Case LXX: How May Mistakes Made in the Prayers of the Mass Be Remedied?

Father Perplexus, a priest suffering in a high degree of absent-mindedness, commits at holy Mass not infrequently small errors and various mistakes, which he then strives to remedy in various ways. We will quote a few of these errors together with his attempts at correction, and examine them critically.

(1) Now and again it happens that our Father Perplexus, in his haste, omits the Gloria, or Credo; if he, directly after the Dominus vobiscum, realizes the omission he then recites the Gloria, or Credo, without repeating the Dominus vobiscum.

(2) Occasionally he takes the wrong proper: if then, during the Mass, he becomes aware of his error, he is in doubt whether to continue the Mass begun, or pass over to the Mass of the day. His practise in this respect differs and is uncertain.

(3) Sometimes he forgets to take a prescribed Collecta and only remembers it at the Post-Communio: then he endeavors to make good his mistake by supplementing the first Oratio and the Secreta,

(4) If through forgetfulness he takes the Communicantes commune and recalls at its conclusion that a Communicantes proprium was prescribed, he does it all over by repeating the whole Communt-cantes in the proper form.

(5) Once when at the first consecration he absent-mindedly had said the words bibite ex eo, instead of manducate ex hoc, he corrected himself quickly and then proceeded; another time, however, the same error having happened, he did not consider such a correction sufficient, but begins once more with the words Qui pridie, quam pateretur, etc. (6) Sometimes the first prayer after the Agnus Dei, omitted in Requiem Masses, escapes his attention, if he then becomes aware of the omission after the second prayer, he inserts the first prayer here and then goes on with the third prayer.

Now let us examine what is to be thought of these attempts at correction made by Father Perplexus. First of all, let us recall the three principles which must guide us in judging these cases:

(1) Parts of holy Mass that belong to the essence of the Sacrifice must, in every case, be repeated if one becomes aware of a mistake before the Mass is finished. (2) Prayers not essential, but important, must, in case of a mistake, be repeated if noticed so soon that the words still have a proper meaning at that place, and provided it can be done without exciting undue comment. (3) Less important parts, or prayers, especially such that do not always occur in holy Mass, need not to be repeated, if they have been forgotten at their proper places (cf. Ligouri, Theol. Moral. I., VI., n. 403 sq.; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Moral. II., n, 241 sq.).

In the light of these principles it is not difficult to judge these various cases. Ad. 1, Father Perplexus should not have repeated the Gloria and Credo because these prayers are not very important and do not occur in every Mass: moreover, the repetition of these prayers could hardly take place without exciting comment. Lehmkuhl (/. c.. 242) says about this: Let the priest never resume the Gloria, Creed, and similar things, nor the epistle, gospel, etc., if he has taken one for another, unless perhaps he notices the error at the beginning of the wrong epistle, etc. Ad. 2, In this case Father Perplexus should at all times have acted on the principle which applies in this respect to the breviary, namely, error corrigatur, ubi deprehenditur, if it could be done without comment and without long search. Ad. 3, When one notices only at the Postcommunio that an Oratio or Secreta has been left out, it is not necessary to repeat them, because, as a rule, these prayers have no longer the proper meaning at that time. If one remembers at the Secreta that the first Oratio has not been recited, then it will not be out of place to make up for it; but it is not necessary in this case. Ad. 4, Father Perplexus need not repeat in this case, because there is no essential difference between the various Communicantes, and because that which is peculiar to this prayer does not belong to the more important parts of holy Mass (cf. Lehmkuhl, |. c. n. 241). The same rule would apply if in regard to the Preface such a mistake happened. Ad. 5, Since the words in which Father Perplexus erred do not belong to the strictly essential formula of Consecration, it suffices if he simply corrects himself as is done generally in speaking or reciting, and which is quite intelligible. This would even suffice in the strictly essential words of the Consecration. But here, where absolute security is necessary, it would be advisable ad cautelam to begin all over again; if one, for instance, had said calix, instead of corpus, he should recommence with the words Hoc est enim, etc. Ad. 6, The attempt at correction made by Father Perplexus in this case may be regarded as permissible, as this prayer is not out of order even in second place, and gives there a good meaning.

Similar faults, or errors, in the prayers of the Mass, of which various others may occur, should be judged by the rules given above, and remedied accordingly.

Dr. Joseph Niglutsch.