We must not suppose that the Roman Liturgy as we have it now was struck off at one time. The Roman Liturgy, like all liturgies, is a growth. We can trace with more or less clearness the process of its formation from century to century. The main features, of course, reach back unchanged to the earliest times, but even in our own days it is growing and developing through the addition of new observances and the modification of old rules.
The essential portions of all the liturgies were instituted by our Lord Himself. It is from Him, for instance, we have directly the words of Consecration and the method of Baptism. Moreover, the many features which are common to all the liturgies, if they do not come directly from our Saviour, must descend at least from the Apostles. Otherwise, it would be impossible to explain how these particular features were adopted by so many different peoples, especially as in other features they show so great a diversity. These other features form a large part of the liturgies, and came into use at various times according to the needs and tastes of the various peoples.
One fact which contributed not a little to the diversity of rites was that originally liturgies were not committed to writing. During the first three hundred years of her existence the Church was bitterly persecuted by the heathen. Hence she was compelled to take on the character of a secret society. Acting on the advice of our Lord not to cast pearls before swine, Christians were forbidden to reveal to pagans the more sacred and mysterious doctrines of their religion. This law is called the Discipline of the Secret (Disciplina Arcani). Not only did the law hold in speaking, but also in writing. Hence the Liturgy, which contains and makes clear all those high doctrines, was not put in writing, lest it should fall into the hands of the unbelievers, and a special cause for this rule was that the persecutors raided the meetings of the Christians in search of their sacred books. Of course, one cannot say that in all these three hundred years the law was observed with equal strictness everywhere, and by all; but we can say that, as a general rule, those whose business it was to conduct public worship had to trust to their memory for those portions of the divine service that were not taken from the Bible.
From this fact one of the earliest results was that the words which were originally the same were changed. It is found that when writing is copied by hand the copy is never exactly the same as the original. The most diligent watchfulness can hardly guard against some alterations. As copy is made from copy, the alterations increase in number, so that after several transcriptions there are found some really substantial changes. Now, if this is possible in writing, where the words are under our eyes, how easy is it for the same thing to occur where we rely entirely on memory. Some words are dropped, equivalent words are substituted, explanatory words are added, so that after a few generations different people have different versions of what was originally the same. More over, the order in which passages occur or ceremonies are observed is disturbed. There are transpositions, so that what was done at the beginning of the services appears at the middle or the end. There are omissions, so that what appears in one function disappears from another. For example, the Kiss of Peace was originally given at the beginning of the Mass; in the Roman Liturgy it appears before the Communion; in dead Masses it disappears altogether.
Another cause of change in the Liturgy is what we may call "Emphasis of Ceremonies." It is the custom of the Church to teach by means of object lessons. She not only puts her doctrine into words, but as far as possible she puts it into actions. Thus, for example, when in early days she had to teach that the Man who died on the Cross was our God and our Redeemer, she not only preached Christ crucified, but she took the Cross itself and made it an object lesson of that truth. The Christians were taught to reverence the Cross, to sign it upon themselves, to wear it on their clothes, to mark it on their houses, and, in fact, to remind themselves by its continual use that in the Cross of Christ was their salvation.
Now, it is a characteristic of the Church that she emphasizes her doctrines chiefly when they are attacked. As long as the truth of her teaching is not called in question, she goes on quietly with her work of instruction and saving souls. But, let one of her doctrines be denied, she springs immediately to its defense. Those who thus deny some of the teachings of the Church are called heretics, and it is against heresy she has been battling since the beginning. As we have seen above, she teaches not only by word, but also by object lessons, and many of her prayers and ceremonies are simply protests against false doctrine and lessons of the true faith.
Thus, for instance, the first great heresy denied that Jesus Christ was God, co-equal and co-eternal with the Father. Arius was its founder, and the heresy is known as Arianism, and its followers are called Arians. In the year 325 the Council of Nice drew up a Creed or form of belief against the Arians. In 381 an addition was made to this Creed against those who denied the divinity of the Holy Ghost. It is commonly known as the Nicene Creed, and is a profession of faith in the Holy Trinity, or one God in three Divine Persons, really distinct and equal in all things, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost. As a prophylactic against heresy, this Creed was inserted in the Liturgy in some countries, and its use gradually spread through all the world, in order to remind the people on the Sundays and the great festivals of the true faith once delivered to the saints. The "Glory be to the Father," said at the end of the Psalms, owed its origin to the same attempt to counteract Arianism. In the eleventh century, Berengarius denied the doctrine of Transubstantiation. Not content with condemning his heresy, the Church introduced first the elevation of the Host and then the elevation of the Host and Chalice immediately after the Consecration, as a solemn protest against his error. This object lesson or ceremony is well calculated to teach us that the same Jesus Christ who was lifted up on the Cross is also lifted up on our altars, and that He who is adored in heaven is also really and truly present to be adored on earth under the appearances of bread and wine. Four centuries later the early Protestants who denied the Real Presence made their attacks first on the Elevation and then on the Mass itself. Lingard tells us that when Elizabeth of England, who pretended to be a Catholic, until she succeeded to the throne, wishing to give a hint of her real sentiments, ordered the Bishop of Carlisle, who was preparing to say Mass in the royal chapel on Christmas day, "not to elevate the Host in the royal presence. He replied that his life was the queen's, but that his conscience was his own, on which Elizabeth, rising immediately after the gospel, retired with her attendants."
Another cause of difference in liturgies is a taste for ceremonies. Some people like ceremonies in abundance. This is especially true of the Eastern nations, and consequently we find that the Eastern liturgies are very long and complicated. In deed, it must be said that the Irish influence on the Western Liturgy was almost oriental. The spirit of Rome, however, remained naturally in the ascendant, and the spirit of Rome was always simple and sparing of words and ceremonies, though, of course, recognizing their full value in public worship. In the Roman Liturgy, as a matter of fact, we have two classes of services, the types of which are the Low Mass and the High Mass. In the Low Mass everything in the way of ceremonies is reduced to a minimum, while in the High Mass much of the ancient pomp and circumstance is retained.
- taken from The Mass, by Father Peter Christopher Yorke