Witnesses of a New Liturgical Practice: the Ordines missae of Three Utraquist Manuscripts 1 (original) (raw)

From a careful analysis of the items which touch on liturgical matters found in the protocols of the Utraquist Consistory (dating from 1562-1570) I have published a list of liturgical practices which diverged from the norms of the Consistory and which were reported to be occurring in a variety of Utraquist parishes. 2 I shall now attempt to connect these liturgical practices with five contemporary liturgical ordines which show varying degrees of distinctiveness from the traditional ordo of the Prague Use of the Roman (Western) rite in the late Middle Ages. 3 Let us first summarise the basic complaints which we have encountered in the protocols concerning the liturgical shape (ordo missae), the canon of the mass (canon missae), and the minor canon (canon minor). In certain parishes, the order of the mass has been significantly changed. In Kutná Hora, the following liturgical order is applied to the early morning service on Sundays: consecration-singing-[short] sermon-communion-great sermondismissal from the church. Similar changes occurred also in the structure and the substance of the canon of the mass (canon missae), as well as the so-called minor canon (canon minor). Priests altered their texts, left out certain parts, or omitted them in their entirety. Some of them preserved only what, according to their opinion, belonged "ad substantialem Sacramenti constitutionem, " 1 In this part of my article, I rely to a considerable degree on my doctoral dissertation, Pavel Kolář, Svátostná teologie Jakoubka ze Stříbra a její liturgická recepce v utrakvismu [The Sacramental Theology of Jakoubek of Stříbro and its liturgical reception in Utraquism] (HTF UK, Prague, 2007), of which certain parts are included here. 2 See, Pavel Kolář, "Utraquist Liturgical Practice in the Later Sixteenth Century, " BRRP 8 (2011) 223-234. Many of the recorded proceedings of the Consistory were initiated on the basis of complaints against Utraquist priests and their liturgical practice. Some of these complaints thus show an evident personal and polemical character which, at the very least, casts a shadow of doubt on the credibility of the description of the practice investigated by the Consistory. In an extreme case, we can assume that the substance of the complaint was invented with the intent of harming the priest. But whatever the motives of the complaints, I assume that the authors of the complaints were describing practices which they had themselves encountered or about which they had learned. Thus their account could appear credible to the Consistory and serve as an incentive for an investigation.