Case XXXIII: Dispositions Required for Saying Mass

Titius, a priest, at the annual retreat of the clergy, makes a general Confession for the past year. In the course of his Confession, the confessor asks him, whether, during the past year, he always said Mass with the right dispositions. To this Titius replies that once, having committed a mortal sin, he said Mass without having previously gone to Confession. His reasons for doing so, he said, were that he was obliged to say Mass before he had an opportunity of going to Confession, because his confessor lived quite some distance from him, and there was no other priest to whom he could make his Confession, except his own assistant, who was much younger than himself, and besides was his nephew, and he could not bring himself to make his Confession to him.

He admitted, also, that on another occasion he had fallen into alike sin, and had said Mass the next day without having gone to Confession, but having made an act of perfect contrition. His reason was that he could not have omitted Mass without giving grave scandal, and he had no "copia confessarii." The confessor inquired further of Titius whether in both of these instances he had complied with the Tridentine law of going to Confession "quam primum" after the Mass.

Titius answered that he had complied with the law of the Council of Trent, by his weekly Confession, which happened, in these instances, about four or five days after saying Mass. In fact, Titius admitted, that on this second occasion he not only said Mass on the following day, when necessity obliged him to say it, but also on the three following days, when he might have easily omitted it. In this he thought he was justified, because by an act of perfect contrition he had recovered the state of grace, and, being in the state of grace, he was free to say Mass every day if he so desired.

Hearing all this the confessor hesitated in forming his judgment about Titius, and first put the following questions to himself:

1. What dispositions of soul are required of a priest who desires to say Mass worthily?

2. How are we to understand the law of the Council of Trent (s. xiii., c. 7), which obliges priests to go to confession "quam primum"?

3. Did Titius do wrong by saying Mass on these several occasions, and what is to be said about the reasons he advanced to justify himself?

Solution.

1. Benedict XIV treats this matter in his work "De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio" (lib. 3. c. 11), where he gives the common and sound teaching of all theologians, when he says: “A priest ought to be in grace and cleansed of every mortal sin.” If the state of grace is required of a lay person, before receiving Holy Communion, with much greater reason is it required of a priest, who desires to say Mass.

Wherefore St. Thomas (3, q. 80, a. 4) treating this question, not especially in its relation to priests, but in its relation to all the faithful, whether priests or lay people, says: “whoever receives the Sacrament of the Eucharist while in mortal sin commits sacrilege, as a violator of the sacrament, and therefore sins mortally.” This doctrine he draws from the letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians: “he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” He interprets this text by the authority of Peter Lombard: “he eats and drinks unworthily who is in a state of sin.” The Council of Trent merely recalls the doctrine of St. Thomas, with the text from St. Paul, and then adds: “therefore, for one wishing to receive Communion, his precept must be recalled to mind: but let a man examine himself.”

All of which, in our case, is equivalent to saying that as often as a priest is about to say Mass, and is conscious of mortal sin, it is necessary that he should first cleanse his soul from mortal sin and then approach the altar of God. Further on, the Council authentically interprets the text from St. Paul, and declares that the way to cleanse the conscience from mortal sin before Holy Communion is sacramental Confession. The words of the canon (12) are as follows:

“Lest so great a Sacrament be received unworthily and therefore unto death and condemnation, the Holy Synod itself decrees and declares that those whose conscience is burdened by mortal sin, however contrite they may consider themselves, must necessarily make sacramental confession beforehand when a confessor is available.” With right, therefore, is this obligation of going to Confession before saying Mass, if conscious of mortal sin, drawn from the words of the apostle; for whosoever approaches the holy table must have the testimony of a good conscience, and if he be in sin, he must needs cleanse his soul. Now the ordinary way of cleansing the soul from mortal sin is by means of sacramental Confession. Therefore, sacramental Confession is necessary for any one desiring to receive Holy Communion and conscious of mortal sin. And, therefore, also, only in case of necessity is it sufficient to make an act of perfect contrition with a firm purpose of confessing.

2. “But if, when necessity presses, a priest has celebrated without prior confession, let him confess as soon as possible,” says the Council of Trent. This law binds priests alone.

Two false interpretations have been put on this law of the Council of Trent. Both of them have been condemned by Pope Alexander VII.

The first is that this law contains only a counsel or recommendation, and not a strict command. This can not be maintained, because the Council of Trent uses the imperative mode. Therefore, Alexander VII (prop. 38 damnata) condemns any interpretation of the words of the Council that would destroy their imperative nature.

The other false interpretation, condemned by the same Pontiff, says, “that phrase ‘as soon as possible’ is understood as when the priest shall confess in his own time.” To put such a construction on the words of the Council, says Alexander VII, would be to make the law ridiculous: “the precept would be derisory.”

Quam primum, therefore, means the same day or at least within three days after saying Mass, for the word is to be taken in a moral sense, as in all human laws. All theologians are agreed on this. If the priest must say Mass the following day, he is not permitted to put off his Confession for three days, but must make his Confession the same day, if he can possibly do so.

3. From what has been said we conclude that Titius did not act rightly in the first instance, because there was a confessor at hand, to whom he should have gone to Confession. That the confessor was younger than Titius, and his nephew, made no difference under the circumstances. He was a "verus confessarius et, in casu, necessarius." The shame that Titius would experience in making his confession to his nephew was not a sufficient excuse, because more or less shame accompanies all confession of sin.

In the second instance, Titius acted according to the laws of the Council of Trent, and, therefore, is not to be blamed.

In the third and fourth instances he sinned.