RITES
65
RITES
all Eastern customs "we shall provide without nar-
At the time of the Schism, Photius and Cerularius
hurled against Latin rites and customs every con-
ceivable absurd accusation. The Latin fast on
Saturday, Lenten fare, law of celibacy, confirmation
by a bishop, and especially the use of unleavened
bread for the Holy Eucharist were their accusations
against the West. Latin theologians replied that
both were right and suitable, each for the people
who used them, that there was no need for uni-
formity in rite if there was unity in faith, that one
good custom did not prove another to be bad, thus
defending their customs without attacking those of
the East. But the Byzantine patriarch was breaking
the unity of the Church, denying the primacy, and
plunging the East into schism. In 1054, when
Cerularius's schism had begun, a Latin bishop,
Dominic of Gradus and Aquileia, wrote concerning
it to Peter III of Antioch. He discussed the ques-
tion Cerularius had raised, the use of azymes at Mass,
and carefully explained that, in using this bread,
Latins did not intend to disparage the Eastern cus-
tom of consecrating leavened bread, for there is a
symbolic reason for either practice. "Because we
know that the sacred mixture of fermented bread is
used and lawfully observed by the most holy and
orthodox Fathers of the Eastern Churches, we faith-
fully approve of both customs and confirm both by a
spiritual explanation" (Will, "Acta et scripta qua;
de controv(!rsiis occlesiie grseca; et latina; sa^c. XI
composita extant", Leipzig, 1861, 207). These words
represent very well the attitude of the papacy to-
wards other rites at all times. Three points, how-
ever, may seem opposed to this and therefore require
some explanation: the supplanting of the old Gal-
ilean Rite by that of Rome almost throughout the
West, the modification of Uniat rites, the sup-
pression of the later medieval rites.
The existence of the Galilean Rite was a imique anomaly. The natural principle that rite follows patriarchate has been sanctioned by universal tra- dition with this one exception. Since the first or- ganization of patriarchates there has been an ideal of uniformity throughout cat-h. The close bond that joined bishops anil metroijolitans to their patriarch involved the use of his liturgy, just as the priests of a diocese follow the rite of their bishop. Before the arbitrary imposition of the Byzantine Rite on all Orthodox Churches no Eastern jiatriarch would have tolerated a foreign liturgy in his domain. All Egypt used the Alexandrine Rite, all Syria that of Antioch- Jerusalem, all Asia Minor, Greece, and the Balkan lands, that of Constantinople. But in the vast West- ern lands that make up the Roman patriarchate, north of the Alps and in Spain, various local rites developed, all bearing a strong resemblance to each other, yet different from that of Rome itself. These form the Galilean family of liturgies. Abbot Cabrol, Dom Cagin, and other writers of their school think that the Galilean Rite was really the original Roman Rite before Rome modified it ( " Pal^^ographie musicale ", V, Solesmes, 1889; Cabrol, "Lesoriginesliturgiques", Paris, 1906). Most writers, however, maintain with Mgr Duchesne ("Origines du culte chr^tien", Paris, 1898, 84-89), that the Galilean Rite is Eastern, Antio- chene in origin. Certainly it has numerous Antio- chene peculiarities (see Gallican Rite), and when it emerged as a complete rite in the sixth and seventh centuries (in Germanus of Paris, etc.), it was dif- ferent from that in use at Rome at the time. Non- Roman liturgies were used at Milan, Aquileia, even at Gubbio at the gates of the Roman province (In- nocent I's letter to Decentius of Eugubium; Ep. XXV, in P. L., XX, 551-61). Innocent (401-17) nat- urally protested against the use of a foreign rite in Umbria; occasionally other popes showed some de- XIII.— 5
sire for uniformity in their patriarchate, but the great
majority regarded the old state of things with per-
fect indifference. When other bishops asked them
how ceremonies were performed at Rome they sent
descriptions (so Pope Vigilius to Profuturus of Braga
in 538; Jaff6, "Regesta Rom. Pont.", n. 907), but
were otherwise content to allow different uses. St.
Gregory I (590-604) showed no anxiety to make the
new English Church conform to Rome, but told St.
Augustine to take whatever rites he thought most
suitable from Rome or Gaul (Ep. xi, 64, in P. L.,
LXXVII, 1186-7).
Thus for centuries the popes alone among patriarchs did not enforce their own rite even throughout their patriarchate. The gradual romanization and sub- sequent disappearance of Gallican rites were (be- ginning in the eighth and ninth centuries), the work not of the popes but of local bishops and kings who naturally wished to conform to the use of the Apos- tolic See. The GaUican Rites varied everywhere (Charles the Great gives this as his reason for adopt- ing the Roman Use; see Hauck, " Kirchengesch. Deutschlands", II, 107 sq.), and the inevitable desire for at least local uniformity arose. The bishops' fre- quent visits to Rome brought them in contact with the more dignified ritual observed by their chief at the tomb of the Apostles, and they were naturally in- fluenced by it in their return home. The local bis- hops in synods ordered conformity to Rome. The romanizing movement in the West came from be- low. In the Prankish kingdom Charles the Great, as part of his scheme of unifying, sent to Adrian I for copies of the Roman books, commanding their use throughout his domain. In the history of the sub- stitution of the Roman Rite for the Gallican the popes appear as spectators, except perhaps in Spain and much later in Milan. The final result was the ap- plication in the West of the old principle, for since the pope was undoubtedly Patriarch of the West it was inevitable, that sooner or later the West should conform to his rite. The places, however, that really cared for their old local rites (Milan, Toledo) retain them even now.
It is true that the changes made in some Uniat rites by the Roman correctors have not always corre- sponded to the best liturgical tradition. There are, as Mgr Duchesne says, "corrections inspired by zeal that was not always according to knowledge" (Origines du culte, 2nd ed., 69), but they are much fewer than is generally supposed and have never been made with the idea of romanizing. Despite the general prejudice that Uniat rites are mere mutilated hybrids, the strongest impression from the study of them is how little has been changed. Where there is no suspicion of false doctrine, as in the Byzantine Rite, the only change made was the restoration of the name of the pope where the schismatics had erased it. Although the question of the procession of the Holy Ghost has been so fruitful a source of dispute between Rome and Constantinople the Filioque clause was certainly not contained in the original creed, nor did the Roman authorities insist on its addition. So Rome is content that Eastern Catholics should keep their traditional form un- changed, though they believe the Catholic doctrine. The Filioque is only sung by those Byzantine Uniata who wish it themselves, as the Ruthenians. Other rites were altered in places, not to romanize but only to eradicate passages suspected of heresy. All other Uniats came from Nestorian, Monophysite, or Monothelete sects, whose rites had been used for centuries by heretics. Hence, when bodies of these people wished to return to the Catholic Church their services were keenly studied at Rome for possible heresy. In most cases corrections were absolutely necessary. The Nestorian Liturgy, for instance, did not contain the words of institution, which had to be
