[268] Binterim (Denkw., v. 270) rejects the view that Alcuin had anything to do with the matter, and considers that the festival was introduced not through him, but through a certain Catulfus at the court of Charlemagne. The well-meant but rather obscure letter of this Catulfus is printed in Migne, xcvi. 1363. Careful consideration of the passage in question shows he is speaking of the honour of the Trinity in general, and not of any festival of the Holy Trinity.
[269] Cf. the so-called Mass of Alcuin (Migne, Patr. Lat., cl. 445). The circumstance that the present preface of the Trinity appears in the Vatican MSS. used by Muratori, and is printed in his Liturgia Rom. Vetus (11, 285, and 321), can easily have given rise to mistakes.
[270] Potho of Prüm (1152) has an interesting remark to which Hospinian draws attention: “Miramur satis, quod visum fuerit hoc tempore quibusdam monasteriis mutare colorem optimum novas quasdam inducendo celebritates.... Quæ igitur ratio hæc festa celebrandi nobis induxcit, festum videlicet s. trinitatis et festum transfigurationis Domini? Additur his a quibusdam, quod magis absurdum videtur, festum conceptionis S. Mariæ” (De Statu Domus Dei lib.; De la Bigne, Magna Bibl. Vet. Patrum, ix. 588). One must make allowances for Potho’s standpoint. He set himself energetically against the monks having the cure of souls or any say in the administration of the Church, as detrimental to their vocation to the contemplative life. On the same grounds, he set himself against all alterations in the rule, and all innovations in the festivals of the Church’s year.
[271] Cap. 2, x. de feriis, 2, 9, § 3.
[272] Baillet (ix. 2, 158) considers this office was then a new one, though based upon one of the three ancient offices. Binterim, 265 seqq., and Bäumer, 298 (where, however, a few statements need correcting) take a different view.
[273] Vita S. Julianæ ab auctore coævo conscr., 1, c. 2, in Acta SS. Boll., April 1, 473-75, with its Prolegg., 442.
[274] The letter of this synod is printed in Binterim, Denkw., v. 1, 276 et seqq. For the original office so far as it is extant, cf. ibid. 284.
[275] The bull “Transiturus” is contained in the Constitution of Clement V. in 1311 (Clementini, 3, 16). It is also in Labbe’s Councils (xi. 1, 817). Cf. Bened. XIV., Institutiones Constit., v. 20, for the procession.
[276] Binterim has brought forth fresh evidence in favour of the fact, which many have questioned (op. cit. 282, and vii. 1, 77).
[277] Hartzheim, Conc. Germ., iii. 699.