Case V: Saying Mass in Fermented Bread

Applied correction from Woywod's opening insert: CASE V, page 29.—This case must be corrected in as far as the New Code, in Canons 816, 819 and 823, 2°, absolutely demands that the priest wherever he celebrates Holy Mass must use the kind of altar breads his respective rite prescribes (Can. 816) and use the language of his own rite (Can. 819) and though he may say Mass on an altar consecrated according to another rite whenever he cannot find a church of his own rite he may not say Mass with the antimensia of the Greeks. The antimensia of the Orientals are something like our corporals in the corners of which are deposited relics of the saints and they are used on altars that are not consecrated. In the Greek and other Oriental rites only one altar in each church is consecrated.

Titius, a priest of the Latin rite, while traveling in the Orient with some friends, who are lay persons, also of the Latin rite, has occasion to say Mass, now in a Greek church, now in a Latin church, and again in a church of some other Oriental rite, and to give Holy Communion to his friends. In whatever church he says Mass, he uses the kind of altar breads they give him, whether fermented or unfermented, and he gives his friends Holy Communion in the same kind. He claims that Leo XIII. abrogated the older discipline, which restricted a Latin priest to the use of unfermented bread in saying Mass, thus leaving a Latin priest free to say Mass in a Greek church "in fermentato," and a Greek priest to say Mass in a Latin church, "in azymo." Titius, on his return to America, had occasion to go to his mission-church on Sunday to say Mass for his people, but by some mischance, he forgot to take along any altar breads. The distance to the home church was too great to permit sending there for altar bread and as Titius was already accustomed to say Mass with fermented bread, he sent to one of the neighbors for a piece of bread and said Mass with it, because, he said, the prohibition to do so was only a law of Church discipline, which did not bind in the circumstances in which he found himself. On this occasion, he also gave Holy Communion to the faithful "in fermentato." What is to be thought of Titius' "modus agendi"?

Answer. In the Oriental Church, the Armenians and the Maronites use unfermented bread, or azym, for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; the Greeks, the Melchites, the Chaldeans, the Syrians and the Copts use fermented bread. The use of fermented bread by these several rites of the Oriental Church, dates back to the beginning of Christianity. The Latin Church uses only unfermented bread, or azym, although before the IX. or X. century, the use of fermented bread for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was not unknown in the Latin Church. The Council of Florence, in the decree for the union of the Greeks, allowed the Greeks to retain their ancient custom of consecrating in fermented bread, because there is no express command of Our Divine Lord to the contrary, viz., that the Holy Eucharist should be celebrated in azym. At the same time that the Council of Florence permitted the Greeks to continue to celebrate the Holy Eucharist in fermented bread, the Council issued a decree commanding both the Oriental and the Latin Church to adhere each to its respective rite in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. This ruling of the Council of Florence (1440) was reaffirmed by St. Pius V. (1566) and later still by Benedict XIV. (1742).

Benedict XIV. says: "Since it was ordained by the General Council of Florence that each and every priest should celebrate the Holy Eucharist according to the rite of his Church, if the Latin Church, then in azym, if the Greek Church, then in fermented; and since it has been forbidden by the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, for a Latin priest to use the Greek rite, or a Greek priest the Latin rite, we do now strictly forbid, under pain of permanent suspension, Greek priests to celebrate Mass and other divine offices or to cause them to be celebrated according to the Latin rite, and Latin priests according to the Greek rite, under any pretext whatsoever of having obtained faculties from the Apostolic See or its legates, or even from the Grand Penitentiary, for Greeks to use the Latin rite or for Latins to use the Greek" (Const. "Etsi pastoralis," vi.).

This precept of the Church, commanding priests of different rites to conform to their own rite in all things pertaining to the celebration of the divine mysteries, has always been very strictly interpreted by the theologians. St. Alphonsus, vi., n. 204, maintains that it is the common teaching of theologians that a Latin priest would not be allowed to celebrate in fermented bread, even to give a dying person viaticum, neither would a Greek priest be allowed to celebrate in azym. The only case in which this would be lawful, would be to complete the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

But now there arises the question: Suppose a Latin priest is traveling through a country where the Greek rite prevails, how is he to say Mass? What rite shall he use? Is he at liberty to use the Greek rite, if it suits his convenience? Theologians do not agree as to what such a priest may do or must do under the circumstances. Some theologians think that the priest ought to observe the rite of the country through which he travels; thus a Latin priest ought to say Mass with fermented bread, if he be traveling through the country of the Greeks, and a Greek priest ought to say Mass with azym if he happened to be journeying through the country of the Latins (cf. Ledesma iv. p. 1).

Others, as St. Alphonsus, think that a priest on his travels may use either rite, according as it suits his convenience. And this view of the matter, the holy doctor calls communis et probabilissima (vi. n. 204). Others again think that a Latin priest, passing through a country of the Greek rite, ought to celebrate Mass in azym, if there be a Latin Church within reach; otherwise he may say Mass in fermented bread. Gasparri, de Euch. II. n. 805, thinks that it is never allowed for a Latin priest to say Mass with fermented bread: “The true opinion is that a Latin priest traveling through regions of the Greeks and celebrating in a Greek church, and a Greek priest traveling through regions of the Latins and celebrating in a Latin church, not only can, but also can—the Latin with fermented bread and the Greek with unleavened bread—offer the Eucharistic sacrifice. For this is inferred not obscurely from the pontifical constitutions that deal with this matter.”

We prefer to follow the opinion of those who maintain that a priest, on his travels, may say Mass either with azym or with fermented bread, if he says Mass in a church of another rite than his own, and there be no church of his own rite in the place, because the pontifical constitutions, issued in regard to this matter, apply only to priests having a domicile or permanent dwelling in a country of another rite. Thus v. g. Noldin S.J., de Euch. 106, b. says: “A priest on a journey can, in places where a church of his own rite is lacking, consecrate at will either in unleavened or in fermented bread. Nor does the cited Benedictine constitution stand in the way, since it deals only with those priests who have a domicile in a place of another rite.”

In answer, therefore, to the question whether Titius did right in saying Mass in a church of the Greek or Latin rite and using fermented or unfermented bread, as it suited his convenience, we would say that Titius ought to have gone to a church of the Latin rite, whenever it was possible to do so, and to have said Mass in azym. But whenever he found himself in a place where there was no church of his own rite, he was at liberty to say Mass in a Greek church and to use fermented or unfermented bread, whichever he preferred.

To the second question, namely, whether it was lawful to say Mass at his mission church, after his return from his travels, in fermented bread, because he had no azym, we answer it was unlawful. There is no theologian who would justify him in that. The precept to hear Mass on Sunday is less binding than the precept to says Mass in one's own rite, in one's own country. As we said above, not even to administer holy Viaticum, would this be allowed (cf. Lehmkuhl, II, n. 121, Gasparri, de Euch. n. 804).

St. Alphonsus, VI. n. 204, writes:

“It is asked, secondly: In a case of necessity, in order to provide Viaticum to a sick person, can a Latin priest consecrate in fermented bread? Mayor and Tanner answer affirmatively, because, as they say, the divine precept of receiving Viaticum ought to prevail over the human precept of celebrating in unleavened bread. But the common and more probable opinion, held by Navarra, Contensou, Tournely, Antoine, Suarez, Soto, Ledesma, Diana, Lacroix, Layman, Tamburini, and Bonacina, answers negatively.”

Regarding the Communion of the faithful of the different rites, the discipline to be followed now is contained in a decree of Leo XIII., 1893:

“To all the faithful of whatsoever rite, whether Latin or Oriental, living in places in which there is no church or priest of their own rite, the faculty is henceforth granted by the Holy See to receive Holy Communion, not only at the point of death and for fulfilling the Easter precept, but also at any time for devotion, according to the rite of the church existing in the aforesaid places, provided it is Catholic.”

A year later, in 1894, the same Pontiff, Leo XIII., extended this privilege to all the faithful who could not attend a church of their own rite, without serious inconvenience on account of the distance, of receiving Holy Communion in a church of another rite, in azym or fermented according to the rite of the church attended, provided said church be in communion with the Holy See. The lay people, therefore, who traveled with Titius in the Orient, ought to have gone to a Latin church for Holy Communion, if there was one in the place. Otherwise they might receive in any church, provided it were Catholic.