Complete Works of Lactantius Vol. II

CONCERNING THE DECREES ATTRIBUTED TO POPE MELCHIADES

of a certain man, who contended that one ought to fast on six days of every week, refuting his writing, [Lactantius] says in no. 9: "Among the Romans, on all these six days, besides very few clerics or monks, how many are found who frequently keep daily fasts? Especially since it does not seem that one should fast there on Thursday." From which it is to be gathered that, although a common opinion prevailed in Rome by which it was thought that one should not fast on Thursday, no law existed on that matter. Indeed, in the age of Augustine, daily six-day fasts were celebrated there with praise by some, both monks and clerics alike.

25. Certainly, it is evident not only from Cassian, Conferences 21, c. 24, but from Pope Gregory, that even in Rome, fasts were not interrupted on the Thursdays of Lent. Thus, furthermore, Gregory speaks in Homily 16 on the Gospels: "Six weeks come, of which forty-two days are made; from which, while the six Sundays are subtracted from abstinence, no more than thirty-six remain in abstinence." There, no one fails to see that the name of "abstinence" is used for "fasting," since the six Sundays are subtracted not because abstinence from meat is absent on those days, but because the fast is interrupted. Wherefore, Gregory teaches us to offer the tithes of our year to God through the fast of these thirty-six days. Hence is clearly refuted that which Walafrid Strabo in ch. 20, and from him the Micrologus in ch. 50, wrote, having been deceived by the Pontifical Book and the spurious letter of Melchiades: "Melchiades, holding the primacy at Rome, decreed that no believer should observe a fast on the Lord's Day or Thursday. For pagans frequented these days as if they were fast days." Therefore, the blessed Gregory, in his arrangement of the offices of the year during Lent, left Thursday vacant, so that because it was festive, like the Lord's Day, it might be held in celebration with the office of the Lord's Day as well. Since this Thursday later began to be applied to fasts like the others, the younger Gregory decreed that it be solemnized with Masses and prayers. "They say this, moreover, supported by the life of Gregory II, who used to be called the younger at that time, where we read in Anastasius: A 'He instituted that during the Lenten season, a fast and the celebration of Masses should take place in the churches on Thursday, which was not previously done.'" But even in this place, Walafrid and the Micrologus are convicted of having spoken from a preconceived opinion rather than any authority, claiming that the Mass on Thursday was repeated from the Lord's Day; since we are taught from this that no Mass was accustomed to be held on this day before Gregory II. Thus, error easily begets error.

26. Regarding the fast, St. Benedict knew of no law that would forbid it from being observed on a Thursday. Indeed, in chapter 41 of his Rule, prescribing a continuous fast until holy Easter, he does not except Thursday. St. Isidore of Seville, in Rule ch. 10, permits daily fasts throughout the whole year, with only Sundays excepted, in imitation of the fathers. Afterward, indeed, the Rule of the Master, ch. 27, 28, and 53, remitted the fast on Thursdays; but from this remission, it desired to except the Thursdays of Lent. Nor, indeed, did it give this as the reason for the aforementioned remission, because

Thursday is a solemn fast among pagans, but B because the Ascension of the Lord occurs on that very day every year, C that is, because the Lord consecrated that day by His ascent into heaven. Surely, the pagans were far removed from consecrating this day to mourning and fasting, for whom it was customary to observe the same as a festival in honor of Jupiter. Wherefore, Bishop Caesarius of Arles, in the appendix to Augustine, vol. v, sermon 265, n. 5, vehemently rebukes certain Christians whom the devil had seduced into their perverse imitation, in these words: "Because we have heard that the devil so circumvents some men or women that on Thursday neither do the men perform work, nor do the women perform wool-work, we testify before God and the holy angels that whoever desires to observe this, unless they amend such sacrilege through long and hard penance, etc." The Council of Narbonne, held in the year 589, revealed how indignantly it took this matter in can. 15, with these words: "It has reached us that some of the people of the Catholic faith, by an execrable rite, honor the day of Thursday, which is also called the day of Jupiter, and do not perform work. Execrating this matter for the fear of God, etc." Nor, indeed, did that custom displease the Fathers so much except because it was derived from the impious superstition of the nations. To abolish it, therefore, fasts should have been proclaimed on Thursday—just as it was done at the same times on the Calends of January for the same reason—rather than prohibiting them.

27. The second decree expressed in the Pontifical Book is in this manner: "He caused consecrated oblations to be sent throughout the churches by the consecration of the bishop, which is declared as the fermentum leaven." Similar to this decree is that which the same book attributes to Siricius: "He decreed that no priest should celebrate Masses throughout the week unless he received the declared [portion] from the consecration of the bishop of the designated place, which is named fermentum." Although in the Bollandist exemplar of the Pontifical Book, as also in the Fossatensis (now the Colbertine), the same decree of Siricius is simply put forth thus: "He decreed that without the consecration of the bishop, it should not be allowed for the priests of any place to be consecrated." Unless we read "to consecrate" referring to the act of blessing the elements, this decree will seem to refer to the consecration of priests: which D we do not know to have ever been done. We only know that it was once received by use in some churches that priests, after their ordination, would receive portions of the Lord's Body from their bishop, from which they would partake of communion for a certain number of days. Wherefore, in the ancient Soissons Pontifical, in our Edmund Martène, On the Ancient Rites of the Church, vol. II, p. 322, it is decreed thus: "Priests ought to receive portions of the Lord's Body from the bishop, from which they should partake of communion for forty days." And in the ancient Roman Order, it is prescribed for novice priests that they should communicate from the consecrated oblation given to them for up to seven days. Truly, from the more complete manuscripts of the Pontifical Book, the Bollandist and Fossatensis ones seem to be corrected, so that in them one should read consecrare to consecrate, not consecrari to be consecrated.