Italic Text is taken from Wikipedia - the free encyclopaedia,
unless otherwise stated.
English: Flower garden in city of Thionville, France.
The Synod of Thionville (German: Diedenhofen) was held in 835 A.D.,
and Amalarius replaced Agobard at this Synod.
Lëtzebuergesch: Zu Diddenuewen.
Date: 10 October 2005 (original upload date).
Source: Own work. Transferred from lb.wikipedia
(Wikimedia Commons)
Amalarius of Metz (circa 780 A.D. - 850 A.D.), also known as Amalarius Symphosius or Amalarius Fortunatus, was a Liturgist and a partisan of Louis the Pious throughout his tumultuous reign.
In 831 A.D., Amalarius travelled to Rome to meet Pope Gregory IV and arrange a new Frankish Liturgy. In 835 A.D., he replaced Agobard at the Synod of Diedenhofen (Thionville). During Agobard's exile (circa 834 A.D.) he was responsible for administering the Diocese of Lyon. He implemented Liturgical reforms.
He wrote extensively on the Mass, including The Liber Officialis, and was involved in the great Mediaeval debates regarding Predestination.
We must rely on his enemy, Florus of Lyon, for an account of Amalarius' condemnation on the accusation of Heresy, at Quierzy, 838 A.D., which banned some of his works. Nevertheless, his writings form a good portion of our current documentation of the 9th-Century Liturgies of the Western Church.
While the exact date of his death is not known, it is believed that it happened around 850 A.D. in Metz.
English: Printed Antiphonary (circa 1700).
Amalarius of Metz, a great Liturgist, tried to introduce his new Antiphonary
when he governed the Diocese of Lyons, but met with strong
Français: F. Montacier / Antiphonaire de la Charité / Musée de l'Assistance
Publique-Hopitaux
de Paris / Hôtel de Miramion (Paris, France).
Recueil de chants liturgiques,
18e siècle (env. 1700), parchemin.
Date: 9 September 2006.
Source: Own work.
(Wikimedia Commons)
(dated 1907).
A
Liturgical writer, born at
Metz, in the last quarter of the 8th-Century; died about 850 A.D. He was formerly considered a different personage from Amalarius of Trèves (Trier), but, of late, owing to the researches of Dom Morin, the opinion seems to prevail that, about 811 A.D., Amalarius of Metz became
Bishop of Trèves, which Diocese he relinquished after two years to act as Envoy to Constantinople. Hence, he is regarded as author of the works once attributed to Amalarius of Trèves.
When Agobard was restored to his
See, both he and Florus attacked the writings of Amalarius and succeeded in having him censured at a
Synod, held at Kiersy in 838 A.D., for his opinion concerning the signification of the parts of the divided Hostat Mass. Finally, Amalarius was involved in the
Theological controversies on
Predestination, raised by
Gottschalk.
The
date of his death has not been determined with
certainty, but it must have been shortly after the year 850 A.D. The works of Amalarius treat chiefly of
Liturgical subjects. His most important, and also his long treatises, are entitled "
De ecclesiasticis officiis" and "
De ordine antiphonarii." The former is divided into four books, in which, without observing a strict,
logical order, he treats of the Mass, the Office, different Benedictions, Ordinations, Vestments, etc., giving an explanation of the various Formularies and Ceremonies, rather than a scientific exposition of the Liturgy.
The first book explains the
Liturgical Seasons and Feasts, from
Septuagesima to Pentecost, and especially the Ceremonies of
Holy Week. The second book treats of the times for conferring
Holy Orders, of the different Orders in the
Church and of the
Liturgical Vestments. The third book contains a few Preliminary Chapters on Bells, the Choir, etc., a Treatise on the different parts of the Mass, Celebrated Pontifically, according to the
Roman Rite, and some Chapters on special subjects, e.g.
Advent, the Mass for the Dead, etc.
The fourth book deals principally with The
Divine Office, explaining its integral parts and the Offices peculiar to certain
Liturgical Seasons or Feast Days, but it contains a few supplementary Chapters on Obsequies for the Dead and subjects already treated.
In the "
De ordine antiphonarii", he explains the arrangement of The
Divine Office and the variations for the different Feasts, and considers, in particular, the origin and meaning of the
Antiphons and Responses; indeed, in this world, he would seem a commentator on his own
Antiphonary compiled from the
Antiphonaries of
Rome and Metz, and a defender of his method of composition.
His "
Eclogae de officio missae" contains a description of the
Pontifical Mass, according to the
Roman Rite, and a mystical explanation of the different parts of the Mass. Several letters of Amalarius, dealing with
Liturgical subjects, have also been preserved. Dom Morin denies the authenticity of the Letter of Amalarius in response to certain questions of
Charlemagne concerning
Baptism, as well as the "
Forma institutionis canonicorum et sanctimonialium," which is a collection of rules taken from the Decrees of Councils and works of the Fathers, for
Clerics and
Nuns living in Community. Unfortunately, his
Antiphonary, and also his "
Embolis", have not been preserved.
Amalarius seems to have had a strong liking for
Liturgical studies, a liking which was stimulated and fostered by his master,
Alcuin. His travels to the East gave him considerable information concerning the Oriental Rites, but his stay in
Rome appears to have imbued him with a deep
love for the Roman Liturgy and to have greatly influenced his
Liturgical work. There, he made a special study of
Rubrics and Roman customs; he inquired diligently of Theodore, the
Arch-Priest of the
Basilica of Saint Peter, concerning the Formularies and Ceremonies in use in Rome, and even sought to obtain copies of the
Liturgical books to bring to
France.
Living at this time when the Liturgy was changing, when the fusion of the Roman and Gallican uses was taking place, he exercised a remarkable influence in introducing the present composite Liturgy, which has finally supplanted the ancient
Roman Rite. He sought to carry out the desire of the Emperor to introduce the Roman Liturgy in order to obtain uniformity, but, at the same time, like
Alcuin and other
Liturgists of his age, he combined with the Roman Rite whatever he deemed worth preserving in the
Gallican Rite, as may be easily seen in his commentary on his own
Antiphonary.
The chief merit of his works consists of the fact that they have preserved much accurate and valuable information on the state of the Liturgy at the beginning of the 9th-Century, so that a comparison may easily be made between it and the present Liturgy, to determine what changes have occurred and to trace the development that has taken place.
The most serious defect in his writings is an excessive
mysticism, which led him to seek far-fetched, and even absurd, symbolical origins and meanings for
Liturgical Formulas and Ceremonies, but the fault may be in a measure excused, since it was common to all
Liturgical writers of that time. He may also have used more liberty in composing, changing, and transposing
Liturgical Texts than
Ecclesiastical authority in later ages would permit, when the necessity of unity in the Liturgy was more imperatively felt. In spite of these faults, he exercised great influence on the development of the present Roman Liturgy, and his works are very useful for the study of the history of the Latin
Liturgies.
.jpg)
