The Sacrifice of Unity and The Rite of Fermentum in the city Churches of Rome The Christian sacrifice is the same throughout the world; for the Christian by whom it is offered is one, and there is one God to whom it is offered; one faith by which it is offered, and one alone who is offered. It is the “sacrifice of the Church”, “of the whole Church”, of pastor and people, of the present and the absent. And its purpose again is Unity, for it is for the Church once more that it is offered, for a greater, more united Church: pro totius mundi salute. 79 "Inexpressible mystery of divine grace that effects salvation ", says a preface in the Ambrosian liturgy. "The offerings of the many become by the infusion of the Holy Spirit the one Body of Christ, and that is why we who receive the Communion of this holy bread and chalice are knit into one sole body." 1 The ceremonies of the Pontifical Mass at Rome were from this point of view particularly striking: It was a matter of importance in the Roman Church that the ritual of the communion should contain a clear and striking expression of ecclesiastical unity. Hence the custom of the fermentum, that is, of sending consecrated bread from the bishop's Mass to the priests whose duty it was to celebrate in the Tituli; hence also the significance of the rite of the Sancta, that is, of putting into the chalice at the Pax Domini a fragment consecrated at the preceding Mass and brought forth at the beginning of the present one. Thus, in all the churches of Rome, and at every assembly there for liturgical worship past or present, there was always the same Sacrifice, the same Eucharist, the same Communion. Thus, in order to show clearly that the bread broken and distributed away from the altar was the same as that which had been consecrated on the altar, a fragment of it was allowed to remain on the holy table. 2 From Catholicism, Henri de Lubac. Ignatius Press, 103. The Rite of Fermentum in the city Churches of Rome One of the most important documents which gives us precise information about liturgical customs in the ancient Roman Church is the Si Instituta sent by Pope Innocent 1st. to Bishop Decentius of Gubbio on March 19th 416 AD. In response to a series of questions which the latter had put to him earlier. One of these questions was sparked by the different customs in their respective dioceses regarding demographic distribution of Christians and their churches. In Rome, all the clergy and the churches were concentrated in the city, and many places, labeled tituli, for the celebration of the liturgy existed within the city. There was a significant concentration of priests within these tituli, and the only clergy outside the boundary of the city were posted at the cemeteries. By contrast, at Gubbio, the small city had only one church and the priests were scattered among Christian communities called parrochiae, which is defined as a gathering of Christians having a church building and a resident priest. One of the bishops of Gubbio’s concerns was whether he was still obliged to practice the rite of fermentum after the Roman custom. “It is unesessary for you to enquire about the fermentum which we send to the tituli each Sunday. In our diocese (Rome) all the churches are within the city, and so neither those people nor their priests could possible gather with us on Sunday. They receive from the acolytes the fermentum which has been confected by us, so that they will not consider themselves, even for a single day, separated from communion with us. But I do not believe that this needs to be done in the, parishes, since the distance involved in taking the sacrament is too long, and because we ourselves do not send the fermentum to those priests who live in the churches established in the cemeteries, but rather that they themselves have the right and the authority to celebrate. What is this fermentum that we see mentioned here for the first time? An eighth century document called Ordo Romanus II casts some light on the subject. It enumerates the various liturgies that occur when somebody other than the bishop of Rome presides at a stational liturgy in one of the titulus churches. One reads that “In the sixth place, when it is time to say, Pax domini sit simper vobiscum, the subdeacon is offered a portion of the consecrated fermentum from the altar of the bishop of Rome, the apostolic altar, and he in turn, gives it to the archdeacon, who gives it to the bishop. He, having made three signs of the Cross with it, drops it into the chalice.” According to that text, the fermentum is a portion of the consecrated bread of the Eucharist of the Pope, which is then taken to the stational mass and placed into the chalice before the Communion. There has obviously been a substantial change in the rite between the time of the exchange of letters between Innocent Ist and Decentius of Gubbio in 416 and the eighth century description contained in the Ordo Romano II. We need to examine this change and the reasons behind the alteration in the meaning of the symbolism it contains. The principle of a single Eucharistic The Western Church In the eighth century, if we are to believe the Ordo Romanus Ii, the ceremony which took place in the stational church was a full mass at which the presider consecrated the bread and the wine before placing the fermentum in the chalice for distribution. Most liturgists believe that the same sequence of movement was inherited from the time of Innocent 1st. But much evidence exists to show that the ceremony at the titulus churches in Rome did not contain a Eucharistic celebration at all. The letter of Innocent 1st makes this clear. The bishop of Gubbio does not have to send the fermentum to his outlying parishes for two reasons. The first reason is that the sacramenta- the consecrated species- should not be transported over long distances. The second reason given by Innocent was that, even in Rome itself, the Pope did not send the fermentum to these churches situated in the cemeteries extra muros, where the priests have the right and the authority to do this themselves. In this sentence of his letter the Pope contrasts the situation of his urban tituli with that of the extra muros churches. To the first, he sends the sacramenta, he refrains from sending the sacramenta to the latter and the priests in these churches have the right to consecrate- et presbyteri eorum habent atque jus conficiendorum licentiam. This last remark of the Pope, that the priests of the extra muros churches had the right and the authority to consecrate, must therefore imply that he believed that the priests of the tituli did not have such authority. It is interesting that the Liber Pontificalis, which attributes the establishment of the stational liturgies to Pope Marcellus, in mentioning the Pope’s intention that these stational liturgies would serve the people, says that they would provide for baptism and for reconciliation. But there is no mention of Eucharist. “Hic … XXV titulos in Roma constituit quasi dioceses propter baptismum et paenitentiam et sepulturas martyrum.” This phrase belongs to a rescension of the document between the years 530-687. It is likely that the copyist who wrote this had more education than his predecessor, who wrote during the pontificate of Marcellus between 308 and 309. This copyist did know that one of the titulus churches bore the name of Pope Marcellus and so may have thought that this indicated that the entire twenty five stations were in place during his short pontificate of 308- 309. His assertion is worthless in determining the exact date of the establishment of the tituli, but he would not have mentioned the two sacraments of Penance and Baptism alone except to make it clear that the Eucharist was not celebrated there. This rule was in total agreement with the most ancient tradition of the Church. Around the year 130 AD, during a schism in the Church, Ignatius of Antioch had made this recommendation to the Christians to the Christians of Philadelphia: “Make sure that you keep one Eucharist, because there is only one flesh of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and one cup in the unity of his blood; there is but one altar, one bishop, together with the presbyters and the deacons.” This text speaks of only one celebration, at one altar, by a bishop who rules the whole community, and is assisted by all the clergy. This single celebration signifies the Unity of the Church. This was probably a practical aim when numbers of Christians in any town was small and there was only one accepted gathering place for those Christians. But as the Church became popular in the large cities of the Empire, the number of Christian house-churches grew also. In both the East and in Rome, their daily celebrations consisted of a liturgy of the Word led by a presbyter, without the presense of the episcopos. The aim of maintaining a single Eucharistic assembly was aspired to for the sake of preserving unity, though the reality was that these occurred only on Sundays. As for evidence about the practice in other Western Churches, we have the evidence of Augustine of Hippo, who was a contemporary of Innocent 1st. In Tractate 3 on the Letters of John, on a text that says; “They have gone out from among us, but they were not of us.” (1John 2: 19.), Augustine condemns those Christians who say that Donatists and Catholics are all he same since they all worship Christ. “If we are not separated, then we are united; but if we are in unity, then why are there two altars in this town?” The existence of two Eucharistic celebrations within the same town was proof enough for Augustine that there was a schism. This remark seems to prove that there was only one place in Hippo where the Catholic bishop would say Mass, even though we also know that the Catholics had several churches within the city. For example, we know from Sermon 325 that Augustine asked the people gathered in the church of the Twenty Martyrs to follow him back to the major basilica to celebrate the Eucharist there. This remark in Sermon 325 gives extra meaning to Augustine’s condemnation of the Donatists for erecting an altar in opposition to the altar of the Eucharist in Hippo. “To erect one altar against another in the same city.” It also sheds light retrospectively on the condemnations of the Novatians by Cyprian of Carthage. His remarks need to be read in a concrete sense rather than if he were speaking figuratively. “There is but one God, and one Christ, one Church, one flesh, one Word of the Lord established upon Peter as its foundation. No other altar should be set up, no other priest may be instituted, because there is only one altar and one priesthood.”3 “Those who attempt to make an offering, in opposition to the only divine altar, commit a sacrilege.” 4 “The enemies of the altar rebels against the sacrifice of Christ, have lost the faith, they show contempt for the bishops, and they desert the priests of God, then go and prepare another altar.” 5 The situation in Alexandria As for the East, we know that at the beginning of the fourth century, Eusecius speaks about the altar in his own cathedral at Tyre as “the only one.” The word he uses is the same word with which it was then common to refer to the Only Begotten Son of the Father, “monogene” Pope Leo 1st writes to Dioscorus of Alexandria in 444 that it is permissible to offer the sacrifice of the Eucharist more than once on a day if the building is too small to contain all the faithful who come to take part. To do otherwise, though it is defensible in terms of following the custom of having only one Mass for the community, might lead to offending the religious feelings of Christians. Bishop Dioscorus of Alexandria observed strictly the maxim that there should be one Mass. After all that had had happened, he decided that there should be one Mass for the entire city. In this, he thought that he was in line with the ancient custom of one mass for the entire community. The letter of Pope Leo is better understood from this perspective, it mentions only one basilica, even though there were many in Alexandria, and it underlines that those of the faithful who wished to participate in the Mass should go to the basilica in the early hours of the morning. They will not otherwise have a chance to ‘offer the sacrifice’. And we must look at how the Bishop of Rome sought to remedy this situation. He did not demand that other churches be established in which the Mass could be celebrated and therefore the rule that only one mass be celebrated in each church could be observed. Instead, so the great number of Christians could all have some sense of participation in the Eucharist, he suggested that Mass be celebrated immediately again and again in the episcopal basilica. We must realize that this practice at Alexandria was not the Roman way, since we read the Pope say that he wishes the Alexandrian practice to come into conformity with the Roman custom. The Roman church accepted, however, by the middle of the Fifth century, the custom of the single celebration, though Leo 1st provides tight limits on any exceptions, such other celebrations might only happen during the high solemn festivities, and they would be arranged as successive masses all offered on the same altar, this was so that it would be clear to all that the succeeding celebrations were merely reenactments of the first episcopal celebration. I think that there is certainly enough evidence at this point to prove that in the ancient church at Rome and elsewhere, the bishop was the only person who celebrated Sunday Eucharist within his city. Even when the numbers of Christians grew, and other locales were accepted where Eucharist might be celebrated, that principle was maintained by actions and signs that were easily understood. The risks appeared great to the bishops, because there was a fear that the priests celebrating these eucharists would lose any sense of their dependence upon the bishop, and think of themselves as having the same status and power as the bishop. In an attempt to preserve the authority of the bishop and also to stress the unity of the church with its bishop, two rites were reserved exclusively to the bishop- that of laying on hands signifying the imposition of the Holy Spirit, and secondly the right of celebrating the Eucharist within the city. If one appreciates this background, then the rite of fermentum is much better understood. If it is true that the priests in the tituli of Rome had only the power to celebrate a liturgy of the Word, and that they were therefore excluded from the confection of the species of the Body and Blood of Christ, does that mean that they found a solution to that difficult privation by receiving from an acolyte a morcel of the Eucharist that had come from the altar of the bishop? This leads us to ask what the term “fermentum” itself means. Certainly we all agree that it was a morcel of the consecrated bread from the bishop’s altar, brought by an acolyte to the different churches in the city and then placed in the chalice by the priest who presided at that titulus. This is mentioned by Leo 1st and also by Pope Gelasius (492- 496) It was difficult to transport the consecrated wine through the streets of the city, and so the priest could not receive the Eucharist from the bishop under that species. Instead, according to some authors, he placed some of the consecrated bread he had accepted from the acolyte, into his chalice filled with wine. The wine was then consecrated by contact, the piece of consecrated bread acting as a ferment upon the wine and changing it into the Blood of Christ. Accepting this hypothesis means also accepting that the priests at the titulus churches did not possess the power of consecration. Not all authors accept that the wine into which he placed the bread was unconsecrated. These authors deny that the word fermentum refers to the effect the bread of the bishop’s altar had upon the wine of the priest at the titulus. A different explanation? 1 Sunday before Septuagesima. Dom Guéranger, The Liturgical Year, vol l, The Time after Pentecost. And this prayer from the Mozarabic missal, for Friday of the third week of Lent: ". . . pro universae Ecclesiae membris et pro totius mundi corpore tibi supplicantes" (PL 85, 351). Robert Paululus De ecclesiasticis officiis (177, 419). 2 Duchesne, Christian Worship: Its Origin and Evolution, trans. by M. L McClure (London, 1903), p. 185. P. Batiffol, Leçons sur la Messe (4th ed. 1919), pp. 9Off. P. Le Brun, Explication des prières et des cérémonies de la Messe. new ed., vol. 1 (1860), pp. 502-4. Already in the second century: Letter from Irenaeus to Victor, in Eusebius, Hist. Eccles., lib. 5, c. 24, n. 15 (Grapin, vol. 2, p. 128). Innocent l, Epist. 25, n. 8 (PL 20, 556-57). 3 Epistle of Cyprian 43, 5, 2. “Deus unus est et Christus unus et una ecclesia et cathedra una super petrum Domini Voce fundata. Aliud altare constitui aut sacerdotium novum fieri praeter unum altare et unum sacerdotium non potest.” 4 Epistle 72, 2, 1. “Et Contra altare unum ayque divinum sacrificial foris falsa ac sacrilege offere conati sint.”
Translated from the French
It is also worth noting that Innocent 1st says that the fermentum is for the priest at the titulus. There is no mention of the people who are at the service, only the priest is mentioned as the one who receives the Eucharist from the Pope’s altar. Could it be that the other people present at the titulus do not want to receive the Holy Communion or could it be that they cannot receive it? Perhaps we need to pay attention to the fact that the two sacraments of penance and baptism are specifically mentioned as being celebrated at the titulus churches and that there is no mention of celebrating Eucharist. Perhaps the reason for that is that the catechumens who were seeking baptism and the penitents who were seeking reconciliation were exactly the two groups who could not receive communion. Perhaps this is why they were still at the titulus church and a not at the bishop’s basilica. It is viable hypothesis that the faithful did go and celebrate with the bishop at his basilica, while the catechumens and the penitents remained behind at the titulus to participate in the Liturgy of the Eucharist. The priest, being forced to absent himself from the Mass of the Bishop so that he may look after the spiritual welfare of the penitents and catechumens. The bishop then sent the fermentum to him alone, so that he would be reminded of his unity with the whole church through the bishop.
In the Ordo XXX there is a description of the ceremonials from Holy Thursday until the Sunday after Easter. Though the priests could not be present at the pontifical Mass, they each celebrated a Mass at their own titulus at the same time as the Pope was celebrating at the basilica. They would send the sub-deacon to the basilica and he would bring back a portion of the consecrated bread in a corporal. “Et venit oblationarius subdeaconus et dat eis de sancto, quod pontifex consacravit, et recipient ea in corporals et revertitur unusquisque ad titulum suum et tradit sancta presbytero.” The priest then made the sign of the Cross over the chalice with the fermentum and placed that morsel in his own chalice. “Et de ipsa facit crucem super calicem et point in eo et dicit Dominus vobiscum. Et communicant omnes sicut superius.”