Article I. On the Requisites for Mass

391. These things are required: 1. A stone altar, fixed or portable, consecrated by the Bishop. 2. Three altar cloths made of linen or hemp. 3. Sacred vestments, that is, blessed by the Ordinary. 4. A consecrated chalice and paten. 5. A corporal of linen or hemp, blessed by the Ordinary. 6. A pall likewise of linen or hemp. 7. A linen purificator. 8. A Missal with a cushion. 9. A Crucifix, and not merely a cross. 10. Two lighted wax candles. 11. A burse, veil, hand towel, and glass cruets. 12. A male server.

The vestments to be blessed by the Ordinary are the amice, alb, maniple, stole, chasuble, and more probably also the cincture. The other paraments do not need a blessing. More probably, the pall must also be blessed together with the corporal; but the contrary is to be said concerning... the purificator, according to the decree of Sept. 7, 1816, apud Gardellini, IV, 4376. With regard to the altar cloths, see Question --. See St. Lig., from no. 376 to no. 389.

As regards candles, however, in private Masses it is not lawful to light more than two wax candles, unless a Bishop celebrates, or unless some extraordinary solemnity or the exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament requires a greater number. - De Herdt.

392. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Must the altar cloths necessarily be blessed?

Reply. Affirmative. The reason is that this is prescribed in the Rubric; and whatever some may say, no sufficient reason appears for acting contrary to the Rubric, which lays down the following: Let the altar be covered with three cloths... blessed by the Bishop or by another having the faculty. To celebrate upon an unblessed cloth, however, does not exceed a venial fault; and therefore, when a reasonable cause urges, it is free from every fault, according to St. Lig., no. 375.

QUESTION 2. Is it mortal to celebrate without any sacred vestment, or without a stole, alb, chasuble, maniple, or cincture?

Reply 1. It is mortal to celebrate without any sacred vestment in every case and for any cause whatsoever. 2. Likewise, to celebrate without a chasuble or alb, or without both stole and maniple together. 3. It is probably not mortal to celebrate without a maniple, or without a blessed maniple. The same is true of celebrating without an amice, at least for those who do not use it to cover the head, but only the shoulders. The same must also be said of celebrating without a cincture ¹; hence a reasonable cause easily excuses from all these things.

¹ The Author seems to have taken these things from Busembaum (bk. 6, tr. 3, ch. 3, dub. 5, no. 3), who, after saying that Filliuccius concedes that, in a case of necessity, to celebrate without one or another of the minor vestments, for example, a stole or cincture, is not mortal, adds: See Diana, ... where, against Filliuccius and Henriquez, together with six others, he teaches it to be probable that, by reason of slightness of matter, one who, apart from scandal and contempt, omits one of these, namely, of the minor vestments, outside a case of necessity, can be excused from mortal sin. Now, since slightness of matter excuses from so great a sin, but not from every sin, Diana's opinion therefore comes to this: the omission of one of the minor vestments, apart from contempt and scandal, is a venial fault. But what Filliuccius concedes, namely, that in a case of necessity one does not sin mortally on this account, can, and indeed must, be understood as also excusing from venial sin. For it is not consonant with reason that a grave obligation should cease because of necessity, and nevertheless a light obligation remain. And those who, with Suarez (Disp. 82, sect. 3, dub. 1, at the end), maintain that grave men judge it not to be a mortal sin in a case of necessity to omit one or another of these vestments, especially the minor ones, such as the stole or cincture, seem to be understood in this way.

As regards, however, lightness of fault by reason of slightness of matter, St. Alphonsus also mentions the opinion of Escobar, who has the following (bk. 21, sect. 2, no. 485): I judge with the common opinion of the Doctors that the omission of any sacred vestment is sufficient matter for mortal sin.... Yet I acknowledge that the first opinion is sufficiently probable. For since the gravity of the obligation concerning this or that matter depends greatly upon the judgment of prudent men, and so many prudent men judge the obligation of wearing the cincture or maniple to be light, one can probably adhere to their judgment. The same Escobar reports the first opinion thus (loc. cit., no. 483): In every precept, especially a human one, slightness of matter excuses from mortal sin. Therefore, it will excuse in this precept, which is human and pertains not to the substance of the Sacrifice but to its adornment. And, after adducing the patrons of this opinion, he adds: These men consequently assert that to celebrate with an unblessed cincture or maniple is a venial sin by reason of slightness of matter. Lugo and Aversa judge this not improbable.

Finally, when Gury says at the end that a reasonable cause excuses from all these things, namely, from these venial faults, he seems to be understood as speaking of that necessity on account of which Suarez, as was said, likewise gave an excuse together with others. Indeed, Tamburini discusses this matter thus (Methodus celebrandi Missam, bk. 4, ch. 3, sec. 1, no. 4): The degree of necessity is not to be taken very strictly here. Therefore, the necessity of hearing and celebrating Mass on a feast day, fervor of devotion, and the temptation of an assailed will to be overcome by this remedy, and even, for a priest who is not wealthy, an opportunity of receiving an alms, will be more than sufficient, in the aforesaid slight matter, to excuse the celebrant even from venial sin. St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, no. 377) does not disapprove this doctrine, but indeed presents it as probable.

Wherefore, this response of Gury agrees almost entirely with the doctrine of St. Alphonsus, which the VV. otherwise oppose (p. 955, no. 101). I said almost; for some disagreement appears only concerning the maniple. If in this matter it pleased Gury to follow the judgment of Suarez and of other grave Doctors, the VV. can certainly bear this with equanimity.

393. • QUESTION 3. Is the color of the vestments a matter of precept?

Reply. Affirmative, because all the Rubrics which concern the ceremonies accompanying the Mass are regarded as preceptive ². Nevertheless, this Rubric does not seem to bind under grave sin unless scandal is present, for example, if Mass were celebrated on Easter or another solemn day in black vestments. Hence a cause that is not very grave can excuse from this precept. - St. Lig., no. 378.

² St. Alphonsus indeed holds this general principle concerning the proper obligation of the Rubrics as the more probable opinion (bk. 6, no. 578, dub. 5); but, as we have said elsewhere, other Doctors deny this very principle. However that may be, a merely probable principle is not of such a kind that firmer conclusions can be deduced from it; here, therefore, we have a merely probable precept or obligation. Add, moreover, that St. Alphonsus himself (loc. cit.), in support of the opinion denying a strict obligation concerning the use of colors, adduces decidedly more Doctors than he does in support of the affirmative opinion. Moreover, the same St. Alphonsus, after Lacroix (bk. 6, part 2, no. 340), praises the opinion of Sporer, namely, that it is better on any day to celebrate Mass in any color than to omit it; hence, St. Alphonsus adds, Sporer rightly says that, a fortiori, every reasonable cause excuses. From this someone could conclude that, if you must celebrate a votive Mass in order to satisfy an obligation, but the rector of the church, in order to avoid an incongruous diversity of colors, as they are accustomed to object, refuses to give you suitable vestments, you can safely use the counsel of Sporer; especially because, although you hold that some precept has force here, the Author nevertheless also observes that a cause which is not very grave can excuse from it.

QUESTION 4. What colors are required in the vestments?

Reply. Vestments of white, red, green, violet, and black color are required. Vestments made from vitreous silken fabrics are entirely rejected. Thus the S. Congregation of Rites, Sept. 11, 1847, in Atrebatensi. Likewise rejected are vestments of various colors (in French, de toutes couleurs), which not a few persons maintain can be used on every feast because flowers of every color are intermingled in them. The S. Congregation of Rites prohibited these on Sept. 23, 1837; and thus they can represent only that color which is primary and predominant.

Vestments of yellow and blue color are entirely prohibited. - Thus the S. Congregation of Rites, Nov. 12, 1831. Vestments of cloth of gold (drap d'or) are permitted, however, and according to the usage of Rome they are employed for the colors white and red.

394. • QUESTION 5. Must the chalice and paten be consecrated under grave sin, or only under light sin; and from what material must they be fashioned?

Reply to the first. They must be consecrated under mortal sin, for the precept concerns a grave matter. - St. Lig., no. 379. - Gousset, no. 525.

Reply to the second. According to the present discipline, at least the cup of the chalice must be of gold, or of silver gilded within. In a case of necessity, however, a chalice of tin or copper could be used. The paten must be of gold, or of gilded silver.

QUESTION 6. Do the chalice and paten lose their consecration if the gilding is lost?

Reply. Affirmative ³. Therefore, after being gilded anew, they need a new consecration. Thus from a recent Declaration of the S. Congregation of Rites, June 14, 1845. For when the Bishop of Liege asked whether a chalice and paten lose their consecration through being gilded anew, and thus need a new consecration, the S. Congregation replied: Affirmative, namely, that they lose it and need one according to the matters set forth. Thereby the controversy which previously existed is settled.

³ By this absolute affirmation the Author does not seem to have wished so much to resolve the question concerning a chalice in the state in which its gilding has been lost, as concerning the state of that same chalice as it must again be perfected by the necessary regilding which it needs, namely, concerning the state into which it must necessarily pass. For otherwise it is sufficiently clear that the Doctors disagree among themselves on the question whether a chalice and paten, if their gilding is lost, remain by that very fact execrated; and the more common opinion is that which denies it. See St. Alph., bk. 6, no. 370, dub. 1 and 2.

It must be regarded as an abuse, however, for a Priest to wish to execrate the aforesaid sacred vessels before handing them to an artisan to be repaired or cast anew. Therefore, if there is need, they must be handed to him without the Priest attempting to execrate them either directly by hand or by means of some instrument. - Thus the S. Congregation of Rites in the general Decree of April 23, 1822.

395. • QUESTION 7. Must the alb, amice, altar cloths, corporal, purificator, and pall necessarily be of linen or hemp?

Reply. Affirmative as to all. Thus from the practice and precept of the Church. - Nevertheless, according to a general Decree of the S. Congregation of Rites, May 19, 1819, amices, albs, and altar cloths, if any made of cotton were possessed, could meanwhile be used until they were worn out; they were not, however, to be replaced except with ones of linen or hemp. It was prescribed, however, that, after the lapse of one month from the publication of the Decree, only corporals, palls, and purificators made of linen or hemp could be used.

396. • QUESTION 8. Must the pyx necessarily be consecrated?

Reply. Negative, according to the truer and common opinion. The reason is that in the Roman Ritual the blessing of a pyx is numbered among those things which do not require an anointing with chrism. - St. Lig., no. 384. In practice, however, according to the more probable opinion, it must be counseled that the pyx be blessed. For this is in conformity both with the Rubric and with reason. The same must be said of the circle or lunule in which the consecrated Host is placed when it is exposed in the Monstrance. - St. Lig., no. 385.

QUESTION 9. What sin is it to celebrate with an unblessed corporal?

Reply. This cannot be excused from mortal sin unless a grave necessity of celebrating urges. In a case of necessity, however, one could even celebrate without a corporal. - Thus commonly. - St. Lig., no. 386. It is likewise mortal to use a very soiled corporal; but it is venial if it is not very soiled. Indeed, in a case of necessity, namely, if the precept of hearing Mass urges, there would be no sin. - St. Lig., no. 376.

397. • QUESTION 10. Is it mortal to celebrate without a pall, or with an unblessed pall?

Reply. It is controverted. The first probable opinion affirms it. The reason is that formerly the pall was the corporal itself with which the chalice was covered; hence, although it is now separate from the corporal, it is just as necessary as the corporal.

The second opinion, itself also probable, denies it. The reason is that today the same reason of reverence does not apply to the pall as to the corporal, which immediately touches the sacred Species. In a case of necessity, when a pall is lacking, the purificator or burse can be used to cover the chalice. - See St. Lig., no. 388.

QUESTION 11. Is it lawful to use a pall covered with silk cloth and interwoven with gold?

Reply. Affirmative. For although this is prohibited, nevertheless, at the request of several Bishops of France, it was conceded that it could be used. Hence, to the question: Notwithstanding the Decrees issued by the S. Congregation of Rites, is it lawful to use a pall covered on its upper part with silk cloth and interwoven with gold? the S. Congregation replied: It can be permitted, provided that the linen pall placed beneath covers the chalice, and the upper cloth is not black in color or bears any symbols of death. Jan. 10, 1852.

QUESTION 12. Must the purificator be blessed?

Reply. Negative, according to the more common and more probable opinion. The reason is that in the Ritual there is no proper blessing for a purificator, just as there is none for a veil or burse. Indeed, if a purificator cannot easily be obtained, it is probably lawful to celebrate without one, and in its place a clean small cloth can be used, which afterward must not be applied to profane use. - St. Lig., no. 589. - Suarez. - Gavantus, etc.

398. • QUESTION 13. What sin is it to celebrate without a server?

Reply. It is mortal according to all. Nevertheless, the Doctors commonly say that it is lawful to celebrate without a server when the necessity of administering Viaticum urges. Others likewise concede it so that the people may hear a Mass of precept. - Thus Lugo. - St. Lig., no. 319, etc. ⁴.

⁴ Certain examples suggest, however, that the Roman Pontiff can dispense in this matter, and sometimes is accustomed to do so, even apart from the necessities noted in the text.

QUESTION 14. Can a Priest sometimes celebrate with a woman making the responses?

Reply. Affirmative, if necessity urges, especially among nuns, provided that the woman responds from a distance and does not directly serve at the altar by handing the cruets, etc.; for this could not be excused from mortal sin, because the Church entirely forbids women to serve the celebrant. - St. Lig., no. 392. - This is confirmed by a Decree of the S. Congregation, Aug. 26, 1836. For to a question of this kind: Can a Priest, after arranging beforehand in a convenient manner all the things which can be needed for the Sacrifice, so that women do not serve at the altar, use the service of a woman only for the responses? the Sacred Congregation of Rites replied: Affirmative, when necessity urges.

399. • QUESTION 15. Is it mortal to celebrate without a cross; and what kind of cross is required?

Reply to the first. Negative; for this does not appear to be grave. - Thus theologians commonly.

Reply to the second. The cross which is required in the celebration of Mass must not be small, but must rise above the candlesticks, so that the Priest and the people can easily and conveniently look upon it. Thus Benedict XIV, Constitution Accepimus, July 16, 1746. If a large statue of the Crucified is present on the altar at which Mass is celebrated, this suffices, and there is no need to add another cross in the midst of the candlesticks. - S. Congregation of Rites, June 16, 1683. - If Mass is celebrated at an altar where the Most Holy Sacrament is publicly exposed, the cross can be exposed or not exposed according to the custom of the place. - Thus Benedict XIV, On the Sacrifice of the Mass.

400. • QUESTION 16. What sin is it to celebrate without a light, and is it ever lawful?

Reply to the first. It is mortal to celebrate with no light at all. To celebrate with only one wax candle lighted, however, will be only venial. - From cap. Littera, sec. ult., de celebratione Missae. - St. Lig., no. 394.

Reply to the second. In one case alone it is lawful to perform the sacred rite without any light, namely, when the light is extinguished after the consecration has been completed and another cannot be obtained; for then the reason of completing the Sacrifice urges.

QUESTION 17. Is it lawful to celebrate with tallow candles, or with one wax light?

Reply to the first. Negative, except in a case of necessity; and there are some who condemn this as a mortal sin. - St. Lig., no. 594 ⁵.

⁵ Pasqualigus, Gobat, and others say, with whom Suarez agrees when speaking of a light of oil, that it is not unlawful to celebrate with lights of oil or tallow, even from devotion alone, if others cannot be obtained. - Thus St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, no. 394).

Reply to the second. Likewise negative, according to the more common and more probable opinion; but if it is done, it does not exceed a venial sin, and any reasonable cause will excuse from every fault. Therefore, when the other wax candle is lacking, the Priest can celebrate even from mere devotion. - St. Lig., ibid.

401. • QUESTION 18. Is it at least lawful to persist in the use of the new candles made from stearin (stearine)?

Reply. Negative. This is established from two Declarations of the S. Congregation of Rites, namely, Sept. 14, 1843, in Massiliensi; and Sept. 7, 1850, in Divion.