I would point out that the quote from the 'Catholic Encyclopedia' dates from the early 20th century. The fallacy of 'all serious liturgiologists' is undefendable, and is quite dated: it was a few Roman liturgiologists at a period when the German Rationalists were having a most degrading influence on Catholic thought (see 'Northern Catholics' or 'Modernists'). The Ephesine theory returned with some currency a few decades into the 20th c. as comparison with texts has shown that the early Western rites depend heavily on Near Eastern liturgy. "Ephesine" we only know by the local councils describing its replacement by the Byzantine in Ephesus - in all likelihood it was simply part of what scholars consider the 'Antiochian' family. That the Gallican seems to be a Syriac/Antiochian liturgy in Latin would support the Ephesine theory if Ephesine is simply understood as a local variant of the wider 'Helleno-Syrian' liturgy. (which was claimed by the Church in Britain and Gaul - see 'Cursus Gallorum'.) - Aristibule
This article needs reworking. For example, "Gallican" does indeed refer to the rite of ancient Gaul, although it is also used in a broader sense to non-Roman Western rites. It also repeated the inaccurate description of the restored Gallican rite of the Orthodox Church of France as mostly Byzantine in content.
First, I changed "Mozarabic" to the more correct "Spanish." Mozarabic would refer to the time when Spain was under Muslim domination, whereas the Spainsh liturgy refers to the autonomous liturgy of Spain from the early sixeth through the late eleventh centuries. Second, I added the outline for the Gallican (proper). I don't know what the other outline was intended to describe, but the Gallican proper did not use the Roman anaphora. Third, I removed "Neo-" as a modifier for "Gallican" when referring to the liturgy of the French Church. Not only is their modifer not used by the French Church, but "Neo-Gallican" is a term describing a 17th century movement in the French Catholic Church. --Fr Lev 14:02, March 12, 2006 (CST)
Neo-Gallican is a term both for the local uses of the Roman rite in the 17th c., and for reconstructions based upon the old Gallican rites: which the L'ECOF rite is. Also important: no such thing as a 'Roman anaphora'. It would be the Roman Canon, and yes - the Gallican rite had the Roman canon inserted quite early (as did the Mozarabic, also called Gothic, or Old Spanish - never Spanish'.) "Spanish rite" would be a neologism, and calling the modern Gallican rite 'Gallican' would be an imprecision, as it is not exactly what was in use in the first millenium. Ari 00:06, March 14, 2006 (CST)
(1) Neo-Gallican is not a term used for the contemporary French liturgy. Nor was it used of the several attempts to restore the Gallican that preceded the work of Kovalevsky. (2) The liturgy of Gaul did not have a fixed canon. (3) The poper term is Spanish, as the other usual terms (Mozarabic and Visigothic) are imprecise as they refer to later historical periods). (4) Liturgists also use the term 'anaphora' to refer to Western eucharistic prayers. --Fr Lev 09:02, March 14, 2006 (CST)
The Spanish Liturgy
First, "Spanish" is hardly a neologism. Its usage has been around for awhile. See, e.g., Louis Bouyer's The Early Liturgy(1959), where he typically refers to the "Spanish liturgy" and the "old Spanish liturgy" (notice the lower-case of "old"). The same is true of Josef Jungmann's The Mass (1976). Mozarabic and Visigothic are less precise. I have also seen "Hispanic" as a modifier for this rite, but not "Toledan." The latter is also misleading, in that the Spanish liturgy is associated not only with Toldeo but with Seville and Tarragona. The association with Toldeo most likely reflects that the Spanish liturgy has survived only in a cathedral chapel in Toledo (established in the late fifteenth century), while it was suppressed elsewhere in Spain in 1080. --Fr Lev 11:44, March 14, 2006 (CST)
No fixed Canon in the Gallican (proper) or the Spanish
As mentioned previously, the ancient rite of the Gauls did not have a fixed eucharistic prayer. A useful description may be found in Jasper and Cuming's Prayers of the Eucharist: Early and Reformed, 3rd ed., 1997.The editors write: "The Gallican eucharistic prayer is organized on a basis of four fixed points: Sursum corda, Sanctus, Institution Narrative, and Doxology, between which are inserted three passages varying from Sunday to Sunday. In the Gallican rite these passages are known as contestatio or immolatio (the equivalent of the preface), post-Sanctus, and post-secreta or post-mysterium (the Institution Narrative being known as secreta)" (p.147). We also find a similarly tradition in the Spanish, as witnessed to by St Isidore of Seville. See, e.g., Josef Jungmann's The Mass (1976), pp. 60-61. In the Spanish, the variable parts are known as the illatio, post-Sanctus, and post-Pridie (Jasper and Cuming, p.151). --Fr Lev 12:04, March 14, 2006 (CST)
Gallican or Neo-Gallican?
It has been suggested that 'Neo-Gallican' would be the most accurate way of referring to the rite restored and presently being used by the Orthodox Church of France. As I indicated before, liturgists use the term 'Neo-Gallican' to refer to a seventeenth century movement in the French Catholic Church. That is the only usage by liturgical scholars. I've only seen it applied to the current French liturgy by Western rite partisans who know nothing about the actual rite itself and/or who wish to present the French liturgy as less 'pure' than other Western rite liturgies in use today. It was written: "'Gallican' would be an imprecision, as it is not exactly what was in use in the first millenium." This assertion doesn't match what is actually scholarly usage. We don't refer to the Roman rite as presently celebrated as 'Neo-Roman' even though it isn't exactly what was in use in ancient Rome. The same would be true of the Byzantine rite. We musn't confuse scholarly usage (which OrthodoxWiki aspires to) with the uage found in blogs, etc. --Fr Lev 09:33, March 15, 2006 (CST)
Anaphora or Canon?
First, it is quite common in liturgical scholarship to refer to eucharistic prayers -- be they Eastern or Western -- as 'anaphoras.' One sees this, e.g., in the work of Enrico Mazza on the origns of the eucharistic prayer. I have before me an article by Fr Aidan Kavanagh of Yale -- one of the great American liturgical scholars -- entitled "Thoughts on the Roman Anaphora." In an article by Gabriel Ramis on the Gallican rite, he refers to its eucharistic prayer as "Eucharistic Anaphora." Second, while it is still common to see the Roman anaphora referred to as the 'canon,' it is worthwhile noting why liturgists increasingly use 'anaphora' in its place. The oldest Roman usage is to call the eucharistic prayer simply prex (prayer). When the Roman prayer becomes normative, it is referred to as the prex canonica -- which time eventually shorted to 'canon.' At the same time, the use of 'canon' became restricted to only that part of the anaphora that follows the Sanctus, thus cutting out of the prex both the dialogue between the presider and the assembly (called the Sursum corda in the West) and the praefatio (preface). --Fr Lev 12:37, March 15, 2006 (CST)