Case XXXII: Doubtful Consecration and its Consequences

Cajus, a young priest, is to say the solemn Mass on Holy Thursday. Because a large number of people wish to receive Holy Communion at that Mass, Cajus takes a great many small particles and folds them in an extra corporal and places them on the altar, beside the chalice, and on the regular Mass corporal. At the offertory and at the consecration, he unfolds the corporal so that he may see the particles, and he directs his intention to them. Shortly after the consecration, he sees a small particle lying on the floor beside him. In his confusion he picks it up quickly and lays it on the consecrated particles beside the chalice. After a few moments, however, he begins to doubt whether the particle was consecrated or not. It may have fallen to the floor just before the consecration. Still, he thinks he would have noticed it sooner had it fallen before the consecration. He does not know what to do.

If the particle was not consecrated, he can not distribute it with the others without committing an act of material idolatry, and depriving some one of the communicants of Holy Communion. He can not distinguish this particle, however, from the others, and the people are waiting to receive Holy Communion. Cajus asks the Mass-server if he knows when the particle fell to the ground; the Mass-server does not know. In this dilemma the young priest distributes all the particles in Holy Communion.

Now we ask: 1. Was it right to use two corporals at the Mass? 2. What is to be said about Cajus's mode of procedure with regard to the doubtful particle?

1. In the Rubrics of the Mass, mention is made of only one corporal to be used at Mass, namely the one that is spread under the chalice and on which the large host is laid. If small particles are to be consecrated during the Mass, they are to be laid on this corporal, "ante calicem," or they are to be put into a second consecrated chalice, or other holy vessel, which is placed on the corporal of the Mass behind the chalice of the Mass, "retro post calicem" (Ritus eel. Missam. ii. 3). A second corporal is unknown to the Rubrics. Therefore, when many small particles are to be consecrated, a ciborium should be provided, or a second chalice. In case there is no ciborium or chalice, the small particles should be placed on the Mass corporal, in front of or on the side of the chalice. The use of a second corporal, to hold the small altar breads, is contrary to the Rubrics, and could be justified only in a case of real necessity, when no ciborium or second chalice is to be had, and the small particles are too numerous to be placed on the Mass corporal. Even in this case, it were better to make one corporal out of the two, by unfolding both on the altar, and allowing one to overlap the other a few inches. This would be much better than folding the small particles in a second corporal and placing them thus folded on the Mass corporal.

2. Regarding Cajus's conduct, we remark:

1. When Cajus picked up the small particle from the floor, he should have kept it separate from the other particles, and consumed it before or with the first ablution. That was the only correct thing for him to do.

2. Once the doubtfully consecrated particle was mixed with the consecrated particles, and its identity lost, Cajus should not have given Holy Communion with any of the particles, but should have put them all into a ciborium or chalice and reconsecrated them all. "sub conditione" at another Mass.

3. If that was impracticable, as it was on Holy Thursday, because there would be no other Mass on that day, Cajus should have removed some of the small particles from that place where he laid the doubtful host and placed them in a ciborium to be consecrated at another Mass, "sub conditione," and then given Holy Communion with those that remained. For, in picking up the particle from the floor, and placing it with the others, Cajus could be morally certain just about where he placed it, and by removing the particles from that particular region, he would be morally sure that he had removed the doubtful particle. If the consecrated particles remaining did not suffice for the faithful, they might be broken. The inconvenience of breaking them would not be a sufficient reason for giving Holy Communion with doubtfully consecrated particles.

4. Strictly speaking, there remains still another way of removing the danger of material idolatry and doubtful Holy Communion. To give the communicant two sacred hosts is forbidden, when it is done "devotionis causa."

That it is forbidden in the present instance can scarcely be maintained. By so doing all danger would be removed. Of course, the sacred particles would not suffice in that case, but they might be broken in two, and two broken particles given to each communicant, taking care that the broken pieces given to each communicant be not parts of the same host.

In order to secure himself against the danger of giving two pieces of the same host to the same communicant, the celebrant would have to divide the particles into various fragments; some into two pieces, some into four pieces, etc., and give the communicant a half and a fourth part of a host.

5. It can not be denied that circumstances may arise where it would be practically impossible to divide the particles, as mentioned under No. 4 or even as under No. 3.

Therefore, we will venture to remark, as a final solution of the difficulty, that it is more than probable that the particle picked up off the floor was a consecrated host. The likelihood that it was not is very meager. Therefore, the likelihood of giving Communion, in the present instance, with an unconsecrated host, is likewise very small; so small, in fact, that a priest would be justified in exposing himself to it in order to extricate himself from so embarrassing a situation. Nor does he do any one an irreparable injury by thus exposing them to the very slight danger of communicating under unconsecrated species. Nor would the small danger of exposing himself and the faithful to commit an act of material idolatry be a sufficient reason for abstaining from distributing all the particles in Holy Communion.