Article IV. On the Rites to Be Observed

302. Preliminary note. Here we do not treat of the diverse rites instituted or permitted by the Church, such as the Roman, Oriental, and Ambrosian rites, the rite of the Preachers, the Carthusians, and so forth. The general rule is: "Let it not be lawful for priests to perform sacred rites according to a mixed rite; therefore let each confect and minister the sacrament of the Body of the Lord according to the rite of his own Church."⁵¹¹

Wherefore, without any doubt, a priest of the Order of Preachers would sin, for example, if without previous legitimate permission and outside a most urgent necessity he celebrated Mass according to the Roman rite; and conversely, a priest bound to the Roman rite who wished to say Mass according to the rite of the Friars Preachers.

The Council of Trent⁵¹² established the following concerning ceremonies accepted in general: "Since the nature of men is such that it cannot easily be raised to meditation upon divine things without exterior aids, holy Mother Church has therefore instituted certain rites, namely, that some things be pronounced in Mass in a low voice and others in a louder voice; she has likewise employed ceremonies, such as mystical blessings, lights, incense, vestments, and many other things of this kind, from apostolic discipline and tradition, both that the majesty of so great a sacrifice might be commended and that the minds of the faithful, through these visible signs of religion and piety, might be aroused to the contemplation of the most sublime things which lie hidden in this sacrifice."

⁵¹¹ Constitution of Pius X, Tradita ab antiquis, September 14, 1912 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis IV, 615).

⁵¹² Session 22, c. 5, On the Sacrifice of the Mass (Denz., n. 943).

303. Principle. All the rubrics of the Missal oblige in conscience in some manner.

Proof 1. St. Pius V strictly commands in the Constitution which is read at the beginning of the Missal that Mass be celebrated according to the rite, manner, and norm as noted in the rubrics of the Missal. Now such a general ecclesiastical law obliges in conscience.

Proof 2. The Sacred Congregation of Rites, in a decree which likewise is found in the Roman Missal, "commands that the rubrics of the Roman Missal be observed in all things and in every respect," notwithstanding any pretext and contrary custom, which it declares to be an abuse. Moreover, that such a precept is purely directive or penal is an altogether gratuitous assertion.

Wherefore the distinction employed by several authors between preceptive and directive rubrics is of little utility, both because no one up to this time has been able to designate which rubrics are preceptive and which are merely directive,⁵¹³ and because this distinction cannot be solidly proved. Therefore it must be said: Whenever something is determinately established in the rubrics, it obliges in conscience; but when it is left to the discretion of the priest or bishop, or is proposed according to the convenience of the priest, certainly each one can act as is consonant with his reason.

⁵¹³ Some authors think that all the rubrics to be observed within Mass are preceptive, but those to be observed before or after Mass are merely directive. This opinion does not seem sufficiently founded, since, for example, the prayers which are to be said while putting on the sacred vestments are most commonly held to be preceptive.

304. Gravity of the obligation. The rubrics of the Missal are positive ecclesiastical laws; and accordingly, for judging the gravity of their obligation, the general rules concerning the obligation of ecclesiastical laws are to be employed; namely, it is necessary to attend to: a) the gravity of the matter; b) the common judgment of the doctors. From the application of these rules it is useful to adduce the following practical solutions:

1. A responding minister, and indeed a male, is required under grave obligation to serve at Mass. From this law, however, there excuse: a) a pontifical dispensation, which sometimes is customarily granted to missionaries and other priests; and b) a case of necessity, for example, that on a feast day the people may be able to assist at Mass, that Viaticum may be confected, or even probably if otherwise the priest would be wholly unable to say Mass on that day. It is lawful to celebrate from a lesser necessity with a minister who does not know how to make the responses. Therefore a priest ought not make scruples for himself if the minister pronounces the words badly; it is fitting, however, that the priest himself then supply the words omitted. To permit a woman to take the place of the Mass server in all things, that is, to stand at the altar, present the cruets, and so forth, is considered a grave transgression of the ecclesiastical precept. When a male minister is lacking, however, it is lawful to celebrate Mass if a woman, especially a nun, indeed makes the responses but does not approach the altar. In public churches, however, a woman cannot serve at Mass in this manner unless necessity⁵¹⁴ or at least a just cause is present.

How great this necessity must be is not established. After the Sacred Congregation of Rites, on August 14, 1893, replied that such necessity was not present in a case in which the priest otherwise would have to omit a Mass which was in no way necessary for fulfilling the precept of hearing Mass, it afterward, on January 13, 1894, suspended the execution of this rescript until it had weighed new arguments brought forward. To this day a decision has not yet been given. Indeed, the Code, c. 813, § 2, no longer requires necessity, but a just cause. Wherefore it seems lawful to employ a woman if otherwise the priest could not say Mass even for the sake of devotion.

2. Every notable change in the Canon of the Mass is a mortal sin. Thus all teach. St. Alphonsus⁵¹⁵ thinks it already grave to omit ten words in the Canon.

3. Outside the Canon, to omit entire parts which must be said in every Mass is likewise considered a grave sin, for example, the omission of the Confession and of all the other prayers to be said before the steps; the omission of the Epistle with the Tract or Gradual; the omission of the Gospel.

4. To omit one or another of those parts which do not occur in every Mass does not seem grave, for example, to omit the Gloria, Creed, a commemoration, and so forth.

Lehmkuhl⁵¹⁶ teaches: "It is not altogether established that it is a grave sin in Holy Week to omit the Passion, reciting only the final part which is taken as the Gospel; but if someone is detained by a fortuitous impediment from being able to say so long a Mass, yet is impelled by devotion or another cause to celebrate, it is better to take another Mass, such as a votive Mass of the Passion, than to omit from the Mass of those days the history of the Passion. For to take that votive Mass, although of itself it is a sin against the rubrics, is certainly only venial, and for a moderately grave cause it will be lawful to do this without any fault." The second part of this opinion is displeasing, because it is necessary: 1. to change the color of the vestments; 2. to take a Mass contrary to the express prohibition of the Church. Since, however, according to the common opinion, it is not grave to omit those things which are not to be said in every Mass, and the Passion is not to be said in every Mass, when a true cause exists it seems that the Passion should be omitted rather than that a votive Mass of the Passion be said.⁵¹⁷ For the rest, bishops today are customarily empowered to grant that a priest celebrating twice omit the Passion in one Mass.

5. It is not lawful from importunate devotion to add anything in the Mass, and especially Collects or prayers cannot be added at will.⁵¹⁸

6. If someone through error has omitted something which belongs to the necessity and integrity of the Mass, for example, the Offertory or the consecration, he must supply it. But other things which do not belong to the necessity and integrity of the Mass, such as the Gloria, Collects, Creed, and so forth, if the priest has already advanced somewhat, he ought not supply, but continue the Mass.⁵¹⁹

7. It is not lawful to break off Mass before the consecration unless scandal is absent and at the same time a grave cause is present, for example, if the priest remembers that he is not fasting or if he suddenly becomes ill.⁵²⁰ It is never lawful to break off Mass after the consecration and before Communion unless danger of death or profanation of the Eucharist is imminent. A Mass broken off after the consecration must be completed altogether by the priest himself or by another, even one who is not fasting, because otherwise an enormous sacrilege would be committed.⁵²¹ If, however, more than one hour has intervened, the moral union between the parts of the Mass already seems to have been destroyed, and therefore the strict obligation of completing the Mass probably ceases. It is nevertheless lawful to complete a Mass that has been broken off even after several hours.⁵²²

It is lawful to interrupt Mass for a short time before the Offertory or after the Communion of the priest, provided that a just cause is present. Thus, for example, it is lawful to interrupt Mass after the Gospel in order to preach, to proclaim banns, and so forth; it is lawful after Communion to give a brief exhortation to children receiving Communion, or to receive or emit religious vows. But once the Canon has begun until the Communion of the priest, it is not lawful to interrupt Mass except for a most grave cause, for example, to administer Viaticum to a dying person, because of an illness of the priest which will pass shortly, and so forth.

⁵¹⁴ Sacred Congregation of Rites, March 18, 1898 (Decr. auth., n. 4015 ad 6); Code of Canon Law, c. 813.

⁵¹⁵ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 403.

⁵¹⁶ Theol. mor. II, n. 332.

⁵¹⁷ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus theol. IV, n. 1105.

⁵¹⁸ Sacred Congregation of Rites, July 17, 1894 (Decr. auth., n. 3832 ad 8).

⁵¹⁹ Cf. St. Thomas, S. theol. 3, q. 83, a. 6 ad 5.

⁵²⁰ Cf. ibid., a. 6 ad 2.

⁵²¹ Ibid.

⁵²² Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 355.