ARCHPRIEST
ARCHPRIEST
168-73) . We may accept as certain that Aquileia had
from the time of the formation of separate rites
(fourth century) its own use, that this use was not the
same as that of Rome, that probably it was one more
variant of the large groupof Western Rites, connected
by (Eastern?) origin, which we call GaUican, that it
was probably really related to the old Milanese Rite
and perhaps still more to that of Ravenna.
In the later Middle Age we hear of the "ritus patri- archinus" as yielding steadily to the Roman Rite. Ebner has pubhshed a very curious and important variant of our "Hanc igitur" prayer, in htany form, attributed to Paulinus of Aquileia (about 850) . For the importanceof this see the author's work, "The Mass" (London, IQri, pp. 149-150). De Rubeis in his "De sacris foroiuliensium ritibus" (Venice, 1754, pp. 228 sqq.) prints part of the Aquileian scrutiny of cate- chumens, of the ninth century. This is practically that of the contemporary Roman Ordines; so the Roman Rite was already replacing the other one (cf . DonidePuniet,"L'anneeliturgiquea Aquilee" in "Re- vue b^n^d.", 1902, p. 1). Walafrid Strabo (ninth cen- tury) mentions "hymns" composed by Paulinus of Aquileia and used by him "in. private Masses at the offering of the sacrifice" (deeccl. rerum ex. et increm. 25) . In 1250 Peter IV, Bishop of Castello in the Aquil- eian province, desired to adopt the Roman Rite. In 1308 and again in 1418 an attempt was made to restore the Aquileian Use at Venice. But in 1456 Callistus III granted permission to the Patriarch of Grado and Aquileia to follow Rome. After the Council of Trent and Pius V's missal (1570) one after another of the cities which had kept the Aquileian Use conformed toRome:Triest in 1586, Udine in 1596. Como alone made an effort to keep the old local use. In 1565 and 1579 diocesan synods still insisted on this. But in 1597 Clement VIII insisted on Roman Use here too. Only the Church of St. Mark at Venice kept certain local peculiarities of ritual, which ap- parently descended from the "ritus patriarchinus", till the fall of the repubUc in 1807. But long before its final disappearance the Aquileian Rite in these local forms was already so romanized that little of its orig- inal character was left. Francis Bonomio, Bishop of Vercelli, who went to Como in 1579 to persuade its clergy to adopt the Roman Breviary, says that the local rite ^vas almost the same as that of Rome "ex- cept in the order of some Sundays, and the feast of the Holy Trinity, which is transferred to another time". So the "Missale pro s. aquileyensis ecclesiae ritu", printed at Augsburg in 1494, breviaries and sacramen- taries (rituals) printed for Aquileia, Venice, and Como in the fourteenth century, although still bearing the name of "ritus patriarchinus" (or"patriarchalis"),are hardly more than local varieties of the Roman Rite (for all this, see Le Brun, op. cit., and Baumstark, "Liturgia romana", pp. 170-73).
Le Brun, Ancien rii d' Aquilee appeU le Patriarckin in his Ex- pUcation de la messe. Ill (Paris, 1777). 220 sqq.; Bona, Rerum lilurgicarum, II, ed. Sala (Turin, 1747), Appendix: De ritu antiquo Aquilejensis patriarchino nuncupato: de Rubeis, Monumenta ecclesia Aquilejensis {^VT&shuT^, 1740); Althan, Iter liturgicuin foToiuliense (Rome, 1749); Burn, Nicetas of Remesiana (Cambridge, 1905) ; DiCHUCH, Rito veneto antico detto Patriar- chino (Venice, 1823).
Adrian Fortescue.
Archpriest Controversy. — This controversy arose in lngl:iiL(l on the iippointment of George Black- well as archpricsl with juri.-idiction over the secular clergj' of England and Scotland, by the Holy See on 7 March, 1.598. The last member of the ancient hierarchy, Goldwell, Bishop of St . A.saph's, had died in 1.585, and thenceforth C:inlin;d .\llen exercised in- formal jurisdiction with the ii(<iiii('scence of the pope and by common cons(>nt of the missionary priests, then numbering about three hundn'd. After Allen's de.ath in 1.594 the want of a superior made itself felt. For some years there had been trouble at the English
College in Rome, resulting in difficulties between the
Jesuits and the secular clergy, which were accentuated
by the dissensions among the priests imprisoned at
Wisbech. In 1597 Father Persons, who had general
charge of the Jesuit mission in England, went to
Rome, where the troubles at the English College had
come to a head, and settled matters by becoming
rector there himself. Some of the secular clergy,
resenting the growing influence of the Society in the
affairs of the Enghsh Cathohcs and distrusting the
political views of Father Persons, drew up a memorial
against the Jesuits to be presented to the pope.
Others wished for concord with the Jesuits, and be-
heved that the true solution of difficulties so deeply
prejudicial to CathoUc interests in England lay in
the appointment of a bishop. Persons himself at
first favoured the appointment of one or more
bishops, preferably one to live and work in England
and another to live in the Low Countries so as to
organize and direct affaira while free from personal
danger. But this plan was given up, the appoint-
ment of an archpriest being decided on and effected
by Cardinal Cajetan, Cardinal-Protector of England.
This absolutely new form of ecclesiastical govern-
ment was actively resented by a small but influential
body of secular priests, who claimed that they had
the sympathy of a larger number of their brethren.
Two of them, William Bishop and Robert Charnock,
were sent to Rome to dispute the vaUdity of the
appointment and to explain their grievances, but on
their arrival in December, 1598, they were arrested
and confined as prisoners in the Enghsh College.
On 6 April, 1599, a Brief was issued confirming the
appointment of the archpriest, and the imprisoned
priests were released and dismissed from Rome, but
forbidden to return to England. In England Thomas
Lister, a Jesuit, charged the appellant priests with
schism, in a pamphlet which stirred up a controversy
in which both sides employed unmeasured and violent
language.
Though the Brief confirming the archpriest was at once accepted by the secular clergy, Blackwell insisted that the appellant priests should make reparation for the guilt of schism. They denied that they were guilty of schism in appealing to the pope, and referred the question to the University of Paris, which decided in their favour. Blackwell issued a decree condemning this judgment, and renewed another decree which he had published in the previous January , forbidding t he publication of any defence of the appellants' conduct under pain of suspension. On 17 November a formal appeal to Rome was signed by thirty-three priests. This they supported by various pamphlets, which had been pubhshed early in 1601. The Enghsh Government now knew of the trouljle, and the Protestant Bis- hop of London entered into negotiations with Bluet, one of the imprisoned priests, with the result that Bluet was brought before the Privy Council and induced them to "banish" four of the appellant priests that they might prosecute their appeal. Bagshaw, Champney, Bluet, and Barneby were chosen, but finally Mush and Cecil took the places of Bagshaw and Barneby. Bagshaw pubhshed a violent work called the "True Relation", and Watson, a priest, issued extravagant tirades against Hhickwell and the Jesuits. On 26 January, 1602, BkukwcU published a Brief dated 17 August, 1601, which had been in his possession since Michael- mas. This again confirmed the appointment, but condemned the archpriest's irritating conduct, sup- pressed all publications about the controversy, re- fused to admit any appeal, and urged mutual charity.
In Rome, however, the appellants succeeded with the hell) of the French ambassador in gaining a hearing, anci on 5 October, 1602, a new Brief wa.-* issued (text in Tierney, op. cit. infra, III, clxxxi) which Tierney
