LE BRUN, PIERRE. - Oratorian liturgist and theologian, b. June 11, 1661 at Brignoles (Var), d. in Paris on Jan. 6, 1729. Ordained a priest in 1685, he taught theology for two years at the Seminary of Grenoble (1687-89). A passionate devotee of history, he obtained permission to spend the rest of his life at the Seminary of St. Maglorius (Paris).
His fame is due to the classic Explication littérale, historique et dogmatique des prières et des cérémonies de la Messe (4 vols., Paris 1716-26). In the first he explains the Roman Mass, holding the proper middle ground between the exaggerated symbolism of Amalarius of Metz and the cold naturalism of Claude de Vert. He affirms that if there are ceremonies introduced out of necessity, there are also rites adopted for their symbolic value. With this principle he retraces the exact history of the individual parts of the Mass, penetrating, with theological acumen and precision, their hidden meanings. In the other three he studies, with copious erudition, the ceremonies of the Mass in the Ambrosian, Gallican, Mozarabic rites and in the Eastern liturgies (Constantinopolitan, Alexandrian, Ethiopian, Antiochene, Armenian), demonstrating their substantial unity, broken by Protestantism, as regards the constitutive elements of the Sacrifice. The work, universally appreciated, went through many editions (about 13 in the 18th century) and was translated into Latin by G. A. Dalmaso (Venice 1770).
The first volume, generally in an abridged form, was reprinted separately (about 14 times in the 19th century). The preference is justified, because while the other three are somewhat antiquated, the first retains all its freshness and, apart from a few historical inaccuracies, still constitutes an excellent explanation of the Roman Mass, which, in the judgment of H. Leclercq, the admittedly notable modern studies have not yet surpassed. It can now be consulted, in its entirety, through the clear edition of E. Bonnardet (Paris 1949). In diss. 10, art. 17, Le B. maintained the strange opinion that the words "hoc est corpus meum" etc. have the value of an efficient cause of transubstantiation, subordinated, however, to the impetratory causality inherent in the formula of the epiclesis (v.), which precedes in the Roman Mass (Quam oblationem) and follows in the Eastern liturgies, so that in the West the words of consecration accomplish the mystery, which in the East is concluded in the ensuing epicletic prayer. From this arose a lively controversy, which continued until the author's death; he replied to his opponents with several pamphlets, tenaciously defending his point of view. He wrote other works on the divining rod (he attributes its effects to the devil), on comedy (he advocates the unlawfulness of theatrical performances against Fr. Caffaro, a Theatine), on the concordance of times and epochs, and he left various manuscripts on Oratorian studies, on Church history (lectures), and on liturgy. Le B., though always respectful toward the Pope, did not entirely escape the subtle infiltrations of Jansenism.
Bibliography6 works
Antonio Piolanti