Case LXII: Interruption of Mass for an Urgent Sick Call

The curate, Father Christopher, was celebrating holy Mass at a station some eight miles distant from his church; the Blessed Sacrament not being kept at this station. Suddenly he heard a commotion in the sacristy—and immediately the sexton comes to him at the altar, reporting in a whisper that an old lady in the village had had a stroke of apoplexy and was near death. The priest had just finished the Pater Noster, and considering that his Mass would be over within a few minutes, he continues in celebratione. Before the sumptio corporis he breaks off a particle from the large host, as the Viaticum for the sick person. The Mass finished he hurriedly responds to the urgent sick call.

^* By J. C. Gspann.

Now the question: Did the priest do right in both points—namely: (1) In finishing the Holy Sacrifice, and (2) in fractione alicuius partis ab hostia maiori? If not, what ought he have done?

Ad I. We may here suppose two cases:

a. If the moribunda is considerable distance from the chapel, where the holy Mass was being said, so that the priest realizes he can not return within tempus debitum missam celebrandi ante meridiem to finish his Mass he should immediately consume the consecrated species omissis omnibus aliis (Cfr. de Herdt, Sacrae Liturgiae Praxis, tom. II. p. 3, pag. 237).

b. If, however, he can return within the time he should interrupt the Mass, to continue it where he left off when returning from administering the last Sacraments. But in this case The priest must take the greatest care that the Most Holy Sacrament be reverently guarded, unless he has thought it advisable to enclose it in the tabernacle (de Herdt pag. 236 with quotation from Bened. XIV de Sac. 118).

Still another possibility may be supposed. The priest may be of the opinion that he can return before the close of the time set for the celebration, ad continuationem missae, but it becomes impossible for him to do so, be it on account of a long General Confession, or a second sick call, or for some other good reason. De Herdt is of opinion that in that case the Blessed Sacrament should be reserved, to be consumed upon the following day post sumptionem s. sanguinis.^*

^* Would it not be allowed, in this case of extremely rare occurrence, to continue the Mass post tempus debitum, per epikiam, as there are exceptions made, for instance in Loretto?

Ad 2: Bishop Miiller (Theolog. Moralis, III. pag. 223) allows “to give a lay person part of the larger host.” 1. In a case of necessity, when smaller hosts are lacking, namely, when Holy Viaticum must be administered to a dying person. 2. If one or another person who is to be refreshed by Communion could not without inconvenience wait until smaller hosts had been consecrated in another Mass.

No. I is literally true here; a doubt in regard to permissibility is completely excluded. A difficulty would exist where there were lack of a proper vessel or of a second corporal. If a pyx is not at hand, then the Blessed Sacrament should be conveyed in a corporal. If there is not even a second corporal, then there is nothing to be done, but to cover the chalice with the paten upon which the Sacred Host is laid, and let it remain upon the altar; the Viaticum to be carried in the corporal to the dying. For the sake of completeness, we will suppose the possibility of the priest being called to a moribundus, ante consecrationem. If he returns within an hour, he should continue the Mass where he left off; but if the interruption is of longer duration, "ordietur ab initio" (Alph. lib. VI, n. 354).