Case XIII: Saying Mass Without Wine

A Catholic man died recently in an outmission belonging to the parish of A. The pastor of A. was absent from home on the annual retreat of the clergy of the diocese. He had made arrangements with the assistant of a neighboring parish, belonging to a neighboring diocese, to look after his parish as well as this outmission during his absence, in the matter of sick calls and funerals, if there should be any, which was thought unlikely. This assistant was a young priest, just ordained, and unfamiliar with the conditions at A., and, especially, at the outmission. As this Catholic man died suddenly, in fact had been killed accidentally, the assistant priest was not notified until almost the last moment. The family of the deceased wanted a Requiem High Mass, and the necessary arrangements were made with the choir of the parish of A., etc. The church was crowded with Catholics and non-Catholics, when the young priest arrived to say the Mass and bless the corpse. But he had forgotten to bring along any Mass wine, and there was none to be had in the neighborhood for several miles around. To send home for some was out of the question. At the same time the young priest was afraid to omit the Mass. In his excitement he said the Mass, consecrating only one species, that is, the bread. Now it is asked:

1st. Is it ever allowed to consecrate one species alone?

2d. Would the Mass, said with one species, i. e., with bread alone, or with wine alone, be a true sacrifice or a real Mass?

3d. Might a priest retain the stipend, if he said Mass only with one species?

Answer.—We are not concerned here with the subjective question of the young priest’s guilt or innocence in saying Mass with bread alone. That question will depend on the state of the young man’s conscience at the time, as to what could be done lawfully, under the circumstances. If, in his excitement, he thought it was best to proceed as he did, in order to avoid scandal and harsh criticism, and having no means at hand, as for instance, a manual of Moral Theology, to advise him that his conduct was wrong, he may be acquitted of mortal sin. It is difficult to conceive, however, how any one, having completed an ordinary course of theology, and not have been guilty of grave criminal negligence in his studies during that time, could doubt for a moment that it is never allowed to say Mass with one species alone. However, this question does not concern us at present.

Our concern at present is with the objective question:

1st. Does the Church ever allow a priest to say Mass with one species alone?

Would it be lawful to say Mass with bread alone, or with wine alone, for any purpose whatever, v. g., to administer Viaticum? No, it is never allowed, under any circumstances, to say Mass with one species. St. Thomas (III. pars., q. 83, a. 6) calls it an “immane sacrilegium,” and the Church, in the Corpus Jur. Can., pronounces excommunication against any priest who would dare to interrupt the Mass after the consecration of the bread, “if anyone rashly presumes to do this (namely, that a priest, once he has begun, presume to leave the rites altogether incomplete), he shall undergo the sentence of excommunication.” (Decree Gratian, p. 2, c. 7, q. 1, cap.: Nihil.) The Church is so strict in this matter, that should a priest, after the consecration of the bread, be stricken with a fatal malady and be unable to proceed with the consecration of the wine, the Church not only permits, but commands, even an excommunicated priest, yes, even a vitandus, if no other be at hand, to consecrate the wine and complete the Mass, rather than allow or permit the Mass to end with the consecration of only one species. St. Alphonsus maintains that the obligation to consecrate both species in the Mass, both the bread and the wine, is of strict divine command, from which neither the Pope nor the Church has any authority to dispense.

Again, in the instructions on the Mass, as contained in the Roman missal, we read:

“If the matter that should be supplied, by reason of a lack either of bread or of wine, could in no way be obtained: if this occurs before the consecration of the Body, one must not proceed further; if after the consecration of the Body, or even of the wine, a lack of the other species is discovered after one species has already been consecrated, then, if it can in no way be obtained, one must proceed and complete the Mass, but in such a way that the words and signs pertaining to the missing species are omitted. But if it can be obtained by waiting for some time, one must wait, lest the sacrifice remain incomplete.” (De defect. occur. circa Missam, n. iv, 8.)

If this young priest was not aware that there was no wine until after the consecration of the bread, and there was no wine to be had, then he would be permitted to continue the Mass to the end, omitting only those words and signs that refer to the consecrated wine. But if at any time before the consecration of the bread he perceived the absence of the wine, he should have discontinued the Mass immediately. Not even in order to administer Viaticum to himself, or to another, would, or could, the Church allow him to consecrate one species alone. “This is certain: it is never lawful to consecrate one species without the other; for Christ gave the power to do what He Himself did, and commanded it to be done thus.” (Ballerini-Palmieri, tr. 10, 230.)

2d. Would the Mass celebrated with one species be a true Mass and a real sacrifice?

Modern theologians maintain that it would not. Thus, Father Lehmkuhl holds that it is dogmatically settled that the consecration of both species is required for the essence or substance of the Mass as a sacrifice. Without this double consecration, namely of the bread and of the wine, there is no adequate or sufficient showing forth or representation of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, as instituted and ordained and willed by Jesus Christ.

It is in no way probable that either consecration by itself suffices for the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass. For although it could have been sufficient, so that it might have been adopted for the sacrifice, nevertheless it was not in fact adopted in that manner by Christ the Lord. For the real representation of the bloody death is not sufficiently had according to what Christ willed unless the consecration of each separate species takes place. But this real representation is essential to the Mass.” (Lehmkuhl, I., n. 165).

According to Cardinal De Lugo, the Mass is essentially, in its institution by Christ, a commemorative sacrifice, representing the bloody sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Now it represents the death of Christ, in as far as, by virtue of the words of consecration, the Body and the Blood of Christ are separated one from the other. If, therefore, a priest intended from the beginning to consecrate only one species, such an one could not be considered as having the intention of doing what Christ ordained and instituted, and consequently he would not consecrate at all. Other theologians, however, deny this.

Ballerini thinks that in the consecration of the bread alone, the death of Christ is shown forth in a partial manner: “Nor is it altogether improbable that a representation of Christ’s death is in some manner had there also, because by force of the words and from the celebrant’s intention, only the Body, not the Blood, is placed there.” (Ballerini, tr. 10, 230).

3d. May a priest retain the stipend for saying Mass in which he consecrates only the bread?

Berardi, Praxis Confessariorum, 1182, puts a question concerning a priest who in good faith used unsuitable wine in the celebration of Mass: namely, whether he is bound to celebrate another Mass on account of the offering received? He quotes the answer, taken from “L’Avvisatore Eccl. p. 168:

“For Masses celebrated in good faith before the doubt arose, he seems bound to nothing, because although commutative justice was violated, theological fault was nevertheless absent. He can, however, seek remission (understand, for greater security) from the Holy See.” If the young assistant acted in good faith he may retain the stipend. Ballerini says that he may not, because he cannot liquidate a debt that is quite certain by a doubtful payment.