Case L: Interruption of Mass

Case.—Pastor Antonius is saying his second Mass on Christmas Day, when, after the sumptio hostiae, he suddenly faints, so that he has to be carried into the sacristy. There his vestments are taken off, he is carried to his room, and a physician is hurriedly summoned. After about half an hour he recovers consciousness, takes some medicine prescribed by the physician, and soon feels very much better, It is the physician’s opinion that his collapse was due to a passing weakness of the stomach, and does not indicate anything serious. Meanwhile the assistant, who had already said one - Mass, immediately upon the pastor’s collapse vested and proceeded to the altar. He consumed the Precious Blood, finished the Mass, and then said his two remaining Masses.

Question.—Quid ad casum?

Solution.—According to the almost universal opinion of theologians, Communion sub utraque specie, while not required for the essence of the holy sacrifice, which St. Alphonsus had defined as sententia probabilior (L. VI. n. 305), does belong to the completeness (integritas) of the same (according to St. Alphonsus, L. III. n. 310 dub. 2, at least sententia valde probabilis). Ex jure divino the Mass is a sacrifice which must not only be performed in all its essential details, and by valid consecration of both species, but must also, if possible, be completed by the communion of the celebrant under both forms. This supposes that between an interruption of the Mass and its resumption there exists a moral continuity in time; for where this is lacking the continuation of the Mass, particularly by another priest, is not really a completion of the same sacrifice, but rather the beginning of another. An interruption of not more than an hour is generally considered to keep intact the continuity, because the unity of the sacrificial object is present, and, if the same celebrant resumes the Mass, there is the added unity of the priest; if more than an hour elapses, then, indeed, this moral unity, especially with another celebrant, is no longer certain, so that a strict obligation no longer exists; nevertheless, even in such case it is permissible to continue the Mass, according to Lehmkuhl (II. n. 338) etiam post plures horas, and according to Tamburini (St. Alphonsus L. VI. n. 355) post septem etiam horas. Since, furthermore, the completion of the Mass is a matter of a praeceptum divinum which takes precedence over the praeceptum ecclesiasticum jejunii, whoever continues the Mass (be he the same priest or another) need not be fasting; even an irregular, or (secretly) excommunicated, priest would be obliged to continue the Mass, and may, si deest copia confessarii, content himself with perfect contrition. The continuation of such a Mass by another priest counts for him, however, as saying a Mass, so that he may not say a second one, as has been distinctly set forth by the decision of the S. R. C. of December 16, 1823 (n. 2630). If there were not an actual celebration of Holy Mass, but merely the function of the missa praesanctificatorum, on Good Friday, the sudden indisposition on the part of the actual celebrant would make the continuation of the Mass, namely, Holy Communion, possible only when one of the assisting clerics is a priest and still fasting; if one of the two assistants is only a deacon and still fasting, and the other a priest who is not fasting, then the function must be discontinued, the Sacred Host replaced in the repository, to be consumed by the celebrant on Holy Saturday post sumptionem calicis (S. C. R. n. 2636). From these principles follows the solution of this case. First of all, due time should have been allowed to ascertain whether the pastor would be able to resume his Mass, therefore the assistant erred in proceeding at once to the altar to complete the Mass by the sumptio calicis; he should either have left the chalice upon the altar (taking proper precautions) or, better still, should have placed it in the tabernacle or in the sacristy, in loco decenti supra corporale. Since the pastor actually recovered within half an hour, and the physician pronounced him out of danger, he could, although no longer fasting, have resumed the Mass, even after an hour’s interval, and, performing the sumptio calicis and the remaining rites, have brought it to a close. He cannot, however, unless there prevail particular circumstances, read a third Mass, as he is no longer fasting; he was excused from the lex ecclesiastica jejunii only for the completion of his second Mass (though there may be special reasons for excusing from the jejunium for the third Mass, such as are admitted by some authors).

Since the assistant has actually finished his pastor’s Mass, this integratio missae counted for him as his second Mass, and he could (even if he has taken no purificatio and ablutio) only say one additional Mass. This is obviously the sense of the decision quoted above of the S. C. R. of December 16, 1823, which presupposes that the priest celebrates only once a day, for which reason Lehmkuhl holds (II. n. 286): On the feast of the Nativity of the Lord, the collector of the decrees rightly adds that this Mass can be counted as one of the three permitted, so that the supplying priest may celebrate two more, but not three (since in our case the assistant had already said one Mass: he may celebrate one more, but not two).