This is a concise but comprehensive guide that teaches readers about the Roman liturgy. From the preface: "This book is intended to supply information about the history of the Roman liturgy. The dogmatic side of the Mass is discussed by the Bishop of Newport in the same series. The title shows that it is a study of the Roman rite. It is only in the Roman (or Gallican) rite that the Eucharistie service can correctly be called Mass. The chapter about other liturgies md the frequent references to them throughout are meant only ...
Read More
This is a concise but comprehensive guide that teaches readers about the Roman liturgy. From the preface: "This book is intended to supply information about the history of the Roman liturgy. The dogmatic side of the Mass is discussed by the Bishop of Newport in the same series. The title shows that it is a study of the Roman rite. It is only in the Roman (or Gallican) rite that the Eucharistie service can correctly be called Mass. The chapter about other liturgies md the frequent references to them throughout are meant only to put our Roman Mass in its proper perspective and to illustrate its elements by comparison. In spite of the risk of repetition, the clearest plan seemed to be to discuss first the origin and development of the Mass in general; and then to go through the service as it stands now, adding notes to each prayer and ceremony. The present time is perhaps hardly the most convenient for attempting a history of the Mass. For never before have there been so many or so various theories as to its origin, as to the development of the Canon, the Epiklesis and so on. Where the best authorities differ so widely it would be absurd to pretend to offer a final solution. I have no pretence of supplying a new answer to any of these questions, or even of taking a side finally among theories already proposed. The only reasonable course seems to be to state the chief systems now defended and to leave the reader to make up his own mind. I have however shewn some preference for the main ideas of Dr. Drews and Dr. Baumstark and for certain points advanced by Dr. Buchwald. And I have added a few general remarks on the points which seem to me to be fairly established. But this has not, I think, prevented a fair statement of other theories; nor should it make it more difficult for the reader to see the present state of the difficult questions. I doubt if it be possible to think of a solution of the main question (the order of the Canon) which has not yet been proposed, or of one that has not some difficulties. At any rate I have thought of none such."
Read Less
