Article II. On the Rubrics

402. Priests must observe with the greatest care and solicitude the laws of the Church which concern the manner of celebrating Mass, since among all sacred things this is the most sacred of all, and therefore worthy of the greatest reverence. On this matter Clement XI should be heard, in his encyclical Letter to all the Bishops of the world, March 10, 1708:

With diligence and zeal greater than can be expressed, the Bishop must take care that the Sacrifice of the Mass, than which nothing more holy, nothing more divine can be conceived, be celebrated by Priests alone, not only with that purity which befits those who each day offer to God the Father the heavenly holocaust of the Only-begotten Son who assumed our mortality, but also that they diligently and devoutly observe the sacred ceremonies prescribed in the Rubrics. This is also necessarily required lest the Priest, placed between men and God to appease His anger, should provoke God all the more if he performs his office negligently and immodestly.

403. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Are all the Rubrics of the Mass preceptive?

Reply 1. According to the common opinion ¹, all the Rubrics which are observed within the Mass are preceptive, since they concern so sacred a matter. They bind, however, under grave or light sin according to the gravity or lightness of the matter, as will be said below. - St. Lig., no. 399. Reply 2. The Rubrics which are observed outside the Mass, that is, before or after the sacred rite, are commonly regarded as merely directive ², as, for example, the prayers for preparation or thanksgiving; for other prayers can be recited. There is controversy, however, concerning the prayers which according to the Rubric are to be recited while the vestments are put on; but it must be held with the common opinion, says St. Lig., no. 410, that their omission is venially culpable. Others, however, maintain with Suarez that this omission is free from every fault.

¹ It scarcely appears in fact why the Author calls this opinion common and adduces St. Alphonsus in its support. St. Alphonsus, as we have observed elsewhere, writes (bk. 6, no. 399) that there are four opinions of the Doctors concerning this question. The first says that all the rubrics are directive, and for this he adduces two authors. The second teaches that all the rubrics are preceptive, and for this he adduces eight. The third holds that some are preceptive and others, even those pertaining to the Mass, are directive, and for this he cites nine Authors. Finally, the fourth holds that those which are observed within the Mass are preceptive, while those which are observed outside it are directive, and for this he adduces three. Now, by joining the Authors of the second and fourth opinions, we have eleven; and by joining the Authors of the first and third, we likewise have eleven. How, then, is that called the common opinion which, taken according to all its parts, has only three patrons, but, taken according to its individual parts, has no more than its contrary?

They also derive this from the decree of St. Pius V: Mandating and strictly commanding each and all... by virtue of holy obedience, that, all other methods and rites from other Missals... being henceforth entirely omitted,... they chant and read Mass according to the rite, manner, and norm which is now delivered by Us through this Missal; nor in the celebration of Mass are they to presume to add or recite other ceremonies or prayers than those which are contained in this Missal. Now, 1. it is manifest that by these words merely the use of one Roman Missal is prescribed. 2. In the Missal, however, there are also things which are to be done or said outside the Mass; and nevertheless the Author, with St. Alphonsus, maintains that these rubrics are merely directive. 3. Indeed, St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, no. 412) judges it probable that it is not forbidden to add one collect for some cause or devotion, although the decree seems to prohibit every addition. Let us therefore conclude that Pius V certainly prescribes that the things contained in the Roman Missal be observed, but as they are proposed in the Missal, namely, either as commanding or as merely directing; while additions are forbidden, not those which are taken from the same Roman Missal, but those which are taken from other Missals, as the words and context of St. Pius most clearly suggest.

² The VV. object here (p. 933, no. 103) that St. Alphonsus (Exam. Ordin., no. 112) judged only some of them to be directive according to the opinion of the Doctors; whence it must be concluded that others are therefore regarded as preceptive.

Reply. In order that rubrics of this kind may truly be regarded as preceptive, it must be certain that they are so, because merely probable precepts have no power to bind, as St. Alphonsus teaches as certain.

404. • QUESTION 2. Can an infirm Priest celebrate even though he is unable to observe all the Rubrics?

Reply. Affirmative, if he omits only a few and the lighter ones, especially if he celebrates privately. Indeed, several authors of grave authority permit an infirm celebrant even to use a staff if he needs it, etc. ³.

³ St. Lig. reports and approves these things (no. 402): Lacroix (bk. 6, part 2, no. 402), with Vasquez, Dicastillo, and Gobat, says that one who could not celebrate without a staff could lawfully use it. And Gobat adds that, if someone were unable to celebrate unless he leaned with both arms upon the altar, he could lawfully celebrate thus in private, but not in public unless he did this from necessity. I think, however, that this does not exceed a venial sin, from which one who because of infirmity could not stand upright and wished to celebrate from his devotion seems able to be excused, provided that the astonishment of the people is avoided. Lacroix (no. 427) and Fr. Concina (p. 510, no. 4) also say that if someone cannot elevate the Host but can do the other things, he can celebrate privately, and even publicly if necessity is present and the people are forewarned; but I think it is sufficient merely to forewarn the people if someone celebrates from devotion.

QUESTION 3. Is the use of a small spoon for pouring water into the chalice lawful for all?

Reply. The Rubric must be observed ⁴. - Thus the S. Congregation of Rites, Sept. 7, 1840, in Rupellen., ad 13.

⁴ The Rubric says nothing about a spoon, but merely says that the cruet of water is to be blessed, and then that drops are to be poured into the chalice.

QUESTION 4. Can a Priest, while distributing the Most Holy Eucharist to the faithful, hold a paten under their chin with the same hand with which he holds the pyx?

Reply. Negative (S. Congregation of Rites, Aug. 12, 1864, in Lucionen.).

405. • QUESTION 5. What Mass must a Priest celebrating in another church say?

Reply. Here are the decisions of the S. Congregation of Rites on this matter:

1. The Decree in Varsavien., May 7, 1746, is to be observed, namely, that the Mass must agree with the Office which one has recited, provided that it accords with the color of the church in which he celebrates (Nov. 12, 1741). Otherwise, when the feast there is a double, Mass must be celebrated of the Saint whose Office that particular church celebrates (Sept. 4, 1746).

2. A Priest celebrating in another church cannot say a votive Mass with the color which agrees with the Office of that church, unless the rite of the aforesaid church permits it (Sept. 11, 1747).

3. In private Oratories the Mass must always agree with the Office of the celebrant (March 12, 1831).

406. • QUESTION 6. Is it lawful to add prayers beyond the prayers assigned or permitted by the Rubric?

Reply. Negative. Thus the S. Congregation of Rites declared, Aug. 12, 1854, in Lucionen. ⁵.

⁵ St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, nos. 411-412), after establishing that one sins gravely if, with the intention of introducing a new rite, he adds new public prayers in the Mass, adds: But if several collects from the same Missal are added from importunate devotion..., this does not exceed a venial fault. Thus commonly.... Croix and Pasqualigus, however, say probably that, although it is better to observe the rubric, it is nevertheless not forbidden for some cause or devotion to add one collect.

QUESTION 7. In a daily Mass of the dead, is it lawful to substitute other prayers for those which are set down in the Missal?

Reply. In the last place the prayer Fidelium omnium must always be said (S. Congregation of Rites, Sept. 2, 1741, in Aquen.); and as regards the first prayer, the Order of the Missal is to be observed, that is, Deus qui inter apostolicos must always be said (S. Congregation of Rites, Aug. 27, 1836, in Veronen.). - The second prayer, Deus veniae largitor, however, can be varied, and another can be substituted for it, for example, for the one for whom the Mass is applied, etc.... (S. Congregation of Rites, Sept. 25, 1837, in Mutinen.).

407. • QUESTION 8. Is it ever lawful to interrupt Mass?

Reply 1. It is never lawful to interrupt Mass essentially, that is, in such a way that the Sacrifice which has been begun remains truncated, unless a most grave or extreme necessity urges, as in the case of an imminent fire or of an enemy rushing in to kill; for then the Priest, omitting the consecration of the chalice, could consume the Host already consecrated, or carry it away with him as he fled. But if he has completed both consecrations, let him consume both species immediately, if he can; or, if he cannot, let him carry them with him, to be consumed as quickly as possible in a nearby place. - St. Lig., no. 352 et seq.

Reply 2. It is lawful to interrupt accidentally, namely, by interposing something for a just cause before the Canon: 1. On account of a sermon after the Gospel, prayers to be recited for the dead, proclamations of banns to be made, or a procession to be received, etc. 2. For the sake of a Prince who arrives, or of a crowd of pilgrims on a feast day, if otherwise they cannot hear Mass. Then, if the oblation has not been made, the Priest can begin anew so that they may hear the whole Mass. 3. If the Priest remembers some impediment, for example, that he is not fasting, or is not in the state of grace, or is irregular, provided that the Mass can be broken off without scandal or disgrace. - St. Lig., ibid.

Reply 3. It is not lawful, however, to interrupt even accidentally once the Canon has been begun, and a fortiori after the consecration has been completed, except for a most grave cause, for example, if a dying person must be baptized or absolved. It is not lawful, however, to administer the other Sacraments between the consecration and Communion, because they are not of such great necessity. Nevertheless, Holy Viaticum could be administered to a dying person who was nearby, so that the Priest would not have to remove the sacred vestments. - St. Lig., ibid. - But for this it is also required that the celebrant not lose sight of the altar (S. Congregation of Rites, Dec. 19, 1829).

408. • QUESTION 9. What must be done if a Priest, overtaken by illness or death, is unable to complete Mass?

Reply 1. If the Priest fails before the consecration, nothing is to be done by another Priest, because the Sacrifice was not properly begun.

Reply 2. But if he fails after the consecration of even only one species, then another Priest who is fasting, if one is present, must supply; if no one fasting is present, another who is not fasting is to supply and complete the Mass, because the precept of securing the integrity of the Sacrifice urges more gravely. Indeed, even an irregular or excommunicated Priest would have to supply. Nevertheless, if another Priest could not be found immediately, after one hour had elapsed he probably would no longer have to be sought, because moral union would be lacking, and consequently it would not be considered the same Mass. But if the Priest, seized by illness while celebrating, is able to complete the Mass after some interruption, it is better that he himself, rather than another, complete it, even if he is not fasting. - St. Lig., no. 335.

409. • QUESTION 10. Can a Priest wearing a STOLE assist a Priest who is celebrating?

Reply. Negative. 1. If it is a private Mass, even of a new Priest celebrating for the first time. - Thus the S. Congregation of Rites, March 11, 1837. - 2. Likewise, if it is a solemn Mass (S. Congregation of Rites, March 15, 1721) ⁶. Canons are excepted, however, when they celebrate solemnly in place of the Bishop, or when immemorial custom favors them. - Thus the S. Congregation of Rites on several occasions.

⁶ The two decrees cited here appear to have less bearing upon the matter, and therefore are less suitable for confirming what the Author affirms.

Resolutions. - 1. It is unlawful to celebrate with the head covered. This is established from cap. Nullus, de Consecratione, dist. 1. And indeed, according to the common opinion, it is mortal to celebrate the whole Mass with the head covered; but to celebrate with a skullcap (calotte, berrettino) up to the Canon, apart from contempt and scandal, is only venial. Indeed, it is probably free even from venial fault if, even without a dispensation, it is done only up to the Canon for a reasonable cause and in a private place, or even in a public place if the reason is manifest to those present and the Priest cannot celebrate without notable inconvenience. It is unlawful, however, to celebrate the entire Mass with the head thus covered without apostolic permission. Thus expressly St. Lig., no. 397, after others. - Craisson, Manuale Iuris canonici, vol. 3, no. 3688.

2. By common law it is unlawful to celebrate with a wig (perruque), and this under penalty of suspension from divine Offices. Thus from a Decree of Innocent XI, in which Bishops and Apostolic Nuncios are furthermore prohibited from granting this permission. - St. Lig., no. 386. - But this prohibition has fallen into desuetude in many places, as in France, as is evident from the contrary custom. - Bouvier, On the Sacrifice of the Mass, ch. 7, art. 7. - Craisson, no. 3692.

3. A Priest who omits blessings, inclinations, genuflections, etc., is not excused from venial sin. Say the same of one who advertently does not genuflect to the ground, or contrary to the prescriptions of the Rubric changes the order of the blessings, or performs them too quickly. - Lacroix, etc.

4. It is a grave sin, unless slightness of matter excuses, to omit the parts of the Mass which are called ordinary, or which are always recited or performed. Hence the Doctors commonly say that it is mortal to omit the Confession together with the other things at the beginning of Mass, the Epistle, the Gospel, the principal Collects, the Offertory, the breaking of the Host, and its mingling with the Blood ⁷.

⁷ These things are taken almost word for word from St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, no. 404). But his statement that the Doctors commonly say that it is mortal, etc., must not be understood as though the common opinion asserted grave guilt in each individual thing which is then enumerated. For St. Alphonsus himself adds: Although you will not find all these things in all these authors. Thus, for example, Sporer, cited there, mentions only the whole Epistle with the Gradual and Alleluia, and then the whole Postcommunion.

5. It is mortal to omit any prayer in the Canon of the Mass, or so to change its words that the sense is altered, or to omit some word whose removal causes the remaining words to make no sense. - The same must be said if the Pater noster or Agnus Dei is omitted; the same of Libera nos; Domine, non sum dignus; and Quid retribuam; the same of the purification of the paten and chalice after consumption ⁸. - St. Lig., no. 405. - The Salmanticenses.

⁸ Here in reality you have only opinions for which two, three, or four authors are adduced; and indeed those who are eminent among them are not those to whom one must defer greatly. You have these authors in St. Alph. (bk. 6, no. 405).

410. • 6. It is venial to omit one of the three principal Collects. If the first prayer has been omitted, it is to be recited together with the Secret, as it seems, and not afterward ⁹. But it will not be mortal to omit the other prayers which are added in the Mass besides it ¹⁰. - St. Lig., no. 406.

⁹ Suarez alone is adduced for this rule (in St. Alph., bk. 6, no. 405).

¹⁰ In this context of the Author, the word it refers to the first prayer. But it is not so in St. Alphonsus, from whom the Author copies. For St. Alphonsus understands the first proper Collect.

7. To mutilate words or introduce syncopation, while preserving the sense and apart from scandal, is no more than venial. - St. Lig., no. 407.

8. To omit extraordinary parts, namely, those which are not said in every Mass, is only venial. - Thus commonly, unless so many parts are omitted that, taken together, they constitute notable matter. - Hence it will be only venial to omit the Gloria, Credo, Collects besides that proper to the Mass, the Tract, or special things concerning the Preface or the Communicantes ¹¹. - Thus commonly. - Likewise, to celebrate a votive Mass or a Mass de Requiem when this is not lawful according to the Rubrics is venial, unless it becomes mortal by reason of contempt or scandal, if, for example, you say a Mass de Requiem on the solemn feasts of Easter or the Nativity of the Lord. - St. Lig., no. 420.

¹¹ Sporer includes here the Sequences of certain feasts, and even the prophecies on the Ember Days, since they are very extraordinarily accidental parts of the Mass (Theologia Sacramentalis, part 2, ch. 6, sect. 4, no. 426).

9. The washing of the hands before Mass must be done at least under venial sin ¹², and under grave sin if the hands are very dirty, because of the reverence due to the Sacrifice. - But to omit the washing after Mass will be no sin. - St. Lig., no. 409.

¹² This is the opinion of some.

10. Although it is no sin to omit the prayers before and after Mass, nevertheless, a Priest who approached the Sacrifice without any other preparation would not be free from some fault. - St. Lig.

11. A Priest would sin if, in the purification of the chalice, he used water alone, but only venially according to the common opinion. - Thus St. Lig., no. 408. - Lacroix, no. 423, etc. - Several also excuse a Priest from venial sin if he is an abstainer from wine. Thus Tamburini. - See more concerning the Rubrics and Ceremonies in the authors.

END OF THE TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST.