Journal of Ecclesiastical History, Vol. XX, No.

s, October

The Early Roman Canon Missae

by the late E. C. RATCLIFF
Sometime Regius Professor of Divinity, University of Cambridge

and A. H. COURATIN
Canon and Librarian, Durham Cathedral

n 1950 the late Professor Ratcliff published in the first two numbers of this JOURNAL an article entitled 'The Sanctus and the Pattern of the Early Anaphora'. In it he argued that the recitation of the Sanctus formed the climax and doxology of the primitive Eucharistic Prayer. At the end of the article he wrote, 'Why, if the pattern of the ancient Anaphora ever conformed with the reconstruction proposed here, was the pattern abandoned? The surviving literature, and not least the historic liturgies, either supply the answers or offer evidence which suggests them. A consideration of the questions and answers, however, must be reserved for a future article'. Pressure of work prevented him from writing the sequel for a number of years. But the subject was always at the back of his mind; and in 1963 he published 'A Note on the Anaphoras described in the Liturgical Homilies of Narsai'. 1 This was in effect the first instalment of the future article, and deals with the old Syrian, or, as he preferred to call it, the old Eastern liturgical usage.2 But he was equally interested in the Roman liturgical tradition, as can be seen from the paper that he read in 1955 on 'The Institution Narrative of the Roman Canon Missae: its beginnings and early background'. 3 And as early as 1957 he had already come to the view, which was to have been set out in this article, of the Roman, or rather, as he would have put it, the African-Roman, Eucharistic Prayer. The present writer was in communication with him over many years, and discussed the subject by letter and in conversation on a number of occasions. As a mere amateur he is incapable of doing more than setting
1

Biblical and Patristic Studies in memory of Robert Pierce Casey, ed. J. H. Birdsall and R. W.

Thompson, Freiburg-im-Breisgau 1963, 235-49. 2 Cf. also 'The Old Syrian Baptismal Tradition and its Resettlement under the Influence of Jerusalem in the Fourth Century', Studies in Church History, ii, ed. G. J. Cuming, London 1965, 19-37. 8 'The Institution Narrative of the Roman Canon Missae: its beginnings and early background', Studia Patristica, ii, ed. K. Aland and F. L. Cross, Berlin 1957, 64-82. 211

E. C. RATCLIFF AND A. H. COURATIN

out the main line of Ratcliff's argument, and must ask liturgical scholars to consider it in the light of the available evidence. The fragment of Professor Ratcliff's article is printed out first. An outline of the remainder of the article, as it might have been finished, is appended.

NOBIS QUOQUE PECCATORIBUS The two paragraphs of the Roman Canon Missae which begin respectively with the words Communicantes and Nobis quoque peccatoribus are

notorious for the problems which they present to the historian of the Roman Liturgy. Each paragraph has attracted to itself a considerable quantity of comment; and the solutions propounded for its problems have been many, various and often conflicting. Probably the problems will never be satisfactorily resolved except by the discovery of a piece, or pieces, of decisive evidence at present unknown, and contained in a document not yet brought to light, if such there be. In the meantime it may be permissible, if not to propose another solution, at least to offer some further comment in the form of a note, mainly upon Nobis quoque and its list of saints. By way of introduction it will be convenient to set out in extenso and synoptically the two paragraphs of the Canon as they appear in the recension designated by Edmund Bishop 'the Gallic Gelasianum of the eighth century' and by Mgr. Andrieu 'Ordo Romanics VIP. COMMUNICANTES et memoriam venerantes in primis gloriosae semper virginis Mariae genetricis Dei et domini nostri Iesu Christi, sed et beatorum apostolorum ac martyrum tuorum Lini, Petri, Pauli, Cleti, dementis, Andreae, Iacobi, Sixti, Cornelii, Iohannis, Cypriani, Thomae, Iacobi, Laurentii, Philippi, Chrisogoni, Bartholomei, Iohannis et Pauli, Cosmae et Damiani. Mathei, Simonis et Thathei. NOBIS QUOQUE PECCATORIBUS famulis tuis, de multitudine miserationum tuarum sperantibus, partem aliquam societatis donare digneris, cum tuis sanctis apostolis et martyribus, cum Iohanne, Felicitate, Stephano, Perpetua, Mathia, Agathe, Barnaba, Lucia, Ignatio, Agne, Alexandra, Cecilia, Marcellino, Anastasia, Petro,

212

THE EARLY ROMAN CANON MISSAE

Sifuerit natale sanctorum, hie dicat:

Sed et diem natalicii beati Illius celebrantes et omnium sanctorum tuorum, quorum meritis precibusque concedas, ut in omnibus protectionis tuae muniamur auxilio. Per Christum dominum nostrum.1

et cum omnibus sanctis tuis intra quorum nos consortium non aestimator meriti sed veniae, quaesumus. Largitor admitte. Per Christurn dominum nostrum. 2

The text exhibited above expresses only one of the two purposes of Communicantes, viz., the commemoration of an unvarying sequence of saints, to which is added any saint whose anniversary is to be observed, and for the mention of whose name a short stereotyped formula is provided. The other purpose, expressed in variable clauses which, under the heading, Infra adionem, the Sacramentaries insert into the Missae proper to the feasts, is to commemorate the great dominical solemnities of the temporal cycle, Christmas, Epiphany, Easter, Ascension and Pentecost. The Easter clause may be quoted from the Gelasianum in order to exemplify the character of the variable clauses generally and the method of introducing them into the paragraph, 'Communicantes, et noctem sacratissimam caelebrantes resurrectionis domini nostri Iesu Christi secundum carnem: sed et memoriam [venerantes in primis gloriosae semper virginis Mariae . . . sed et beatorum apostolorum &c]'. 3 The variable clauses, both temporal and sanctoral, of Communicantes recall a passage of the letter sent in A.D. 538 to Profuturus, bishop of Braga, by pope Vigilius in answer to certain inquiries made by Profuturus about Roman liturgical usage. Of the prayers connected with the consecration of the oblations at Mass, Vigilius wrote, 'Ordinem quoque precum in celebritate missarum nullo nos tempore, nulla festivitate significamus habere diversum: sed semper eodem tenore oblata Deo munera consecrare. Quoties vero Paschalis, aut Ascensionis Domini, vel Pentecostes, et Epiphaniae, sanctorumque Dei fuerint agenda festivitas, singula capitula diebus apta subjungimus, quibus commemorationem sanctae solemnitatis, aut eorum facimus, quorum natalitia celebramus: caetera vero ordine consueto prosequitur'.4 There can be no doubt that Vigilius is here writing of what is now called the Canon Missae, that is, of that part of the Eucharistic Prayer which begins with the paragraph, Te igitur, etc. Similarly there can be no reasonable doubt that the commemorative 'capitula diebus apta' are some form of Communicantes clauses. The collection of Missae and other Roman liturgical material, which is known as the Sacramentarium Leonianum or Veronense,
M. Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani du haul moyen-age, Louvain 1948, ii. 297-8. Ibid., 301 f. L. C. Mohlberg, L. Eizenhofer and P. Siffrin, Sacramentarium Gelasianum (Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documenta, series maior, Fontes iv), Rome 1960, no. 459. 4 P.L., lxix. 18 C. 213
2 8 1

E. C. RATCLIFF AND A. H. COURATIN

and which may be taken as having been put together during the pontificate of Vigilius (A.D. 537-55), contains four Communicantes clauses, two each for Ascension and Pentecost.1 We may assume that clauses for Epiphany and Easter were to be found in the portion of the MS. now missing. Comformably with Vigilius's silence about Christmas, the Missae in the Leonianum for that feast contain no Communicantes clause. As to the commemoration of saints, it will have been observed that the sanctoral clause of Ordo Romanics VII, 'sed et diem natalicii beati Illius celebrantes' echoes Vigilius's phrase, 'eorum . . . natalitia celebramus'. We may infer that the eighth-century clause had its roots in sixth-century usage, and that in Vigilius's time the phrase ran, 'et beati (or sancti) martyris tui Illius natalitia celebrantes'. The phrase does not occur, of course, among the Missae of the Leonianum. We should expect, however, to find it, not among the Missae, but, as in Ordo Romanus VII, at the appropriate point of the text of the Canon; and the Canon is wanting from that portion of the Leonianum which has been preserved. By itself the phrase is somewhat abrupt, and falls short of fully expressing what is intended in celebrating a saint's, specially a martyr's, 'birthday'. In the Leonianum, the Communicantes clauses are closed by the opening words of the succeeding clause, 'sed et memoriam venerantes'. Here we have the first half of the idea which is completed in the phrase, 'natalitia celebrantes'. May we not conclude, then, that in the mid-sixth century the full sanctoral clause ran, '(sed) et memoriam venerantes et beati (or sancti) martyris (or confessoris) tui Illius natalitia celebrantes'? The sanctoral clause, thus conjecturally reconstructed, complies with the terms of Vigilius's letter to Profuturus. It is, like the temporal clauses, a 'capitulum, aptum' to the commemoration of a saint's anniversary. Again, the two types of clause are no more than brief subjuncta, or, when the sanctoral clause is attached to a temporal, a single yet still brief subjunctum,2 to one of the constituent paragraphs of the Canon. If we may take up a clue offered by the Bobbio3 and Stowe* Missals, we shall see in the word Communicantes not the incipit of the subjunctum, but the normal explicit of the paragraph to which it was to be subjoined.5 The true incipit of the sixth century Communicantes is 'Et diem' on temporal occasions (as in Bobbio and Stowe), and 'Et (or Sed et) memoriam' on saints' anniversaries; the word 'communicantes' is introduced into the Sacramentaries to serve as a cue.
1 L. C. Mohlberg, L. Eizenhofer and P. Siffrin, SacramentariumVeronense (Rerum Ecclesiasticarum Documents, series maior, Fontes i), Rome 1956, nos. 178, 186, 204 and 224. For a classification of the collection and for discussion of its dating, see ibid., lxiv-lxxxv. 2 Formerly, in cases of 'occurrence', i.e., of the coincidence of a temporal feast with a' saint's anniversary, both commemorations were observed, the temporal taking first place. 3 The Bobbio Missal (Henry Bradshaw Society, liii), 1917, fol. 12. 4 The Stowe Missal (Henry Bradshaw Society, xxxi), 1906, fol. 23'. 8 For the original connexion of Communicantes, see L. Eizenhofer, ' Te igitur und Communicantes im romischen Messkanon', Sacris Erudiri, viii (1956), 14-75; see also the Nota by A.P., 'Questiones de "Communicantes"', Ephemerides Liturgicae, lxviii (1954), 155 f. It may be remarked that in the Latin tradition, the usage of commemorating the martyrs at Mass is older than the time of St. Augustine, to whose testimony A.P. refers. St. 214

THE EARLY ROMAN CANON MISSAE

There is nothing in the letter of Vigilius to exclude the possibility of the presence, in his Canon, of a catalogue of saints' names to be recited regularly at every Mass. On the other hand, the list which appears in the Communicantes of Ordo Romanus VII and of the modern Roman Missal clearly could not have been attached to the essentially occasional capitulum to which Vigilius refers. The formation of the list could not have been begun, therefore, before A.D. 538. Fr. V. L. Kennedy has shown good reason for thinking that the list, as we have it in Ordo Romanus VII, is the termination of a complicated process of formation, in the course of which an originally very short list of names was first considerably lengthened and then curtailed, though without being reduced to its primary number. 1 Even with the list curtailed to twenty-five names, Communicantes continues to suffer what Professor Jungmann has termed an 'unnaturliche Belastung', 2 which is more evident in Ordo Romanus VII than in the modern Missal, because, in the former, the names intrude between the two phrases, 'memoriam venerantes' and 'diem natalicii beati Illius celebrantes'. 3 How could such an intrusion have originated? For want of evidence, an answer to this question can only be conjectural. The text of the paragraph, however, suggests a conjecture which accords with the character of the list as a whole. A dominant factor in the formation of the list, as Fr. Kennedy has demonstrated, was the cultus at Rome, and in particular churches of the city, of the saints named in the list. In this connexion, we may notice that the expression, 'memoriam venerari', in contrast with 'diem celebrare', is appropriate to the mention, not only of a saint upon days other than his anniversary, but also of a saint to whom the local Roman calendar assigns no anniversary. Chief in the latter class, in the sixth century, was the Blessed Virgin Mary. It was not until the second half of the seventh century that the Roman Church took over from Byzantine usage the practice of commemorating our Lady by feasts celebrated in her sole honour, such as her Nativity and Assumption. It has been suggested by some scholars that the 'memoriae veneratio' of Mary

Cyprian, writing of the confessors who, dying in prison, have attained the 'martyris gloria', directs that their death-days shall be noted like those of the martyrs, and states his intention of celebrating 'Oblationes et sacrificia ob commemorationes eorum' {Ep., xii). There is every probability in favour of the sanctoral clause being an older feature of the Roman Canon than the temporal clauses. 1 See V. L. Kennedy, C.S.B., The Saints of the Canon of the Mass, (Studi di Antichita Cristiana pubblicati per cura del Pontificio Istituto di Archeologia Cristiana, xiv), Rome 1938, 189-99. 2 See J. A. Jungmann, S.J., Missarum Sollemnia, Vienna 1948, ii. 215. 8 It must be noted that the group of MSS. classified as Ordo Romanus VII is the only one to preserve the clause, 'et diem natalicii. . . celebrantes'. That the clause is genuinely 'Roman of Rome', however, is indicated not only by Vigilius's reference, but also by the text of Communicantes prescribed by pope Gregory III (A.D. 731-41) for use in an oratory which he had founded in St. Peter's and which housed an abundance of saints' relics. The text runs, 'sed et diem natalicium celebrantes sanctorum tuorum martyrum ac confessorum, perfectorum iustorum, quorum solemnitas hodie in conspectu gloriae tuae celebratur'; see L. Duchesne, Le Liber Pontificalis, Paris 1886, i. 422.
215

E. C. RATCLIFF AND A. H. COURATIN

was introduced into Communicantes as early as the fifth century; 1 but the evidence alleged in support of the opinion is not adequate to the weight imposed upon it. It is true that, consequent upon the Council of Ephesus (A.D. 431), pope Xystus III (A.D. 432-40) dedicated to the Virgin Mother a church, St. Mary Major, in which he erected an inscription inspired by the title BCOTOKOS, which the Council had upheld against Nestorian objection. 2 Yet the approval of the title and the dedication of the church did not necessarily involve the Roman Church in the payment of specific liturgical honour to Mary, and there is no trace of any Marial cultus at Rome for more than a century after Xystus's death. In the Leonianum, for instance, out of thirty-three Christmas formulae only five allude to our Lord's birth of a virgin, and none mention her by name; 3 indeed, the Leonianum names her once only, in a phrase, 'beatae Mariae fructum', occurring in a Preface for the Natale of St. John the Baptist.4 It may be recorded, further, that the Leonianum does not exhibit a single instance of any Latin equivalent of the title, deoroKos. When we turn again to the Communicantes of Ordo Romanus VII and examine its description of Mary, we observe that the Latin, 'gloriosae semper virginis Mariae genetricis Dei', follows closely the description contained in the initial sentence of the sixth anathema of the second Council
of Constantinople (A.D. 553), El TLS KaraxprjaTiKtijs, aAA' OVK aXrjduis deoroKov \4yei rrjv aylav evZo^ov aenrapdevov Mapiav . . . (6 TOIOVTOS

avdOefia earci)).5 The Greek description here employed by the Council was borrowed from the fifth KecfxiXaiov of the emperor Justinian's second decree against the 'Three Chapters'. 6 The description occurs elsewhere in the decree, and also in other documents issued by the emperor; it appears to have been his chosen formula for expressing the unique position of our Lady. The Latin description is clearly a version of the Greek. May we then take the insertion of Mary's 'memoriae veneratio' into Communicantes to be a sequel of the affair of the 'Three Chapters' ? A passage in the Profession of Faith drawn up by pope Pelagius I (A.D. 556561) for circulation among the bishops of Gaul, favours an affirmative answer. Pelagius, who had been Vigilius's deacon and had attended him at Constantinople, had supported Vigilius in his opposition to Justinian's decree against the 'Three Chapters'. Later, yielding to Justinian's persuasion, Pelagius changed his position, and eventually, like Vigilius himself, accepted the decrees of the Council of A.D. 553. By so doing, he incurred the anger and mistrust of the western bishops. When, after Vigilius's death, Pelagius was imposed by the emperor upon the Romans as their pope, he appeared to be both a traitor to Chalcedon and a toady to the
See Kennedy, op. cit., 93. For the inscription see F. Cabrol. and H. Leclercq, Dictionnaire d'archiologie chritieme et de liturgie, art. 'Marie-Majeure (Sainte)', x. 2, 2093 f. 8 Sacramentariwn Veronense, nos. 1239-72. 4 Ibid., no. 234. B See C. J. Hefele-H. Leclercq, Histoire des Conciles, Paris 1909, iii. 1, 115 f. 8 Ibid., 49. 2l6
3 1

THE EARLY ROMAN CANON MISSAE

imperial will. The Profession of Faith was designed to clear the new pope's reputation in the eyes of the western bishops. The Profession assures its recipients of Pelagius's firm adherence to the Tome of pope Leo I (A.D. 440-61) and to the doctrine of the Council of Chalcedon (A.D. 451); at the same time it carefully avoids any reference to the objectionable Council of A.D. 553. There is in the Profession, however . . .

From the fragment printed above it is possible to gather Ratcliff's views about the section of the Canon from Te igitur to Quam oblationem. An attempt will be made, therefore, to set these out in order. But the first paragraph of his article makes it clear that he was not primarily concerned with the opening of the Canon, but with its conclusion, and above all with the prayer Nobis quoque peccatoribus. The way in which he conceived the Canon to have ended will therefore be described, as far as his views are known. But it may prove useful to begin by describing the way in which he thought the Roman Eucharistic Prayer to have developed, before treating of the opening and closing sections of the present Canon. The Prayer at Rome remained fluid, and was constantly being retouched, up to the time of Gregory the Great. It may be presumed that it originally possessed a long beginning, with Creation and Christological passages; and perhaps the oldest proper prefaces preserve some phrases of what was said on the oldest feasts, as an inset in the wider Christological passage. The interpolation of the Sanctus with its introduction at the beginning of the Prayer took place under Jerusalem influence, probably at some point during the fifth century. One may presume that the text given by Ambrose in De Sacramentis is parallel to, though not identical with, contemporary Roman usage. But his evidence at this point is ambiguous. He is not interested in the Prayer as a whole, but only in the Dominical words and their effect. He writes,1 'Nam reliqua omnia quae dicuntur in superioribus a sacerdote dicuntur, laus Deo defertur, oratio petitur pro populo, pro regibus, pro caeteris: ubi venitur ut conficiatur venerabile sacramentum, iam non suis sermonibus utitur sacerdos, sed utitur sermonibus Christi'. 'Reliqua omnia quae dicuntur in superioribus' presumably refers to the earlier parts of the Eucharistic Prayer, and not to the earlier parts of the rite. In that case 'laus Deo defertur, oratio petitur pro populo e t c ' refers to opening praise in the Prayer, followed by intercession, as in the later Canon. But there is nothing to indicate whether this opening praise consisted of thanksgiving passages for Creation and Redemption, or of the Sanctus with its introduction, or, indeed, of the Sanctus with its introduction, followed by thanksgivings. An indication that this third possibility was once current practice at Rome may perhaps be found in The Bobbio Sacramentarj,2 where the Canon is set out under the title Missa Romensis
1 2

De Sacramentis, rv. iv. 14. The Bobbio Missal, no. 4. 217

E. C. RATCLIFF AND A. H. COURATIN

Cottidiana. This may imply that on 'cottidian' days it was customary at Rome to omit the thanksgiving passages, and to recite Te igitur immediately after the Sanctus. The opening phrases of the Canon, 'Te igitur, clementissime Pater, per Iesum Christum Filium tuum Dominum nostrum supplices rogamus et petimus, uti accepta habeas et benedicas haec dona, haec munera, haec sancta sacrificia illibata', constitute the petition for the acceptance of the gifts; and, however much remodelled in the interests of style and of doctrine, were originally directly dependent on the thanksgiving which once preceded them. The suggestion of Dom B. Botte,1 that igitur has here a meaning no stronger than the Greek Se, is to be rejected. 'If it be remembered that as in the Eastern Liturgies, so in the Roman, the Sanctus is an interpolation, Te igitur will be seen to carry on the thought of the Preface. The sequence is "Vere dignum et iustum esttibi gratias agereTe igitursupplices rogamusuti accepta habeashaec dona"'. 2 It is meet and right to give thanks through Christ. Therefore through Christ we ask you to accept our thankoffering. Whether the opening phrases of Te igitur were originally followed by an older form of Quam oblationem* we do not know. But it seems clear that it was the offering of the gifts which provided the occasion for introducing intercessory petitions at this point, beginning with the phrase 'in primis quae tibi offerimus pro ecclesia tua sancta catholica', and continuing with a prayer for its peace and unity, together with the name of the local bishop, who was the local centre of the Church's unity. It is commonly held that Memento Domine, which follows immediately, is the naming of the names of the offerers, after the oblations have been commended, referred to by Innocent I in his letter to Decentius in 416.4 But, in the fragment printed above, it will be seen that Ratcliff connects the prayer Communicantes, not with the closing phrase of Memento Domine, where it has little or no meaning, but with the closing phrase of Te igitur, where it makes excellent sense'una cum famulo tuo papa nostro illo communicantes, et memoriam venerantes et beati illius natahtia celebrantes'. We ask God to accept the gifts which we offer, being in communion with our father N., and venerating the memory and celebrating the heavenly birthday of blessed jV. If such a view is accepted, Memento Domine can no longer be identified with the recitation of the names referred to in Innocent's letter. It must be regarded as a later interpolation, breaking the flow of the original prayer. Some other interpretation must be found for Innocent's statement, 'Prius ergo oblationes sunt commendandae, ac tune eorum nomina, quorum sunt edicenda'. 5 No one would wish to dispute Dom Capelle's judgment
VOrdinaire de la Messe, Paris-Louvain 1953, 75, n. 9. E. C. Ratcliff; 'Christian Worship and Liturgy', The Study of Theology, ed. K. E. Kirk, London 1939, 443. 8 Cf. Ambrose, De Sacramentis, rv. v. a 1. * B. Capelle, Travaux Liturgiques, ii, Louvain 1962, 236-47. 5 P.L., xx. 553. 2l8
2 1

THE EARLY ROMAN CANON MISSAE

that the commending of the oblations can only be the opening phrases of Te igitur. But if Memento Domine is to be regarded as a later interpolation, as Ratcliff suggests, the names must presumably have been recited after the oblations had been commended by those who were in communion with their lawful bishop and were celebrating with veneration the commemoration of the saint's day. In that case one is driven to see in Hanc igitur oblationem the point at which the names of the offerers were recited. This was certainly RatclifFs view. How he would have argued the point is not known. But the earlier texts of this prayer, as they are found in Leonianum1 and Gelasianum,2 as often as not contain the names of those who are offering the oblations at the particular mass, as well as the intention for which they are offering them. If this practice survived into the middle of the sixth century, when Leonianum and Gelasianum were presumably being run together,3 it is not impossible that it was the main purpose of the prayer at the beginning of the fifth century. But if Hanc igitur oblationem is the original place in the Canon for the recitation of the names of the offerers, when and why was Memento Domine added to the Prayer ? Hanc igitur oblationem is always regarded as a difficulty, because Memento Domine is thought to be the older prayer, and Hanc igitur oblationem a later addition, which did little more than reduplicate it, until it was, on most occasions, generalised and rendered otiose by Gregory I.* But if Hanc igitur oblationem is the older prayer, the tables are turned. Memento Domine becomes the prayer which reduplicates and is difficult to explain. And not Memento Domine only, but also Memento etiam.
For in Leonianum and Gelasianum Hanc igitur oblationem is equally a n occa-

sion for commending the oblations of the living and for making oblations on behalf of the dead.6 The textual history of the two Memento prayers is different. No text of the Canon exists without Memento Domine, and there is little more than internal evidence to suggest that it was ever anything but an integral part of the Canon. Memento etiam, on the other hand, is more loosely connected with the Canon in the textual tradition; and although it is widely argued that it was integral to the Canon, and was only later excluded from public masses by Gregory I, 6 such a position can by no means be regarded as certain.7 The question may therefore, perhaps, be asked, whether both prayers did not begin life apart from the Canon, and both did not find a place in it laterthe one comparatively early, the other within the period of the
Sacramentarium Veronense, nos. 1012, 1107, 1140. Sacramentarium Gelasianum, nos. 707, 713, 781, 795, 1447, 1660. 8 Cyrille Vogel, Introduction aux Sources de PHistoire du Culte Chritien au Moyen Age, Spoleto n.d. For Leonianum (Veronense), 32; for Gelasianum, 53-5. 4 Bede, Hist. Eccl., ii. 1 (P.L., xcv. 80). 5 Sacramentarium Veronense, no. 1140; Gelasianum, nos. 1631, 1646, 1660, 1664, 1669. 6 M. Andrieu, 'L'Insertion du Memento des Morts au Canon Romaine', Revue des Sciences Religieuses, i (1921), 151-4; B. Botte, Le Canon de la messe Romaine, Louvain 1935, 67-9; B. Capelle, Travawc Liturgiques, ii, 255-7. 7 E. Bishop, Liturgica Historica, Oxford 1918, 96-103, 109-15; G. G. Willis, Essays in Early Roman Liturgy, London 1964, 131-2.
2 1

219

E. C. RATCLIFF AND A. H. COURATIN

MSS. Both begin with the same phrase, Memento (etiam) Domine, which is reminiscent of the Greek liturgies.1 From this Ratcliff argued that their introduction dates from a period of Greek influence in Rome. At the same time it is claimed that the language of Memento etiam is archaic, 2 and the same is equally true of Memento Domine. It is possible that both were older prayers adapted to a new setting, when they were used in connexion with the Canon. Why they were so connected, if the Canon already possessed in Hanc igitur oblationem an opportunity for naming the offerers and the dead, was never discussed with Ratcliff by the present writer. So far as Memento etiam is concerned, his views are known. He believed that it was in origin a prayer said aloud by the deacon, while the Canon was recited silently by the celebrant. 3 When the celebrant was not assisted by a deacon and himself recited all those parts of the rite normally taken by his assistants, Memento etiam inevitably found its way into the Canon. It has been suggested that Memento Domine entered the Canon in the same way; that it, too, began life as a prayer recited while the celebrant was silently commending the oblations.4 In that case a neat history of the development of the intercessions in the Canon can be obtained. In the time of Innocent I the Canon is said out loud, and the names of the offerers are heard by all at Hanc igitur oblationem. When the Canon goes silent, the deacon recites the names out loud, first of the offerers and then of the dead, while Hanc igitur oblationem is transformed, first into a special intention, as in Leonianum and Gelasianum, and then into a general prayer by Gregory I. Finally, both Memento prayers enter the Canon as suggested. But such a history supposes that the Canon was already recited silently in the sixth century, and for this the evidence is contradictory. On the one hand, in Leonianum, at the mass for the consecration of virgins, the text runs 'Hanc etiam oblationem Dne tibi virginum sacratarum quarum ante sanctum altare tuum oblata nomina recitantur quaesumus placatus accipias'.5 This implies that Memento Domine is being recited out loud, at the same time as Hanc igitur {etiam) oblationem is being said silently. On the other hand, in Gelasianum, at the mass of the scrutinies of Lent III, 6 which belongs to the earlier stratum in the Gelasian tradition, Memento Domine is read aloud by the celebrant, who stops at the appropriate place, while the names of the godparents are inserted into the prayer by someone else. Later, Hanc igitur oblationem is read, presumably aloud, by the celebrant, and again the names, this time of the candidates, are inserted by someone else, before the celebrant concludes the prayer. Again, it does not seem likely that, while the Anaphora at Constantinople was only beginning to
Cf. F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, Oxford 1896, i. 332-6. B. Botte, op. cit., 68. E. C. Ratclifif, The Study of Theology, 441. 4 I. Schuster, Liber Sacramentorum, English trans., London 1924, i. 273-4; B. Botte, op. cit., 592 3
6

Sacramentariurn Gelasianum, no. 195-7. See also M. Andrieu, Les Ordines Romani du haut moyen age, ii, Louvain 1948, 425-6. 220

Sacramentariurn Veronense, n o . 283.

THE EARLY ROMAN CANON MISSAE

be said silently in 565,1 the Canon at Rome had already been silent for some time before that date. And finally, in Gregory's Canon, whether it was said out loud or silently, Memento Domine at least is certainly an integral part of the celebrant's prayer at all masses, as well as Hanc igitur oblationem. How Ratcliff was prepared to support his theory of the later insertion of Memento Domine, and how he would have dealt with the evidence, is unknown. But it is clear from the fragment of his article that he was prepared to do so, and the question must now be left to other scholars to discuss.2 He certainly accepted the view, as has been seen above, that Memento etiam was a later addition to the text of the Canon, and remained unimpressed by the arguments of those who have maintained that it stood in the pre-Gregorian Canon and was removed from public masses by Gregory I. He was doubtful about the connexion between the prayers Supra quae and Supplices te, but was inclined to believe that the form in which the two are combined in the text of De Sacramentis3 might well represent the older order. He was convinced however that their content was ancient. He pointed out that all three types of the Eucharistic sacrifice contained in Supra quaethe offerings of Abel, Abraham, and Melchizedekbelonged to the pre-Mosaic era. He suggested, therefore, that they entered the liturgical tradition at a time when the Christian Sacrifice could not be compared with the Mosaic sacrifices, because Christian apologists were busy asserting against their Jewish opponents that the Mosaic sacrifices had been rejected by God,4 as foretold by the prophet Malachi. 5 He was equally convinced of the antiquity of the Angel and of the Altar in the petition 'iube haec perferri per manus angeli tui in sublime altare tuum in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae'. The Angel is /xeyaArj? fiovXfjs ayyeXos of Isaiah.6 Ratcliff did not accept the arguments of Dom B. Botte in this matter.7 The Christ is referred to as 'Angel' in Justin, 8 and in the Eucharistic Prayer of Apostolic Tradition.9 Ambrose misunderstands the tradition, and puts angelorum in place of angeli. Ratcliff rejected the view that the text of the Canon preserved in De Sacramentis is simply an older form of the Roman Canon Missae,11 and in this he is supported by a number of modern scholars.12 So also the Altar is TO
1 Cf. E. Bishop, 'Silent recitations in the Mass of the faithful', The Liturgical Homilies ofNarsai, ed. R. H. Connolly, Cambridge 1909, 121-6. 2 Cf. B. Botte, op. cit., 59: 'C'est la une simple hypothese que je soumets au jugement des spe'cialistes'. 8 4 rv. vi. 27. E.g. Justin, Dialogue, 117. 6 6 Mai. i. 11. LXX Isaiah ix. 6. 7 B. Botte, ' L 'ange du sacrifice', Cours et conferences des Semaines Liturgiques, vii, Louvain 1929, 209-21; 'L'ange du sacrifice et 1'epiclese de la messe Romaine au moyen age', Recherches de Theologie ancienne et mSdUvale, i (1929), 285-308. 8 9 / Apology, 63. Ap. Trad., iv. 4. 10 De Sacramentis, iv. vi. 27. 11 See 'The Institution Narrative of the Roman Canon Missae: its beginnings and early background', in Studia Patristica, ii. 12 E.g. C. Vagaggini, The Canon of the Mass and Liturgical Reform, English trans., London 1967, 30. 221

E. C. RATCLIFF AND A. H. COURATIN TO xPvao^v

T

evatmov rod dpovov of the Apocalypse. 1

Irenaeus had said: 'Est ergo altare in coelis, illuc enim preces nostrae et oblationes nostrae diriguntur; et templum, quemadmodum Iohannes in Apocalypsi ait'. 2 The notion of the presentation of the oblations by the Christ at the heavenly Altar is ancient in the West, and is, indeed, implied by Clement of Rome when he calls Jesus Christ rov apxtepea T&V irpoa(f>opcjv rjiuov.3 In the East it was not introduced into the liturgical tradition until a later period,4 since the Apocalypse was not accepted there as Scripture at an early date. The form of the prayer Supplices te has often excited comment. 5 It falls into three parts, (a) 'Supplices te rogamus omnipotens Deus'. This is a piece of fine writing, and belongs to the latest remodelling of the prayer, probably in the sixth century, (b) 'iube haec perferri per manus angeli tui in sublime altare tuum in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae'. This represents the original petition. It asks God to accept at the heavenly altar through the mediation of the Christ the Bread and Cup which the Holy People have offered as the memorial of the Passion in Unde et memores, as he accepted the offerings of his righteous servants under the old dispensation, mentioned in Supra quae. (c) 'ut quotquot ex hac altaris participatione sacrosanctum filii tui corpus et sanguinem sumpserimus, omni benedictione caelesti et gratia repleamur, per Christum Dominum nostrum'. Dom B. Botte rightly observed that this petition is 'une fin d'epiclese'.6 It does not appear in the text of the Canon in De Sacramentis, or in the prayers modelled on a text of the Canon in the Mozarabic Sacramentary.7 It does not seem to carry on the thought of iube haec perferri. There is no obvious connexion between the presentation of the gifts at the heavenly altar and the reception of grace by those who partake at the earthly altar. On both external and internal grounds, therefore, Ratcliff claimed that the petition was a later insertion, made at a time when prayers for the fruits of communion, whether epicletic in form or not, were finding their way into the Eucharistic Prayer. 8 If this is so, it is no longer possible to claim that the
whole prayer Supplices te rogamusper Christum Dominum nostrum is a later

addition because of the presence of a conclusion.9 The presence of the conclusion need prove nothing more than that the petition ut quotquotper
Christum Dominum nostrum has been added later.
Rev. viii. 3. Adversus Haereses, ed. W. W. Harvey, Cambridge 1857, ii. a 10. 8 I Clement xxxvi. 1. 4 F. E. Brightman, Liturgies Eastern and Western, i. 23, lines 15-18. 6 Adrian Fortescue, The Mass: a Study of the Roman Liturgy, and ed., London 1926, 350. 8 B. Botte, op. cit., 66. 7 The three texts are conveniently set out side by side in B. Botte et C. Mohrmann, VOrdinaire de la tnesse, Texte critique, Traduction et Etudes, Louvain 1953, 19-20. 8 An indication of his view about the origin of such prayers may be found in 'The Sanctus and the Pattern of the Early Anaphora, I', in this JOURNAL, i (1950), 34, n. 5. 9 G. G. Willis, Essays in Early Roman Liturgy, London 1964, 130-1. 222
2 1

THE EARLY ROMAN CANON MISSAE

We have arrived at last at the prayer Nobis quoque peccatoribus, which it was the main purpose of Ratcliff 's article to consider. He did not believe that it was a pendant of Memento etiam, a view maintained by a number of scholars.1 He did not believe that Memento etiam had a permanent place in the Canon at all until after the time of Gregory I. Nor did he accept the suggestion that Nobis quoque continues the general petition for all the communicants in ut quotquot with a special petition for the clergy, who are referred to as nos peccatores famuli tui.2 He maintained that the petition *Nobis quoque peccatoribus famulis tuispartem aliquam societatis donare digneris cum tuis sanctis apostolis et martyribus' originally followed the phrase 'iube haec perferri per manus angeli tui in sublime altare tuum in conspectu divinae maiestatis tuae'. The run of the Canon at this point would then have beenCommand that these gifts be borne by the hands of thy Angel to thy heavenly altar, and grant to us also thy sinful servants some part and fellowship with thy holy apostles and martyrs. Like most scholars he maintained that the stylised lists of the saints in both Communicantes and Nobis quoque were later developments in the Canon. The original insertion in Communicantes, as we can see from the fragment printed above, was the name of the saint whose natalitia was being observed. The apostles and martyrs whose names formed the original of Nobis quoque were the two apostolic martyrs of the city of Romethe holy apostles Peter and Paul. Their presence was naturally suggested by the mention of the heavenly altar, under which John saw the souls of the martyrs. 3 The main thought of the whole petition already appears in Polycarp's Epistle to the Philippians4'et det vobis sortem et partem inter sanctos suos\ Nobis quoque is, in fact, the beginning of the end of the ancient Canon. 5 As the mention of the heavenly altar leads on to the martyrs, so the martyrs lead on to the natural denizens of heaven, and the angels in turn lead on to the Sanctus, which Peter and Paul and the Seraphim sing soda exultatione. This was certainly Ratcliff's view. It is also true that he believed that the Sanctus was subsequently moved under the influence of Jerusalem to the beginning of the Roman Eucharistic Prayer. Ambrose, De Sacramentis, gives no indication as to whether it was included in the laus which apparently stood at the beginning of his Prayer, or whether it followed his reference to the heavenly altar, or whether it found no place in his Prayer at all.6 The Mai fragments show that, at the time and place at which they were composed, the Sanctus did not stand at the beginning of the Canon, but they do not indicate whether or not it stood at the end.7 Canon 3 of the Council of Vaison distinguishes between the current usage at public and private masses, and decrees that in future the Sanctus is to be said in private
1

See above, 219 n. 6. J. A. Jungmann, Missarum Solemnia, English trans., New York 1955, ii. 24853. Rev. vi. 9. * xii. 2. 6 E. C. Ratcliff, Review in Theology, lxviii (1965), 441-3. 6 rv. iv. 14; rv. vi. 27. 7 P.L., cxxxviii. 883 f. 223
2 3

E. G. RATCLIFF AND A. H. COURATIN

masses 'eo ordine quomodo ad missas publicas dicitur'. But this does not necessarily mean that, in Gaul in 529, the Sanctus was said at public masses but not at private masses. It could mean that by this time it had been shifted to the beginning of the Canon in public masses, but still retained its older position at the end in private masses.1 Be that as it may, by the second half of the sixth century the Sanctus was recited at the beginning of the Canon in all masses, and the Canon itself had been provided with a doxology, which may perhaps incorporate something of the older ending.2 It was now capable of including on occasions the blessing of milk and honey3 and of oil4. It no longer conducted the worshippers, in the spirit of thanksgiving, by means of the sacrificial symbols of the passion, into the courts of heaven, where they joined with the martyrs and the Seraphim in the adoration of the Lord of Sabaoth. Intercessions for the living and the dead were now inserted, the great thanksgiving was omitted, and the whole character of the Canon was changed. As Ratcliff once put it, 'When you give up regarding the Sacrifice as a Pass to the Royal Enclosure, and begin to think of it as a National Health card entitling you to full benefit for self and friends, anything not bearing on the benefit becomes irrelevant'. 5
G. G. Willis, op. cit, 124. A. H. Couratin, 'The Sanctus and the Pattern of the Early Anaphora: a note on the Roman Sanctus', in this JOURNAL, ii (1951), 19-23. 3 Sacramentarium Veronense, no. 205. 4 Sacramentarium Gelasianum, no. 381-2. 6 Letter to the present writer, 20 August 1958.
2 1

224