic prayers into it is nothing more than a corruption of the rite. [6]

Furthermore, what is the problem with having a single Eucharistic prayer? There are rites other than the Roman one that also have a single anaphora; in the East, for example, we find the Armenian rite, which uses only the Divine Liturgy of St. Gregory the Illuminator. [7] For their part, other Western rites, the Ambrosian Rite, native to Milan, and the nearly extinct Visigothic Rite (also known as Mozarabic or Hispanic Rite) [8], native to present-day Spain, also effectively use only a single Eucharistic prayer.

Without going into too much detail, the Ambrosian Rite uses the Roman Canon with slight modifications. The Visigothic rite uses an anaphora in which some parts vary depending on the day of the year, but maintains the same structure, as follows: the illatio, equivalent to the Roman preface, which is variable; the Sanctus, which is invariable; the post-Sanctus, which is variable; the pridie, which is invariable; and the post-pridie, which is variable. These variable parts are not at the priest’s discretion, as the Missal [9] itself dictates which text must be used for each day of the year.

The fixed part of the canon in a Mozarabic Missal printed in 1804.

In light of what has been said, it is evident that the current system, as set forth in the Missale Romanum introduced by Paul VI, constitutes an unprecedented historical and liturgical anomaly. A comparative analysis demonstrates that the Church never conceived of the anaphora as a text subject to the convenience, haste, or personal taste of the celebrant. [10]

Both Eastern and Western rites establish imperative norms for the use of the anaphora: in the case of the Eastern rites, through strict adherence to the calendar and the liturgical season; and in the case of the Western rites (as well as the Armenian rite, which, despite being Eastern, follows the same logic as the Western rites), through a fixed anaphora, which is invariable in some cases, such as in the Roman or Ambrosian rites, and variable in others, such as in the Visigothic rite. In any case, the Eucharistic prayer consists of a standardized element that takes precedence over individual discretion.

The laxity of Article 365 of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal, by limiting itself to offering suggestions rather than prescriptions, has led to an undeniable impoverishment of contemporary practice, allowing the abhorrent and widespread practice of using Eucharistic Prayer II as the daily and Sunday standard to the detriment of the others which possess greater merit.

Consequently, a revision of the current liturgical legislation, in the manner already indicated, is urgently needed. The guidelines of the General Instruction of the Roman Missal must be transformed from mere recommendations into binding norms. [11]

Only through restrictive regulation, analogous to that wisely preserved by the Eastern Churches, will the Roman Rite be able to escape the disorder and mediocrity that currently corrode it.

Finally, let us recall that Eucharistic Prayer II is not the Anaphora of Hippolytus, as has been demonstrated; therefore, defending it by virtue of its supposed antiquity is nonsensical. Furthermore, when compared with the other three Eucharistic Prayers of the Missal, it is theologically poor and sparse, little more than an “express” consecration.

Let us not forget that one of its authors, Louis Bouyer, referred to it as a “distorted specimen” containing “incredible weaknesses”, and stated the necessity of a “revision that sooner or later will be inevitable.” [12]  Therefore, considering that even one of its creators deemed it in need of reform, the Church would do well to limit its use or even abrogate it. [13]

It could be said that the lesson here is not to undertake liturgical reforms based on incomplete archaeological evidence, for it may happen, as in this case, that in the future it is proven that everything, absolutely everything, was a falsehood. And to think that Duchesne, at the beginning of the twentieth century, asserted with total certainty that “There is nothing to hinder us from assigning it to the time of Hippolytus himself.” [14]

NOTES 

[1] Council of Trent, XXII Session, Canon VI.

[2] By this we obviously mean to the distinctions made by the traditional Roman rite between Missa lecta, cantata, solemnis and pontificalis. Today many bishops celebrate Mass in an almost identical manner to priests; in the traditional Roman rite even the Missa lecta (Low Mass) of the bishop has remarkable differences from that of the priest. For instance, the bishop puts on the maniple only after the acolytes have finished praying the Confiteor, whereas the priest is already wearing it before leaving the sacristy. In the new rites, generally, the bishops often do not even bother to wear the dalmatic under the chasuble on solemnities, even though article 56 of the Ceremonial of Bishops clearly stipulates it, saying: “... it is appropriate that, in solemn celebrations, according to ancient custom, the dalmatic be worn beneath the chasuble”.

[3] For obvious reasons, we make no mention of the Divine Liturgy of the Presentified Gifts, as it does not contain an anaphora; in any case, it may only be used on weekdays during Great Lent and the first three days of Holy Week, and not whenever the priest deems it appropriate.

[4] Michael Uwe Lang, The Roman Mass: From Early Christian Origins to Tridentine Reform. (Cambridge University Press, 29 September 2022), Chapter 3, Kindle.

[5] Let us recall that, as centuries pass, rites become solidified; therefore, matters that were once not well regulated are now firmly established.

[6] It would be the inverse of the “Latinisation” that Eastern Christians so heavily despise.

[7] It is interesting to note that the Armenian rite in ancient times had ten anaphoras, but the rite evolved to favour one exclusively over the others; this has also been seen in other rites, albeit to a lesser extent, for example, the Greeks have not used the Divine Liturgy of St. James for centuries.

[8] Today, it survives only in the so-called Mozarabic chapel of the Cathedral of Toledo, thanks to the efforts of Cardinal Francisco Jiménez de Cisneros.

[9] Missale omnium Offerentium.

[10] Even in the early centuries, when not all prayers were written down and were instead transmitted orally, the priest was not permitted to choose the prayers freely; rather, if he chose to vary them, a practice that was permitted in those times, the priest was required to follow a certain structure and content. See footnote No. 30.

[11] By this we mean that the norm becomes a «norma imperativa propiamente tal», an imperative norm in the strict sense, that is, one that simply commands something.

[12] See Louis Bouyer, Memoirs, 125.

[13] Just as with the Eucharistic Prayers for Masses with children, which must undoubtedly be abolished.

[14] Louis Duchesne, Christian Worship: Its origin and evolution, a study of the Latin Liturgy up to the time of Charlemagne, trad. M. L. McClure (Londres: Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1910), 524.

Photos of the Annual Eucharistic Procession by Boat in Louisiana on the Assumption

On Saturday, August 15th, the twelfth annual Eucharistic Procession by boat down Bayou Teche, Louisiana, was held as part of the celebration of the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Patroness of the Acadian people and of the Acadiana region. This day also marks the anniversary of the arrival of French-Canadian immigrants to the area in 1765, those who brought the Catholic faith to Acadiana after enduring great trials and suffering. (The procession was first held in this manner in 2015 for the 250th anniversary.)

After Vespers and Final Benediction, it was announced that next year, the procession will run all the way from St Louis Missouri to St Louis Cathedral in New Orleans, an 8-day long pilgrimage down the Mississippi to commemorate the 300th anniversary of the consecration of the first St. Louis Church. It will arrive on December 9, the anniversary of the dedication of the present basilica of St Louis, which is the oldest continuously functioning cathedral in America. The event will also commemorate the 300th anniversary of the arrival of the Ursuline nuns from France to New Orleans; they still have the oldest continuously functioning school of its kind in America. Feliciter!

Continue Reading this Article. . .

The Election of Pope Benedict XIV

Today marks the anniversary of the election in 1740 of Pope Benedict XIV, who is rightly regarded as one of the most learned men ever to sit on the throne of St Peter. He was born in 1675 as Prospero Lambertini, to a noble family of Bologna, the second city of the Papal States. When he was 13, he was sent to Rome to pursue the typical course of ecclesiastical studies, including Latin, philosophy and theology; by the age of 19, he had obtained his doctorate in theology, and the prestigious laurea utriusque, a doctorate in both canon and civil law. In 1698, he was ordained a priest, and soon after began his career as a canon lawyer in the Roman Curia, where he would serve for over a quarter of a century. He was also the “Promotor Fidei” (popularly known as “the devil’s advocate”) for the causes of various Saints, whose job was to raise every possible objection to a canonization, so as to guarantee its credibility when every possible objection had been answered. This led him to write a massive treatise called “Doctrina de servorum dei beatificatione et beatorum canonizatione – the teaching on the beatification of the servants of God, and the canonization of blesseds”, still to this day considered an essential work on the subject.

, 

Portrait of Benedict XIV, 1741, by the French artist Pierre Subleyras (1699-1749). Public domain image from Wikimedia Commons.

In 1727, he was made bishop of Ancona in the Italian Marches, a major Adriatic port, then also part of the Papal States. The following year he was made a cardinal, and thus participated in the conclave of 1730 that saw the election of Clement XII, who transferred him to his native Bologna ten months later. During his time as archbishop, he wrote another major treatise on diocesan synods, which has been as influential as his work on canonizations.

Clement XII died in February of 1740, leading to one of the longest conclaves in history (six months), long enough for four of the fifty-five participants to die, including the initial favorite. After several different candidates had failed to reach the necessary two-thirds majority of votes, Cardinal Lambertini was proposed as a compromise candidate unlikely to offend any of the political interests that had thus far blocked all others. He is famously supposed to have clinched his own election by saying to his fellow cardinals, “If you wish to elect a Saint, choose Gotti; if you want a statesman, choose Aldrovandi; and if you want an honest man, choose me.” (This statement is also reported with the cardinal describing himself rather more colorfully; Lambertini was known all his life for the use of language not wholly befitting his clerical station.) He was elected on the 255th ballot, and took the name Benedict in honor of his predecessor-but-one, Benedict XIII, who had made him a bishop.

The popes of that era had to govern not only the Church as a whole in matters spiritual, but also rule as the sovereigns of the Papal States. On both fronts, Benedict XIV had many difficulties to confront: the papacy was in conflict with several of the Catholic states of Europe over matters pertaining to the governance of the Church; anti-clericalism and anti-Christian sentiment were on the rise, fueled by the so-called Enlightenment; and the finances of the Papal States were in very rough shape. (In regard to this last matter, he once said of Benedict XIII that “he simply had no idea how to govern.”) On all these fronts, over the course of his nearly 18-year reign, he served very well. He restored peace between the Church and the Catholic states, and achieved a tremendous amount by way of stabilizing the finances and improving the civil administration of the Papal States, thus earning the admiration and good-will of his temporal subjects. The arts and sciences flourished in Rome during his pontificate: he established two important new collections of the Vatican Museums, and another of Apostolic library.

He was well-known as a cheerful and talkative man, and respected by many non-Catholics, with whom he enjoyed very good relations. Exemplary of this is the Latin epigram composed for him by the most notorious Church-hater of the era, Voltaire:

“Lambertinus hic est, Romae decus et pater orbis, / qui mundum scriptis docuit, virtutibus ornat. ~ This is Lambertini, the glory of Rome and father of the globe, who taught the world by his writing, and adorned it with his virtues.”

Vespers and Procession of the Assumption in Paris

In February of 1638, the wife of King Louis XIII of France, Anne of Austria, was in the early months of her fifth pregnancy, after four stillbirths; this was in the twenty-third year of their marriage, the queen then being thirty-seven years old. Hoping to obtain by the Virgin Mary’s intercession the safe birth of a royal heir, the king declared a vow of consecration to Her of his own person and family, and of France itself, promising to honor Her by a special procession every year on the feast of the Assumption. On September 5 of that year, the Queen gave birth to a son who was called Louis “Dieudonné - given by God”, the future Louis XIV, who would rule France for so long (1643-1715) that he was succeeded by his great-grandson. In the 19th-century editions of the Parisian Missal and Breviary, this event was even marked by a special feast on the Sunday within the Octave of the Assumption, called “The Commemoration of the Vow of the Most Christian King Louis XIII.”

The Vow of Louis XIII by Jean-Auguste-Dominique Ingres, an 1824; from the Cathedral of the Assumption in Montauban. (Public domain image from Wikipedia.)

In this video taken yesterday at the church of St Eugène in Paris, you can hear Second Vespers of the feast of the Assumption sung by our friends of the Schola Sainte-Cécile, followed by the procession. The Litany of Loreto is sung as the procession passes outside, then returns and makes it way to the Lady altar, where the choir sings Sub tuum praesidium, followed by a versicle and prayer; the celebrant then reads the text of the vow of King Louis. Psalm 19 is sung as the procession returns to the main sanctuary, followed by another versicle and the following prayer. “O God, governor and guardian of kings and kingdoms, Who will that Thy only-begotten Son our Lord should be subject upon the earth to the most holy Virgin Mother, that Thou might show us in Him an example of humility and obedience; bestow Thy merciful favor upon the vows of Thy servant the most Christian King Louis: so that those who consecrate themselves to the protection of the same Virgin by this devout promise, may obtain the rewards of perpetual tranquility in this life, and everlasting freedom in heaven.” The full program of the ceremony can be seen here in Latin and French; the text of the vow is available here in English.

The Mass of the Assumption

A Glorious Byzantine Chant for the Assumption

At the command of almighty God, the God-bearing Apostles were caught up from wherever they were, and lifted up on high by the clouds; coming to Thy all-pure and life-creating body, they venerated it with great honor. And the most exalted hosts of heaven, having arrived with their Master, accompanied the most pure body which had received God; being seized with awe, they went forth in a heavenly manner, and cried aloud invisibly to the hierarchies above, “Behold! the Queen of all, the divine Maiden, has come! Lift up your gates, and receive her above the world, who is the Mother of the everlasting Light; for through her hath come all the salvation of mortals; upon her we cannot gaze, it is impossible to pay her due honor; for her excellence surpasseth all understanding!” Wherefore, O all-pure Mother of God, ever living with the life-bearing King, Thy Son, pray without ceasing that He closely guard and save thy new people from every assault of the adversary; for we have acquired thine intercession, gloriously blessing Thee unto the ages. (The dogmatikon of Vespers of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary in the Byzantine Rite.)

An icon of the Dormition of the Virgin Mary, painted in the second half of the 15th century by an anonymous artist of the Cretan school. Public domain image from Wikimedia Commons.

At Byzantine Vespers, a set of hymns called “stichera” is sung between the verses of a group of four psalms which do not change from day to day. (These are Psalms 140, 141, 129 and 116, in the traditional numeration of the Septuagint; similar sets of hymns are sung or read on many other occasions.) The last of these is almost always a “theotokion”, a hymn about the Virgin Mary, but on Her own feasts, it is known as a dogmatikon.

This particular composition is unusual in that each part of it is sung in a different chant mode, in ascending order, and concluding by returning to the first; the different parts would originally have been sung by alternating choirs. In Greek, the modes are named first through fourth, then first and second plagal, the “grave” or “heavy” mode (“βαρύς”, never “third plagal”), and fourth plagal; in the Slavic tradition, they are simply numbered in ascending order.

1st mode Θεαρχίῳ νεύματι, πάντοθεν οἱ θεοφόροι Ἀπόστολοι, ὑπὸ νεφῶν μεταρσίως αἰρόμενοι, 1st plagal καταλαβόντες τὸ πανάχραντον, καὶ ζωαρχικόν σου σκῆνος, ἐξόχως ἠσπάζοντο. 2nd Αἱ δὲ ὑπέρτατοι τῶν οὐρανῶν Δυνάμεις, σὺν τῷ οἰκείῳ Δεσπότῃ παραγενόμεναι, 2nd pl. τὸ θεοδόχον καὶ ἀκραιφνέστατον σῶμα προπέμπουσι, τῷ δέει κρατούμεναι, ὑπερκοσμίως δὲ προῴχοντο, καὶ ἀοράτως ἐβόων ταῖς ἀνωτέραις ταξιαρχίαις· Ἰδοὺ ἡ παντάνασσα θεόπαις παραγέγονεν! 3rd Ἄρατε πύλας, καὶ ταύτην ὑπερκοσμίως ὑποδέξασθε, τὴν τοῦ ἀενάου φωτὸς Μητέρα. grave Διὰ ταύτης γὰρ ἡ παγγενὴς τῶν βροτῶν σωτηρία γέγονεν, ᾗ ἀτενίζειν οὐκ ἰσχύομεν, καὶ ταύτῃ ἄξιον γέρας ἀπονέμειν ἀδύνατον. 4th Ταύτης γὰρ τὸ ὑπερβάλλον ὑπερέχει πᾶσαν ἔννοιαν. 4th pl. Διὸ, ἄχραντε Θεοτόκε, ἀεὶ σὺν ζωηφόρῳ Βασιλεῖ καὶ τόκῳ ζῶσα, πρέσβευε διηνεκῶς περιφρουρῆσαι καὶ σῶσαι ἀπὸ πάσης προσβολῆς ἐναντίας τὴν νεολαίαν σου· τὴν γὰρ σὴν προστασίαν κεκτήμεθα, 1st εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας ἀγλαοφανῶς μακαρίζοντες.

In the following recording, a “canonarch”, or chief cantor, sings the text out bit by bit before the choir sings it. This custom originated from the impossibility of having a book for each of the cantors (who might well number several dozen in a large monastery), given the unbelievably vast repertoire of liturgical texts used in the Byzantine Rite. (The Dormition is typical in having almost 100 proper hymns in the Divine Office.) He also announces the shifts in mode; so for example, at 4:32, he says “plagal of the first mode. ‘Coming to Thy all-pure’ ”. This extends the full recording, from the doxology at the end of the psalms to the last word of the hymn, to over 28 minutes.

The modern Slavic choral tradition, which is very heavily indebted to Western influences, and especially to the Italians, often blurs out or removes distinctions of the original Byzantine chant. In the following Slavonic version, the hymn is sung in the same melody throughout, reducing the time to just under 2½ minutes. However, partly out of respect for the older tradition of singing with a canonarch, it is still the common custom for a cantor to announce the tones of the hymns during the Office, and this recording begins with the conductor singing, ‘Glory (to the Father)’ and ‘Both now’ in the same tone” (i.e. as that of the preceding chants.)

Finally, here is splendid English version (in a different translation from my own given above), recorded at St Mary’s Byzantine Catholic Church in Whiting, Indiana, eight years ago. 

The holy Apostles were taken up from every corner of the world, and carried upon clouds by the command of God. They gathered around your pure body, O Source of Life, and kissed it with reverence. As for the most sublime powers of heaven, they came with their own leader to escort and to pay their last respects to the most honorable body that had contained Life itself. Filled with awe, they marched together with the apostles in silent majesty, professing to the princes of heaven in a hushed voice: Lift up your gates and receive, with becoming majesty, the Mother of the Light that never fades, because, through her, salvation was made possible for our human race. She is the One upon whom no one may gaze, and to whom no one is able to render sufficient glory; for the special honor that made her sublime is beyond understanding. Therefore, O most pure Theotokos, forever alive with your Son, the Source of Life, do not cease to intercede with Him that he may guard and save your people from every trouble; for you are our intercessor. To you we sing a hymn of glory with loud and joyful voices, now and forever.

Eucharistic Prayer II and the Anaphora of Hippolytus: A Critical Analysis (Part 2)

Bernard Botte and Louis Bouyer, authors of EP II; Annibale Bugnini, who admitted EP II did not follow the "Canon of Hippolytus"

We continue the publication of Ignacio Gallardo Tampe’s guest article on the history of the so-called Anaphora of Hippolytus and its relationship to the Second Eucharistic Prayer. Part 1 was published on Wednesday.

1. The Text Attributed to Hippolytus

It should be noted that the anaphora contained in the Apostolic Tradition is proposed (not imposed) in the context of an episcopal consecration; so the question arises (assuming this liturgy was indeed ever used) as to whether a similar one would have been used in the ordinary Mass of priests, or even bishops outside of the rite of an episcopal consecration. Whatever the answer may be, there is all the more reason to believe that Eucharistic Prayer II has a problem of origin. [1]

Next, and before proceeding to the specific analysis, the text of the anaphora from “Hippolytus” is presented, based on the Latin translation [2] (the instructions are in italics):

“All should give the kiss of peace [3] to whoever has become a bishop, honouring the dignity [4] he has received. The deacons should give him the offering, and as he and all the priests extend their hands over it, he offers thanks, saying:

[I] The Lord be with you.
All reply: And with your spirit.
Lift up your hearts.
We have raised them up to the Lord. [5]
Let us give thanks to the Lord. [6]
It is right and fitting. [7]

He continues:

[II] We give you thanks, O God, through your beloved Son, Jesus Christ, whom in these days you have sent to save and redeem us, and to be an angel of your will. [8] He is your Word, inseparable from you, through whom everything was made. In your goodness, you sent him from heaven to be a virgin’s son. Conceived in her womb, he took flesh and was revealed as your Son, born of the virgin and the Holy Spirit.

[III] In carrying out your will, and forming for you a holy people, he stretched out his hands as he suffered, to free from suffering those who had faith in you. When he allowed himself to be given up to suffer, so that he could conquer death and break the bonds of sin in crushing the power of hell, and so lead the just to the light, establish a limit [9] and manifest the resurrection, he took bread, and giving thanks to you, said: “Take, eat, this is my body, which is broken for you.” [10] He did the same with the cup, saying: “This is my blood which is poured out for you. When you do this, do it in memory of me.” [11]

[IV] Remembering therefore his death and resurrection, we offer you this bread and cup, thanking you for holding us worthy to stand in your presence and to serve you as priests.

[V] We ask you to send your Holy Spirit down upon the offerings of your holy Church. Gathering together all those who receive these mysteries, grant that they may be filled with the Holy Spirit, and their faith may thus be strengthened in your truth.

[VI] So may we praise and glorify you, through your Son Jesus Christ. Through him be the honour and glory to you, the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in the holy Church, now and unto the ages of ages. Amen.”

2. The Text of the Second Eucharistic Prayer

Now, we provide the text of Eucharistic Prayer II according to the translation of it given in the version of the Missal used in England [12]:

“Although it is provided with its own Preface, this Eucharistic Prayer may also be used with other Prefaces, especially those that present an overall view of the mystery of salvation, such as the common Prefaces.

[I] The Lord be with you.
And with your spirit.
Lift up your hearts.
We lift them up to the Lord.
Let us give thanks to the Lord our God.
It is right and just.

It is truly right and just, our duty and our salvation, always and everywhere to give you thanks, Father most holy, through your beloved son, Jesus Christ, your Word through whom you made all things, whom you sent as our saviour and redeemer, incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin. Fulfilling your will and gaining for you a holy people, he stretched out his hands as he endured his Passion, so as to break the bonds of death and manifest the resurrection. And so, with the angels and all the saints we declare your glory, as with one voice we acclaim: [13]

Holy, Holy, Holy Lord God of Hosts. [14] Heaven and earth are full of your glory. Hosanna in the highest. [15] Blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord. Hosanna in the highest.

[II] You are indeed holy, O Lord, the fount of all holiness. Make holy, therefore, these gifts, we pray, by sending down your spirit upon them like the dewfall so that they may become for us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ.

[III] At the time he was betrayed and entered willingly into his Passion, he took bread and, giving thanks, broke it, and gave it to his disciples, saying:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND EAT OF IT, FOR THIS IS MY BODY, WHICH WILL BE GIVEN UP FOR YOU.

In a similar way, when supper was ended, he took the chalice and, once more giving thanks, he gave it to his disciples, saying:

TAKE THIS, ALL OF YOU, AND DRINK FROM IT, FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, THE BLOOD OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY FOR THE FORGIVENESS OF SINS. DO THIS IN MEMORY OF ME.

The mystery of Faith.

R/. We proclaim your Death, O Lord, and profess your Resurrection until you come again.
Or: [16] When we eat this Bread and drink this cup, we proclaim your Death, O Lord, until you come again.
Or: Save us, Saviour of the world, for by your Cross and Resurrection you have set us free.

[IV] Therefore, as we celebrate the memorial of his Death and resurrection, we offer you, Lord, the Bread of life and the chalice of salvation, giving thanks that you have held us worthy to be in your presence and minister to you.

[V] Humbly we pray that, partaking of the Body and Blood of Christ, we may be gathered into one by the Holy Spirit. Remember, Lord, your Church, spread throughout the world, and bring her to the fullness of charity, together with N. our Pope and N. our Bishop and all the clergy. Remember also our brothers and sisters who have fallen asleep in the hope of the resurrection, and all who have died in your mercy: welcome them into the light of your face. have mercy on us all, we pray, that with the Blessed Virgin Mary, Mother of God, with the blessed apostles, and all the saints who have pleased you throughout the ages, we may merit to be coheirs to eternal life, and may praise and glorify you through your son, Jesus Christ.

[VI] Through him, and with him, and in him, O God, almighty Father, in the unity of the holy spirit, all glory and honour is yours, for ever and ever. R. Amen.”

Comparative Analysis of the Texts

As can be clearly seen, the two are by no means identical. What accounts for this difference? It is because Eucharistic Prayer II is not a simple translation of the anaphora of “Hippolytus,” as is commonly believed, but rather a new creation of the Consilium ad exsequendam Constitutionem de Sacra Liturgia. [17] The de facto head of the Consilium, Fr. Annibale Bugnini, who served as Secretarium and whose authority extended even beyond that of Cardinal Lercaro, the president of the Consilium, wrote the following:

The aim was to produce an anaphora that is short and very simple in its ideas. The anaphora of Hippolytus was therefore taken as a model. But, although many thoughts and expressions are derived from Hippolytus, Eucharistic Prayer II is not, as it were, a new edition of his prayer. It was not possible to retain the structure of his anaphora because it does not have a Sanctus or a consecratory epiclesis before the account of institution or a commemoration of the saints or intercessions. All these developed after Hippolytus and could not now be omitted in a Roman anaphora. In addition, various ideas and expressions in the anaphora of Hippolytus are archaic or difficult to understand and could not be taken over into a contemporary anaphora. [18]

For its part, we know that Eucharistic Prayer II was drafted by two scholars, Dom Bernard Botte and Louis Bouyer, with the latter stating (with the unfiltered honesty that so characterized him) the following regarding the composition of that prayer:

Some idea will be given of the deplorable conditions in which this hasty reform was dispatched when I describe how the second Eucharistic Prayer was strung together. Between the indiscriminately archeologizing fanatics who wanted to banish the Sanctus and the intercessions from the Eucharistic Prayer by taking Hippolytus’ Eucharist as it is and others who did not care at all about his alleged Apostolic Tradition but who wanted only some slipshod Mass, Dom Botte and I were to take charge of piecing together its text so as to work in those elements that were certainly more ancient – for the next day! By chance I discovered in a text, if not by Hippolytus himself then assuredly in his style, a felicitous phrase on the Holy Spirit that could from a transition of the Vere Sanctus type to the brief epiclesis. Botte, for his part, made up an intercession more worthy of Paul Reboux and his “in the manner of” than of his own knowledge. But I cannot reread that improbable composition without thinking again of the terrace of the Trastevere café where we put the finishing touches on our chore in order to be able to present ourselves with it at the Bronze Gate at the hour appointed by our schoolmasters! [19]

Father Bouyer then adds:

After all that, it should not be too surprising if, by its incredible weaknesses, the distorted specimen we produced was to incite ridicule or indignation... to the point of making one forget a number of excellent elements that are nonetheless scattered about in it and that it would be a shame not to salvage like lost pearls in the revision that will sooner or later be inevitable… [20]

From the aforementioned texts, we can infer not only the lack of seriousness with which the Consilium worked (something that Bouyer himself criticizes in his memoir), but also the profound differences between the two texts mentioned by Bugnini, which we will not explain in great detail so as not to lengthen this brief essay even further.

Among these, the inclusion of the Sanctus stands out, a prayer not included in Hippolytus’s anaphora, since the introduction of the Sanctus into the liturgy dates to the early fifth century. [21]

Additionally, there are the commemorations of the saints and intercessions, which clearly imitate the Roman Canon in a simple and poor manner, departing from the Hippolytan model.

Even more striking is the omission of references to themes such as to “conquer death and break the bonds of sin in crushing the power of hell”, because, as Bugnini mentioned, they are apparently “archaic or difficult to understand”, that is, in his view, the Church’s traditional theology is obsolete. But this should come as no surprise to anyone, since he himself had previously stated, referring to the Holy Week reforms, that “it was deemed necessary to undertake this work so that no one would experience spiritual discomfort in the prayer of the Church.” [22] It is precisely this condemnation of traditional theology as being uncomfortable for modern man one of the reasons why the reformed liturgy is facing increasing criticism from scholars.

For example, see the removal of three complete psalms from the Liturgy of the Hours compared to the Breviarium Romanum [23], as well as the removal of verses from another 19 psalms [24], on the grounds that they are “imprecatory” [25], for not “conforming to the spirit of evangelical charity” [26] and for presenting “certain psychological difficulties” [27], or, in the words of Annibale Bugnini, for containing “expressions that are extremely harsh and offensive to modern sensibilities.” [28]

All of this is nonsensical when we consider that one of the purposes of the Liturgy of the Hours is to pray the psalms and become familiar with them; moreover, it is we who must adapt to the liturgy, not the liturgy to us. Something similar occurs in the Lectionary, where the new Lectionary omits numerous versicles contained in the traditional Lectionary For example, on the 25th Sunday in Ordinary Time (Cycle A), the expression “Many are called, but few are chosen” is omitted, whereas it is present in the lectionary of the 1962 Missale Romanum.

APPENDIX

Latin text of the Anaphora of Hippolytus

Quicumque factus fuerit episcopus, omnes ei os offerant pacis, salutantes eum quia dignus effectus est. Ei vero offerant diaconi oblationem, et ipse, imponens manus in eam cum omni presbyterio, dicat gratias agens:

[I] Dominus vobiscum.
Et omnes dicant: Et cum spiritu tuo.
Sursum corda.
Habemus ad Dominum.
Gratias agamus Domino.
Dignum et iustum est.

Et sic iam prosequatur:

[II] Gratias tibi referimus, Deus, per dilectum puerum tuum Iesum Christum, quem in ultimis temporibus misisti nobis salvatorem et redemptorem et angelum voluntatis tuae, qui est Verbum tuum inseparabile, per quem omnia fecisti et quem, in beneplacito tuo, misisti de caelo in matricem virginis, quique in utero conceptus incamatus est et filius tuus ostensus est, ex Spiritu Sancto et virgine natus.

[III] Qui voluntatem tuam complens et populum sanctum tibi adquirens extendit manus cum pateretur ut a passione liberaret eos qui in te crediderunt. Qui cum traderetur voluntariae passioni, ut mortem solveret et vincula diaboli dirumperet et infernum calcaret et iustos ad lucem duceret et terminum figeret et resurrectionem manifestaret, accipiens panem gratias tibi agens dixit: Accipite, manducate, hoc est corpus meum quod pro vobis confringitur. Similiter et calicem dicens: Hic est sanguis meus qui pro vobis effunditur. Quando hoc facitis, in meam commemorationem hoc facite.

[IV] Memores igitur mortis et resurrectionis eius, offerimus tibi hunc panem et calicem, gratias tibi agentes quia nos dignos habuisti adstare coram te et tibi ut sacerdotes ministrare.

[V] Et petimus ut mittas Spiritum Sanctum tuum in oblationem Sanctae Ecclesiae. In unum eos congregans des omnibus qui percipiunt ex sanctis (ita ex eis percipere) ut repleantur Spiritu Sancto ad confirmationem eorum fidei in veritate

[VI] ut te laudemus et glorificemus per puerum tuum Iesum Christum, per quem tibi gloria et honor Patri et Filio cum Sancto Spiritu in sancta Ecclesia et nunc et in saecula saeculorum.

NOTES 

[1] In any case, the Apostolic Tradition states that “Let the bishop give thanks, as we said above. It is not at all necessary that he should pronounce the same words as we have given, as if he were making an effort to say them by heart while giving thanks to God; but rather let each one pray according to his ability. If someone is able to pray at solemn length and to say a solemn prayer, it is in order. But if someone, when he is praying, limits the length of his prayer, he should not be prevented, providing his prayer conforms to the faith.”

Continue Reading this Article. . .

The 1570 Missale Romanum and the Devotion to the Dormition in Jerusalem

In a previous post, we described the 1951 changes to the Propers for the feast of the Assumption of the Blessed Virgin Mary. Here, we return to the 1570 Roman Missal and its implicit endorsement of the Eastern tradition that Our Lady “fell asleep in the Lord” before being assumed body and soul into Heaven. We also coordinate this belief with the devotions to Our Lady in the city of Jerusalem.

The 1570 Secret, variations of which can be traced back to the fifteenth and possibly twelfth century, states:

Subveniat, Dómine, plebi tuae Dei Genitrícis oratio: quam etsi pro conditióne carnis migrasse cognóscimus, in caelésti gloria apud te pro nobis intercédere sentiámus. Per Dóminum.

Which I translate as:

May the prayer of the Mother of God assist Thy people, O Lord: although we know that she passed according to the condition of the flesh, may we nevertheless feel her interceding for us in heavenly glory. Through Our Lord.

And for those who think that “passing according to the condition of the flesh” is not explicit enough, we turn to another ancient prayer that appears in the late eighth-century Gregorian Sacramentary, and is still used as the Collect for the feast in the Dominican Rite:

Veneranda nobis, Dómine, hujus diei festívitas opem cónferat salutárem; in qua sancta Dei Génitrix mortem subiit temporálem, nec tamen mortis néxibus deprími pótuit, quae Filium tuum Dóminum nostrum de se genuit incarnátum. Qui tecum vivit et regnat.

Which I translate as:

May the venerable feast on this day, on which the holy Mother of God underwent temporal death (although she, who brought forth Thy incarnate Son Our Lord, could not be shackled by death’s bonds), bring us salvific assistance. Who liveth and reigneth with Thee.

In Jerusalem, Dormition Abbey marks the spot where our Lady fell asleep in the Lord. The abbey is located on Mount Zion, where according to tradition Our Lady and St. John took up lodgings after the first Pentecost. It was built in the early twentieth century and is now staffed by German Benedictines.

The crypt of the Abbey, where Our Lady fell asleep in the Lord

In Jerusalem, it was not permissible for the remains of a deceased person to remain in the city over night, and so it is believed that Our Lady’s body was transferred outside the city to a cemetery near the Mount of Olives, on the other side of town. The church built over her grave, called the Tomb of the Virgin or Church of the Sepulchre of Saint Mary, is one of the nine churches in the Holy City that is part of the Status Quo, a 250-year-old understanding between religious communities brokered by Ottoman sultan Osman III in 1757. Although the Catholic Church is part of that agreement, the church is unmistakably Greek Orthodox in design and decoration. The church is inconspicuous from the outside and involves a series of descents, both exteriorly and interiorly. It is the only church I have been in that goes down rather than up.

To access Our Lady’s final – or almost final  – resting place, one must bow down low through the entrance to the right of the altar. There one will find a rough stone less than six feet long.

Both East and West have versions of a story in which all of the Apostles except Saint Thomas were miraculously transported from all over the world to be present at Mary’s death, and that they remained at her tomb for three days. On the third day, Saint Thomas arrived and asked “to worship the Tabernacle of God,” that is, the body of the Blessed Virgin. When they opened the coffin, they were greeted by only her burial wrappings and an incredible fragrance (some versions of the story describe lilies in the tomb). The Byzantine icon of the Dormition (see the first image of this post) captures most of these details, including a beautiful image of Christ holding in His arms the soul of His mother prior to the reunion of her body and soul and heavenly assumption, the way that she held Him when He was a baby.