LE BRUN, PIERRE. — Oratorian liturgist and theologian, b. 11 June 1661 at Brignoles (Var), d. in Paris on 6 January 1729. Having become a priest in 1685, he taught theology for two years at the Seminary of Grenoble (1687–89). A passionate student of history, he obtained permission to spend the rest of his life at the Seminary of S. Maglorio (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, maintaining the proper mean between the exaggerated symbolism of Amalarius of Metz and the cold naturalism of Claudio de Vert. He asserts that, while some ceremonies were introduced out of necessity, there are also rites accepted for their symbolic value. On this basis, he reconstructed the precise history of the individual parts of the Mass, penetrating their hidden meanings with acuity and theological exactness. In the other three volumes, with abundant erudition, he studies the ceremonies of the Mass in the Ambrosian, Gallican, Mozarabic, and Eastern liturgies (Constantinopolitan, Alexandrian, Ethiopian, Antiochene, Armenian), demonstrating their substantial unity, broken by Protestantism insofar as the constituent elements of the Sacrifice are concerned. 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 abridged form, was reprinted separately (about 14 times in the 19th century). This preference is justified, because while the other three are somewhat antiquated, the first retains all its freshness and, apart from certain historical inaccuracies, still constitutes an excellent explanation of the Roman Mass which, in the judgment of H. Leclercq, even the substantial modern studies have not yet surpassed. It can now be consulted in its entirety in the clear edition of E. Bonnardet (Paris 1949). In diss. 10, art. 17, Le B. defended the unusual opinion that the words « hoc est corpus meum » etc. have the value of the efficient cause of transubstantiation, though subordinated to the impetratory causality inherent epiclesis (v.), which precedes it in the Roman Mass (Quam oblationem) and follows it in the Eastern liturgies; thus, in the West, the words of consecration accomplish the mystery, whereas in the East it is completed in the subsequent epicletic prayer. A lively controversy arose from this, continuing until the author’s death; he answered his opponents with several pamphlets, tenaciously defending his point of view. He wrote other works on the divining rod (attributing its effects to the demon), on comedy (arguing for the illicitness of theatrical performances against Fr. Caffaro, a Theatine), and on the concordance of times and epochs, and left various manuscripts on Oratorian studies, ecclesiastical history (lectures), and the liturgy. Le B., while always respectful toward the Pope, did not entirely escape the subtle infiltrations of Jansenism.