The question arises: How did we get from the original, proto-liturgy common across the whole Christian world to a unique Roman rite?
The answer is simple: No one knows.
But what fun is that!?! Though we have almost no liturgical records from those critical first four centuries, church historians have made a perennial sport of stitching together theories to explain the scant evidence that does exist. So whenever someone asserts, "But this how the Early Church did it!", you can reply with a dismissive, George Carlin-like wave of the hand, "Au contraire, mon frere." Even if there is some evidence of a particular practice (e.g., liturgical references in the Church Fathers), there is no certainty it was either an original or a universally-applied practice or that the full context of the practice is understood. A classic example would be St. Cyril of Jerusalem's oft-cited description of how to receive Holy Communion in the hand. But what about his instruction on how to receive the Precious Blood?
"Then after Communion of the Body of Christ, approach the Chalice of His Blood, not extending thy hands, but bending low, and with adoration and reverence saying Amen, sanctify thyself by receiving also the Blood of Christ. And while thy lips are yet wet, touch them with thy hands, and sanctify thy eyes and thy forehead and thy other senses" Cat. Myst., v, 22, 21-22
In other words, the modern practice of the laity receiving the chalice was nothing like the practice of this one small community at a particular point in antiquity. You can also see why this practice quickly fell out of favor due to the dire threat of profanation. I am not aware - at least in my poor reading of this subject - of Cyril's described practices occurring anywhere else in the early Church. Let us conclude this introduction by saying that what is not known about Christian liturgical practice in the first four centuries absolutely dwarfs what is known.
So, how did a unique Roman rite come to be? Let's speculate! The main driving factor would almost certainly be the movement of Christianity almost overnight from a despised & secretive "mystery cult" that gathered in private homes or cemeteries to a religion that was not only public, but actually held favor with the emperor & his court. The reader surely understands that the requirements for a religious ceremony in the Lateran basilica for hundreds or thousands of people are different from those for a few dozen souls gathered in secret in a house. The use of processional chants (id est, the Introit) is an easily-identified example of a change implemented to suit a practical need.
Also, the translation of the liturgy from Greek to Latin would have initiated a change in how Roman bishops, clergy, theologians, & apologists thought about & defended the Faith. Language & gesture would inevitably been borrowed from existing Roman political, social, & religious customs. Emperors & royalty, senators & statesmen would demand a more regal & embellished ceremonial for the new "state cult" than what would have been found in the simpler, earlier days. During this expansive time, the Church would call the great Christological Councils (Nicea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus 431, Chalcedon 451, etc.) to teach & defend the deposit of Faith against the many emerging innovations & permutations that departed from the narrow line of orthodoxy. The actions & gestures of the liturgy would increasingly take on a Christologicaly meanings, such as the addition of water to the chalice: what was originally just the Roman custom of cutting wine with water became a symbol of the divine Christ taking to Himself a human nature.
At nearly the same time that Christians were free of the threat of persecution, an event occurred that would have repercussions on the Christian world till this day: Caesar moved the capitol of the empire from Rome to Byzantium. Suddenly, the backwater see of Byzantium, a suffragan see of Heraclea, became the most prominent see in the empire, surpassing & swallowing up the honors, titles, & even lands of the ancient Eastern sees of Alexandria & Antioch. This absorption of all things into Constantinople was even attempted against Rome & its Bishop by the repeated attempts of certain Eastern bishops to affirm in the councils' canons the equal standing of "New Rome" to that of "Old" Rome, an exercise that repeatedly failed. Nevertheless, one can discern at least two ways in which the rise of Constantinople affected the liturgy of Rome.
First, the magnificent royal court of Constantinople required an equally magnificent liturgy, with orations, litanies, processions, music, choirs, vestments, objects, furniture, architecture, mosaics, & the rest all suited for the King of kings & Lord of lords, or at least to the eastern emperor. A well-known event that supports this notion is recounted in a homily by Fr. F. McAfee:
When the envoys of Vladimir, Prince of Kiev returned from attending the Divine Liturgy at the in Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople in the late tenth century, they gave this report: “We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth, for surely there is no such splendor or beauty anywhere on earth. We cannot describe it to you; only this we know, that God dwells there among men, and that their service surpasses the worship of all other places. We cannot forget the beauty!”
Ideas & practices were exchanged as legates & diplomats traveled back & forth from East to West. Even as the Byzantines were jealous of the prestige & spiritual power of "old" Rome, Rome would take note of the raised liturgical sensibilities of its Eastern rival, while remaining steadfastly entrenched in its own liturgical tradition so as not to be swayed to become more "Byzantine" (many writers have noted the restraint & noble simplicity of the Roman rite compared to the Byzantine rite).
Also, as mentioned, this time period sprouted forth a bumper crop of new & heretical ideas that shaped the liturgy via the mode of "lex orandi, lex credendi". Orthodox Catholic belief was reinforced by the content of the liturgy itself.
Despite the growing rivalry between Constantinople & Rome, it must be noted that liturgical variety thrived throughout Christian world. Varieties of Galican rites thrived in Spain, Gaul, the British Isles, & even north Africa. At this time, Greece & Illyria were part of the Roman partiarchate, yet retained their own liturgy, while nearby Milan shunned Roman use & kept their own Gallican-derived rite. The partiarchates of Alexandria & Antioch retained their own liturgies. The only areas that steadfastly kept the Roman rite were the city of Rome herself & her immediate provinces.
The next article will look at the some details of the Roman rite & what a papal Mass might have looked like at the time of St. Pope Gregory I.
Top picture: Mosaic depiction of St. Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, extolling the divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Council of Ephesus. Basilica of Notre Dame de Fourviere, Lyon, France.
The answer is simple: No one knows.
But what fun is that!?! Though we have almost no liturgical records from those critical first four centuries, church historians have made a perennial sport of stitching together theories to explain the scant evidence that does exist. So whenever someone asserts, "But this how the Early Church did it!", you can reply with a dismissive, George Carlin-like wave of the hand, "Au contraire, mon frere." Even if there is some evidence of a particular practice (e.g., liturgical references in the Church Fathers), there is no certainty it was either an original or a universally-applied practice or that the full context of the practice is understood. A classic example would be St. Cyril of Jerusalem's oft-cited description of how to receive Holy Communion in the hand. But what about his instruction on how to receive the Precious Blood?
"Then after Communion of the Body of Christ, approach the Chalice of His Blood, not extending thy hands, but bending low, and with adoration and reverence saying Amen, sanctify thyself by receiving also the Blood of Christ. And while thy lips are yet wet, touch them with thy hands, and sanctify thy eyes and thy forehead and thy other senses" Cat. Myst., v, 22, 21-22
In other words, the modern practice of the laity receiving the chalice was nothing like the practice of this one small community at a particular point in antiquity. You can also see why this practice quickly fell out of favor due to the dire threat of profanation. I am not aware - at least in my poor reading of this subject - of Cyril's described practices occurring anywhere else in the early Church. Let us conclude this introduction by saying that what is not known about Christian liturgical practice in the first four centuries absolutely dwarfs what is known.
So, how did a unique Roman rite come to be? Let's speculate! The main driving factor would almost certainly be the movement of Christianity almost overnight from a despised & secretive "mystery cult" that gathered in private homes or cemeteries to a religion that was not only public, but actually held favor with the emperor & his court. The reader surely understands that the requirements for a religious ceremony in the Lateran basilica for hundreds or thousands of people are different from those for a few dozen souls gathered in secret in a house. The use of processional chants (id est, the Introit) is an easily-identified example of a change implemented to suit a practical need.
Also, the translation of the liturgy from Greek to Latin would have initiated a change in how Roman bishops, clergy, theologians, & apologists thought about & defended the Faith. Language & gesture would inevitably been borrowed from existing Roman political, social, & religious customs. Emperors & royalty, senators & statesmen would demand a more regal & embellished ceremonial for the new "state cult" than what would have been found in the simpler, earlier days. During this expansive time, the Church would call the great Christological Councils (Nicea 325, Constantinople 381, Ephesus 431, Chalcedon 451, etc.) to teach & defend the deposit of Faith against the many emerging innovations & permutations that departed from the narrow line of orthodoxy. The actions & gestures of the liturgy would increasingly take on a Christologicaly meanings, such as the addition of water to the chalice: what was originally just the Roman custom of cutting wine with water became a symbol of the divine Christ taking to Himself a human nature.
At nearly the same time that Christians were free of the threat of persecution, an event occurred that would have repercussions on the Christian world till this day: Caesar moved the capitol of the empire from Rome to Byzantium. Suddenly, the backwater see of Byzantium, a suffragan see of Heraclea, became the most prominent see in the empire, surpassing & swallowing up the honors, titles, & even lands of the ancient Eastern sees of Alexandria & Antioch. This absorption of all things into Constantinople was even attempted against Rome & its Bishop by the repeated attempts of certain Eastern bishops to affirm in the councils' canons the equal standing of "New Rome" to that of "Old" Rome, an exercise that repeatedly failed. Nevertheless, one can discern at least two ways in which the rise of Constantinople affected the liturgy of Rome.
First, the magnificent royal court of Constantinople required an equally magnificent liturgy, with orations, litanies, processions, music, choirs, vestments, objects, furniture, architecture, mosaics, & the rest all suited for the King of kings & Lord of lords, or at least to the eastern emperor. A well-known event that supports this notion is recounted in a homily by Fr. F. McAfee:
When the envoys of Vladimir, Prince of Kiev returned from attending the Divine Liturgy at the in Hagia Sophia Cathedral in Constantinople in the late tenth century, they gave this report: “We knew not whether we were in heaven or on earth, for surely there is no such splendor or beauty anywhere on earth. We cannot describe it to you; only this we know, that God dwells there among men, and that their service surpasses the worship of all other places. We cannot forget the beauty!”
Ideas & practices were exchanged as legates & diplomats traveled back & forth from East to West. Even as the Byzantines were jealous of the prestige & spiritual power of "old" Rome, Rome would take note of the raised liturgical sensibilities of its Eastern rival, while remaining steadfastly entrenched in its own liturgical tradition so as not to be swayed to become more "Byzantine" (many writers have noted the restraint & noble simplicity of the Roman rite compared to the Byzantine rite).
Also, as mentioned, this time period sprouted forth a bumper crop of new & heretical ideas that shaped the liturgy via the mode of "lex orandi, lex credendi". Orthodox Catholic belief was reinforced by the content of the liturgy itself.
Despite the growing rivalry between Constantinople & Rome, it must be noted that liturgical variety thrived throughout Christian world. Varieties of Galican rites thrived in Spain, Gaul, the British Isles, & even north Africa. At this time, Greece & Illyria were part of the Roman partiarchate, yet retained their own liturgy, while nearby Milan shunned Roman use & kept their own Gallican-derived rite. The partiarchates of Alexandria & Antioch retained their own liturgies. The only areas that steadfastly kept the Roman rite were the city of Rome herself & her immediate provinces.
The next article will look at the some details of the Roman rite & what a papal Mass might have looked like at the time of St. Pope Gregory I.
Top picture: Mosaic depiction of St. Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, extolling the divine maternity of the Blessed Virgin Mary at the Council of Ephesus. Basilica of Notre Dame de Fourviere, Lyon, France.