1

IV.
THE CLASSICAL ERA OF THE ROMAN LITURGY (5TH- 8TH CENTURIES)
LITURGY FOR AND OF A LOCAL CHURCH

A. SOURCES FOR THE PERIOD

1.

The Roman Canon (Rome's unique eucharistic prayer).

2.

The Libelli missarum of the Sacramentarium Veronense (a manuscript dated

around 600 A.D., which is a sixth-century collection of Roman liturgical prayers in
the form of Mass propers from the late fourth century onwards).

3.

Roman Ordo # I (Ordo Romanus Primus, c.700 A.D.) gives us the earliest and
fullest description of the papal stational Mass, celebrated on Easter Sunday, at the
Basilica of Santa Maria Maggiore on Rome's Esquiline Hill.

B. THE CLASSICAL ROMAN LITURGY

The era of Roman freedom under Constantine caused frenetic
development in every sector of the liturgy, but did not produce the liturgy which
we know today as the Roman liturgy. It was only toward the end of the fourth
century that the liturgy in Rome acquired the cultural traits that
strongly contributed to the formation of a Roman liturgy, a liturgy
developed by Roman popes for the Roman people.

ORIGINAL CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ROMAN LITURGY

The original characteristics of the Roman Liturgy, according to a study by
E. Bishop, had been influenced by what is called the genius of the Roman
people (cultural values, linguistic and ritual patterns, and institutions. These
were the components of the Roman culture around the fifth century. 1 The original
core of the Roman liturgy was not dramatic but sober, not prolix in language and
rites but simple, not symbolic in its gestures but practical and functional. This
was referred to as the pure shape of the Roman liturgy. 2

1 E. Bishop, The Genius of the Roman Rite, Liturgica Historica, 2-9.

2 B. Neunheuser, Storia della liturgia attraverso le epoche culturali, Rome 1983, 55-70.

This period was also called classical. Classicus [from classis3] is synonymous
with such qualities as balance, restraint, or sobriety, noble simplicity, orderliness,
solemnity, and directness. It was thanks to the creativity of such Roman bishops
as Damasus (+384), Innocent I (+ 417), Leo the Great (+461), Gelasius (+496),
Vigilius (+555), and Gregory the Great (+604) that these qualities of the Roman
rite developed after the fourth century.

THE CHIEF COMPONENTS OF THE CLASSICAL SHAPE OF THE ROMAN

LITURGY
1. FORMAL ELEMENTS the ritual elements include the plan of the celebration,
gestures and symbols, and the body of liturgical texts, especially the
euchological formularies. The rites are characterized by simplicity, sobriety,
and practical sense (e.g. the rite of the Mass in the Roman Ordo I, 7 th
century). The prayer formularies, on the other hand, are characterized by
restraint, brevity, and directness (e.g. the prayer formularies in the Leonine
or Veronese and Gregorian sacramentaries). Their literary style suggests
that they were written by people who were educated in the Roman schools of
rhetorics, arts, and classical studies (Damasus, Innocent I, Leo the Great,
Gelasius, Vigilius, and Gregory the Great).
2. THEOLOGICAL ELEMENTS include the doctrinal and spiritual message
contained in the ritual elements and texts. The rites and prayer formularies
are characterized by a certain sobriety and theological restraint (e.g. toward
the mystery of the Eucharist). In the Roman Ordo I, for example, there are
no external signs of adoration and reverence directed to the sacred species
through such gestures as incensation, bowing, and genuflection. The one
exception is at the entrance rite when with bowed head the pope or deacon
pays respect to the sacrament which had been consecrated in a previous
Mass. Regarding prayer formularies, Roman sobriety deeply marks the
language of the prayers after communion in the early sacramentaries (e.g.
the sacramental bread and wine as food and drink [= cibus et potus], or
heavenly gifts [= sacramentum, dona caelestia], or saving gifts [= munera
salutifera] rather than as the body and blood of Christ.

N.B. It is this classical shape that the Constitution on the Liturgy speaks about
in art. 34: The rites should be marked by a noble simplicity; they should be
short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the
peoples powers of comprehension and as a rule not require much explanation.
3 Referred to the superior cultural division of the Roman population; homo classicus = a person
of culture, highly educated. Today, classic = the model or standard and authoritative
expression of literature, music, painting sculptureaccording to the principles and methods of
ancient Greeks and Romans.

The option for the classical form was taken to task, even during the Council, for
being somewhat archeological. A Council Father advised the conciliar commission
on the liturgy to institute changes for reasons not of archaeology but of pastoral
care for which the Council had been convened. Yet in the thinking of those who
framed the Constitution, the pastoral care which promotes active and intelligent
participation was addressed by the classical qualities of the Roman liturgy. Thus
art. 50 directs that for the sake of devout, active participation the rites of the
Mass are to be simplified, useless duplications eliminated, and useful and
necessary elements restored to the vigor they had in the tradition of the
Fathers.4
C.

THE STATIONAL LITURGY OF ROME

As long as the Church remained small in numbers, the faithful of any particular
city assembled with their bishop in one place for the liturgical functions of the
community. They were the family of God in that place, and therefore gathered in
one building at a common table. But as soon as Christians in any city became
too numerous to assemble together in one building, as was the case in Rome,
this primitive principle began to break down. The single assembly was in
practice divided into several congregations. In the growth of the Christian
population, the places of worship multiplied in considerable numbers: basilicas,
title churches, cemetery churches, which were served by priests, the pope only
officiating in them on certain occasions. It was not possible, therefore, for the
bishop of Rome to preside at the liturgy in every church of the city, nor indeed
was it possible for every Christian of the city to attend the Eucharist, or other
liturgical function, presided over by the bishop. It is estimated that, in the fifth
century, "the population was still approaching the million and lived in all the
residential neighborhoods of the city" (Marcel Metzger). Nevertheless, the
principle of unity was felt to be so important that two uniquely Roman practices
developed to preserve this principle in a city with a fast growing number of
churches. The first was the stational Mass itself; the second was the custom
known as the fermentum or "leaven", practiced during stational Masses.
Statio in Christian usage seems to have had two distinct meanings. In the
earliest times, it was applied to a fast. Thus it is defined in the second-century
work, The Shepherd of Hermas: "Why have you come hither so early in the
morning?" "Because, sir," I answered, "I have a station." "What is a station?" he
asked. "I am fasting, sir," I replied." (Book III, Similitude V,I). Tertullian referred
to the weekly fasts of Wednesday and Friday as dies stationes ("stational days"),
meaning days of fasting and prayer, which at Rome and Carthage also had a
Eucharist, but elsewhere only prayers and readings. Isidore of Seville also
identified station and fast. It was Tertullian's opinion that this meaning of statio
derived from the military use, where it meant standing on post or guard.

4 A. J. Chupungco, History of the Roman Liturgy Until the Fifteenth Century, in Handbook for
Liturgical Studies 1: Introduction to the Liturgy, ed. A. J Chupungco, Collegeville 1997, 141.

Later, statio came to mean a place where you halt or stay for a liturgical
meeting and then the meeting itself. It had this meaning for Cyprian of Carthage,
where in statione meant "at a meeting of the bishop and people", but not a
liturgical meeting.
It carried the same significance for his contemporary
Cornelius, bishop of Rome (cf. Letters 44, 2 and 49, 3). This same meaning
appeared clearly at Rome in the second half of the fourth century, as a technical
term of current usage. At Rome, statio came to mean the special papal liturgy
by the fifth century: "In Rome, he (i.e., Pope Hilarius, 461-468 A.D.) arranged
services to circulate around the established stationes" (The Book of the Pontiffs
48). Therefore, there is a clear progression in the meaning of statio: from fasting,
to assemblies held on fast days, to ecclesiastical assemblies, to the place
denoting liturgical assemblies.
The station was the pope's solemn Mass for "the whole city", at least
ideally, and whenever it was celebrated, representatives of the city churches, the
tituli, and of the great basilicas, joined the pope. A later development of
stational liturgy shows that on certain days of the year, near the start of the
liturgy, the assembly was not in the same church where the Eucharist was to be
celebrated, but in another church, from which a solemn procession or litany was
made to the stational church. This preliminary assembly was called in the Roman
liturgy the Collecta. In its developed form, this preliminary assembly or collecta,
consisted of a prayer ad collectam, and then the procession moved to the station
church, the pope being either carried in a chair or transported on a horse, and
the clergy and people of the seven ecclesiastical regions being preceded in each
case by the stational cross of that region. During the procession, psalms and
litanies were recited and the term litania was often applied to the procession. It
was customary to announce at a stational Mass what was the date and place of
the ensuing station, and of the collecta, if any. The archdeacon performed this
function immediately after the pope's own communion at his cathedra.
The Roman people gathered at the station for the major solemnities
(Christmas with its eventual threefold celebration, Epiphany, Easter, Pentecost),
for the paschal cycle (from the start of Lent to the Saturday after Easter), the
week of Pentecost, and the fasts of the seventh and tenth months. Outside the
walls, the pope could convene the church of Rome for the celebration of the
natalicia ("birthdays", that is, days of death) of the saints in the churches where
they were buried.

D.

THE FERMENTUM
The practice of the fermentum was peculiar to Rome and was intended to
symbolize the principle of the one Eucharist celebrated by the bishop with his
people. Although we cannot ascertain how old the practice was, it was certainly
flourishing at the beginning of the fifth century and only disappeared sometime

after the seventh. When the pope presided at a stational liturgy he sent to each
of his clergy serving the title churches within the city boundaries a particle of the
bread which he had consecrated during his own Eucharist; this particle was called
the fermentum. It was carried by acolytes in linen bags, and when the
celebrants of the different title churches received it, they placed it in the chalice
being used in their own eucharists before the distribution of communion. Thus
the different liturgies of the city were united with that of the bishop. Innocent I
himself witnesses to this practice in his Letter to Decentius (c. 415):
"As concerning the fermentum, which we send on Sundays to the 'title'
churches, it is idle to consult us, as all our churches are located within the city.
The priests of these churches, who by reason of their flocks are prevented
from attending our Mass, receive by acolytes this fermentum consecrated in
our Mass, lest, on that day in particular, they feel themselves cut off from us
in communion. But I do not think this ought to be done throughout the
dioceses, because the 'Sacraments' are not to be transported a great distance
(nor do we send the fermentum to the priests stationed at the various
cemeteries [outside the city]; and the priests, of course, retain their own full
right to consecrate)."

According to an eighth-century manuscript from Ratisbonne, as well as

being sent to the title churches on stational days, the fermentum was also sent
to the baptismal churches, that is, churches of the city where initiation rites were
being celebrated on Holy Saturday: "On the Holy Saturday of the Pasch, in the
baptismal churches, no presbyter will give communion to anyone before the pope
sends him a portion of the Sancta ("holy gifts", "sacred species") that he himself
offered."
Once the practice of the fermentum had gone out of fashion, another
seems to have replaced it, as witnessed by the evidence of a liturgical source
dated around the end of the seventh century (the Ordo Romanus Primus): it
describes how during the entrance procession of the pope at a stational mass, he
was presented with a small metal box containing fragments of the consecrated
eucharistic bread from his most recent liturgy, known as the Sancta. During the
actual Eucharist, at the Kiss of Peace, a part of the Sancta would be placed by
him in his own chalice at the Peace; this was the corresponding moment when, in
an earlier period, the presbyters placed the fermentum in their chalices at
Masses in the title churches. The gesture involving the Sancta was symbolic of
the continuity between successive papal Eucharists, uniting the communicants of
the present liturgy with those at the previous liturgy, and giving emphasis to the
idea of the unity of the eucharist:
"Then two collets approach, holding open pyxes (capsae apertae) containing
the Holy Element (Sancta); and the sub-deacon attendant, taking them, with
his hand in the mouth of the pyx, shows the Holy Element to the pontiff and
the deacon who goes before him. Then the pontiff and the deacon salute the
Holy Element with bowed head and look at the same in order that if there be

6
too many fragments he may cause some of them to be put into the aumbray
(i.e., a cupboard in the sacristy for reservation of the sacrament)" (Ordo
Romanus 1, 48).
"When the pontiff says, The peace of the Lord be with you always, he makes a
cross with his hand thrice over the chalice, and drops a consecrated fragment
(Sancta) into it." (Ordo Romanus 1, 95)

E. THE PASSAGE FROM ORAL IMPROVISATION TO WRITTEN TEXTS

In important texts which we have already examined, it is very clear that in the first
Christian centuries, prayer offered up during the liturgy, and notably the eucharistic
prayer, was improvised. When the Didache allows the prophets "to give thanks as much
as they desire"; when Justin in his First Apology reports that at the eucharist the president
prays and gives thanks "according to his ability"; and when Hippolytus in his Apostolic
Tradition says: "It is not necessary, however, that he (the bishop) repeat these same
words we provided, as though he had to say them from memory in his thanksgiving to
God. Let each one pray according to his ability..." these notices amount to particular
applications of a general principle, namely, that in the early Church the celebrant
exercised freedom in formulating the liturgical texts. A charism attached to the office
enabled the bishop and presbyter to formulate and lead the public prayer of the
community. In consequence, there must have been a wide variety of formulas in the early
period. Written texts, however, must have made their appearance at some time, even if
they were of prayers inherited and previously learned by heart through a kind of oral
tradition, but there were no prescribed and binding formulas.
Improvised prayer could be done well, or it could be done badly; it could lead to
abuses and the composition of prayers unworthy of the sacred action. The most
important element in liturgical prayer was the fidelity of liturgical texts to tradition: that
these texts should embody the common faith; that they must have the "dogmatic
accuracy which Pope Celestine I (422-432 A.D.) was to demand, in keeping with the
principle that the "law of belief and the "law of prayer" must be in harmony. Even
Hippolytus in 215, while stressing the freedom of the bishop to improvise the eucharistic
prayer states that his prayer must be "sound and orthodox".
Attempts to correct abuses arising from oral improvisation in liturgical prayer were
made in the canons of various local councils of the North-African church. Without
discouraging the ancient practice of improvisation, these councils and synods provided
guidelines for formulating liturgical prayers:
"In prayers let no one name the Father instead of the Son, or the Son instead of
the Father. And when one stands at the altar let prayer always be directed to the
Father. If anyone copies out prayers for himself from elsewhere, these should not
be used unless he has first discussed them with more learned brethren (fratres
instructiores)." (Hippo, 393 A.D./Carthage 397 A.D.)
"It was also resolved that prayers and orations or masses which have been approved
in council, whether prefaces or commendations or blessings, should be used by all. In
the church any others at all should not be said except those that have been drawn up

7
or approved in synod by the more prudent, lest perhaps something against the faith
be composed either through ignorance or through insufficient care." (Carthage, 407
A.D./Milevis, 402 and 416 A.D.)
"The prayers of many are being corrected every day once they have been read by
the learned, and much against catholic faith is found in them. Many blindly sieze
upon prayers composed not only by unskilled babblers but even by heretics and
use them because in their simple ignorance they cannot evaluate the prayers and
think them good." (Augustine, Against the Donatists 6:47).
The practice of improvisation, therefore, came to rest on the faithful observance of
certain canons, guidelines or principles which were transmitted in the local church from
one generation to the next.

F. CREATION OF TYPICAL FORMS OF ROMAN LITURGICAL PRAYER

In all the traditions, the first composition of written texts was nothing more
than a new type of improvisation. A set of texts was prepared for a specific
celebration and afterwards placed in the local archives as a record of the
celebration. Often a celebrant collected texts into booklets, known as libelli
(missarum). A libellus contained the bishop's or priest's prayers for a single
Eucharist or a small collection of formulas for more than one Mass. They were
originally composed by individuals for their own use in the churches they served.
In this sense, the first libelli may be termed private or personal eucharistic texts.
And thus, collections of written material came into existence. These often helped
individuals, e.g., other bishops or priests, or communities who were unable to
formulate a celebration independently and who came to borrow readily from
other times, or places, or persons. Material thus appropriated was more highly
regarded, the more authoritative it was or claimed to be. If necessary, the
material was attributed to important individuals: apostles, doctors of the Church,
or popes. In many cases, the liturgical material was in fact the creation of men
with a particular ability to formulate prayer. Thus many collections of texts that
were originally for private use became widely used in the course of time. Since
members of the bishop's presbyterium, for example, were conscious of being a
college, we can assume that as a general rule the bishop's celebrations served as
a model and that his prayer compositions, if they existed, would readily be
passed around in the form of a libellus.
The use of the term libellus is used in a story issuing from Gregory of
Tours, late sixth-century, about a certain Sidonius:
"One day it happened that Sidonius went to the monastery church of which I
have told you, for he had been invited there for a festival. Some malicious
person removed the book (libellus) with which it was his habit to conduct the
church service. Sidonius was so well versed in the ritual that he took them
through the whole service of the festival without pausing for a moment. This
was a source of wonder to everyone present and they had the impression that

8
it must be an angel speaking rather than a man. I have described this in more
detail in the preface of the book which I wrote about the Masses composed by
Sidonius." (Gregory of Tours, History of the Franks, Book II, 22)

The fourth and fifth centuries were a period of great liturgical creativity.
Rome itself witnessed the production of a great number of variable texts for the
Eucharist, the composition or editing of euchological texts for the administration
of the sacraments and for use at the liturgy of the hours. Examination of the
contents of various libelli missarum that were written in these centuries and
which have survived in various liturgical sources show that part of liturgical
development during the imperial period involved the creation of new, and what
became typical, forms of Roman liturgical prayer, in addition to the unique and
unchanging eucharistic prayer or Roman Canon. These have remained part of
the Roman liturgy ever since. They were composed in Latin; the passage from
Greek to Latin had been fully effected. We owe the composition of the new
variable Latin texts for the Roman liturgy to a series of particularly endowed
Roman popes, using their knowledge that was the fruit of personal study,
reflection and prayer, men such as Leo the Great (+ 461), Gelasius (+ 496),
Vigilius (+ 555) and Gregory the Great (t 604).
It was at this time that, in addition to the unique and unchanging Roman
Canon, a series of five variable prayers were created as part of the prayer
structure of the eucharistic liturgy whose content was linked to the thematic of
the developing liturgical year. It is argued that Leo the Great's theology of the
liturgical year and his doctrine of the actualization of the mystery of Christ
through the celebration of the Christian feasts, which we find elaborated in his
homilies for various days of the liturgical year, were primarily responsible for this
variability of the Roman orations and prefaces, a characteristic that they have
retained to the present day.
The prayers now required for the Roman celebration of the Eucharist include:
An opening Prayer (oratio or collecta; this single prayer is multiplied into two or
three prayers in certain liturgical sources; the precise use of these extra prayers
continues to be debated)
A Prayer over the Presented Gifts (super oblata, or secreta)
A Preface (Vere dignum or praefatio: the variable opening of the eucharistic
prayer)
The Roman Canon (unchangeable in its fully developed form, except for the Vere
dignum, or Preface, and the insertion of some variable parts at two or three points
in the text)
A Prayer after Communion (Post communionem, or Ad complendum or Ad
completa)

A Prayer over the People (Ad populum: a prayer of blessing and dismissal).

These prayers are typically Roman in style, content and form. The
Romans possessed a special gift which they used to create their liturgical texts
an ability to compose ordered and well constructed formulas. They disliked an
excess of emotion and had a powerful sense of style. This style is both grand
and concise, somewhat aloof, and yet it is objective, clearly thought out, and
controlled in its structure. The content is sometimes remarkably biblical, laden
with important scriptural concepts, but also concentrates on dogmatic and
fundamental truths.
A common structure is fairly consistent in these prayers, although in
some, the order of the elements is subject to rearrangement, while in others
certain elements may be omitted:
(a)

The prayer opens with an 'address' to God the Father.

(b) This is followed a qui-clause, that is, a relative clause or a participial phrase,
qualifying the invocation or address. It amplifies the address with some
appropriate attribute of God or remembers an aspect of his saving deeds.
(c)

(d)
(e)

Then there is normally some kind of petition or request, usually in the

imperative mood, but sometimes in the subjunctive.
A final clause defining the reason or result of the request.
The conclusion with the usual form of "through Christ our Lord" or "through
Jesus Christ our Lord" (this was later expanded to a full Trinitarian conclusion
to counter the Arianism of the Visigoths).

Example:
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(a)
(b)

Deus,
qui hanc diem beatorum apostolorum Petri et Pauli martyrio consecrasti:
da ecclesiae tuae toto terrarum orbe diffusae
eorum semper magisterio gubernari, per quos sumpsit religionis exordium:
per Christum Dominum nostrum.

O God,
who have consecrated this day with the martyrdom of the blessed apostles
Peter and Paul:
(c) give (grant) to your church spread throughout the whole world
(d) to be guided always by the teaching of those, through whom it obtained the
source (beginning) of its religion:
(e) through Christ our Lord.

10
(Collecta for the Feast of SS.
Sacramentarium Veronense)

Peter and Paul, from a libellus missarum in the

This structure of address, memorial, and petition continues to recall Jewish

prayer, even if on a small scale. But the Roman orations, above all, reflect the
Roman liturgy which E. Bishop characterized as being marked by "simplicity,
practicality, a great sobriety and self-control, gravity and dignity..." This is as true
of the orations as it is of the rite in general.
Prayers are also required for the other sacramental rites and the liturgy of
the hours. Among these many prayer compositions we find solemn forms of
blessings for the different occasions when a solemn prayer formula is required
(e.g., the blessing of the baptismal water; the blessing of the "oil of thanksgiving"
or chrism; the blessing of the spouses at a wedding; the blessing of a
consecrated virgin). There are also consecratory formulas (e.g., the ordination of
bishops, priests and deacons; the consecration of churches).

G. THE ROMAN CANON (EUCHARISTIC PRAYER)

At the heart of Christian worship is the celebration of the Eucharist, and at
the heart of the celebration of the Eucharist is the great prayer of thanksgiving,
the Eucharistic Prayer. In the East, the Eucharistic Prayer was called either
anaphora (from the Greek verb anapherein, to present, to offer, to lift up),
that is, the prayer of offering containing the memorial of Jesus offering, or
eucharistia (from the Greek verb eucharistein, to give thanks), that is, the
prayer of thanksgiving. In the West, one spoke of oratio sacrificii or oratio
oblationis (the prayer of sacrifice or offering), as well as simply of oratio or
prex (prayer, the term prex was originally used to describe petitions to the
emperor). Canon actionis (the rule determining the action) was a typically
Roman name.
The Western churches, like those of the East, possessed a multiplicity of
XctionXstic prayers. New texts were constantly composed also in Gaul and Spain,
expressing the faith of the churches outside of Rome. What makes the Roman
Canon of such special interest, therefore, is that of all the XctionXstic prayers
which were available in the West only the Roman Canon remained in use in the
Roman liturgy. And so, although Hippolytus had offered his Eucharistic Prayer as
a model to the Roman Church in the third century, history shows that for some
reason it was not adopted. This may have been due to the passage from Greek
to Latin; the Roman Church, it would seem, preferred to accept an original
Eucharistic Prayer composed in Latin rather than a Greek text translated into
Latin.
While the Roman Canon cannot be dated with any precision, quotations
from it appear towards the end of the fourth century in the mystagogical
catecheses to the newly baptized of Ambrose (De Sacramentis). Therefore, the

11

Canon probably first took shape sometime in the fourth century, possibly in the
time of Pope Damasus who had played such an important part in giving the
Roman liturgy its Latin cast. There was, however, a future evolution of the Canon
and further changes to it were made in Rome. The final text of the Canon is,
therefore, according to the noted scholar on Eucharistic prayers, Enrico Mazza,
probably the result of the encounter of different epochs and of different sources.
The Canon was constructed by taking more or less independent pieces of prose
and stringing them together, and by about the seventh century, the Roman
Eucharistic prayer would have reached the form which has survived with no
fundamental change down to the present day.
The Roman Canon displays certain literary characteristics. Although
assembled from a number of independent prayers, it is as solidly built as a
Roman arch, imposing, but also very rational and somewhat cold. Its most
striking characteristics are the accumulation of synonyms, a tendency to amplify,
and a solemn form of language. The repeated wording through the use of
synonyms suggests the language, not only of juridical circles, but also the
language of the non-Christian cult.
The content of the Roman Canon deserves comment. The Roman Canon
has very little in common with the anaphora of Hippolytus, or any Eastern prayer.
One example illustrating this is the striking absence of prayers of praise. On this
count we can only say that the Canon is framed within two prayers of praise: the
Vere dignum or Preface at the beginning, and the Trinitarian doxology at the end.
Of all the parts of the old Roman Eucharistic prayer, the Preface most fully retains
the character of other early Eucharistic prayers. In it, the model given by
Hippolytus, and ultimately the Jewish berakah, or blessing of the apostolic
community live on. Furthermore, the proper, variable preface retains not only
the aspect of praise but also preserves that distinctive characteristic of the
Roman liturgy, namely the recall of different aspects of salvation-history, not in
their entirety in a single Eucharistic prayer recited every Sunday, but rather on
the individual festivals and in the various seasons of the liturgical year.
The variable element, so prominent in the Roman Preface, is also present
in the special insertions which are used on different occasions in the
Communicantes; in the special forms of the Hanc igitur; and the possibility of
blessings of various offerings before the Per quem and Per ipsum sections which
close the Canon. This variability is confirmed by Pope Vigilius (537-555 A.D.),
writing to Profuturus of Braga in 538:
As to the arrangement of prayers for the celebration of Mass, we make no
difference for any time, any feast, but we consecrate always in the same manner
the gifts offered to God. In order to celebrate the feasts of Easter, the Ascension
of the Lord, the Epiphany, and the saints of God, we add distinct paragraphs
proper to those days; through which we commemorate the holy solemnity or the
saints whose anniversaries we celebrate. (Epistula 2:5)

12

The giving of thanks and the offering of praise, so prominent in Hippolytus

and other anaphorae, is replaced in the Roman Canon by the emphasis on the
Churchs offering. In the Canon, there are four pleas for acceptance of the
offering:
We therefore pray and beseech you, most merciful Father to accept and bless
these gifts (Te igitur)
Therefore, Lord, we pray you graciously to accept this offering (Hanc igitur)
Vouchsafe, we beseech you, O God, to make this offering wholly blessed and
acceptable (Quam oblationem)
Vouchsafe to look upon them with a favorable and kindly countenance, and
accept them (Supra quae)

There is, above all, a preoccupation with the Eucharist as the celebration
of the entire congregation (your whole family), which must become an
epiphany of the saving deeds of Christ. The assembly which celebrates consists
of all members who are present: the bishop and priests (for whom we offer to
you; this offering made by us your servants); and all the faithful (which we
offer to you; Remember, Lord, your servants, men and women, and all who
stand around; or who offer to you sacrifice of praise for themselves and for all
their own; the offering made also by your whole family).
More than any other anaphora of the East, the Roman Canon focuses on
the participation of the local church and on the gifts which are offered. The
human contribution is essential for the memorial action. The Roman Canon asks
God to look with favor on the gifts of the faithful and on their service, so that
they may become a sign or sacrament of the sacrifice and service of the Lord.
The Roman Canon presupposes an action (actio) each member of the assembly
putting in what is needed to celebrate the memorial of Jesus sacrifice; it
presumes the unity of the liturgy and of service and the active and full
participation of the assembly.
A final observation we might make concerns the apparent absence of any
traditional form of epiclesis, that is, one which names and invokes the Holy Spirit.
However, on the one hand, the expression that they may become for us the
body and blood of your dearly beloved Son Jesus Christ our Lord (Quam
oblationem) looks like part of an intended consecratory epiclesis; and on the
other hand, the expression that all of us who have received the most holy body
and blood of your Son by partaking at this altar may be filled with all heavenly
blessing and grace (Supplices te) looks like part of an intended epiclesis relating
to the worshippers, or a communion epiclesis. The mention of your angel in

13

this formula seems to indicate Christ himself (just as in Hippolytus anaphora,

Christ was named as angel/messenger of Gods will).
H. THE LIBELLI MISSARUM (SACRAMENTARIUM VERONENSE)
The Sacramentary, the book required by the president for the eucharistic
celebrations of any given day and for the other sacramental celebrations, did not
appear at once in its developed form. It was preceded by the libelli missarum, to
which we have referred already. These libelli are the missing link between the
period of freely composed prayers and their later collection and arrangement into
a sacramentary proper (Sacramentarium or Liber sacramentorum).
An
impressive collection of libelli missarum is contained in a Verona manuscript,
dated around 600 A.D. What is wrongly named the Sacramentarium Veronense
("Verona Sacramentary", formerly known as the "Leonine Sacramentary") is not a
sacramentary for actual liturgical use, but a private collection of Roman libelli.
This is confirmed by the fact that for certain feasts the manuscript contains more
than one libellus (e.g., Ascension: 7 sets; John the Baptist: 5 sets; Peter and Paul:
28 sets; Laurence: 14 sets; Christmas: 9 sets, and so on)
The material in this manuscript is arranged according to the civil year, but
due to the fact that the first part of the manuscript is lost, it opens with formulas
under the month of April. The person responsible for putting this collection
together is unknown, and so is his purpose in doing so. Perhaps it was in
response to a request by someone who wanted to possess authentic liturgical
formulas from the city of Rome, for the material it contains is indeed Roman.
We can ascertain the Roman origins of the Mass formularies of the
Veronense in different ways:
The identification of its Roman authors
e.g., certain formularies can be attributed to St. Leo the Great based on the
literary and theological style of his homilies and correspondence.The
references found in headings to geographical locations within the city of Rome
e.g., the cemeteries of Callistus and Praetextatus on the Via Appia; the
cemeteries of Priscilla; of the Jordani, of Maximus on the Via Salaria; the
Basilica of St. Michael on the Via Salaria. There are also many references to
the city of Rome itself (in a Preface for the feast of St. Laurence, a patron of
the city, it says: "Rome rejoices more specially before the rest on account of
the solemnity of blessed Laurence") and there are numerous uses of the
expressions like O felix urbs (civitas) Romana ("O happy city of Rome");
devotio Romana ("Roman devotion"); Romanum nomen ("the Roman name",
meaning the city of Rome, as in hostes Romani nominis, "the enemies of
Rome" or Romani nominis securitas, "the security of Rome", or Romani
nominis rectores, "the rulers of Rome", or status Romani nominis, "the state of
Rome", or Romani nominis principatus, "the sovereignty of Rome". Finally, in
a Preface for the feast of SS. John and Paul, we read: "...you have granted to

14
us by your loving providence not only to crown the territory of this city with
the glorious sufferings of the martyrs, but also to conceal their conquering
limbs in the very bowels of the city of SS. John and Paul".

The references in certain prayers to contemporary historical

events involving Rome e.g., two prayers in the collection are entitled
"Against the Enemies of the Catholic Profession" and "Against the Attackers":
both are related to the attack on Rome by the Vandals under Genseric at
Pentecost in 455 A.D. Other formularies composed by Pope Vigilius in the sixth
century are based upon the historical crisis of the siege of Rome by the
Ostrogoths under King Witiges from July 537 to March 538. Some of these
reflect the anguish of the Roman people during the siege and the hardship
they felt when they saw the enemy plunder the grain which they themselves
have sown and cultivated, while others betray a sense of the Romans' relief
when the invaders were driven away.
The theological and pastoral concerns currently of interest to the
Church of Rome e.g., the Mass formularies attributed to Pope Gelasius and
based on his struggle against the pagan celebration of the Lupercalia. In their
origin, the Lupercalia centered on fecundity rites.
The festivities were
celebrated on the fifteenth of February. They featured a race of naked men,
brandishing thongs with which they struck the women crowding in their way,
but the occasion degenerated into excesses and debauchery. Pope Gelasius
had forbidden Christians to take part in the Lupercalia, but some people had
ignored the prohibition. In the course of successive liturgical celebrations,
therefore, the conflict was evoked in the liturgical prayer of the community:
the prayers and prefaces of eighteen Sundays contain warnings, then
intercessions for the sinners, entreaties for those who repented, and finally
thanksgiving for the reconciliation, according to the successive phases of the
conflict.
It is this classical shape that the Constitution on the Liturgy speaks about
in art. 34: The rites should be marked by a noble simplicity; they should be
short, clear, and unencumbered by useless repetitions; they should be within the
peoples powers of comprehension and as a rule not require much explanation.
The option for the classical form was taken to task, even during the council, for
being somewhat archeological. A council Father advised the conciliar commission
on the liturgy to institute changes for reasons not of archaeology but of pastoral
care for which the council had been convened. Yet in the thinking of those who
framed the Constitution the pastoral care, which promotes active and intelligent
participation, was addressed by the classical qualities of the Roman liturgy. Thus
art. 50 directs that for the sake of devout, active participation the rites of the
Mass are to be simplified, useless duplications eliminated, and useful and
necessary elements restored to the vigor they had in the tradition of the
Fathers.
I. THE CELEBRATION OF THE EUCHARIST

15

The shape of the eucharistic liturgy in Rome in 150 A.D., as described by Justin Martyr,
was simple:
The Liturgy of the Word
Homily
Prayers of Intercession
Kiss of Peace
Presentation of the Bread and Wine
The Great Prayer of Thanksgiving with Amen Communion.
This simple shape of the liturgy was subject to further development and
consequently became more elaborate. But there is little documentation to allow us to
know precisely how the eucharist was celebrated in the fifth and sixth centuries in Rome.
There is in fact no full systematic description of the papal stational mass until the
document known as Ordo Romanus Primus, or Roman Ordo I, around the year 700.
From certain sources we can gather snippets of information relating to the
development of the eucharist, or discover that a number of the bishops of Rome were
personally responsible for the introduction of elements which contributed to the
development of the Roman celebration of the eucharist in this period. For example:
Innocent I (401-417) recommends the diptychs within the eucharistic prayer
("Therefore, the oblations are to be first commended to God, and then the names
to be recited. The names are thus to be recited within the sacred Canon and not
among the other preparatory matters by which we pave the way for the coming
Mysteries"); he also confirms the place of the kiss of peace before communion.
Celestine I (422-432) is associated with the use of the psalms with antiphons in
relation to the Scriptural readings.
Hilarus (461-468) and Simplicius (468-482) were supposedly responsible for the
organization of the stations in the various churches of Rome.
Gelasius I (492-496) is attributed with the introduction of a type of litany into the
Roman celebration (known as the Deprecatio Gelasii to replace the typical
Roman Oratio fidelium (Solemn Prayers of Intercession).
Gregory the Great (590-604) made some changes in the arrangement of the
eucharist, e.g., he placed the Lord's prayer immediately after the eucharistic
prayer and before the breaking of bread, instead of between the Fraction and
Communion, and thus linked it to the eucharistic prayer and the consequent
communion. This new position of the Lord's Prayer would also allow the pope to
say the prayer over the consecrated gifts at the altar, instead of at the throne
where he positioned himself during the Fraction. Gregory may also have been
responsible for placing a new shortened form of litany, the Kyrie-Christe-Kyrie
eleison at the beginning of the celebration.
But this information touches on details of a celebration that was still very sober
and that preserved the ancient structure. But one should note certain elements in

16
particular. Firstly, the liturgy remained a communal celebration in which both the clergy
and faithful participated according to their proper liturgical ministries. Secondly, song
appears to have had a place in the service. Initially it occurred in responsorial form: to
the chanting of the lector(s) or cantor(s), the faithful answered with a response. Of later
date and probably of monastic origin was the antiphonal form, carried out by two choirs
standing facing each other. The cantors formed the schola cantorum that originated in
the cloisters attached to basilicas as early as the fifth century. Thirdly, the reading of
Scripture remained of fundamental importance; even the catechumens and others were
admitted during the reading in order to enable faith to grow in them before their dismissal
from the assembly. But the choice of readings was not yet fully systematized; it was in
Rome, at the beginning of the seventh century, that a coordinated series of pericopes
appears.
This structure of the eucharistic rite of this period contained the following
elements:
Opening Prayer or Collecta
This was intended as a conclusion of the entrance procession and its chant.
Liturgy of the Word
This originally consisted of readings from the OT, the Apostle and the Gospel, but
from the sixth century onwards, in contrast to the general tradition elsewhere,
only two readings were generally retained in the Roman rite: the Apostle and
Gospel. There was psalmody between the two readings. A cycle of readings also
developed at this time. The readings were first proclaimed from Bibles with a
series of marks, usually a cross, inserted in the margins to indicate where to start
and end the reading. Then a full list of the selected readings was put together
and called a comes or capital; the list was made from citing the first and final
words of the selected passages under the title of the day or feast. Finally there
arrived the proper liturgical books containing the full texts of the readings required
in the celebration: the lectionary (book of readings), the epistolary (readings from
the Apostle) and evangelary (gospelbook).
Homily
The homily was a current practice, as is attested by the preaching activity of the
popes, e.g., Leo the Great and Gregory the Great. Sometime later, however, the
homily seems to have been dropped.
Dismissal of the Catechumens and Penitents.
Intercessions
The Oratio fidelium, or Prayer of the faithful, was originally a solemn form of
intercession which included invitations and orations. The entire prayer consisted
of a series of nine units, each with an introduction given by the bishop or priest (or
perhaps originally by the deacon), a period of silent prayer, and then a concluding
prayer by the bishop or priest. In Lent, the silent prayer was shared in kneeling,
and the deacons would instruct the people to kneel (Flectamus genua) and, after a
pause, to rise (Levate):

17
This solemn and lengthy prayer was in use during the third, fourth, and fifth
centuries. Then it disappeared from the eucharistic celebration, and seems to
have been supplanted by what is known as the Deprecatio Gelasii, so-called
because it was attributed to Pope Gelasius (492-496 A.D.). It focused more on the
human situations and personal dispositions of the petitioners. Although it looked
very different, this litany of intercession was still close to the Solemn Prayers in
that it was based on the biddings of the deacon, but the silent prayer was
replaced by the people's spoken response. The adoption of this form of prayer
may explain why certain mass formularies have a second oration inserted before
the prayer over the gifts, namely as an oration said by the priest to conclude the
Deprecatio.
"Let us all say: Kyrie eleison.
Let us invoke with faithful hearts the Father of the only-begotten, the Son of God, the
unbegotten begettor, and the Holy Spirit of the Lord.
Kyrie eleison.
For the spotless Church of the living God, ordered throughout the world, let us
pray for the riches of divine goodness.
Kyrie eleison."
In time, even this litany disappeared, possibly in the middle of the sixth century. It
was believed until recently that the Deprecatio Gelasii was moved to the
beginning of the service, where it shrank and became the little litany Kyrie
eleison, Christe eleison, Kyrie eleison. Pope Gregory the Great attests that the
litany is said alternatively by the clergy and the people, and that the Christe
eleison is peculiar to the Romans. It is more likely that the Deprecatio was simply
omitted as the Romans found the processional litanies, such as those used in the
stational liturgy with a collecta more rewarding; the explanation for the new litany
at the start of the liturgy is perhaps related to these processional litanies.
Presentation of Gifts by the Faithful
with a Concluding Prayer (oratio super oblata or secreta).
The Eucharistic Prayer
The Lord's Prayer
"Here is why we recite the Lord's prayer immediately after the prayer (the Canon):
the apostles' custom was to consecrate the sacrifice by the sole prayer of offering.
And I saw a great incongruity in saying over the oblation a prayer composed by
some scholarly person and in not saying over the body and blood of our Redeemer
that which he himself composed and which tradition has transmitted to us."
(Gregory the Great, Letter 9, 12)
Kiss of Peace with the Fraction
In his Letter to Bishop Decentius of Gubbio (416 A.D.), Innocent I explains that the
kiss of peace follows the eucharistic prayer. In the earliest witness of Justin
Martyr, it concluded the prayers of intercessions. Innocent contrasts the Roman
practice with that of other places and justifies it by presenting this rite as an
expression of the consent of the people to the mysteries being celebrated.

18
The change of position of the kiss of peace may be explained by the practice of
the fermentum, which was brought into the title churches, in the pope's absence,
and deposited in the chalice before the greeting Pax domini ("The peace of the
Lord..."). The kiss of peace took place then after the fermentum had been received
from the absent pope; it was a confirmation of the pope's communion with the
local assembly.
Communion
and a Prayer after Communion (post communionem).
Prayer of Blessing over the Faithful (oratio super populum)
Dismissal.