Jubé (7): Getting rid of tradition is a scandal to heretics

Chapter XXXIII
Destroying the jubés causes scandal to Catholics and Heretics.

The [architectural and ceremonial] order of the Church is something so beautiful, so wisely disposed, so edifying, that every true Christian is obliged to love it, and to contribute, as far as possible, to its preservation.

Missel de Mantes

But the ambonoclasts have taken no regard for this order. For in the end jubés  are part of the Church’s order, because they are part of our churches; because without them our churches become imperfect and mutilated; and because they have always been found wherever their constructions has been possible or necessary. Thus destroying the jubés is to act contrary to the Church’s order.

It is also part of the Church’s [order] to chant the Gospel in the jubés. It has been chanted there in every century. Tradition bears testimony to this. The authors who wrote on the divine offices speak of it as as a custom observed constantly and by everyone, they have commented on the ceremonies attached to it, expounded on its mysteries, and explained its reasons. Finally, the author of the Micrologus (Ch. 4), where he claims that the Church does not assign priests the office of chanting the Gospel in the jubés as she has the deacons, necessarily assumes that the deacons chant it there: “Nor does the priestly ordo demand that they ascend into the ambo to read the Gospel like a deacon.”

But how can we chant the Gospel in the jubés if they have been knocked down? Thus, destroying jubés is to go against the Church’s order.

Further, disturbing the church’s order is another way to act against it, and one certainly disturbs it when one obliges deacons to chant the Gospel somewhere else than in the jubés where they are accustomed to sing it. And St. Augustine’s rule applies very well here: “Changing a custom, no matter how much advantage it might bring, always causes trouble on account of its newness.”

Now it simply isn’t possible that a change of this nature and importance has had the approval of people who have zeal for good discipline, are concerned for the Church’s honor, and have respect for sacred tradition. At least I am certain that Raoul de Breda, who argued that there should be no novelty whatsoever in the divine offices, would want to repeat: “In divino officio est a novitatibus omnimodo abstinendum.”

And I make bold to say that Nicholas de Clémenge, Archdeacon of Bayeux, would decry it with all his power, because he has said on a similar occasion that “there is nothing more capricious, more unreliable, more shameful, more ridiculous than to change one’s order continually, to abrogate its uses, to abolish its customs, to exchange its rules for new ones, or rather, for new irregularities.”

This change can only scandalize the true faithful when they see that it is directly contrary to the wise maxim of St. Ambrose, who said that we must defend the customs of the Church wherever we find them, if we want to avoid scandalizing anyone or being scandalized ourselves.

It can only scandalize them when they see it is the work of a few individual, unenlightened men poorly versed in their duties, and that the divine offices and customs of the churches should not be governed by the caprice of individuals but by the authority of the ancients, as Raoul claims once again: “Officium divinum majorum auctoritate non diversorum arbitrio regi debet.”

It can only scandalize them when they see ceremonies full of great mystery abolished, such holy ceremonies that were formerly practiced in churches that had jubés, and are practiced no more today because there are no more jubés.

Finally, when they see this one change becomes a pretence for making considerable innovations in the Missals and Ceremonials, where it is necessary to erase ancient rubrics and substitute new ones in their place: this is another example of the disorder Nicholas of Clémenge complained about: “The ancient practices of the churches is being destroyed, their ancient customs and ancient government violated. Their customary books are being ruined and every day new erasures, subtractions, and additions are made.”

Finally, this change can only scandalize the heretics who are already poorly informed about the Church’s ceremonies, giving them excuse to believe and to say: “Our Fathers were ignorant and mistaken about ceremonies of reading the Gospel on the jubés; they were inappropriate, baseless, pointless, and completely useless, or at least indifferent, since they were abolished so easily and without any scruple. No, everyone considered it a brave deed!

The Son of God pronounced terrible curses on the authors of scandal: “Woe to him by whom scandal comes.” And the holy Apostle Paul expressly forbids Christians “Give no offence to Jews or to Greeks or to the church of God.”

Chapter XXXIV
The damage is not irreparable. Three ways to restore the jubés.

Even so, we desire to enter into good relations with the ambonoclasts. For the interest of the Church and their own honor, I think there is no better way to do this than by assuring them that their fault, however great, is not irreparable, and by proposing to them the means of making up for it. Nevertheless, the only thing is to rebuild the jubés where they have been destroyed, and they can do this in several ways.

I do not know whether there have been ambonoclasts in the East, but I am sure they have never destroyed their jubés out of a desire to make their churches more clear and orderly. On the contrary, I find that Simeon of Thessalonica and other Greeks who have written since the fall of the eastern empire, presuppose the existence of jubés in their churches. Arcudius of Corfou, M. Allatio of Chios, also assume it, though M. Allatio claims they have fallen into disuse in nearly all of Greek, probably because, as we have remarked, the Turks do not permit the Greeks to restore their churches to their former condition.


But without lingering any longer over the jubés of the eastern churches, we dedicate ourselves solely to what can be done for the re-establishment of the jubés of the western churches.

The portable and rolling jubés like the one used at St. John Lateran to chant the Exultet or the blessing of the Paschal candle; at St. Calixtus of Cysoing, and a few other churches of Flanders for chanting the Epistle and Gospel, besides being cumbersome, since they have to be moved for the various readings that they are used for, and since this transition always involves some disturbance of the divine offices, they do not seem very serviceable for carrying out the ceremonies of the Gospel reading with dignity and convenience. Therefore I do not think the ambonoclasts would sufficiently repair the damage they have done to the churches whose jubés they have demolished if they erect new ones of this type.

The jubés in the eastern style, in front of the sanctuary door, are as unsuitable for us as for the ambonoclasts, because we are not used to them, they are not from our tradition, and they block the view of everyone behind them so that they cannot see the choir and altar.

Since the ambonoclasts are particularly set against the jubés that cross the whole width of the choir, a proposal to restore them to their previous state would certainly not be well received. Their own vanity would be opposed, preventing them from making a public admission of their fault. Nevertheless, since this is a very ancient form of the jubé, found in nearly all the great ancient churches cathedral, parish, or collegial, and are admirably suited to house with pomp and majesty and in good order all the ceremonies for which they have always been intended, it would be desirable to preserve their memory. The ambonoclasts could restore them in such a manner that the lower levels are open, supported only by columns of proportionate size, and so that the cloister abutting it is merely a balustrade, as in the cathedral churches of Reims and Noyon. They should place open double stairways on the two extremities, with one entrance from the nave and the other from the choir, as in each of the two tribunes of the metropolitan church of Sens. This architecture would go a long way to remedy, I think, the small inconveniences the ambonoclasts have pointed out in this type of jubé. Then the churches would never have an obstructed view, and people in the nave would be able to see what is going on in the choir and at the altar.

If this compromise solution doesn’t suit the ambonoclasts, they can build small tribunes between the choir and the nave on the two corners of the choir, crossing only a part of the choir’s width, and similar to the ones found in Rome in the churches of San Clemente, Santa Maria in Aracoeli, San Cesareo and San Nereo ; in Milan in the cathedral church; in San Miniato of Florence; in Sens in the metropolitan church and the parish church of St. Hilary; and in Paris in the parish churches of St. John en Grève, St. Gervais, and St. Nicolas-des-Champs. […]

Finally, if even these jubés do not please the ambonoclasts, they may build ones bigger than our largest preaching pulpits, in which one may chant at least the Lessons of Matins, the Epistle and Gospel with convenience and decency. They can place them between the choir and the nave, in the middle of the enclosure between the two doors of the choir, as at the parish church of Ste Cérotte near St. Calais in Maine, or near the middle of the nave on the Gospel side as at San Pancrazio  in Rome, or on the Epistle side as at Sant’Ambrogio of Milan and San Salvatore in Ravenna.

However they rebuild the jubés, we will be content if they do, and we will stop criticizing them for their lack of respect for the ancient ceremonies of the Church, for their double temerity, for rendering our churches imperfect and even mutilated, for sinning against the prescribed rules, the holy Fathers, and the Council of Trent, for destroying the memory of the mysteries that the jubés embody in the thought of the holy Fathers and other ecclesiastical writers, for abolishing important ceremonies and so diminishing the worship of God, for destroying the reasons for the ceremonies that take place in the jubés, for overthrowing the order of the Church and scandalizing Catholics and heretics alike. We can even promise them that the Church will be edified, that truly enlightened and genuinely pious people will laud them for their humble submission that they will render to the truth after being apprised of it.

Between the Capella and the Urbs: The Roman Liturgical Tradition in Radulphus de Rivo’s De Canonum Observantia

Radulphus of Rivo (d. 1403) was a Dutch jurist, liturgist, historian, and dean of Tongres cathedral chapter whose several works on the liturgy are of primary importance for understanding the development of the Mass and Breviary.

His work De Canonum Observantia examines the sources of liturgical authority–Scripture, tradition, canons, papal decretals, etc.—and describes how the Mass and Office should be celebrated in accordance with them.

In Proposition XXII—which appears here in English for the first time—he harshly criticises the Franciscan breviary compiled by Haymo of Faversham for departing from the traditional Roman order while claiming to be its only true representative. The piece raises interesting questions about the nature of Rome’s liturgical primacy.

St A in Classe Mosaic
St Apollinare in Classe, apse mosaic

Proposition XXII[1]

The Ordo of the Holy Roman Church is to be gathered not from the practices of the Friars Minor but from the canons, the authentic Scriptures, our ancient books, and the general practice of each particular church.

(1) Introduction

So glorious and famous was the Roman Church of old, that living waters gushed up from beneath her feet and from her rose, as from the source of a stream, examples for the doing of all things and sure rules of ecclesiastical government. Hence it is that all the Scriptures enjoin us to follow her authority and hold fast to her order (ordinem). As the most blessed Pope Innocent says to the Bishop Decentius (in his letter to the church of Maguelone, cited above in Proposition VII, dist. xi):

“For there is no man who does not know and acknowledge that what has been handed down to the Roman Church from Peter the Prince of the Apostles and is conserved there faithfully even now is something that must be observed by everyone, and that nothing should be added or introduced that does not have its authority from her or seems to take its example from elsewhere. This is all the more obvious since throughout all of Italy, the Gauls, the Spains, Africa, and Sicily, and the islands lying in between, no church has been founded that was not established by the venerable Apostle Peter or his priestly successors. Let them read, and let them tell me whether they find that another Apostle has been their founder in these provinces. But if they have not read it, because indeed it is nowhere to be found, then they are obliged to obey what the Roman Church has conserved, from whom it is certain that they have taken their beginnings: lest while they lend too eager an ear to foreign ideas, they might forget the instruction of their head.”

Consider also the material under the third proposition above.

But in what pertains to the Divine Office, today there is a widespread belief and opinion that the Friars Minor are the only ones who observe the order of the Holy Roman Church, which (they claim) is contained in none other but in their own Breviaries and books. Why? Because in their Rule B. Francis prescribed that the clergy should perform the Divine Office according to the Roman order wherever they are able to obtain the Breviaries.

During my stay in Rome, I learned that the truth is quite to the contrary. In fact, when the Roman Pontiffs resided at the Lateran, they observed a less complete form of the Roman Office than what was observed in the other collegiate churches of the city. Moreover, the chapel clergy, whether by papal mandate or on their own authority, always abbreviated the Roman Office and often altered it, according as it suited the Lord Pope and the Cardinals to observe it.[2] I also had the opportunity to study an Ordinary of this Office compiled during the time of Innocent III.[3] It is this abbreviated office that the Friars Minor follow. This is the reason why they give their breviaries and office books the sub-title “following the custom of the Roman Curia” (secundum consuetudinem Romanae Curiae), but they have taken no pains to receive and observe the customs of the other churches of the city of Rome. Now if the Chapel Office in question really can be called the ORDO of the Holy Roman Church, then they have done what the rule prescribed. If not, they have not.

Several nations of the Roman world have their books and office directly from the Roman churches and not from the Papal Chapel. This can be easily inferred from the books and treatises of Amalarius, Walafrid, Micrologus, Gemma Animae, and other writers on the Divine Office.[4]

Having said all of this by way of introduction, let us proceed to examine who is closer in their Divine Office to the order of the Holy Roman Church: whether the Friars in question, who keep a rather singular liturgical use along with their rather singular rule, or the other nations and religious orders. Either truly or falsely, I claim that the use of the Friars Minor is further from the true Roman order when it follows the chapel office in question, as may be deduced in the following way:

(2) Thesis

According to St. Augustine (De Civitate Dei 19, 13), an ordo is the disposition of equal and unequal things each in their proper place; and in De Ordine Rerum, II, he says that ordo is that by which all the things ordained by God are done; and in the second book of the same, Ordo is that by which God moves all things that are; and on the Epistle to the Galatians: confusion is the opposite of order. With regard to the Divine Office, therefore, whenever everything is done just as the Roman Church has ordained, and each thing assigned its place as a right judgment deems proper, then we have the ordo prescribed by the Roman Church. And where the contrary subsists, this is confusion. But the other nations and religious orders observe these things more exactly than the Franciscans. Therefore, etc.

I will speak only briefly about a few things that come to mind, and (God willing) it will be more amply discussed in the writings coming from the City.[5]

Dedication (Cornell).jpg

(3) Argument

(a) General Observations: Sermons, Passions, and Propers

First, with regard to things that are read and things that are sung, the Lateran and the other Roman churches have sermons and homilies, the Passions of the saints, and other such things in very great number. Likewise the ancient Roman antiphonaries contain [proper] chants for Saints Nicholas, Sebastian, and Maurice; and long responsories for Terce, Sext, and None in Lent; the Sunday Psalms divided for the Vigil [i.e Matins] in Easter Week, Easter Vespers ordered by Kyrie eleison[6], and several antiphons for the Sunday Benedicite,[7] and in several places variant antiphons and responsories.

(b) Propers of the Saints

(i) Omission of the Legenda and other ancient customs[8]

Screen Shot 2018-06-06 at 11.47.10 AMJacobus <de Voragine>: Legenda sanctorum aurea (Source)Likewise in the proper masses of the saints, we find their proper offices listed on their days, and many other things that are observed throughout the whole world in imitation of the Roman churches. But the Friars, for the sake of brevity and in imitation of the Papal chapel, have omitted or altered this custom. In their abbreviated use they usually read the Chronicles of Damasus on the saints, or something from the Pontificale.[9]

(ii) Difficulties caused by the transfer of feasts.[10]

Likewise, the Apostolic See assigns universal feasts of nine lessons,[11] and for local feasts permits the diocese to make additions, as in the proposition XVII above. And hence among all religious congregations and nations, there are few local feasts of nine lessons added beyond the universal ones, and many feasts of three lessons.[13]

But today the friars observe the feast days of all their saints and the major octaves with nine readings, and none with three. As a result of this observance there is continuous disorder in their use and a great confusion caused by the feasts transferred from Sundays and during Octaves.[14] For out of any six places or persons that observe their use, hardly two observe the same nine-reading feast on the same day.[15] Therefore, they rarely say Matins.[16] They rarely observe the Seven [Penitential] Psalms[17] and other ferial practices, they entirely neglect Sacred Scripture in their office,[18] and they often omit the Office of the Dead.[19]

(c) Confusion of the local and universal calendars: Adoption of local Roman feasts outside Rome.

Further, the Apostolic See desires proportion [between local and universal feasts]. Rome observes the [feasts of the] holy Roman Pontiffs and other local feasts of the Holy City; in the same way, others should observe their own local saints in their own local uses. Just as in Rome they are not held to observe our local saints, so neither are we held to observe theirs. But the Friars, contrary to this general custom, which is tacitly approved by this See, have added local Roman saints to their rite, such as Hyginius, Anicetus, Soter, Pius, Cletus, Marcellus, Eleutherius, John, Felix, Silverius, Anacletus, Victor, Innocent, Evaristus, Pontianus, and Melchiades, all Roman pontiffs; the same for Anastasius the martyr on St. Vincent’s day, whose monastery is situated beyond St. Paul’s; Gilbert the Confessor from England, and the Forty Holy Martyrs of Armenia, who have their church near the Colosseum; the Apparition of St. Michael of Apulia; the Martyr Elmo of Gaieta; Rufina and Secunda, virgins and martyrs of the Lateran; Nabor and Felix of Milan; Symphorosa with her seven sons, martyrs from Tivoli; Pastor, priest and confessor, who was a companion of Praxedes and Pudentiana, Roman virgins; Susanna, virgin and martyr, who has a church near the Baths [of Diocletian]; the twelve brothers martyrs on St. Giles’ day, where Urban IV ordered that Giles be celebrated as a nine-lesson feast; Cerbonius, bishop of Populonia; Tryphon and Respicius, martyrs, whose church is held by the Augustinians; the feast of [Our Lady of] the Snows; the dedication of the three major basilicas; and Sabas the Abbot, whose abbey is located beyond the church of St. Alexis. It is remarkable that none of the aforesaid Roman feasts have propers in the Gregorian Office, which may be evidence that generally they were not celebrated.

Besides what we have just mentioned, in various other calendars of the churches of the city, I have seen other Roman Pontiffs and saints celebrated in many places, as feasts of nine or three lessons, whom the Friars have omitted. In the ancient calendars of the city, moreover, though many local saints are assigned feasts of nine lessons, I have seen very many saints assigned only three lessons. In this, the books of the Friars Minor have been deficient from the beginning, for they did not note which saints are assigned nine lessons, so that they could observe all the others under three lessons.[20] Some of their books, which they admittedly do not use today, assign at most four or six saints’ feasts of three lessons, so that all the others are kept as feasts of nine lessons. And in this regard they oppose all other religious congregations and nations. But about this confusion regarding feasts of nine lessons I have written sufficiently in Proposition XVII above.

The Apostolic See has ordered local custom to be observed on feast days of saints, but the Friars observe the contrary in the feasts of the aforementioned saints, as we noted in Proposition XVII.

Further, if the Friars observe the feasts of their own order’s saints with major octaves, such as Francis, Anthony of Padua, and St. Clare, who are not found in the Roman office, when do they not leave the Romans some of their own local saints that the Franciscans are not bound to celebrate?

(d) Invention of a “Common of Saints.”

For the saints who have proper masses, Blessed Gregory wrote down in the Liber Gradualis and the Missal[21] the proper chants, epistles, and gospels to be observed on their days. Whenever these are repeated, he referred users to other pages, as the seculars’ books often do. The Friars’ books, however, contain a sort of mish-mash Common the Saints, composed from scratch by collecting all the introits by themselves, then the other parts by themselves.[22] Further, they have omitted the temporal and ferial Epistles and Gospels that are contained in Roman books.[23] They have also neglected to include genuflexions and many other ancient ceremonies, perhaps because they are not observed in the pope’s chapel.[24]

(f) Imposition of the Franciscan Office in Rome.[25]

Another point to be considered is the fact that Pope Nicholas III, a Roman from the family of the Orsini, who began his reign in the year of our Lord 1277 and constructed a palace at St. Peter’s, ordered the Antiphonaries, Graduals, Missals, and 50 other ancient office books to be removed from the churches of the city, and ordered that henceforth the same churches would use the Books and Breviaries of the Friars Minor, whose rule he also confirmed. This is why all the books in Rome today are new and Franciscan.

(g) Disappearance of the ancient chant notation.

Likewise, the ancient form of chant notation that is used by the Ambrosians and Germans, along with many other ecclesiastical observances, has been banished from the City.[26]

(4) Conclusion

Therefore, with regard to the Divine Office, we will observe the order of the Holy Roman Church if, disregarding the use of the Friars, we follow the sacred canons, authentic Scriptures, and the more universal local customs (consuetudines locorum generales) and, in points of doubt, the more ancient ones. And in other particulars let us follow the proportion mentioned above in the section on local saints.


[1] Translation from the edition printed in Magna Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum, vol. 10, 1149A–1151D (Paris, 1654).

[2] For example, the last significant abridgment of the Roman Office had been ordered by Gregory VII, as Guéranger explains in his Liturgical Institutions. This section also offers a historical overview of the period in question:

“Les grandes affaires qui assiégeaient un Pape, au XI° siècle, les détails infinis d’administration dans lesquels il lui fallait entrer, ne permettaient plus de concilier avec les devoirs d’une si vaste sollicitude l’assistance exacte aux longs offices en usage dans les siècles précédents. Saint Grégoire VII abrégea l’ordre des prières et simplifia la Liturgie pour l’usage de la cour romaine. Il serait difficile aujourd’hui d’assigner d’une manière tout à fait précise la forme complète de l’office avant cette réduction; mais depuis lors, il est resté, à peu de chose près, ce qu’il   était à la fin du XI° siècle” (Institutions Liturgigues, 281; http://www.abbaye-saint-benoit.ch/gueranger/institutions/volume01/volume0111.htm)

“La réduction de l’office divin, accomplie par saint Grégoire VII, n’était destinée, dans le principe, qu’à la seule chapelle du Pape : par le fait, elle ne tarda pas à s’établir dans les diverses églises de Rome” (284).

[3] According to Leo Cunibert Mohlberg, “Der Liber De Canonum Observantia,” in Radulph de Rivo: Der letzte Vertreter der altrömischen Liturgie (Louvain, 1911), 66–86, perhaps an Ordinarius a tempore Innocentii III recollectus, containing the office of the papal chapel.

[4] Radulphus’s claim, here and throughout, is that the nations of Europe have received the Roman liturgical tradition directly through the books of the Ordines Romani, which represent the ancient local liturgy of the Roman church. Amalarius, the Micrologus, and others, he argues, are conscious of this reception. Further, a close study of the customs current in the Roman basilicas reveals that they retain many features in common with other European uses, while the papal rite has removed or abbreviated them.

Throughout the De canonum observantia, he appeals to the OR along with papal decretals as a definitive authority on the Roman liturgical tradition. See, e.g., Proposition XXIII, which is a critical commentary on the Order of Mass as found in the OR, comparing it with other European uses.

[5] He is referring to the collection of notes or longer works he compiled while resident in the city of Rome, from which he is composing this preliminary treatise. Unfortunately for us, the materials in question either never arrived, or have been lost. See Mohlberg, 78-86.

[6] Around the 13th century, the old “glorious office” of Easter Vespers in Rome (as Amalarius dubs it) died out. It used to begin with an entrance procession to the singing of the Kyrie eleison.

[7] Radulphus may mean that the Use he is describing has more than one antiphon for the Benedicite (i.e. the Tres pueri), changing from time to time within the season per annum.

For instance, at Liege they sang seven Alleluias over the whole Psalmody of Sunday Lauds from after Trinity to September. In October, they switched to three with just the first 3 psalms, then: “Tres in fornace ignis deambulabant et collaudabant Dñm Regem, canentes ex uno ore hymnum dicebant: Benedictus es Deus, alleluia.” In November: Nov. Tres video viros ambulantes per medium ignis, et aspectus quarti, similtudo est filii Dei, alleluia. The Roman Use only has one “Tres pueri jussu regis.”

[8] Radulphus scolds the Franciscans for abbreviating the proper feasts of the saints in “many” ways,” in particular by (1) editorial changes and (2) omitting the ancient legenda. (1) Haymo seems to have rearranged the breviary so that the propers for saints’ feasts are found in a newly-created Common of Saints containing all the propers in list form. (2) The breviary’s liturgical readings are no longer taken from the legenda, the ancient accounts of saints’ Acta. These legenda varied by region and were often very florid. The Franciscans substituted the Liber Pontificalis, a more sober book that gives short profiles of popes’ lives.

[9] The Liber Pontificalis was attributed to St. Damasus. He may be giving two names for the same thing.

[10] Dom Guéranger argues that Radulphus’ argument in this section, viz. that the Franciscans increased the number of nine-lesson feasts, is factually incorrect: “In the collection of liturgical documents edited by Blessed Giuseppe Maria Tommasi, there is a full antiphonary used in St Peter’s Basilica during the pontificate of Alexander III, which began in 1159. This antiphonary, which contains St Gregory VII’s reduced office, is almost entirely identical to the current Roman breviary [pre-1911 reforms], which is both an abridgment of the Gregorian Antiphonary and the breviary of the Friars Minor. If, therefore, there are differences between the Roman books as they were in Amalarius’s day and the breviary of the Franciscans, they must be mainly attributed to the reductions made by St Gregory VII, and one must also keep in mind that the Metz Antiphonary contains many elements that are not of Roman origin.” (Institutions liturgiques, Vol. II)

[11] “Feast of nine lessons” refers to a classification of feasts that does not correspond to the current system. These feasts of nine lessons were the old duplex & semiduplex feasts, now reduced to a single lesson. Feasts of three lessons were simplex feasts, now reduced to mere commemorations with no lessons.

[13] Perhaps Radulphus cites this as a token of prudence, since the addition of nine-lesson feasts, which must be transferred, causes confusion in the calendar.

[14] Apparently, according to the rubrics used by the Franciscans here, when a (nine lesson) feast falls on a Sunday or an Octave, it had to be transferred to the next free day (feria). This makes things confusing when there are many feast days having to be transferred. This problem persisted all the way up to 1910 with the reform of St Pius X. In 1908, for example, in most English dioceses St Mark’s had to be transferred from 25 April to 15 June because it it fell in the Easter octave, and there was no feria till June (Cavendish, Paul. “An Introduction to the Reform of the Roman Breviary, 1911-13. Usus Antiquior. Vol. 2, no. 1, Jan. 2011, 32-60).”

But the Tridentine rubrics must have been a bit different from the Franciscan use explained here, because in Tridentine rubrics if a nine-lesson feast falls on a Sunday it would be celebrated and the Sunday merely commemorated (with a few exception for major Sundays). And likewise if a feast fell on most octaves the feast would be celebrated & the day within the octave commemorated, except for the privileged octaves (Easter, Pentecost, Epiphany, & Corpus Christi).

[15] He means that because so many feasts had to be transferred, it became confusing to know when they would end up being celebrated; hence the “great confusion” mentioned above. The pre-Pius X Roman breviary suffered from the same difficulty.

[16] This is probably hyperbolic. Nevertheless, it is true that Matins is the hour most affected by feasts: all the lessons depend on what feast it is; given the confusion caused by transferring feasts, Radulphus says that the Franciscans tend to skip Matins altogether.

[17] The Seven Penitential Psalms, said in choir after Lauds on ferial Fridays. Since the Friars seem to have had few ferias, they would seldom have said these psalms.

[18] On feasts of nine lessons, all nine Matins lessons are of the feast (except in Lent), taking the place of the ferial and Sunday cycle of readings. Thus, on each of these days they miss out on the 3 ferial Matins lessons. Of course, the first nocturn (the first three lessons) in Matins of a feast of nine lessons is from the Bible: an epistle or Acts or Apocalypse, but one misses out on the ferial & Sunday Scripture reading cycle if one has too many feasts.

[19] The Office of the Dead was said in addition to the day’s office on ferial Mondays.

[20] The editors aren’t sure what is being argued here. Guéranger says that Radulphus argues that the Franciscans increased the number of double feasts (i.e. feasts of nine lessons), but Guéranger himself believes that Radulphus is wrong in blaming the Franciscans for this.

[21] Gregory the Great, who wrote the Gradual.

[22] He may be referring to something similar to the situation in the Graduale of the Novus Ordo Missae, where the Common lists a batch of introits, then a batch of graduals, etc., each to be chosen ad libitum.

[23] Perhaps to the proper gospels and epistles assigned for ferial Wednesdays and Fridays, which appear in the oldest lectionaries but were not included in the missal of the Roman curia.

[24] See chapter XXIII for particulars.

[25] Haymo of Faversham (d. 1243), 4th General of the Franciscan Order, issued a revision of liturgical books, which Nicholas III imposed on the city of Rome.

[26] “The Roman basilicas, perhaps as a result of Guido’s audience with John XIX, adopted the staff system (red F- and yellow c-line, letter-clefs and custos) and combined it with neumes perhaps best described as simplified Beneventan (for the literary text, however, Caroline not Beneventan script was employed). Compared to the classical forms of Beneventan notation, most of the special neumes and the variant forms of the basic signs are absent. This is the notation used to record the Old Roman chant repertory. It was not, however, restricted to Rome but also used in many churches in Lazio and Umbria (e.g. I-CT 12: facs. in PalMus, 1st ser., ii, 1891, pl.33; MGG1, iv, Tafel 34, pp.835–6) and was subsequently adopted for the earliest Franciscan chant books” (http://www.columbia.edu/~qx2126/upload/2017-09-15/20114pg4.htm).