The Mozarabic Thread

[patrick457]

Here I am, once more trying to give folks a break from their fiery debates.
In this thread, I invite everyone to talk about one of the liturgical rites of the Western Church (and one of my favorites): the Visigothic, Hispanic, or Mozarabic Rite.

Just a small one before we start. The traditional baptismal formula in the rite is: Ego te baptizo in nomine Patris et Filii et Spiritus Sancti, ut habeas vitam aeternam, Amen (“I baptize you in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, that you may have eternal life, Amen”)

BTW, both it and the Ambrosian rite still carried on baptism by immersion even when affusion became the usual manner of administering baptism in most of Western Europe during the Middle Ages. And they were often proud of the fact that they kept ‘dunking on’! I guess that puts the anti-Catholic myth that Catholics stopped using immersion for baptism, or that Catholics are not validly baptized at all because they weren’t immersed, to rest.

 

[SpiritusSanctus]

This doesn’t really have anything to do with Traditional Catholicism.

 

[patrick457]

This doesn’t really have anything to do with Traditional Catholicism.

Well, okay then. I’m sorry. Let the mods move it where they will.

This makes me think though. Is ‘Traditional Catholicism’ limited only to the Roman Rite? Or can it have a more wider range? I have always been on the assumption that ‘traditional’ does not just specifically mean the form of the Roman Rite which prevailed in the Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council but can also include the other liturgical practices of other rites before they themselves were ‘reformed’. I believe that for one to be truly a ‘traditionalist’ and to fully appreciate the ‘ways of old’, you need to know and learn the whole gamut! Well, either that, or I’m just too different from the stereotypical traditionalist.

Well, perhaps we could raise a petition to give the various rites their own sub-forums?

 

[Lujack]

This doesn’t really have anything to do with Traditional Catholicism.

I think it does, and New Liturgical Movement would agree, since they run articles on the Mozarabic Rite. The Ambrosian Rite is equally traditional. I think that its perfectly relevant to Traditional Catholicism, since the similarities and differences between the Mozarabic form of the Mass and the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite inform our understanding of both.

Why, pray tell, do you think that it is not part of Traditional Catholicism? It dates back to the 600’s!

 

[Lujack]

Well, okay then. I’m sorry. Let the mods move it where they will.

This makes me think though. Is ‘Traditional Catholicism’ limited only to the Roman Rite? Or can it have a more wider range? I have always been on the assumption that ‘traditional’ does not just specifically mean the form of the Roman Rite which prevailed in the Catholic Church before the Second Vatican Council but can also include the other liturgical practices of other rites before they themselves were ‘reformed’. I believe that for one to be truly a ‘traditionalist’, you need to know and learn the whole gamut!

Either that, or I’m just too different from the stereotypical traditionalist.

Please, continuing posting here. I’m eager to learn more about it, at least.

 

[patrick457]

I think it does, and New Liturgical Movement would agree, since they run articles on the Mozarabic Rite. The Ambrosian Rite is equally traditional. I think that its perfectly relevant to Traditional Catholicism, since the similarities and differences between the Mozarabic form of the Mass and the Extraordinary Form of the Latin Rite inform our understanding of both.

Why, pray tell, do you think that it is not part of Traditional Catholicism? It dates back to the 600’s!

Correct! Exactly my point.
This was actually one of the reasons my blog exists, which unfortunately is gathering dust nowadays, which recently has begun to cover a more broader range of topics (sorry about that ) but was started - and still has for its main purpose - to let people know a teeny bit more about the liturgical practices that exist, or has existed in the Church: you know, there are people assume that Traditionalist Catholics only care about the EF, and some traditionalists themselves somehow give the impression that the Extraordinary Form of the Roman-Rite Mass was the only rite there was.

Fortunately, God granted His flock those guys over at the New Liturgical Movement.

 

[MarkThompson]

In the Mozarabic Rite, do the women wear veils? How did Vatican II ruin the Mozarabic Rite? Does it really have to be in Mozarabian, or can we have it in the vernacular now? When the Mozarabic Rite was invented, weren’t its inventors guilty of the heresy of modernism? And if you crossed the SSPX with the Mozarabic Rite, wouldn’t they just be a bunch of schismatics?

There, Patrick; I think I’ve brought this safely back on topic.

 

[patrick457]

In the Mozarabic Rite, do the women wear veils? How did Vatican II ruin the Mozarabic Rite? Does it really have to be in Mozarabian, or can we have it in the vernacular now? When the Mozarabic Rite was invented, weren’t its inventors guilty of the heresy of modernism? And if you crossed the SSPX with the Mozarabic Rite, wouldn’t they just be a bunch of schismatics?

There, Patrick; I think I’ve brought this safely back on topic.

Hahaha.

1.) Since wearing a headcovering during liturgical practices was quite widespread a custom in many parts of Christendom later ages, who could say that they didn’t?

2.) Well, the liturgical books were only properly ‘revised’ in the 1990’s, so Vatican II is thirty-forty years TOO EARLY.

3.) No, despite its common name, the rite wasn’t conducted in the Mozarabic language or in Arabic. It was in Latin. There! Good enough?

4.) Well, you’ll have to prove that Sts. Isidore and Leander of Seville (who revised and rearranged the liturgy practiced in the Iberian peninsula before the Muslims came, giving us the kernel of the rite as we have it today) were actually closet modernists - which makes you wonder: why did they even become saints anyway? - and that those Spanish martyrs who were killed for their faith and were sustained by this rite were heretics who got what they deserved.
You’ll also have to say that Pope John X, who approved the rite in 918, was actually a modernist symphatizer and a possible Freemason, and that the Council of Mantua in 1067 which proclaimed the rite heresy-free and worthy of praise was actually run over by those dastardly Judeo-Masonic-Communist Illuminati guys bent on using it as a device to mislead the people of God in Spain and to bring about the advent of the Antichrist!

5.) What would we have then? The Society of St. Isidore? The Priestly Fraternity of Cardinal Ximenez?

 

[MarkThompson]

4.) Well, you’ll have to prove that Sts. Isidore and Leander of Seville (who revised and rearranged the liturgy practiced in the Iberian peninsula before the Muslims came, giving us the kernel of the rite as we have it today) were actually closet modernists - which makes you wonder: why did they even become saints anyway? - and that those Spanish martyrs who were killed for their faith and were sustained by this rite were heretics who got what they deserved.
You’ll also have to say that Pope John X, who approved the rite in 918, was actually a modernist symphatizer and a possible Freemason, and that the Council of Mantua in 1067 which proclaimed the rite heresy-free and worthy of praise was actually run over by those dastardly Judeo-Masonic-Communist Illuminati guys bent on using it as a device to mislead the people of God in Spain and to bring about the advent of the Antichrist!

Meh. Spain → Pyrenees → Hannibal → Annibale → Bugnini. Seems pretty conclusive no matter which way you look at it.

5.) What would we have then? The Society of St. Isidore? The Priestly Fraternity of Cardinal Ximenez?

The Priestly Fraternity of Cardinal Ximenez! I love it!

 

[patrick457]

Here, meanwhile, are some of the Mozarabic versions of well-known prayers and hymns:

1.) Gloria et honor Patri, et Filio, et Spiritui Sancto, in saecula saeculorum, Amen.

This is the form that the Gloria Patri takes in the liturgical books. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, “he Fourth Synod of Toledo in 633 ordered this form (can. xv).”

**XIII. De ymnis etiam canendis. **

De ymnis etiam canendis, et salvatoris et apostolorum habemus exemplum. Nam et ipse dominus ymnum dixisse perhibetur, Matheo evangelista testante (Matt. 26:30): Et ymno dicto exierunt in montem Oliveti. Et Paulus apostolus ad Ephesios scripsit dicens (Eph. 5:18b-19): Implemini spiritu loquentes vobis in psalmis et ymnis, et canticis spiritalibus, et quia a nonnullis ymni humano studio in laudem dei, atque apostolorum et martyrum triumphos compositi esse noscuntur, sicut hi quos beatissimi doctores, Hilarius atque Ambrosius ediderunt, quos tamen quidam specialiter reprobant, pro eo quod de scripturis sanctorum canonum vel apostolica traditione non existunt. Respuant ergo et illum ymnum ab hominibus compositum quem cotidie publico privatoque officio in fine omniumpsalmorum dicimus: Gloria et honor patri et filio et spiritui sancto in saecula saeculorum. Amen. …]

XV. Quod in finem psalmorum non sicut a quibusdam gloria patri sed gloria et honor patri dicatur.

In fine psalmorum non sicut a quibusdam hucusque gloria patri, sed gloria et honor patri dicatur. David propheta docente (Ps. 29:2; 96:7): Afferte domino gloriam et honorem. Et Iohanne evangelista (cf. Rev. 5:13): Exercitus dicentium honor et gloria deo nostro sedenti in throno. Ac per hoc haec duo sic oportet in terris dici, sicut in caelis resonant. Universis igitur ecclesiasticis hanc observantiam damus, quam quisquis praeterierit communionis iacturam habebit.

This version seems to have circulated also in Ireland, as is evident from the fact that it is found, translated in Greek, on an 8th-century stone cross in County Donegal.

2.) Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus,
Dominus Deus Sabaoth:
Pleni sunt coeli et terra gloria majestatis tuae,
Osanna Filio David : Osanna in excelsis].
Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini,
Osanna in excelsis.
Agyos, Agyos, Agyos, Kyrie o Theos.]

(hear it chanted here and partly here)

The first bracketed passage is not found in the Liber Omnium Offerentium, while the second passage (a transliterated Greek version of the first part) is solely given there. NLM has done a very good analysis of the parts of the Mozarabic Mass: here is the part detailing the Offertory to the Post Sanctus.

I quote from the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The Illatio or Inlatio. This is called Praefatio in the Roman and Contestatio or Immolatio in the Gallican. With the Post-Sanctus it forms St. Isidore’s fifth prayer. There are proper Illationes to every Mass. The form is similar to the Roman Preface, but generally longer and more diffuse, as in the Gallican. It is preceded by a longer dialogue than the usual one: “Introibo ad altare Dei mei. R. Ad Deum qui laetificat juventutem meam. V. Aures ad Dominum. R. Habemus ad Dominum. V. Sursum Corda. R. Levemus ad Dominum. V. Deo ac D. N. J. C. qui est in ceelis dignas laudes, dignasque gratias referamus. R. Dignum et justum est. V. Dignum et justum est, etc.” The Illatio ends in all manner of ways, but always leading by way of the angels to the Sanctus. This is “Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, Dominus Deus Sabaoth. Pleni sunt caeli et terra gloria majestatis tune. Osanna filio David. Benedictus etc. Agyos, Agyos, Agyos, Kyrie o Theos.”

• From Mozarabic Rite

The Mozarabic Sanctus is almost the Roman one; but it has for the first Hosanna: “Osanna filio David” (more literally Matthew 21:9) and the additional exclamations “Agyos, agyos, agyos Kyrie o theos” (P.L., LXXXV, 548 cfr. 116). Milan has exactly our form. It may be noted that the Gallican and Mozarabic liturgies, following the tradition of Antioch and Jerusalem (Brightman, op. cit., pp. 19, 51), continue the Anaphora by taking up the idea of the Sanctus: “Vere sanctus, vere benedictus Dominus noster Iesus Christus” (P.L., LXXXV, 548) and so coming almost at once to the words of Institution. This prayer, which varies in each Mass, is called “Post Sanctus”, or “Vere Sanctus”. Milan has one remnant of this on Holy Saturday (Duchesne, ib. 205).

• From Sanctus

A troped version meanwhile is usually recited during Easter Sunday:

http://books.google.com/books?id=mr...oeXv3yJCHrX7mQkkcRA&ci=467,146,425,461&edge=0

Agyos, Agyos, Agyos, Kyrie o Theos.
Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus,
Dominus Deus Sabaoth:
Pleni sunt coeli et terra gloria majestatis tuae,
Osanna Filio David.
Benedictus qui venit in nomine Domini,
Osanna in excelsis.

Agyos, Agyos, Agyos.
Te Domine laudat omnis virtus coelorum,
Et exercitus angelorum.
Tibit hymnum depromunt
Melliflua carmina Sanctorum.
Tibi psalant choreae Virginum
Et coetus Confessorum.
Tibi genua curvant caelestia, terrestria, et inferna.
Laudant te, Regem omnium saeculorum:
Osanna in excelsis.

 

[patrick457]

The Priestly Fraternity of Cardinal Ximenez! I love it!

Don’t forget that the real Cardinal Ximénes was the one who helped save the rite from oblivion during the 1500’s, publishing its liturgical books and even adding a special chapel to the cathedral of Toledo for the very purpose of having a place where the rite can be celebrated. You didn’t expect the Spanish Inquisition, did you?

 

[patrick457]

3.) Dominus sit semper vobiscum - Et cum spiritu tuo.

The Lord be always with you - and with your spirit.

4.) *Crédimus in unum Deum Patrem omnipoténtem, factórem coeli et terrae, visibílium ómnium et invisibílium Conditórem.

Et in unum Dóminum nostrum Jesum Christum, Fílium Dei Unigénitum, et ex Patre natum ante ómnia sæcula; Deum ex Deo, Lumen ex Lúmine. Deum verum ex Deo vero; natum non factum, Omoúsion Patri, hoc est, ejúsdem cum Patre substántiae; per quem ómnia facta sunt, quae in caelo, et quae in terra.

Qui propter nos hómines, et propter nostram salútem, descendit de caelis, et incarnátus est de Spíritu Sancto ex María Vírgine, et homo factus est.
Passus sub Póntio Piláto, sepúltus, tértia die resurréxit, ascéndit ad caelos, sedet ad déxteram Dei Patris omnipoténtis.
Inde ventúrus est judicáre vivos et mórtuos, cujus regni non erit finis.

Et in Spíritum Sanctum, Dóminum vivificatórem, et ex Patre et Fílio procedéntem.
Cum Patre et Fílio adorándum et conglorificándum; qui locútus est per prophétas.

Et unam, sanctam, Cathólicam et Apostólicam Ecclésiam.
Confitémur unum baptísma in remissiónem peccatórum.
Expectámus resurrectiónem mortuórum, et vitam ventúri saeculi.
Amen.*

We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, Creator of all things visible and invisible.
And in one Lord, Jesus Christ, only-begotten Son of God, born of the Father before all ages. God from God; Light from Light; true God from true God; born, not made, omousion to the Father; that is, of the same substance with the Father; through Him all things were made, which are in heaven and which are on earth; who for us men, and for our salvation, came down from heaven, and was incarnate by the Holy Spirit of the Virgin Mary, and was made man. He suffered under Pontius Pilate, was buried, rose again on the third day, ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of God the Father almighty. From thence He shall come to judge the living and the dead; whose kingdom shall have no end.
And in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son (et Filio), who with the Father and the Son is adored and conglorified; who spoke through the prophets. And one, holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. We confess one Baptism for the remission of sins; we look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the age to come, Amen.

One interesting thing here is that the Mozarabic Creed was, and is recited in the first-person plural (Crédimus) as was the case with the Coptic, Ethiopian, Chaldean, and Armenian rites. This is in contrast to other Eastern and Western rites where the pronoun is changed to the singular. This of course predated ICEL’s changing of the Roman version from the singular to the plural during translation of the text.

Another is its position: the Creed is recited well after the Post-Sanctus and the Post-Pridie (corresponding to our Canon), just before the Our Father. At this time the Priest takes the consecrated Host on the paten, holds it over the uncovered chalice and and says, or sings (after a Dominus sit semper vobiscum): Fidem quam corde credimus, ore autem dicamus ‘The Faith we believe with the heart, let us then say with the mouth;’ and he then elevates the Host to show it to the people as the Credimus is sung.

According to Dom Fernand Cabrol (from The Mass of the Western Rites):

The Spanish were the first in the West to introduce the symbol of Nicea-Constantinople into the Mass. In the East the custom already existed, and in 568 Justinus the Younger made it a law. In 597 the Third Council of Toledo issued an edict: “Ut prius quam Dominica dicatur oratio, voce clara a populo” (symbolum Constantinopolitanum) “decantetur, quo fides vera,” etc. This is a fresh example of the eagerness shown by the Spanish Bishops to follow the customs of Constantinople. From Spain the usage spread into Gaul; but Rome held out long, and only yielded in the eleventh century. The true place of this symbol is in the rite of Baptism and it is not an essential element of the Mass. The Gallican churches sang it after the Gospel, at the end of the Mass of the catechumens, and this too is the place given to it by Rome. Like the Greeks and Orientals, the Spanish, by putting it at the end of the Canon, before the “Pater,” rather disturbed the general equilibrium of this part of the Mass; and, moreover, diminished accordingly the importance of the “Pater.”

 

[patrick457]

As many of you may know, one of the origins of the Filioque in the West are found in the anti-Arian situation of seventh-century Iberia: the clause was placed there to combat Arianism which was widespread back then in Visigothic Spain, which held that Jesus Christ was subordinate to the Father. The original form that this controversial clause took, however, was et Filio. The text of the Creed as it is recited today can already be found in pretty much the same form (with minor variants) in the minutes of the Third Council of Toledo, down to the homousion Patri, though et Filio is obviously still absent:

ITEM SANCTA FIDES QUAM EXPOSUERUNT CL PATRES IN CONCILIO CONSTANTINOPOLITANO.
Credimus in unum deum patrem omnipotentem factorem caeli et terrae, visibilium omnium et invisibilium conditorem, et in unum dominum Iesum Christum filium dei unigenitum, ex patre natum ante omnia saecula. Deum ex deo, lumen ex lumine, deum verum, ex deo vero. Natum non factum homousion patri, hoc est eiusdem cum patre substantiae. Per quem omnia facta sunt, quae in caelis et quae in terris sunt. Qui propter nostram salutem descendit, et incarnatus est de spiritu sancto et Maria virgine. Homo factus, passus est sup Pontio Pilato, sepultus, tertia die resurrexit. Ascendit in caelos, sedet ad dexteram patris. Iterum venturus in gloria iudicare vivos et mortuos. Cuius regni, non erit finis, et spiritum sanctum dominum et vivificantem. Ex patre procedentem, cum patre et filio adorandum et glorificandum. Qui locutus est per prophetas. Unam catholicam atque apostolicam ecclesiam. Confitemur unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum. Expectamus resurrectionem mortuorum, vitam futuri saeculi. Amen.

We can already see its genesis however in the third anathema of that same Council:

Quicumque Spiritum Sanctum non credit aut non crediderit a Patre et Filio procedere, eumque non dixerit coaeternum esse Patri et Filio et coessentialem, anathema sit.

Whoever does not believe in the Holy Spirit or does not believe that He proceeds from the Father and the Son (a Patre et Filio procedere), and does not declare that He is coeternal and coessential with the Father and the Son, let him be anathema.

The next time that the Creed is quoted (during the Eighth Council of Toledo in 653), it now carries the et Filio within the text itself:

ITEM SUBSCRIPTIO.
IN NOMINE DOMINI FLAVIUS RECCESSVINTUS rex, hanc fidei et bonę voluntatis meę deliberationem manu mea scripsi. Relecta omni pagina vel finita cum glorificassemus deum de fidei principalis auditu, et de bone voluntatis eius affectu, ad peragendum causarum ceterarum negotium statim vertimus animum, simulque sumus exorsi initium. Tunc primę narrationis exortu vere fidei nobis tractatus occurrit, incipientes de illa primitus loqui ut inde soliditatis auspicemur exordium, un sacrę sumpsimus nativitatis initium. Quatenus assertionum sanctarum forti praemissa sententia quicquid subsequenter advenerit de actis negotiorum, fortius sustinere valeat seriem decretorum. Unam itaque sacrę fidei veram professionem veramque regulam tenere nos tota virtute animi et profitemur et acclamamus, cunctisque percipiendam ac retinendam plena deliberatione incensanter prędicamus, sicut a sanctis apostolis ostensa docetur, sicut a sequentibus patribus ortodoxis diserta probatur, sicut etiam a sanctis illis synodalibus gestis vere sancteque confirmata dinoscitur, in quibus Arrii vel Euticetis insanissimus error deprehenditur et radicitus extirpatur. Sicut denique in sacris missarum sollempitatibus concordi voce profitemur ac dicimus:

Credimus in unum deum patrem omnipotentem factorem cęli et terrę visibilium omnium et invisibilium conditorem. Et in unum dominum Iesum Christum filium dei unigenitum, ex patre natum ante omnia secula, deum ex deo lumen ex lumine, deum verum, ex deo vero. Natum non factum, homousion patri, hoc est eiusdem cum patre substantiae, per ipsum omnia facta sunt quae in cęlo et quae in terra, qui propter nos et propter nostram salutem descendit, et incarnatus est de spiritu sancto, et Maria virgine. Homo factus et passus sub Pontio Pilato ac sepultus et tertia die resurrexit. Ascendit in cęlos, sedet ad dexteram patris. Inde venturus in gloria, iudicare vivos et mortuos cuius regni non erit finis. Credimus et in spiritum sanctum et vivificatorem ex patre et filio procedentem cum patre et filio adorandum et glorificandum, qui locutus est per prophetas et unam catholicam atque apostolicam ecclesiam. Confitemur unum baptisma in remissionem peccatorum, expectamus resurrectionem mortuorum, et vitam futuri sęculi [l]. Amen.

Huius sanctę fidei regula, idcirco nunc tractatus non recipit aperturam quia et a sacris doctoribus abunde constat exposita et inminentium causarum negotia nos ad alia pertrabunt [m] peragenda.​

 

[patrick457]

Just to raise this thread up: the Illatio/Inlatio for the feast of St. James:

http://books.google.com/books?id=mr...qGCoHo_QzU_ixznfyJA&ci=115,47,845,1289&edge=0

http://books.google.com/books?id=mr...uWJuu3Izp8Om0p3u29NnQ&ci=33,59,852,323&edge=0

*Dignum et justum est, nos tibi semper gratias agere: Domine sancte, Pater aeterne, omnipotens Deus, per Jesum Christum Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum: in cujus nomine electus Jacobus, cum ad passionem traheretur, paraliticum ad se clamentem curavit, atque hoc miraculo cor illudentis sibi ita compulsit, ut cum sacramentis instinctum fidei faceret ad gloriam pervenire martyrii. Sic ipse post in confessionem Filii tui capite dejecto interemptus accubuit, perveniens ad eum in pace pro quo hanc sustinuit passionem. Ipse est enim unigenitus tuus Filius: qui dedit animam suam redemptionem pro multis, per quem nostris tu, Deus Pater, jubeas parcere jam delictis. Cui merito exercitus militiae coelestis non cessant clamare ita dicentes:

Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus…*

This particular Inlatio curiously details the events recorded in a well-known tradition, that St. James cured a paralytic on his way to execution: per Jesum Christum Filium tuum, Dominum nostrum: in cujus nomine electus Jacobus, cum ad passionem traheretur, paraliticum ad se clamentem curavit, atque hoc miraculo cor illudentis sibi ita compulsit, ut cum sacramentis instinctum fidei faceret ad gloriam pervenire martyrii (“through Jesus Christ your Son, our Lord, in whose name the elect James, when he was being dragged to his passion, cured a paralytic who called out to him, and by this miracle so softened the heart of him who mocked him, as to cause him now imbued with the sacraments of faith to arrive at the glory of martyrdom.”) From the Golden Legend:

Along the road there lay a paralyzed man who called out to James, begging him to cure him. James said to him: “In the name of Jesus Christ, for whose faith I am being led to execution, stand up cured and bless your Creator!” The man stood up and blessed the Lord.
The scribe who had put the rope around James’s neck, and whose name was Josiah, saw this, knelt at the apostle’s feet, asked for his pardon, and requested that he be made a Christian. Observing this, Abiathar had him held and said to him: “Unless you curse the name of Christ, you will be beheaded with James!” Josiah answered: “Cursed be you and all your days, and blessed be the name of the Lord Jesus Christ forever!” Abiathar had him punched in the mouth, and sent a messenger to Herod to obtain an order for his beheading. While the two were waiting to be executed, James asked the headsman for a jug of water. He then baptized Jonah, and both of them had their heads stuck off and thus achieved martyrdom.

 

[patrick457]

Another is its position: the Creed is recited well after the Post-Sanctus and the Post-Pridie (corresponding to our Canon), just before the Our Father. At this time the Priest takes the consecrated Host on the paten, holds it over the uncovered chalice and and says, or sings (after a Dominus sit semper vobiscum): Fidem quam corde credimus, ore autem dicamus ‘The Faith we believe with the heart, let us then say with the mouth;’ and he then elevates the Host to show it to the people as the Credimus is sung.

Remember that originally, this was the only time when the Sacred Species were elevated within the whole Mass, something it shared with many other liturgical rites - at least before the practice of Elevation during the Words of Institution began to be practiced in some areas during the late Medieval period, eventually becoming a universal practice in the West.

The Elevation during the Words of Institution in the old liturgy were pretty much the same as in the Roman Rite, with only the minor detail of having the chalice covered with the filiola (‘little daughter’; i.e. the pall) when raising it: Hic elevetur Corpus…Hic elevetur calix coopertus cum filiola.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mr...Juu3Izp8Om0p3u29NnQ&ci=68,1188,763,146&edge=0

http://books.google.com/books?id=mr...vGCmPp4c7E0usq_fK6DQ&ci=150,73,384,612&edge=0

When the liturgical books were revised, however, the rubrics for the Consecration became ambiguous, perhaps in an effort to shake off this ‘medieval addition’ (which the revision of the Mozarabic liturgy was probably aiming for): they only prescribe that the priest take the paten and the chalice into his hands when reciting the words (Sacerdos accipit patenam cum pane et elevans oculos prosequitur…Accipiens calicem, sacerdos prosequitur), which could leave the priest free to choose whether he will elevate them or not.

You would notice another thing if you look carefully: the Words of Institution as printed on the main text of the Missal are quite different, yet in practice, the Roman Words of Institution are said in its place (and included as a footnote - see picture below). The Mozarabic version was included as the main text mainly so that they would not be lost in oblivion.

http://books.google.com/books?id=mr...GCmPp4c7E0usq_fK6DQ&ci=144,1259,798,96&edge=0

The Catholic Encyclopedia (under the article Mozarabic Rite) has this to note:

The present printed form of the Recital is that of I Cor., xi, 23-6: “D. N. J. C. in qua nocte tradebatur etc.” This agrees with the principal Eastern liturgies, but the Gallican had “Qui pridie quam pateretur” or some variant thereof, and the Mozarabic must once have had the same, possibly (as Leslie suggests) combining both datings with “Qui pridie quam pateretur” and “in ipsa nocte qua tradebatur etc.” The form in the Silos Liber Ordinum of 1052 begins as at present, and in Toledo 35.6 it begins “Quoniam Dominus Jesu in qua nocte.” It is certain that the Roman form of the Words of Institution was not used by the Spanish Church before the mission of Zannello (see above) in 924. It was then that the practice arose of saying the Roman form, instead of what was written, and that is what is done now. In the Ximenian edition the Roman Words were not printed at first, but later were printed on separate slips and gummed on to the margin. In the later editions they appear as footnotes. Elevation is ordered in the printed Missal after the Consecration of each species.

 

[patrick457]

Here meanwhile is Dom Fernand Cabrol (The Mass of the Western Rites, under the chapter The Mass in Spain) on the subject:

“Post Sanctus and Consecration.”–The title “Post Sanctus,” both in Spain and in Gaul, always designates a prayer which is a paraphrase of the “Sanctus,” and which usually begins with the words “Vere sanctus.” It is a transition from the “Sanctus” to the Consecration; and is also found, though without a title, in the Greek and Eastern liturgies. In Spain it varied daily (see, for example, P.L., col. 549).

“Vere sanctus” did not end formerly with a doxology, but went straight on to “Qui pridie,” by a short formula of this kind: “Vere sanctus, vere benedictus Dominus noster Jesus Christus qui pridie,” with the words of Institution. The “Qui pridie” was the Roman formula, as also that of the Gallican and all the Latin churches. The ancient Spanish liturgy followed the same tradition. By a change wrought in the Mozarabic liturgy at a date which cannot be fixed, one of the most audacious changes of which that rite has preserved the trace, the sacred formula was broken into by the introduction of the prayer “Adesto Jesu bone,” and by replacing the “Qui pridie,” one of the most striking and characteristic features of the Roman and other Latin liturgies, by the “In qua nocte,” which is the version followed by all the Greek and Eastern rites. What is perhaps even more extraordinary, the reformers did not try to conceal the traces of this change, but continued to call the prayer which follows the recital of the Institution, “Oratio post pridie!” …]

In the later editions of the “Missale Mixtum” a note has been added to the effect that the form of Consecration here given is only a memorial of the past, but that at the present time the Roman form must be adhered to (ibid., cols. 116, and 550, 551, note a).

Dom Ferotin gives two new texts of the words of Institution according to the Liber Mozarabicus and the Liber Ordinum," which present many variants, not only with each other but with the “Missale Mixtum.” It can be seen that Rome did not approve the version given in the “Missale Mixtum” of 1500, and substituted for it the Roman formula. That extremely rare edition of Todole preserved at the British Museum contains, fastened to the vellum, this note: “Forma ista consecrationis ponitur ne antiquitas ignoretur; sed hodie servetur Ecclesiae traditio;” and the Roman formula is then given. (This note is reproduced in P.L., cols. 116 and 550. On all this cf. Dom Ferotin, “Liber Mozarabicus,” p. xxv.) In two MSS. quoted by Dom Ferotin the words of Institution are preceded by the title “Missa secreta;” and he gives another example in which the “Post Sanctus” is called “Post Missam secretam,” which clearly show that at that time this part of the Canon was said in a low voice (ibid.).

The very tenor of this prayer shows that it interrupts the sequence of the “Vere sanctus,” and repeats the formula “Dominus noster Jesus Christus.” It is quite evidently an interpolation, a fact which has been emphasized by the greater number of modern liturgiologists since Le Brun, Binius, Lesley, Dom Ferotin, Dom Cagin, etc. But no protestations seem to have been raised in the Middle Ages; at least I do not think that any signs of them have been traced up till now. Without seeking for any other explanation, it must simply be stated that at a certain moment, assuredly later than St. Isidore and probably before the tenth century–probably also at Toledo–a Bishop thought well to borrow, from the liturgy of Constantinople, which had already lent so much to Spain, the actual form of Consecration, and this he then substituted for the ancient form which was that of Rome and of all Latin churches (P.L., loc. cit., col 549).

The actual formula, “Hoc est corpus meum,” is borrowed from I Cor. xi. 24; while the “quod pro vobis” is the translation of the Vulgate. The Roman formula, “Hoc est enim corpus meum,” conforms to that in the liturgy of St. Mark; and it seems also to have been that of the Gallican churches, at least, according to the letters of the pseudo Germain. The formula for the Consecration of the wine is borrowed from I Cor. xi. 24, and from St. Luke xxii. 20, and St. Matthew xxvi. 28. The words “Hic est calix novi Testamenti in meo sanguine” are those of an ancient Latin version different from the Vulgate; they are quoted under the same form by Sedulius Scotus and by Gregory II (see the quotation, P.L., loc. cit., col. 551). The Roman formula, “Hic est enim calix sanguinis mei,” etc., was also that of the Gallican churches. The Spanish liturgiologists of that day were not afraid to paraphrase the words of Institution in their own way. (On all this see Lesley’s note, col. 551 seq.)

It is stated in the rubrics of the recital of the Institution that there was a double elevation. The custom of the elevation is universal, but it was not practiced everywhere in the same way. That here mentioned is conformable with the usage established in France in the eleventh century, which thence spread, with certain variants, to Rome and to other churches. The Mozarabic rubric shows that the chalice was covered at the elevation; that is, covered with the “palla,” or veil, sometimes called the “Offertorium,” because it had been used to collect the offerings of the faithful at the Oblation. This was formerly the Roman custom when the elevation took place at the end of the Canon after the “Per ipsum” (cf. the first “Ordo Romanus” of Mabillon, note 16, and the “Ordo” published by Hittorp).

 

[patrick457]

(continued)


The entrance to the Capilla Mozarabe (Mozarabic Chapel) in the Cathedral of Toledo.

Another rubric which prescribes the words “In meam commemorationem” and “In claritatem de celis” to be said aloud would give the impression that the actual words of the Institution were to be said in a low voice. But Lesley thinks with apparent reason that this rubric is recent, and that the Spanish, like the French, said these words aloud. As to the words “In claritatem de celis,” they are another peculiarity of the Mozarabic rite. On Holy Thursday the Epistle was read from I Cor. xi. 20-34. After the words “mortem Domini annunciabitis donec veniat” they added this variant: “in claritatem de celis” taken from the liturgy, but which does not exist in the Vulgate, or in the Greek, or in any other version with which we are acquainted (see P.L., col. 409, for the text of the Epistle, and col. 552 for the rubric).

Finally, here is how the Words of Institution (as it is now called) appear in the revised liturgy:

*Oratio Post Sanctus concluditur verbis «…ac Redemptor æternus», vel simili quadam formula, quæ inmediate connectitur cum Enarratione Institutionis: *

Qui prídie quam paterétur,
accépit panem
Sacerdos accipit patenam cum pane et elevans oculos prosequitur:
et grátias agens,
benedíxit ac fregit,
dedítque discípulis suis, dicens:

Accípite et manducáte:
Hoc est Corpus meum
quod pro vobis tradétur.
Quotiescúmque manducavéritis,
hoc fácite in meam commemoratiónem.

Omnes respondent: Amen.

Sacerdos patenam in altare deponit. Accipiens calicem, sacerdos prosequitur:

Simíliter et cálicem
postquam cenávit dicens.
Hic est calix novi testaménti
in meo Sánguine
qui pro vobis et pro multis effundétur
in remissiónem peccatórum.
Quotiescúmque bibéritis,
hoc fácite in meam commemoratiónem.
Omnes respondent: Amen.

Sacerdos calicem in altare deponit. Extensis manibus dicit:

Quotiescúmque manducavéritis panem hunc
et cálicem istum bibéritis,
mortem Dómini annuntiábitis
donec véniat in claritáte de cælis.

Omnes acclamant: Sic crédimus, Dómine Iesu.
Deinde Sacerdos extensis manibus Orationem Post Pridie recitat vel cantat. Let’s note the following:

1. *]The ‘Qui pridie’ formula (which Dom Cabrol talks about) and its unity with the Post-Sanctus is ‘restored’, at the expense of the ‘Adesto, adesto’ and the ‘Dominus noster Jesus Christus, in qua nocte tradebatur’.
   *]As I mentioned earlier, the rubrics are now ambiguous as to what the celebrant will do during the consecration: now he is only commanded by them to take the paten/chalice into his hands as he is reciting the Institution narrative, with no explicit command that he elevate them (but with nothing forbidding their elevation either).
   *]The Words of Institution themselves were now restored to the ‘Mozarabic’ form (i.e. the one that was printed as the text but was not used at all in the old liturgy) instead of the Roman.
   *]The revised text and rubrics assume that the Words would be said out loud throughout, as evidenced by the responses the congregation will say (Amen and Sic crédimus, Dómine Iesu); this is in comparison to before, where the rubrics prescribe that the priest recite the words in meam commemorationem and in claritate[m] de caelis aloud during feastdays (alta voce omnibus diebus preter festivis; again, see above citation from Dom Cabrol).

 

[Spirithound]

Don’t forget that the real Cardinal Ximénes was the one who helped save the rite from oblivion during the 1500’s, publishing its liturgical books and even adding a special chapel to the cathedral of Toledo for the very purpose of having a place where the rite can be celebrated.

How did this chapel differ from the altar where the Roman Rite was celebrated?

 

[Tradycja]

Has anyone been to Toledo, Spain? I lived in Madrid for two years and have been to Toledo a few times. I was there for Corpus Christi. Quite impressive! The largest monstrance in the world.

 

[patrick457]

How did this chapel differ from the altar where the Roman Rite was celebrated?

Appearance-wise, there seems to be no major difference between a Mozarabic altar and a Roman one. The main difference that the Capilla del Corpus Christi (aka the Capilla Mozárabe) has, of course, is that it was especially set aside for the celebration of the Eucharist according to the rite.

In the chapel, thirteen chaplains headed by a capellán mayor (head chaplain) were to conduct a daily celebration of the liturgy, a tradition which apparently still goes on today. Cardinal Ximénes de Cisneros required that the chaplains be of good character and well-versed in the recitation and singing of the Mozarabic liturgy. Assisting these chaplains during Mass and the Offices was a sacristán, also required to be a priest himself), who in turn was assisted by two altar boys (aka clerizones, monaguillos, mazos sirvientes) - all of whom were (obviously) required to attend the daily Mass. The sacristan also had the job of holding the candles when necessary and preparing the daily table of offices for each week. The prayers were to be led by the hebdomadario.

The foundation of the chapel was approved by Pope Julius II on 20 September of 1508 with the Bull Admonet nos. Ten days later (30 September), Cardinal Cisneros signed the last piece of legislation for the chapel’s foundation and assigned the name of Corpus Christi to it. The constitutions detailed the norms for sung Mass and the Mass of seis capas for which the sacristan and the clerizones were to dress. A perpetual lamp was to be kept burning in the chapel, and candles were to be kept burning during the services. The capellán mayor was to preside; in his absence, one of the other twelve with the greatest seniority would take his place. The chapel was to pay part of its income to the main cathedral to ensure its upkeep and proper administration. The cabildo (council) of the cathedral had the right to name inspectors to the chapel, and the chapel’s income was to be used to pay for these visits.

The constitutions were signed at 18 September of 1508 by maestrescuela Fernando Alvarez de Toledo and Antonio García de Villalpando, capellán mayor of the cathedral, at Alcalá de Henares. As compensation for the acquisition of the cathedral council’s meeting room (which formed part of the chapel), Cardinal Cisneros agreed to underwrite the construction of a new meeting room for the cabildo. The daily needs of the chapel (for example, necessary items such as wax, hosts, wine and oil) were to be provided by the main cathedral in perpetuity, while the payments for these and other items - say, chalices, vestments, ornaments, and liturgical books - were to be furnished by the Obra y Fábrica. The first Mass in the chapel was said on 15 July 1511.