Question — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Question VII. On the rite of celebration.
It does not belong to this place to teach the rites according to which the sacrifice of the Mass is to be offered from the prescription of the Church; rather, concerning the rites themselves or concerning the liturgical precepts which are of greater moment, it must be indicated, as far as can be done, whether they oblige under grave sin or under light sin. The rubrics of the Missal set forth the rites to be observed in the celebration of Mass.
208. On the Missal and its rubrics. 1. In the Latin Church Mass must be celebrated in the Latin language according to the rubrics of the Roman Missal, cn. 819.
The supreme pontiff Pius V, in the bull which is prefixed to the Missal published by his order, establishes two things: first he prohibits the use of other missals, unless they are granted from special privilege; then he commands that Mass be celebrated according to the rubrics contained there.1 In recent time the S. C. C. took care that a typical edition of the Roman Missal be published, to which all future editions of the same must be exactly conformed.2 The Code has these things: With any contrary custom reprobated, the celebrating priest is to observe accurately and devoutly the rubrics of his ritual books, cn. 818. The sacrifice of the Mass must be celebrated in the liturgical language of each one's rite, cn. 819.
- Some rubrics of the Missal are preceptive, others directive (n. 20). The rubrics which indicate the rites to be observed in the celebration itself are preceptive under grave or under light sin according to their matter; but the rubrics which indicate rites to be observed outside, i.e., before or after Mass, are directive.
a. The very common opinion both among ancient and among recent theologians, which distinguishes the rubrics of the Missal and of other liturgical books into preceptive and directive, must by all means be held; nor are some recent rubricists to be heard who want absolutely all rubrics to be preceptive.3
b. Although directive rubrics of themselves do not oblige in conscience, nevertheless in violating them venial sin can easily be committed, namely where they are not observed without a reasonable motive.
1 Const. Quo primum, 19 July 1570.
2 Const. Officiorum ac munerum, 25 Jan. 1897, n. 18.
3 Cf. Civilta cattolica, 1891, IV, p. 34 ff.
209. On the omission of rites. In order that it may be determined which omission in the celebration of Mass is grave and which is light, one must distinguish between the ordinary parts of Mass, which must always be performed, such as the confession, epistle, proper prayers, offertory, breaking of the host, mixture of this with the blood, etc., and extraordinary parts, which are not said in every Mass, such as the Gloria, Creed, commemorations, sequence, and those things which in the preface and canon are proper to certain feasts.1
- The omission of an ordinary part can easily become a grave sin, especially if it occurs in the canon of the Mass, which is more closely connected with the sacrifice of the Mass; thus it is grave to omit any prayer of the canon or to change its words in such a way that the sense is varied.
Authors attempt to determine more accurately which omissions, especially in the canon, should be judged grave; but in determining these they do not agree. Thus, for committing a grave sin, some require that two, others that ten names of saints in the canon be omitted.2 "Nor do those more minute determinations of grave or light omission," as Genicot well notes (II, n. 241), "have much bearing on practice: since no one is accustomed by direct will to pass over a part of the Mass; but if some omit certain things through culpable negligence, their guilt is to be judged from the general cause of omissions which they culpably posit, not from the omissions which in fact happened."
- The omission of an extraordinary part does not exceed venial sin, because these parts are less closely connected with the sacrifice of the Mass; thus it is venial to omit the Creed or the sequence or the prophecies on Ember days, or even the Passion in Holy Week: for with respect to the Mass this seems to be called a part that is not notable, and therefore, with a grave cause existing (as if otherwise the people on a feast day would lack Mass) and scandal excluded, it could be omitted without sin. If, however, several parts at once were omitted, grave matter could be reached.
1 Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 404.
2 Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 405.
210. On the addition of rites. 1. In the celebration of Mass, to add something to the rites to be performed from the prescription of the Missal, with the mind of introducing a new rite, or without this mind but in notable quantity, especially if prayers are added which are not contained in the Missal, is a grave sin.
The Council of Trent prohibits priests from employing "other rites or other ceremonies and prayers in the celebration of Masses, besides those which have been approved by the Church";1 and Pius V prohibits priests from presuming to add or recite in the celebration of Mass other ceremonies or prayers than those which are contained in this Missal.2 These prohibitions are to be understood principally of an addition which is made with the mind of introducing a new rite.
- It is not licit from private devotion or from some private necessity to add a collect or something of this kind to the rites or prayers of the Missal.
"Let the celebrating priest take care," cn. 818 has, "lest he join other ceremonies or prayers by his own judgment." From these words the opinion of those authors (St. Alphonsus, Ballerini, D'Annibale, Genicot) loses probability, who thought that from private devotion or from some private necessity to add a prayer from those which are in the Missal is not a sin.
- To interpose a short ejaculatory prayer, either orally or by mind alone, among the liturgical prayers themselves is certainly to be disapproved; but to add prayers of this kind between individual prayers, while the priest, e.g., makes the elevation of the species, incenses, genuflects, etc., is not a sin, even if it is done orally, since this is not properly contrary to the rubrics.
1 Council of Trent, sess. 22, decree Quanta cura, De observ. et evitand. in celebr. missae.
2 Const. Quo primum, 19 July 1570.
211. On some requisites for celebrating. 1. It is not licit to celebrate Mass except on an altar, whether fixed or portable, at least mobile, i.e., at least on a consecrated stone.1
The privilege of celebrating without a consecrated stone is not usually granted even to missionaries.2 But the privilege which belongs to bishops by common law, of celebrating from a just cause in any decent place provided a consecrated stone is present, is granted to other priests by special indult of the Holy See.
- In the celebration of Mass a Missal is required, so that to celebrate without a Missal is of itself a grave sin on account of the danger of erring; but it is not prescribed that the Mass be read, not even the canon, if the moral danger of erring is excluded.
He does not sin who once or twice, even from devotion alone, celebrates without a Missal where this cannot easily be had, provided he knows with moral certitude that he will not err. To avoid the wonder of the people, in this case another sacred book should be placed on the altar.
- The cross with the image of the crucified, standing out among the candlesticks, so that the priest and the people can easily look upon it, must be present on the altar:3 for the cross with the image of the crucified recalls to the priest and faithful the sacrifice of the cross, which is renewed on the altar.
It is an abuse to be removed by the ordinary, if anywhere a small cross is placed either on the tabernacle or on the little door of the tabernacle in place of the cross to be placed among the candlesticks.4
If, however, on the altar there is a large image of Christ crucified, whether sculpted or painted, it is not necessary to add another cross.5
- During the whole time of Mass there must burn on the altar two candles made from beeswax,6 nor is it licit by reason of the dignity of the celebrant, if he is inferior to a bishop, to light more than two.7
a. To celebrate without any light is a grave sin, unless it is done in the necessity of confecting viaticum for a dying person.
To celebrate with one candle is venial; wherefore for a reasonable cause it is licit to celebrate with only one candle. If the light fails before the consecration and another cannot be had, the sacred rite must be stopped; if it fails after the consecration has been begun, the sacred rite must be completed; but if another light can be had within a quarter of an hour, one must wait. - If the candles are extinguished during celebration, they must be lit again, yet without the sacred rite being interrupted in the meantime.8
b. Under grave sin candles must be made from beeswax, and indeed without any admixture of foreign matter, whether vegetable or mineral. Since, however, today foreign substances are frequently mixed even into the wax from which candles are formed, and adulterated candles are sold as genuine, the Holy See, considering the great difficulty of having genuine beeswax, established these things: Let bishops take care according to their powers that the paschal candle, the candle to be immersed in baptismal water, and the two candles to be lit at Masses be from beeswax at least for the greatest part; but the material of the other candles which are to be placed above altars ought to be from the same wax in greater or notable quantity.9
There are those who permit that, when wax is lacking and necessity exists,10 indeed once or twice from devotion alone, celebration can take place with a light from oil.11 More easily it can be permitted that this be done with candles made from stearin or another material, which today can scarcely be distinguished from candles made from beeswax. For although the reason on account of which the Church prescribes candles made from wax is chiefly symbolic, nevertheless there is added also a reason of decency, on account of which authors say that to celebrate with tallow candles (Unschlitt) is mortal.12
c. By reason of solemnity, namely if the Mass is not strictly private, but conventual or parochial or solemn or holding the place of a solemn one, it is licit to light more candles, which likewise must be from wax; nor is it permitted that for worship or upon the altar, besides candles from wax, there be used candles from stearin13 or illumination from gas14 or electric light.15
- In celebration there is required under grave sin a male server, except in a case of necessity; wherefore each of these is of itself grave: both to celebrate without a server, and to admit a woman serving at the altar, even if she is a nun.
a. Cases of necessity are: alpha. that viaticum may be confected; beta. that the people may satisfy the precept of hearing the sacred rite; gamma. that the priest himself on days of precept may be able to satisfy the precept of hearing the sacred rite; delta. if the server, the oblation having already been made, departs and does not return.16
b. Priests, however, to whom a special faculty of celebrating without a server is granted (as happens in missions), licitly use this faculty if otherwise they cannot celebrate.
c. In order that celebration may take place with a server who does not know how to respond, a lesser necessity of celebrating is required.
d. If the server pronounces badly, the priest himself, if it can conveniently be done, should supply; if this cannot be done, he should abstain without scruple from every correction, lest he disturb himself or others.
- When a just cause exists, it can be permitted that a woman respond from a distance to the priest who has first arranged all things necessary for Mass, yet without approaching the altar.
Formerly the S. C. R. permitted the ministry of a woman of this kind only in urgent necessity;17 but in recent time it no longer requires a necessity of celebrating in order that a woman may be able to respond to the priest, yet it does not determine more accurately the cause which is required for this.18 Since now it is established,19 "when a man is lacking, a woman can serve from a just cause, yet under this law, that she respond from a distance and in no way approach the altar," it seems one must say that a priest, with a woman responding, especially if she is a nun and Mass is said in the chapel of nuns, can celebrate if otherwise because of the lack of a server he would have to omit celebration, even if there is not a greater necessity of celebrating.
1 Cn. 822.
2 S. C. prop. fid., 2 Sept. 1870.
3 General rubrics of the Missal, n. XX. Ceremonial of Bishops, l. 1, c. 12.
4 S. C. R., 18 Sept. 1822, n. 2621.
5 S. C. R., 16 June 1663, n. 1270.
6 General rubrics of the Missal, n. 44.
7 S. C. R., 7 Sept. 1850, n. 2984.
8 Cf. Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 2, n. 394; D'Annibale, III, 400.
9 S. C. R., 14 Dec. 1904, n. 4147.
10 Suarez, disp. 81, sec. 6, n. 5.
11 Gobat, Exper. theol., tract. 3, n. 291.
12 St. Alphonsus, n. 394; in missions sometimes license is granted of using candles made from the fat of the whale.
13 S. C. R., 4 Sept. 1815, n. 3376.
14 S. C. R., 16 May 1901.
15 S. C. R., 24 June 1914. Concerning electric light these are the decrees: Electric light is forbidden not only together with candles from wax above altars, but also in place of candles or lamps which are prescribed before the most holy Sacrament or Relics of the saints. Nor is it licit at the time of exposition to illuminate the interior part of the ciborium with electric lamps placed in the interior part itself. For other places of the church and other cases electric illumination is permitted, provided that in all things there is preserved the gravity which the sanctity of the place and the dignity of the sacred liturgy demand.
16 St. Alphonsus, n. 391.
17 S. C. R., 27 Aug. 1836, n. 2745.
18 Cf. Gasparri, I, n. 649.
19 Cn. 813, 2.
212. On the interruption of Mass. Mass must be celebrated without interruption in a continuous course. A twofold interruption is distinguished: essential, when the sacrifice of the Mass, once begun, remains incomplete, as if it is interrupted between the consecration (of one species) and communion, and afterward cannot be continued; and accidental, when the parts of Mass are separated one from another by an intervening extraneous action.
- To interrupt Mass essentially, or rather to break it off, is never licit, unless danger of death or profanation of the most holy Eucharist is imminent.
If Mass must be broken off after the consecration of one species, the priest can, with the consecration of the chalice omitted, consume the host already consecrated or carry it away with himself together with the chalice to be consecrated in another place. But if he has completed both consecrations, let him consume both species immediately if he can, or, if he cannot, let him carry them away with himself to a safe place to be consumed afterward.
- To interrupt Mass accidentally is licit from a just cause, and indeed:
a. After the Gospel it is licit to interrupt it for having a sermon, for reciting prayers for the departed, for receiving a procession, for making the proclamation of banns, etc.
b. Before the offertory it is licit to interrupt it at the arrival of a prince, of pilgrims, of a procession, if those arriving otherwise cannot hear Mass on a feast day. In this case the priest can begin Mass again, so that the faithful may hear the complete Mass.
c. Before the canon it is licit to break it off if the priest himself remembers some impediment, e.g., that he is not fasting, that he is irregular, etc., or if a person excommunicated by name is present who cannot be expelled.
d. Once the canon has begun, and a fortiori once the consecration has been completed, it is licit to interrupt Mass only from a most grave cause, as if a dying person must be baptized or absolved. But it is not licit to minister other sacraments between consecration and communion, because they are not of so great necessity.
alpha. Mass is licitly interrupted also on account of a necessity proper to the celebrating priest, e.g., because of a briefly passing illness, or because of a necessity of relieving himself which cannot be deferred until the end of Mass.
beta. A priest interrupting Mass must see to it that the sacrament meanwhile is guarded, and therefore that he enclose it in the tabernacle, if it is present.
gamma. Returning, the priest begins the Mass interrupted after the consecration where he had left off; and if it was interrupted before the consecration, if the interval interposed is less than one hour, he likewise begins where he had left off; but if the interval interposed is greater than one hour, he begins from the beginning, and indeed in such a way that, when the oblation has already been made, he receives new matter and consumes the matter previously offered after the sacred blood has been consumed.
e. After the communion of the celebrant, immediately before the distribution of Holy Communion, it is licit to have from the altar a brief exhortation to those communicating.1
f. After communion it is likewise licit to interrupt Mass, so that religious vows may be emitted or renewed.
In all religious congregations of either sex in which vows are emitted or renewed within Mass, the norm established by general decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites must be observed from the prescription of the Church.2 This norm was taken from the constitution of Gregory XIII, Quanto fructuosius (1 Feb. 1583), by which the constitutions of the Society of Jesus are approved.
g. After the communion of the celebrant or within Mass it is not licit to distribute Holy Communion to the faithful who are so distant that he himself loses sight of the altar.3
Therefore the previously approved practice is prohibited, according to which in hospitals, after the Confiteor, etc., has been recited at the altar, the priest with the pyx, without a humeral veil, carries Holy Communion to the sick existing in rooms from which the altar cannot be seen.
1 S. C. R., 16 Apr. 1853, n. 3009; 23 Mar. 1881, n. 3529.
2 S. C. R., 14 Aug. 1894, n. 3836; S. C. R., 5 June 1896, n. 3912.
3 Cn. 868.
213. On completing an interrupted sacrifice. If a priest fails from illness while celebrating, these things must be observed:
- If he fails after the consecration of the first species and before the consumption of the most precious blood, another priest, even one not fasting, if one fasting is not present, must complete the sacrifice, because the divine precept concerning procuring the integrity of the sacrifice is graver than the precept of ecclesiastical fasting. Even an irregular or excommunicated priest must complete it.
If one hour is interposed between the breaking off of the sacrifice and its continuation, probably there no longer exists an obligation of seeking a priest who may complete the sacrifice, but what remains can be consumed in another Mass, because probably the moral union between the two parts of the Mass is lacking. Nevertheless, even after several hours, it is still licit to supply.1
If the same priest who was seized by illness while celebrating can, after some interruption, complete the sacred rite, not another, even if fasting, but he himself, even if no longer fasting, should do this: for the divine precept, that the same one complete the sacred rite who began it, prevails over the precept of ecclesiastical fasting.2
If he fails before the consecration of the first species or after the consumption of the most precious blood, nothing must be supplied by another priest, because the sacrifice properly has either not yet been begun or has already been completed.
1 Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 355. Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 2, n. 549.
2 Lacroix, l. 6, pr. 2, n. 552.
214. On those things which are to be said in a clear voice or secretly.1 1. He who recites those things which by prescription of the rubric are to be said in a clear voice so low that those present can understand nothing, sins venially, because he violates a preceptive rubric.
In like manner he who recites those things which by prescription of the rubric are to be said secretly either too low, so that even with any impediment removed he cannot hear himself, or too high, so that he is heard even by those present, commits a venial sin, because he injures a preceptive rubric.
He sins gravely because he pronounces a great part of the canon in a very raised voice, or the words of consecration so low that he himself cannot hear them. The reason of the first is because he notably injures a preceptive rubric; the reason of the second is because he exposes the consecration to the danger of nullity.
Since a reasonable cause entirely excuses from observing those things which are prescribed only under venial sin, when a cause of this kind exists, those things which are to be said secretly can be said in a clear voice, and those things which of themselves would have to be said clearly can be said in a low voice.2
1 Cf. General rubrics of the Missal, n. XVI.
2 Cf. Gasparri, II, n. 848. Genicot, Theol. mor. inst., II, n. 254.