The Rest is Said in Praise to God: Aquinas on the Rites of the Mass (Pt 1) | Fr. Innocent Smith OP

My presentations today are titled "The Rest is Said in Praise to God, Thomas Aquinas on the Rights of the Mass." Do this in memory of me. At the last supper, Christ invites His apostles to imitate His action of breaking bread and offering wine. Soon after His resurrection, during His encounter with the two disciples on the road to Emmaus, after explaining the scriptures to them, Christ again takes bread, says the blessing, breaks it, and gives it to them. With that, their eyes were opened, and they recognized Him, but He vanished from their sight. Returning to Jerusalem to meet the eleven apostles, the two recounted what had taken place on the way, and how He was made known to them in the breaking of the bread. This afternoon, we are gathered to study the ways in which the medieval Dominican, St. Thomas Aquinas, found the Eucharistic liturgy to be a place of encounter with Christ and the mysteries of the Christian faith. Aquinas, in addition to being a theologian and Dominican friar, was a priest. Each day, He celebrated Mass, sometimes serving a Mass in addition to celebrating Himself, and participated in the divine office, whether privately with His own briefyory, or together with His brothers in choir. While we do not know exactly when He was ordained the priesthood, the stories told by His contemporaries, attest to His priestly devotion and love of the liturgy of the church and of the order of preachers. In addition to these external testimonies, however, His writings reveal a great love of the liturgy, as a source for theological reflection. Countless times throughout His writings, He appeals to this or that liturgical text or action, as a way of pondering more deeply the mysteries of God and of our worship of God. Thomas, like all theologians studying at Paris in his day, devoted several years of his life to commenting on the sentences of Peter Lombard. Although this was a common tradition by Thomas's day, each theologian had a certain degree of freedom in terms of what he chose to focus on, through while working through the massive text of the Master of the Sentences. In the context of his commentary on the Eucharistic distinction 8 of Book 4 of Peter Lombard Sentences, Thomas made a very unusual choice. He chose to give a thorough account of the order and prayers of the Mass. 20 years later, while writing the Summa Theologie, Thomas concluded his treatise on the Eucharist in the Turtziapars, with another commentary on the rights of the Mass. In today's talk, I'm going to introduce you to these two accounts of the liturgy. I'm going to do this in a synthetic way, drawing on the unique insights of each account, while showing both the advances made in the later text of the Summa, as well as the insights offered by the earlier sentences commentary, that for one reason or another, Thomas decided not to repeat in the Summa. As I go through Thomas's commentary, I will at times draw on the writings of Thomas's predecessors, attempting in this way to distinguish between what was original to a coiness, and what was shared with the earlier tradition of liturgical commentary. Due to limitations of time, I won't be able to give a thorough account of the sources of each element of Thomas's commentaries. But I hope that by giving a representative sample, I'll be able to convey a sense of both Thomas's originality, as well as his indebtedness to the earlier tradition. In the first talk, I will focus on the first half of the Mass, from the beginning through the Creed, and in the second talk, I'll cover the authoratory through the conclusion. To begin with, I'd like to give just a brief overview of the history of what I call liturgical exegesis, the action of reflecting on and explaining the liturgical prayers and rights of the church. Since the first Eucharist on Holy Thursday, Jesus has continually imbued the memorial offering of His sacrifice, with the power to make Himself known to those who taste and see the goodness of the Lord. From the earliest days of the church, Christians have striven to understand what they are doing and receiving, when the memorial of the Lord is offered, and they have used the experience and reality of the Eucharist, as a way of understanding of a variety of aspects of the life of the church. Consider, for instance, St. Paul's reference to the one loaf of bread, received by all, as a way of understanding the unity of the members of the one body of the church. Early Christian texts such as the Didache and the letters of St. Ignatius Vantioch reflect the fruit of careful reflection on the mystery of the Eucharist, while the first apology of Justin Martyr gives an early account of the shape of the Eucharist, already tinged with theological reflection. In the 4th century, patristic writers in East and West wrote commentaries on the rights of the church, particularly for the benefit of those being newly initiated into the church, for instance the catechetical instructions of Cyril of Jerusalem, or the Desacrementis of St. Ambrose of Milan. Ambrose's discussion in particular of the words of institution was in fact the occasion for Aquinas' commentary on the Mass in the commentary on the sentences. Peter Lombard took a portion of Ambrose's text and presented it in an adapted form that contrasts the words of consecration with the rest of the words said in the Mass. As Lombard quotes Ambrose, "Through the rest of all that is said, praise is given to God. Prayer is put forward for the people and for kings." In this commentary, in his commentary on this passage of the sentences, Aquinas offers about 2,000 words of commentary on this phrase. He has a lot to say about the rest of all that is said. In addition to Ambrose, St. Augustine can be said to have inaugurated an important tradition of liturgical exegesis by connecting the prayers of the Mass with St. Paul's instruction in one Timothy 2 that "supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be upmade for all men." A tradition that Thomas draws on several times in his writings. In the centuries that followed, liturgical exegesis continued to flourish in both West and East. For our purposes, several important authors should be mentioned that are important for understanding Thomas's place in the history of liturgical exegesis. On the first page of your handout that is titled "Liturgical Exegesis," you'll find references to each of these authors. Some of their names may be unfamiliar, but I've given the editions where you can read their texts as well as a little bit about them. In the 9th century, Amalarius of Metz wrote an important commentary on the liturgy called the Libre Ophigialis, the Book of Offices, that had an enormous influence on later commentary. At the same time, Amalarius' contemporary, Flores of Lyon, criticized the allegorical interpretations of Amalarius, putting forward a more literally-minded rival commentary on the liturgy. There have all been polemics. After several centuries of further commentaries developed a corpus of interrelated exegesis of each part of the mass. The 12th century saw a new flourishing in the works of three liturgists who were also canonists. John Belef, who died in 1182, Lothar of Seigne, who later was made Pope Innocent III, and Cicard of Cremona. In addition to these canonists, there were also proper theologians who chose to focus on liturgical texts as well, such as Prepozetinus of Cremona, a preposterous name, author of the Tractodist-Day of Echiees. Aquinas was clearly familiar with many of the ideas put forward by these writers, although due to the interwoven nature of the genre of liturgical exegesis, it's sometimes difficult to determine the precise source of commonly held ideas. Closer to Aquinas' own day, various writers continued to write liturgical commentary, including the Dominican hue of St. Cher. In one sense, the Dominican tradition of hageographical writing about the lives of the saints that culminated with the golden legend of James of Aragine could be said to be a form of liturgical exegesis, as it was explicitly centered on the church's liturgical calendar. When Thomas comes to write about the rights of the mass in the sentences commentary, then in the early 1250s, he already had a wealth of material to draw on in addition to his own experience of the liturgy. My hope is that by drawing attention to the fruits of Thomas's synthesis of the tradition of liturgical exegesis, we may be aided as we participate ourselves in the liturgy of the church in its various forms. Now I'm going to begin the first half of the doc, which is focused on the mass of the catacumans, or the liturgy of the word, the first half of the mass. You might follow along with the two handouts I've given you. It's a bit to juggle, but after that page of the list of liturgical exegesis, I've given you in one of the handouts all of the texts that were used in the Dominican liturgy, or at least many of them. And I've put in bold and given footnote references to all the places where Aquinas quotes particular texts. As you can see just by glancing through this handout, he really quotes quite a bit. bit of the various texts of the mass. This shouldn't be seen as an exhaustive list of all of the places where he does so. And then in the other handout, I've given you a somewhat parallel set going through the rights of the mass that contains only the quotations that I'm going to focus on. In fact, there's more that Thomas has to say, but I'm condensing to focus on, I think the most important parts because of all of this material to cover. So you're welcome to follow with one or the other, both. After beginning his scriptum exposition, the scriptum is what I'm going to use to refer to the commentary on the sentences, called in Latin the scriptum supersintensity es. After beginning his scriptum exposition with some general comments about who says what parts of the liturgy, Thomas begins his commentary on the mass itself by observing that because each of our actions are begun by God and ought to be completed in him in a circular mode, the office of the mass thus begins in prayer and is ended in thanksgiving. Our actions begin in God and should be completed in him. Thomas appears to be alluding to a prayer said by Dominicans each day at the office of preziosa after prime. Some before all our actions by your inspiration, we deceit you, O Lord, and follow after by your help. That all our works may always begin in you and having begun may be completed in you through Christ our Lord. In the 16th century, this prayer was incorporated into the Dominican Missile to be said by the priest before all his other actions at the altar. In Thomas's day it was not yet mandated as part of the Dominican Missile, but it might have been said as a private prayer by many priests before celebrating mass. There's some evidence to that effect. In any event, it's striking that from the very beginning of his commentary, Thomas is using the liturgy to interpret the liturgy in a way strikingly parallel to the tradition of using the Bible to interpret the Bible in patristic and medieval scriptural exegesis. So now turning to the mass itself, I'll focus on the introit first of all. Just to give you a warning, during the introit coverage, I'm going to go pretty deeply into the roots of Thomas' commentary on this part. As I said earlier, I don't have time to go into the roots of everything, but I figure with the introit, there's a lot to say about it and you can keep in mind this general pattern of how Thomas is reflecting on what's come before, but giving his own spin on it. In Thomas's scriptum, the first part of the mass is understood to be a matter of preparation for prayer and prayer itself. In this account, the people are prepared for prayer first through the introit, then the curie, then the gloria. So this is what he says, "First they are prepared through devotion, which is stirred up by the introit. Thus it is taken from somewhere pertaining to the solemnity in whose devotion the people is gathered, and the psalm is also added." In the summa, Thomas expands his articulation of the role of the introit. The first part of this preparation is divine praise, which is done in the introit, according to that psalm, "A sacrifice of praise will honor me, and in that way I will reveal to him the salvation of God." And this is taken in most cases from the psalms, or as at least son with the psalm, because as Dionysius says in the third chapter of his ecclesiastical hierarchy, the psalms comprehend through the mode of praise whatever is contained in the holy scripture. There are three significant differences between these two accounts. First, the scriptum focuses on the devotion engendered by singing the introit, whereas the summa focuses on the introit as an expression of praise of God. In other words, the scriptum has a more subjective focus on what is engendered by the introit, what happens to those who sing or hear it, whereas the summa has a more objective focus on what the introit is in itself. In the sense, these are two sides of the same coin. The introit is divine praise, and by praising God, devotion is increased in those who praise God, or hear his praise as sung. Elsewhere in the scriptum, it may be noted, Thomas directly describes the character of the introit as an expression of praise of God, so he has both understandings at this point. In his questions on distinction 15 of book four, where he treats the divisions of prayer more broadly, Thomas makes an analogy between the importance of the beginning of a speech in rhetoric with the beginning of a prayer to God, "Just as in rhetorical speech there is a beginning part, thus also in prayer poured forth to God, hence the introit is chanted in the mass." Second, the scriptum focuses on the texts of the introits with respect to their appropriateness for the solemnity being celebrated, mentioning the addition of a psalm verse almost as an afterthought, and the psalm is also added. In the summa, Thomas accurately comments that the antipon is, in most cases, taken from the psalms, or as at least sung with the psalm. Each account draws out helpful points. The scriptum reminds us of the church's wisdom in having artfully chosen particular texts that harmonize with the solemnities of the liturgical year. Whereas the summa reminds us that the psalms are the primary source of this artful arrangement and gives an interesting suggestion as to why this would be the case. The psalms comprehend through the mode of praise whatever is contained in the holy scripture. Finally, it's significant to note that Thomas alludes to two authorities in the summa account that are not mentioned in the scriptum. First, he quotes a psalm in order to describe the purpose of using psalms in the liturgy. Second, he quotes pseudo-dianistias using that author's Hermannudicral principle to inform his liturgical commentary. It is not that Thomas has newly discovered pseudo-dianistias. This appears frequently in the scriptum, yet now Thomas has found a helpful principle that he can add to his more developed liturgical exegesis. It is interesting to compare Thomas' succinct accounts of the introid with those given by his predecessors. In Amalarius' Ninth Century commentary, a very long account of the introid is given that combines both the description of the ritual procession of the bishop and his ministers with the description of the chant itself. Amalarius emphasizes the Psalms as the source of the text of the introid, giving a testimony derived from the Lieber Pontificalis, that an early source of biographies of the popes. That in the fifth century, Pope Celestine added the introid to the mass and established that all the Psalms should be said antifinally before the sacrifice. Modern scholars continue to debate what exactly this line means, whether it was before the sacrifice is in the second part of the mass with the canon itself or whether the sacrifice refers to the whole mass. So people debate whether this source of the Lieber Pontificalis accurately describes the introid, but that aside, Amalarius testifies to the rhetorical power and pleasure that comes from the Psalms. Christ sent heralds in the Old Testament who gathered his people through the sweet harmony of their voice to the worship of the one God, their founder was David. For Amalarius, whoever is drawn to God is drawn by pleasure, not necessity, thus because the intentionally pleasurable aspect of the introid, its singing is entrusted to those who can sing it beautifully. And so the sweet voice of canters is devoted to this task that with its sweetness, it may be fit to call the people to confess the Lord. In this passage, Amalarius is emphasizing the role of the introid and rousing devotion in the people, which in turn leads to them confessing the Lord. Later in his treatment of the introid, Amalarius also brings out the praise aspect of the introid. The ministry of the canters resounds with praise. In addition to capturing these elements of the introid, later described by Thomas, Amalarius also makes several valuable comments that Thomas does not convey in his treatment. For instance, Amalarius makes an illuminating comment about the significance of the glory of poetry sung after the psalm verses in the introid. The canters progress from the Old Testament and know through God's wisdom to praise God as Trinity, as they say, glory to the Father and to the Son and to the Holy Spirit. For Amalarius, the structure of the introid, with its Old Testament, psalm, antiphon, and verse, followed by a Christian doxology, and completed by a repetition of the Old Testament verse, is itself a testimony to the interrelation of the Old and New Testaments. Reading several centuries after Amalarius in the mid-twelfth century, Ciccard of Cromona draws on the tradition that Gregory the Great had composed the chance of the Mass. The canters and two choirs take up the task of thanksgiving by singing the introid for the occasion, together with the verse and the glory of poetry. Gregory, so as to represent in a better way, the joy of coming of the coming of Christ, composed tropes and antiphons for the introid for modulating the psalms. Hence the first verse of that song is sung with Gloria, which best pertains to the to the day, hence it is that the introit is rarely taken except from the solter. Here we find, as in Thomas's later account, an emphasis on the careful selection of the text of the introit. The texts are chosen pro-temporay for the season or occasion, and the solmes are chosen that best pertain to the day at hand. Here we find an earlier articulation of the tradition which Thomas bears witness to, by emphasizing the careful selection of texts for the antifans. Shortly before the article of the summa containing Thomas' commentary on the mass, Thomas had already given a fascinating account of the appropriateness of the text chosen for the introit in response to the question about whether it's appropriate to celebrate mass more than once on a particular day. Thomas raises the case of Christmas Day, where since at least the time of Gregory the Great, three masses are celebrated, each with a different set of chance, prayers and readings. This is, I've given you this quotation on your handout. On the day of the Nativity, several masses are celebrated, on account of the threefold Nativity of Christ. Of these, one Nativity is eternal, which, insofar as we are concerned, is hidden. And therefore, one masses sung in the night, in whose introit is said, "The Lord said to me, 'You are my son, today I have begotten you,'" - Dominus Steeck's seat. Another Nativity is of time, but in a spiritual mode, by which name-late Christ rises like the morning star in our hearts, as is said in 2 Peter 1. And on account of this, a masses sung in the morning, in whose introit is said, 'The light will shine upon us, Luke's full javit.' The third Nativity is the temporal and bodily Nativity of Christ, according to which he processes to us in a visible mode from the virginal womb, having put on flesh. And on account of this, a third mass is chanted, in full light, in whose introit is said, 'A boy is born to us, poor Natus.' The introit, Dominus Steeck's seat, of the midnight mass, is taken from Psalm 2. The Lord said to me, 'You are my son, I have begotten you, today.' And in the verse goes, 'Why do the nations conspire and the peoples plot in vain?' St. Thomas associates this chant with the eternal birth of the Word of God, which is hidden in our regard because it takes place eternally before the creation of men or angels. And thus he explains that the chant is fittingly sung in the night. This chant brings to mind the dignity of the Son of God, and reminds us that the child whose human birth we celebrate on Christmas is truly God from all eternity. The introit of the Don mass, Luke's full jabit, is adapted from Isaiah 9 and 9-2 and Isaiah 9-6-7. Radiant light will shine upon us today, for the Lord is born to us. He shall be called, 'Wonderful, God, Prince of Peace, Father of the world to come. His reign shall have no end.' In the verse, the Lord reigns, he is enrobed with majesty, the Lord is clothed with strength, he has girded himself. The scriptural text has been adapted here by the church to connect the shining of the light with the birth of the child, who in this chant is not called a boy or infant, but rather dominoes, Lord. The chant explains that the light will shine on us today because the Lord is born for us. Jesus is the true light which enlightens every man that was coming into the world. The birth of Jesus enlightens his fellow men. St. Thomas associates this chant with the spiritual nativity of Christ in the hearts of men and women. The second nativity of Christ is his spiritual nativity in time, whereby Christ rises as the day star in our hearts and on this account of the Mass' song it dawn. Finally, the Mass of the day, in Troy, where not to zest, is also adapted from Isaiah 9/6, with the verse taken from Psalm 97. Unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given, dominion is on his shoulder, and his name shall be called the angel of great counsel, sing unto the Lord a new song for he has accomplished wondrous deeds. St. Thomas writes that the third nativity of Christ is his temporal and bodily birth, according as he went forth from the virginal womb, becoming visible to us through being clothed with flesh, and on that account the third Mass is sung in broad daylight in the introid of which we say a child is born to us. Although this chant is taken from the same section of Isaiah as the previous one, here we find more of a focus on the human nature of Christ. The Mass at dawn spoke of the Lord being given to us. Now we hear that a child or a boy is born to us, and a son is given to us. In articulating the relation of these three introids to the three nativities of Christ, Thomas is in fact a drawing on a long tradition of liturgical exegesis while offering his own variation on the tradition. In the mid-12th century, Metralus, Cicard of Cromona, links the three masses of Christmas with two nativities of Christ, the eternal nativity and the temporal nativity, as he writes, "The first Mass pertains to the generation which happens secretly, that is from the substance of the Father, which is of the Father without a mother; therefore in the night is sung, who will describe this generation." The second Mass pertains to that generation which is from the womb of the virgin, which is of a mother without a father. Therefore it is said at daybreak, because men have a somewhat full notion of the law from that birth. Therefore at that Mass is sung, the light will shine upon us because the Lord is given to us. The third Mass pertains to both the eternal and temporal births. So we can see here at least one element that's very close to Thomas, that is the association of the midnight Mass with the eternal generation of Christ, and yet the other two associations are quite different. In the 12th century, Tato Stéophicius, by the Parisian theologian Positinus of Cromona, the author provides several accounts of the symbolism of the three masses of Christmas, about three or four, if I recall. According to this author, there are in fact four nativities of the Savior, the eternal nativity from the Father, the temporal nativity from the mother, the temporal nativity in the mother, and the spiritual nativity in the hearts of the faithful. The two nativities, having to do with the mother, appear to be associated with the incarnation, that is the moment of the annunciation of Mary, as well as the birth of Christ. Although Positinus articulates the fourth nativity briefly, he states that he will not treat of it further in connection with the three masses of Christmas. Instead, he links the midnight Mass to the eternal nativity, the dawn Mass to the incarnation, and the day Mass to the nativity of Christ itself. With this background in view, we are in a better position to appreciate the uniqueness of Thomas' account of the three masses of Christmas. He has not invented the tradition of associating the three masses with the nativities of Christ, yet his account that links them with the eternal, temporal, and spiritual nativities, emphasizes the earlier accounts in a creative and logical way. If we read Thomas without attending to this context, we miss out on what makes his contribution so unique. He is offering, he is well aware of the thought of his predecessors, while at the same time, it feels a freedom to offer his own contributions to the exegetical tradition. In fact, Thomas' articulation of these three nativities has had a long lasting impact on that same exegetical tradition. So for instance, the 14th century Dominican mystic, Uonus Taller, incorporates this teaching into his own preaching. In the 16th century Roman Catechism, which frequently bears the marks of Thomas, the theme of spiritual nativity is taken up. With the text advising us that all Christians should take care, lest it should happen that just as there was no room for him in the end, Bethlehem, in which to be born. So likewise now, after he has been born in the flesh, he should find no room in our hearts in which to be born spiritually. In the 19th century, the Benedictine Dom Gaelier adapted the idea of a threefold nativity into his widely read liturgical year, although he argued, on the basis of the gospel pericopies, that the midnight mass represents Christ's human birth, the dawn mass, his spiritual birth, and the daytime mass, his eternal birth from the father. So exactly the opposite. When received much than from the prior exegetical tradition, Thomas in turn became one of the most important voices in that same tradition. Or I shouldn't say one of the most important, but one important voice. As we continue with the rest of Aquinas' commentary, we won't have time to go into as much detail about the prior history of each of his ideas. But this example shows the multifaceted history of his comments on the introit and his particular introit usage. It gives a sense of the depth that undergirds many of his succinct comments. As we proceed, I will, for the most part, focus on Thomas' two commentaries on the scriptum and the summa, but bear in mind that much of what he says has deeper roots. So now moving on to the curier. Thomas continues his description of the preparation for the prayer of the call act by describing the role of the curiae in preparing for prayer. So in the in the scriptum, secondly through humility, which is brought about through the Lord half mercy, because by asking for mercy they profess themselves to be in misery. This is said nine times on account of the nine orders of angels or on account of faith and the trinity, given that each person may be considered in himself, as well as in relation to the other two. In the suma we hear this. The second part contains a commemoration of present misery when mercy is prayed for by saying, Lord half mercy three times for the person of the father, three times for the person of the son, when Christ half mercy is said, and three times for the person of the Holy Spirit, when Lord half mercy is added, this is against the threefold misery of ignorance, guilt and punishment, or to signify that all the persons are mutually related in themselves. Here both accounts relate the curiae to present misery. The scriptum relates the curiae to an expression of humility, which the suma does not explicitly mention. However, the suma adds the notion that the curiae is related to the threefold misery of ignorance, guilt and punishment. The scriptum also brings in the idea that the curiae is related to the nine orders of angels, which the suma does not mention. Finally, both accounts present a brief trinitarian theology of the relationality of the three persons. The three sets of each statement are related to each of the three persons, and their relation with one another. In both accounts there's a sense of a certain arbitrariness or multiplicity of possible interpretations. In each case Thomas gives an explanation, then says, "Vel, well." Or it may simply signify something else. Thomas is not preoccupied with offering a definitive, irrefutable interpretation of individual elements, but is providing a range of ways of thinking about individual texts and their function and symbolism. So now we'll turn to the curia. In the scriptum we read, "Thirdly, through the right intention, which is being directed to the heavenly Fatherland and glory, which exceeds all human reason, and this is brought about through the glory to God in the highest, which the chorus continues after it is begun by the priest. Therefore it is not said except on solemnities, which represent to us the heavenly solemnity. It is omitted at all offices of lamentation." The third part commemorates heavenly glory, to which we tend after this present misery, saying, "Glory to God in the highest." This is chanted on feasts in which heavenly glory is commemorated, but is omitted in offices of lamentation, which pertain to the commemoration of present misery. Both accounts mention the relation of the glory to symbolizing heavenly glory, and mention the liturgical practice of omitting the glory on certain fast days, or what Thomas calls offices of lamentation. For instance, Advent. The sentences refer to the glory as being enthoned by the priest. Throughout the sentence's commentary, Thomas pays careful attention to the question of who begins what parts of the mass. For him, the parts that are begun by the priest are what exceed human reason, whereas the parts that are begun by the choir have more of an accord with human reason. In the summa, Thomas adapts this idea into a reply to an objection. So it's not that he's forgotten about it, but he's decided this is better suited not as part of the linear commentary, but as a specific refutation of an objection against that practice. We'll see this concept recurse several times later. But for now, suffice it to say that Thomas has an interesting interpretation of the significance of this traditional practice of having different individuals in tone, different elements of the liturgy. This brings to mind that the liturgy is a given for Thomas. He's not deciding what is best. He's responding to what he experiences and tries to show how it's fitting. This is common to his whole theological project. Throughout, for instance, the treatise on the incarnation of Christ, his Christological writings, he's always trying to understand why it is fitting that God has chosen to send Christ to redeem us in the way he did. It's not that we get to decide what would have been the best method. It's that we have received what the Lord has given us and then tried to interpret and understand it. So now to turn to the collect. In the scriptum, we read this. One follows the prayer poured out to God for the people, which the priest publicly puts forward, breathes in it with the Lord be with you, which is taken from Ruth to. Abyssa, however, says, peace be with you, bearing the figure of Christ who spoke these words to his disciples after the resurrection. Then in the summa, the fourth part contains the oration, which the priest does for the people, that they may be worthy of possessing such great mysteries. Thomas's scriptum treatment of the Oratio or collector oration is connected with his description of greeting the greeting given by the priest or bishop before that prayer. For Thomas, this greeting underscores the public character of the prayer. We might also say this prayer is said aloud, as opposed to, for instance, the secret prayer said later on in the Mass, which is done quietly. So this is a public prayer. Thomas associates the greeting Domi Nuswaviskum, the Lord be with you, with the book of Ruth. This connection was widely made in medieval commentaries on the Mass, as early as Amalarius of Metz, who mentions the book of Ruth, as well as connecting the greeting to the book of Judges and the second Chronicles. Following in the footsteps of Amalarius, the connection of this greeting with Ruth is repeated by most of the 12th century writers on the Mass as well. John Bealleth gives the derivation from Ruth without mentioning the other biblical sources referred to by Amalarius. Sikart of Krimono repeats the connection with Ruth, but provides the references to Chronicle and Judges omitted by Bealleth. Innocent only mentions Ruth, but provides a further allegorical commentary on Boaz as a figure of the Messiah. So he's the one who, in Ruth, says Domi Nuswaviskum in Volkett. Of these authors, Aquinas' statement about Ruth and the Domi Nuswaviskum is closest informed to that of John Bealleth, but the idea is so widespread that it would be seemingly impossible to identify a single direct source for Aquinas. Thomas indicates that a bishop, Pontifex, uses the greeting "Poxphobies, peace be with you," in place of Domi Nuswaviskum of a priest, connecting this usage with the bishop, bearing the type of Christ, who spoke these words to his disciples after his resurrection. Like the connection between Domi Nuswaviskum and the Book of Ruth, this explanation also dates back to Amalarius. Bealleth suggests that the gospel greeting is reserved to the bishop on account of his higher dignity, just as the New Testament is higher in dignity than the Old Testament. Sikart and Innocent, on the other hand, connect the reservation of Christ's greeting of Poxphobies to bishops, with their special role as "vickers of Christ." In this case, Thomas' identification of the connection between the bishop as "bearing the type of Christ" and "using Christ's greeting" seems closer to the concept of Sikart and Innocent of the bishop as "vicker of Christ," than Bealleth's argumentation about the relative dignity of the Old and New Testaments. In his presentation on the call left in Asuma, Thomas simplifies his presentation from the scriptum while maintaining its essential core. The fourth part contains the prayer which the priest makes for the people, that they may be made worthy of such great mysteries. Here Thomas maintains the definition of the oration as a prayer made for the people, adding to the purpose that the people may be made worthy of the mysteries that are being celebrated. Thomas omits the consideration offered in the scriptum about the Domi Nuswaviskum and Pox Takum, and consequently the consideration of Ruth and Matthew as sources for the greetings. In this regard, Thomas' account with the call left in the context of Asuma is less clearly connected with the preceding tradition than in the scriptum. Although Aquinas only gives a passing account of the call left itself in these two accounts, it should be noted that in other places in both works, he gives a deeper account of the liturgical form of the call left. So to turn to one source other than the two we've been considering, in his commentary on 1 Timothy, composed in about 1263 to 1265, so after the scriptum, Thomas uses the Trinity call left as a way of articulating the church's liturgical mode of prayer without explicitly identifying the liturgical context of the call left. Thomas, I'll read that call left for you briefly, Almighty and Ever Living God, who have given to your servants to know the glory of the eternal Trinity in the confession of the true faith and to adore the unity in the power of your majesty, we beseech you that by the firmness of this same faith, we may be always defended from all adversities. So this is a prayer, Dominicans used it as well as others in the church. It's a prayer that dates back to the institution of the feast of the Trinity in about the 12th century, I believe. So when he comments on this in first time. Timothy, Thomas uses it as a way of connecting the Church's mode of prayer with the four types of prayer that Timothy mentions in 1 Timothy 2, 1, so the prayer, the giving of thanks, the postulation, and the obstecration that request. So Thomas connects the four types of prayer with this collect. So he says, "Hence this mode of praying is used by the Church of God. While mighty ever living God, behold the ascent of the mind which is prayer, who have given to the Church such and such a benefit, behold the action of thanks given. Grant we the seat you, behold postulation through our Lord, behold obstecration." So in this commentary, Thomas links these four prayers with what a collect is. Most collect more or less follow this form. And then in the question on prayer in the secundice of Gunde, the second part of the second part, Thomas makes a similar use of this collect but now refers to its liturgical source more explicitly. In many collects of the Church, these four types of prayer may be applied. For instance, in the collect of the Trinity, Almighty, Semp eternal God, pertains to the ascent of the prayer to God, who have given to your servants, pertains to the action of thanks given. Grant we the seat you, pertains to postulation, that which is placed at the end through our Lord, pertains to obstecration. So Thomas offers in other places more, theologically, rich sense of what the oration or collect is. So this is a good reminder that as with all parts of St. Thomas, you have to really read throughout his writings to get a full sense of what he's trying to do. In addition to these more formal comments, Thomas uses collects throughout his writings as a very significant source for his theology. I did a thesis on this topic of trying to find all the places where Thomas uses these liturgical prayers. And one of the most significant ones is a set of prayers having to do with God's mercy. In one of them, the church says, "O God, to whom it is proper to be merciful and despair." And then in another one, "O God, who show your omnipotence most of all in being merciful and sparing." So these two prayers are quoted again and again by Thomas all throughout his writings. And interestingly Pope Francis has drawn on both Thomas' commentary on these prayers, as well as the prayers themselves in the context of the year of mercy. So Thomas is in this very interesting role again in the history of using the liturgy as a source for theology. So now to move on to the Old Testament or Epistle. So in the Mass, as celebrated in Thomas' day, usually you would have one reading before the gospel, and it would usually be from the Epistles of St. Paul, although on certain significant feast days you would also have an Old Testament reading. Today, of course, we have Old Testament readings that every Sunday Mass in the contemporary form. So the sense of the script and the teaching of the preachers of the New Testament is put forward by the Subdeacon. This is not hindered by the fact that sometimes from the Old Testament is sometimes something from the Old Testament is read by them in place of the Epistle, because the preachers of the New Testament also preach the Old Testament. Consider that. That's an interesting idea. The teaching of the preachers of the Old Testament is read by the Lower Ministers, not always, but on those days in which the configuration of the New and Old Testament is principally marked out, as in the fast days of the four seasons, the Ember days, and when something is celebrated which is prefigured in the Old Law, such as the Passion, the Nativity, the Baptism, and others of this sort. Just one comment about this in terms of Thomas' Dominican context. The Dominican right in particular had these Old Testament readings, for instance on Christmas, a reading from Isaiah at one of the three masses, and not all the rights of the church did. So this is not exhaustive proof that Thomas is commenting on the Dominican literature here, but it's an interesting piece of evidence. So then in the summa. In the second part, the instruction of the faithful people takes place, because this sacrament is the mystery of faith, as was said above. This instruction is done in a certain arranged manner through the teaching of the prophets and apostles, which are read in the church by lectures and sub-deacons. In the scriptum, Thomas approaches the readings and chants that follow the collect in reverse order, whereas in the summa, he follows the liturgical order in his presentation. The reference to the summa, in the summa to a certain arranged manner, is important as another recognition of the careful arrangement of the liturgy by the church, just like with the introids. This is an important theme in the history of liturgical exegesis, because the church is guided by the Holy Spirit. The arrangement of the liturgy is often seen as having a quasi-inspired character. For instance, in the article that follows this one in the summa, focused on the actions of the mass, Thomas makes the argument in the said contra that "the custom of the church is not able to air, in as much as she is instructed by the Holy Spirit." Aquan steals elsewhere in the sentences with the significance of the roles undertaken by the different types of ministers, like the lecture or sub-deacon, namely in his commentary on distinction 24 of book four, which treats the grades of order. Sadly, Thomas stopped writing the summa before getting to the equivalent material, so we have less from his later period about the theology of sacramental orders. So now to turn to the gradual, Al-Alouillet and Trapt. So in the scriptum, we read this, "From the teaching ordered to Christ, two effects come to the people, by which man also is prepared for the teaching of Christ." Namely, the progress of the virtues, which is suggested by the gradual, for it is named on account of the step by which one ascends from virtue to virtue, or on account of the steps of the altar before which it is sung. And the exultation received from the hope of eternity, which is suggested by the Al-Alouillet, hence it is repeated, on account of the robe of the soul and of the body. However, on days of offices of lamentation, it is omitted, and the tract is put in its place, which by its severity of expression and perlixity of words suggests the sojourn of present misery. In the time of the resurrection, however, the Al-Alouillet is said twice on account of the joy of the resurrection of the head and his members. After the reading, the gradual is chanted by the choir, which signifies progress of life, and the Al-Alouillet is chanted, which signifies spiritual exultation, or the tract is chanted in offices of lamentation, which suggests spiritual groaning, for these ought to follow in the people from the earlier teaching. The scriptum account is much fuller and more evocative than the summa account of the chance of the mass. The scriptum gives more detail and insight into the different ways in which these chants were performed and experienced. The description of the tract, in particular, is quite interesting. Some tracts are extremely long. The tract for the first Sunday of Lent, for instance, which is still in the modern gradual, but Israeli son, which gives the whole text of Psalm 90, almost the whole text rather emits a few verses, in response to the out of context passage from that same Psalm quoted by the devil in the temptation of Christ given in that gospel pericopy, can take 15 minutes to sing. I looked it up on iTunes. I didn't have a chance to sing through it myself, but the comments about the relationship between the desired spiritual effect of the music and the musical style itself are quite interesting. Musical style is both representing the effect and bringing it about. It is also interesting to note that Thomas emits any mention of the sequence in either account, despite having contributed one of the most beautiful examples of this repertoire in his loud azion sequence for Corpus Christi. We'll return to that later. So now the gospel. In the scriptum, "Therefore the deacon puts forward the teaching of Christ, and because Christ is not only man, but God, thus the deacon first says, 'The Lord be with you, so that men may give their attention to Christ as if to God.' And because both teachings are ordered to Christ, both the teachings of those who went before him and of those who followed after, therefore the teaching of Christ is put as if in the end.' So these two quotes I've given you from the scriptum are from different parts within his commentary, but they're both related to the gospel. So then the summa. The people are perfectly instructed through the teaching of Christ containing the gospel, which is read by the highest ministers, namely the deacons. The treatment of the gospel is fairly austere in both accounts. The scriptum brings up the liturgical detail of the dominus of Iskum being repeated before the gospel, giving an interesting explanation of the fact, deriving from a Christological account of Christ's divine and human natures. Note that the same words, "dominus of Iskum" are given an entirely different explanation than they were given earlier before the collect, where they were primarily to arouse our attention. Now they have the task of giving us a kind of theological way of responding to what we're about to hear. Thomas is thus quite sensitive to the different purposes with which the same words can be used. And so now to conclude this first part of our presentation by looking at the creed, In the scriptum, we hear the effect of the teaching of the gospel is the confession of faith. Thus, because it is above reason, the symbol of faith is begun by the priest and continued by the choir. But it is not said except on solemnities which are mentioned in the symbol, such as the solemnities of the nativity, of the resurrection, and of the apostles who stood out as founders of the faith, as is said in 1 Corinthians 3, as a wise architect I have laid a foundation, and then in the summa. And because we believe unto Christ as unto divine truth, according to that saying in John 8, "If I speak truth to you, why do you not believe me?" Once the gospel is read, the symbol of faith is chanted, in which the people shows that they themselves ascend through faith to the teaching of Christ. The symbol is chanted on feasts, in which something is mentioned in which this symbol happens, or excuse me, it's chanted on feasts in which something mentioned in this symbol happens, such as the feasts of Christ and of the blessed virgin and of the apostles who founded the faith and in others of this sort. In these two accounts, Thomas is reasoning for the liturgical fact of the relative infrequency of the recitation of the creed, is connected with the feasts in which something commemorated by the creed is mentioned. But he has to deal with the fact that the apostles are given the creed as well, and so in each case he explains them as founders of the faith. In the suma, Thomas also adds a general purpose reason in others of this sort. Here he realizes that he has to account, even if only vaguely, for the range of other high ranked feasts in which a creed is given, so for instance by his day St. Dominic would have had a creed as well as St. Peter martyr, so there are others of this sort perhaps. Despite the similarity of the two accounts, two interesting differences occur, they provide different scriptural authorities to support the practice of the creed, and the suma adapts the connection with believing unto Christ from the passage about the gospel that occurred in the scriptum. So this concludes this first half of the presentation, just to give you a preview, the second half will continue with the offeratory unto be end. So I think we just have a very brief time for questions, and then we can have more time, the second half is going to be shorter, so we can ask more questions then, but is there anything that arises immediately right now? Why is the creed in the creed that not be end? That's a great question. So he addresses, I can't remember now which of the two commentaries he says this in, but he gives an account of why there's three languages in the mass. So there's Greek, Hebrew, and let me say Greek, Hebrew and Latin. And so he says in Greek we have the curiae, in Hebrew we have Sabahot and Amen, and then he has a funny line, Latin, it's obvious. He doesn't have to name anything. So it's quite funny, but he associates that symbolically with the three languages in which Christ's Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, is written above the cross. So Thomas has that kind of symbolic explanation that three languages are used because of those three languages on the cross. That doesn't really answer the question from a historical point of view, and he doesn't really bother to do so, but again this is a case where he's dealing with the liturgical state of affairs and not sort of articulating an ideal world. So the mass of the same term is said, would it have only been we, whatever it might have been written right? So one thing is though that he would have experienced a variety of masses before joining the order, so as, say, I'll blade it, Monte Casino, he would have been familiar with whatever it was they were doing, and so on and so forth. But as a priest I believe he would have only celebrated the Dominican right. But I think in some ways there was a certain flexibility at that time as well about what was going on. The other thing that's worth noting is that the Dominican right was standardized in the 1250s around the same time that Thomas was writing his first commentary, and so he was actually in the midst of all of that work being done. So he would have been familiar with the more localized versions from before the 1250s as well. So he would have had a broad range, but it's because I found it very curious. We don't know when he was ordained a priest. We can only guess. It's hard to say exactly what different things he would have experienced from the personal point of view as a celebrant. What about the confedior? Yeah, so he doesn't mention the confedior in either of these accounts. So he would have said the confedior well, the choir was chanting the introit and the curiae. And I've given, I can't remember, did I give you the text of the, no, I didn't give you the text of the confedior as it was in his missile, but it's actually quite a bit different. It's fairly similar actually to the novasordo confedior about the thoughts, words, deeds, and omissions. So that may have been adapted actually from the Dominican right based on who was working on those revisions. But so he would have said the confedior, but he chooses not to mention it. So one thing actually that raises is he's for the most part in the suma he's talking about the things that other people encounter that other people can hear and experience. So the confedior would have only been encountered by the priest himself. In the scriptum, he is more preoccupied as we'll see, especially in the second half, with things the priest alone is saying. So that's part of the explanation. So if you're coming to the book, would you trace that to the fact that the suma is written for a sort of astral purpose against the suma? Yeah, that's a great question. Does this have to do with the pastoral purpose? That's worth thinking about. Yeah, I'd like to think more about that, but you're probably onto something. So he probably intends for this account to be useful for preaching. And so maybe he wants an assume for it to be more about the things you would explain to people. Yeah, that's a good suggestion. Yeah, so he doesn't go into the aspergis in this context. I can't remember offhand if he quotes that elsewhere. But yeah, that's a good point. But he seems to be describing kind of the formal liturgy. He's not describing any particular celebration. And the aspergis would have only been done on Sundays basically. And so he's, I think, trying to give a more general purpose account than describing all of the variations that might happen. Yeah, it would be interesting to look up if he quotes the aspergis. I haven't had a chance yet to study all the places where he does the antiphons. Because there's a lot of difficult ways of how to study that compared to whether he's quoting an antiphon or quoting the soul that's from it. But it's a good question. Great. Well, I think we'll have time for more questions after the second half, but thank you all for your attention. [BLANK_AUDIO]