History of Divine Liturgies vs the Roman Mass

  • Thread starter Thread starter pat41164
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
P

pat41164

Guest
Hi, everybody! A question mainly out of curiosity and ignorance… 🙂

Which liturgy pre-dates which? Did the Divine Liturgies of St. John Chrysostom and St. Basil come before the Roman Mass? At the same time? And did they influence one another?

Thanks for any information you can share! ~ Pat
 
Well, the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom dates back to the 5th century. The Tridentine Mass dates back to Trent which is 500 years ago. Of course there are just “milestones” if you will, a significant revision of previous Liturgies which moving forward has organically transformed into its current state.

Here’s a nice read on the evolution of the Divine Liturgy. Even though it kept the name “Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom”, you will find the Liturgy has transformed quite a bit during the first 500 years of its use:

kiev-orthodox.org/site/english/639/
 
The Mass dates back to the Last Supper. Catholic Christian worship service as described in the Didache , a writing dating back to circa 50 A.D., about the time St. Paul was traveling and evangelizing and writing his letters to the various churches regarding problems as they arose, documents that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass existed from the very beginning of Christ’s Church.
 
Sherry_G said:
The Mass dates back to the Last Supper. Catholic Christian worship service as described in the Didache , a writing dating back to circa 50 A.D., about the time St. Paul was traveling and evangelizing and writing his letters to the various churches regarding problems as they arose, documents that the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass existed from the very beginning of Christ’s Church.
Click to expand...
As I said, depends really how you would define “Mass”. If its the specific Liturgy of the Latin Rite, I guess it became distinguishable in the 4th or 5th century. Liturgies evolve. Like the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom was written in the 5th century, but its an evolution of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, which was written in the 3rd. And before that, the Liturgy of St. James. Of course all Liturgies can be traced back to the Last Supper. It just depends on how we define the Liturgies by name.
 
ConstantineTG said:
As I said, depends really how you would define “Mass”. If its the specific Liturgy of the Latin Rite, I guess it became distinguishable in the 4th or 5th century. Liturgies evolve. Like the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom was written in the 5th century, but its an evolution of the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, which was written in the 3rd. And before that, the Liturgy of St. James. Of course all Liturgies can be traced back to the Last Supper. It just depends on how we define the Liturgies by name.
Click to expand...
This is how I would define liturgy:" Whereas at one time scholars were inclined to conceive the services of the first Christians as vague and undefined, recent research shows us a very striking uniformity in certain salient elements of the service at a very early date. The tendency among students now is to admit something very like a regulated Liturgy, apparently to a great extent uniform in the chief cities, back even to the first or early second century. In the first place the fundamental outline of the rite of the Holy Eucharist was given by the account of the Last Supper. What our Lord had done then, that same thing He told His followers to do in memory of Him. It would not have been a Eucharist at all if the celebrant had not at least done as our Lord did the night before He died. So we have everywhere from the very beginning at least this uniform nucleus of a Liturgy: bread and wine are brought to the celebrant in vessels (a plate and a cup); he puts them on a table — the altar; standing before it in the natural attitude of prayer he takes them in his hands, gives thanks, as our Lord had done, says again the words of institution, breaks the Bread and gives the consecrated Bread and Wine to the people in communion. " This definition is taken from the online Catholic Encyclopedia for the word Liturgy. Part of the OP’s question asked which came first. That is why I referred to this definition.
 
ConstantineTG said:
Well, the **Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom dates back to the 5th century. ** The Tridentine Mass dates back to Trent which is 500 years ago. Of course there are just “milestones” if you will, a significant revision of previous Liturgies which moving forward has organically transformed into its current state.

Here’s a nice read on the evolution of the Divine Liturgy. Even though it kept the name “Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom”, you will find the Liturgy has transformed quite a bit during the first 500 years of its use:

kiev-orthodox.org/site/english/639/
Click to expand...
Well the “Tridentine” (really a misnomer) liturgy dates well before Trent. All Trent did was minor reform and codification of the Missal which was already in use in Rome, and made it mandatory for all the other western churches to use the Roman missal. So at the very least I imagine that Roman Missal goes back, in some ways, to early Roman liturgy. So its potentially older, or at least as old as the earliest roots of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom.

As far as influence goes, the Roman liturgy was influenced by the east through adoption of Gallican liturgical uses(which came to Gaul by means of Antiochenes) in the middle ages. I do not know what influence the Roman Missal had on the DL of St. John or St. Basil.
 
Hi again! Thank you for your replies and links. Great information. Most of the posters hit upon what I was looking for, i.e., when did the Roman Mass (in a definitive form - as one poster put it, the “Liturgy of the Latin Rite”) come into being, in comparison with the dates of the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom and the Divine Liturgy of St. Basil. I do understand that it ALL began with the Last Supper and assume, I think correctly, that a celebration of the Eucharist is at the heart of these liturgies.

Because the liturgies do evolve, it has seemed to me to be easier to “pin down” dates for the Eastern Divine Liturgies, and a little tougher to do for the Latin Rite Mass.

Getting back to influences, I’m curious as much about similarities (probably more so) than differences… Readings first, the Eucharist next, the similar wording that appears in the Eucharistic liturgies, etc. Being that it appears that the Tridentine Mass was around possibly before Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, I’m wondering if any wording was “lifted.” And I’m wondering how much Jewish practices in the temple seeped in, if at all. Again… just exploring for the sake of curiosity and knowledge!
 
pat41164 said:
Getting back to influences, I’m curious as much about similarities (probably more so) than differences… Readings first, the Eucharist next, the similar wording that appears in the Eucharistic liturgies, etc.
Click to expand...
Just to get the ball rolling …

The Mass and the DL both have Epistle and Gospel readings, but the DL doesn’t have the Old Testament or the Psalm readings as the Mass does. Though both use the Epistle and Gospel readings, the readings at Mass are not the same as the ones at DL.
 
According to Fr. Robert Taft, a well-known expert in almost all things liturgical, the Roman Canon (not necessarily the entire Roman Mass) is actually one of the oldest Canons in existence today. It predates any of the Trinitarian controversies that led to the first ecumenical councils. Among other things he sites the absense of an explicit epiclesis as proof of this. The article containing this information was floating around these forums for awhile. Sadly I don’t remember where it is or what it’s called.

I’ve also read that the Tridintine Mass was, in fact, not a minor revision of a pre-existing Missal, but was supposedly a major overhaul much akin to what happened after Vatican II. The goal of the Tridintine reform was to reestablish a “pure” form of the Mass based off of the Patristic liturgical texts available at that time. What ended up happening was a patchwork Mass formed by a commission which gleaned elements from the sources. Sound at all familiar? Whether or not this is true I don’t know. The information comes from the book “Liturgical Renewal in the Twentieth Century.” I’m hoping to do further research into this when I get the chance. In the meantime I think it’s good food for thought.

All this being said, however, every form of the Eucharistic celebration/sacrifice has gone through its major and minor revisions. Elements of each are more or less old and have their own history, but it seems, if you read Taft, Jungmann, and LaGrange, that it is virtually impossible to take an entire form of the Eucharistic celebration (Byzantine, Roman, Maronite, Coptic, etc.) and say one is older than the others, primarily because each part of each celebration has its own history. A brief look at Taft’s minimum 700 page history of the Great Entrance at the Divine Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom is a pretty good illustration of that.
 
I_Thirst said:
Just to get the ball rolling …

The Mass and the DL both have Epistle and Gospel readings, but the DL doesn’t have the Old Testament or the Psalm readings as the Mass does. Though both use the Epistle and Gospel readings, the readings at Mass are not the same as the ones at DL.
Click to expand...
No indeed, the readings are not the same. But, the Tridintine Mass likewise does not have Old Testament readings. Also, there are three different Psalms that are sung every Sunday at the Divine Liturgy. Since, among Byzantine Christians, it is usually expected that the faithful will also participate in Vespers and/or Orthros (if they are offered in the parish), they hear a wide selection of the Psalms at least on a weekly basis.

The history of the Old Testament readings is quite fascinating. I don’t know about the Roman Mass, but in the Byzantine liturgy there originally was an Old Testament reading, at least according to Fr. Juan Mateos, Fr. Robert Taft’s mentor. I don’t know why it was eventually cut. On major feast days there is always at least one reading from the Old Testament at Vespers the night before; usually there are two or three. So if Byzantines participate in the fuller liturgical life of the Church, at least Vespers, Orthros and Divine Liturgy, then they hear a very wide selection of the Old Testament as well as the Psalms.

The opening up of the Old Testament in the Roman Church is something that came about with the reforms of the Mass after Vatican II. There is historical precedence for it, and it is something that I, personally, applaud greatly. I hope one day the Byzantine Churches - both Catholic and Orthodox - will reform the Liturgy just enough to include an Old Testament reading. Such a reform was suggested by Fr. Mateos, and I believe he’s correct. It’s also perfect within the limits of our tradition. 👍
 
Formosus said:
As far as influence goes, the Roman liturgy was influenced by the east through adoption of Gallican liturgical uses(which came to Gaul by means of Antiochenes) in the middle ages.
Click to expand...
An excellent observation.

There is a real interesting historical question as to why the Roman local church felt the need to adopt elements of the Gallican liturgy. It is sometimes explained with one-off comments which are not very helpful.

With the church at the city of Rome as the ‘mother church’ of the west one would have least expected it
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
I’ve also read that the Tridintine Mass was, in fact, not a minor revision of a pre-existing Missal, but was supposedly a major overhaul much akin to what happened after Vatican II. The goal of the Tridintine reform was to reestablish a “pure” form of the Mass based off of the Patristic liturgical texts available at that time. What ended up happening was a patchwork Mass formed by a commission which gleaned elements from the sources. Sound at all familiar? Whether or not this is true I don’t know. The information comes from the book “Liturgical Renewal in the Twentieth Century.” I’m hoping to do further research into this when I get the chance. In the meantime I think it’s good food for thought.
Click to expand...
I’ve never read or even heard of a single article which states this. The famous liturgist Dom Prosper Gueragner, probably the foremost authority on the Roman Rite, certainly did not agree as can be seen by reading his book ‘The holy mass’. A comparision between the process that created the mass of Paul VI and the mass of St Pius V is disingenous to say the least. The latter was merely a clear and precise formulaton of the existing rite abolishing local rites whilst extinguishing abuses to prevent liturgical creativity which was dangerous in an era where many priests were no longer catholic, the latter did the exact opposite.
 
Phillip_Rolfes said:
I’ve also read that the Tridintine Mass was, in fact, not a minor revision of a pre-existing Missal, but was supposedly a major overhaul much akin to what happened after Vatican II. The goal of the Tridintine reform was to reestablish a “pure” form of the Mass based off of the Patristic liturgical texts available at that time. What ended up happening was a patchwork Mass formed by a commission which gleaned elements from the sources. Sound at all familiar? Whether or not this is true I don’t know. The information comes from the book “Liturgical Renewal in the Twentieth Century.” I’m hoping to do further research into this when I get the chance. In the meantime I think it’s good food for thought.
Click to expand...
That’s a new one on me. As I recall, the “Tridentine reform” was grounded in standardization with the usage of Rome (while at the same time not impinging on the integrity of those ancient and venerable Rites that had withstood the “test of time” and had been in continuous use for at least 200 years). That said, yes, certain “Gallicanisms” had crept in to Roman usage over some centuries (a classic example of that are the Sequences), and while those ended up being pruned, they weren’t necessarily eliminated completely.
Phillip_Rolfes said:
All this being said, however, every form of the Eucharistic celebration/sacrifice has gone through its major and minor revisions. Elements of each are more or less old and have their own history, but it seems, if you read Taft, Jungmann, and LaGrange, that it is virtually impossible to take an entire form of the Eucharistic celebration (Byzantine, Roman, Maronite, Coptic, etc.) and say one is older than the others, primarily because each part of each celebration has its own history.
Click to expand...
Very true. Each form has its own history, and within each form, the various parts all have their own history. Many things (cultural, linguistic, etc) come into play. Anyway, I agree: it’s not as simple as it might appear.

Actually, and this is just my opinion, I find the entire question of “which is older?” to be rather pointless.
 
JUSTIN MARTYR [A.D. 110–165.]
The First Apology of Justin
Chapter LXVII.—Weekly worship of the Christians.
And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday,all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability,and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday);
and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

peace
 
hazcompat said:
JUSTIN MARTYR [A.D. 110–165.]
The First Apology of Justin
Chapter LXVII.—Weekly worship of the Christians.
And we afterwards continually remind each other of these things. And the wealthy among us help the needy; and we always keep together; and for all things wherewith we are supplied, we bless the Maker of all through His Son Jesus Christ, and through the Holy Ghost. And on the day called Sunday,all who live in cities or in the country gather together to one place, and the memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read, as long as time permits; then, when the reader has ceased, the president verbally instructs, and exhorts to the imitation of these good things. Then we all rise together and pray, and, as we before said, when our prayer is ended, bread and wine and water are brought, and the president in like manner offers prayers and thanksgivings, according to his ability,and the people assent, saying Amen; and there is a distribution to each, and a participation of that over which thanks have been given, and to those who are absent a portion is sent by the deacons. And they who are well to do, and willing, give what each thinks fit; and what is collected is deposited with the president, who succours the orphans and widows and those who, through sickness or any other cause, are in want, and those who are in bonds and the strangers sojourning among us, and in a word takes care of all who are in need. But Sunday is the day on which we all hold our common assembly, because it is the first day on which God, having wrought a change in the darkness and matter, made the world; and Jesus Christ our Saviour on the same day rose from the dead. For He was crucified on the day before that of Saturn (Saturday);
and on the day after that of Saturn, which is the day of the Sun, having appeared to His apostles and disciples, He taught them these things, which we have submitted to you also for your consideration.

peace
Click to expand...
I’m slightly confused as to the relevance of the quoted passage. It is a great descriptor of what an early Christian Liturgy might have looked like, but I’m not sure if that really answers the question at hand.
 
Cavaradossi said:
I’m slightly confused as to the relevance of the quoted passage. It is a great descriptor of what an early Christian Liturgy might have looked like, but I’m not sure if that really answers the question at hand.
Click to expand...
See post number 7

peace
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top