§ 1. On the Manner of Celebration

— Appendix V belongs to this section. I. On the Fast to Be Observed. Historical matters: cf. Appendix V.

Current Law. 1. Rule. By the proper precept of celebration, a priest is obliged not to celebrate unless the natural fast has been observed from midnight (the notion of this will be explained below, where there is treatment of Holy Communion).

Therefore it cannot be said with Suarez, Sacr., 1 p., d. 82, and Lugo, Euchar., d. 15, n. 69, that to celebrate without the fast is nothing more than to communicate without the fast, and that one dispensed for communicating after food has been taken is dispensed for celebrating in the same way.

2. Exceptions. Yet the severe law itself of not celebrating otherwise than with the natural fast observed admits certain exceptions, which are of two kinds:

a) it can happen that a priest, distracted or compelled by some other necessity, has taken some food. Then the question is posed: when can he nevertheless sacrifice?

b) it can also be asked when it will be lawful for a priest deliberately, with foresight and intention of saying Mass, to take some food beforehand.

a) To a priest who from distraction or from another cause of necessity has already broken the sacred fast, they permit the sacred rite:

alpha) on account of a divine precept which more urges. Wherefore for completing the sacrifice, without doubt the fast can and must be postponed. The case will chiefly occur if no fasting priest is found who can complete the sacrifice of another priest who, after the consecration of at least one species, has been stricken by illness; or if he used water or oil instead of wine, and notices this after a part of the water or oil has been consumed; or if, after the ablution has been taken, he finds a consecrated host or consecrated fragments which cannot decently be kept until another sacred rite. And he who after the consecration remembers that he is not fasting must himself, not fasting, complete the sacrifice;

beta) for administering Viaticum to someone who has not yet satisfied the divine precept of Viaticum, several also permit celebration by a priest not fasting;

gamma) so that scandal may be avoided, if a priest, not fasting, cannot break off before the consecration the sacred rite which he inadvertently began, without danger of scandal or infamy. Indeed it can happen that on Sunday a pastor cannot omit the sacred rite without note. And then this other reason will easily concur, that several will be about to fail to go to a nearby church in order to satisfy the precept, although they can and must do so. Yet on December 2, 1874 (Collectanea P. F., II, n. 1425), the Holy Office denied that scandal or the wonder of the people could ever suffice so that a second Mass be celebrated by a priest not fasting. But we judge that this scandal is to be understood of the very admiration of the people, not of the common sin of the people;

delta) by epikeia not a few concede that a newly ordained priest who, distracted, secretly violated the fast can celebrate his first Mass, if circumstances of very grave inconveniences concur.

b) It is not lawful for a priest deliberately to take some food with the intention of afterward celebrating except from a license given by the Holy Office, to which recourse must be made through the Ordinary; or from a license given by the bishop or quasi-bishop (the Vicar General does not suffice) in a more urgent case in which recourse cannot be made in due time to the Holy See; or from a license obtained from the local Ordinary, if he has obtained a general faculty from the Holy Office.

But this license or dispensation can be given by the bishop or quasi-bishop only to those priests who, because of the people, must either repeat Mass or celebrate it at a later hour, and who at the same time cannot observe the law of the Eucharistic fast without grave harm. Grave harm can arise from weak health, or from excessive labor of the sacred ministry, or from another reasonable cause, for example, from a distance to be overcome, from the trouble of making a journey. Only liquid food can be permitted, with every intoxicating drink also excluded. Every scandal must be removed. Scandal here is chiefly the offense of the pious, which will be avoided if a sufficient interval between the taking and the Mass is required, and if every public use of the faculty is prohibited. Finally, the Holy See must be informed as soon as possible about the dispensation given. Nor is there hope of obtaining from the Holy Office itself a dispensation on account of the private devotion or utility of the priest.

Therefore no more after the letters of the Holy Office of March 22, 1923 (A. A. S., XV, 151, or Periodica, XII, 29), by which these dispensations are announced or conceded, than before, will a dispensation be able to be presumed. Yet if in some case truly necessary for the people a Mass cannot be celebrated unless the priest has taken something of liquid food, and there was no opportunity of recurring to the bishop, he who uses epikeia does not seem to be condemned.

— II. On the State of Grace. A priest conscious of mortal sin is forbidden to celebrate without sacramental confession first made. "But if, with a confessor lacking and necessity urging, he shall have celebrated, after eliciting an act of perfect contrition, let him confess as soon as possible" (c. 807).

By this precept of the Council of Trent, sess. 13, ch. 7 and canon 11, where those teaching the contrary are excommunicated, the Church defined the proving which from the Apostle, 1 Corinthians 11, is necessary: whether it is a mere declaration of divine law, which many with Suarez hold to be more probable, or whether it is an ecclesiastical law, as others seem to think.

He is not conscious of mortal sin who, in an antecedent confession, did not accuse a mortal sin without his own fault, nor he who seriously doubts about grave fault committed. These, therefore, are not held by the precept of confession. But must he elicit or try to elicit an act of contrition who prudently fears that he is outside the state of grace? This is very greatly to be commended; yet the authority of those who think that probable disposition suffices does not permit us to urge a strict obligation (cf. d'Annibale, III, 249 [7]).

Often circumstances will bring moral certitude of grace or of sin. Wherefore one who is too fearful will have to be dissuaded from confession, which by efficacious admonition, or even by injunction, must be imposed on a priest of more lax conscience.

But three things are required so that one who is conscious of grave sin may celebrate without confession: an urgent necessity of celebrating, lack of a confessor, and an act of perfect contrition.

1. In itself, deprivation of a stipend does not furnish an urgent necessity, but danger of death does, necessity of consecrating a host for one dying, note or infamy to be avoided, necessity of celebrating so that on a feast day the people can be present at the sacred rite, or, for a pastor, celebration from office, by which it can happen that he is held even on individual days. For some, the reason of celebrating suffices if otherwise the priest could hear no Mass; but we think this less to be approved (cf. however Lugo, Euch., d. 14, nn. 115, 116 against Suarez, De Sacr., 1 p., s. 4, d. 66). He who during celebration commits a mortal sin or remembers one cannot morally depart. In a solemn Mass perhaps he could confess to the assisting priest without note, but the obligation of that confession, as we shall see below, is not so certain, because of the rubric.

2. A confessor is judged to be lacking, not if he to whom the priest is accustomed and would desire to confess is absent, or he to whom he would confess more devoutly or more usefully, but a) if none is present and, considering the circumstances of a weak, older, or business-burdened person, or of roads, weather, and short time, an absent one cannot be approached without great difficulty. Such narrowness of time can exist that not even a priest separated by fifty paces from the one about to celebrate is judged to be at hand. Formerly they thought that sufficient inconvenience in itself was had by a distance to be overcome of one league or of one and a half. Now the very ease perhaps arising from the railway must be attended to. Lehmkuhl, II, 206; b) if none is present except one ignorant of the language, or lacking jurisdiction, or an excommunicated vitandus, or one to whom you cannot confess without grave harm of your own or another's. The case of a confessor who lacks jurisdiction in reserved matters is now no longer posed, since, as will be explained later, in that necessity any confessor can absolve directly from reserved matters, though sometimes with the burden of having recourse to the Superior. If narrowness of time does not permit a complete confession, some, as d'Annibale, III, 708, oblige the priest to accuse what he can; but others, and deservedly, doubt about that obligation of a half confession, at least if the priest can excuse himself by the act of perfect contrition and the mind of confessing fully as soon as possible.

By inconvenience alone which is extrinsic to confession the priest is excused from the obligation of placing confession before the sacred rite. Wherefore neither the infamy which the penitent himself or his religion suffers with the confessor takes away the obligation: for harm of reputation follows the obligation of confessing in itself, and it is not great because of the holiness of the seal. Yet particular circumstances of familiarity, of veneration by which an old man is honored by a younger cooperator, can make that harm extraordinary, and beget such shame as is morally invincible.

Wherefore some then excuse a priest who in necessity celebrates with perfect contrition and with the mind of confessing as soon as the opportunity of another confessor is given.

But it can happen that a fragile priest applies the matter to himself much more benignly, and excuses himself from confession, even if he has the option of four or five confessors, because he lives under the same roof with all, is known to all, etc. What remains for a prudent confessor to do, if the penitent priest reveals such things?

In this matter those things must be carefully distinguished which we can positively permit, which we can tacitly tolerate, and which we must openly condemn and prohibit. If extraordinary circumstances regard one or, at most, another confessor, with every other opportunity removed, we can positively permit that confession, otherwise necessary, be omitted, especially since true scandal of a younger person who would know the enormous sin of an old man is easily added. But if there has been an option of several, we cannot approve the omission of confession. Yet in a special case, where the penitent has formed his conscience in this way and would easily fall into moral despair, after the fact it will be lawful to be silent or to leave the matter to his conscience. But if there is question of a priest who indulges an evil habit, so that not rarely he celebrates without confession, his excuse must be rejected. But it is necessary that among the confessors whose opportunity he is accustomed to have, he choose one to whom he may candidly open the wound of his soul. And sometimes it will be easier for him to put before confession a conversation with the confessor whom he has chosen, to declare himself miserable and in need of help. A confessor somewhat human will be moved by the other's confidence itself so that he receives such a penitent with that benignity which removes every difficulty of confession. We must act thus because we cannot tolerate the habitual omission of that precept, which would not lightly diminish both reverence toward the Most Holy Sacrament and horror of mortal sin.

3. One excused from confession can never neglect contrition. But what if he cannot even be contrite? Some, cited by St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 262, then remain very doubtful. But better do others, for example Lehmkuhl, II, 207; Ballerini-Palmieri, IV, 916, answer from the mind of St. Alphonsus that at least supposed contrition is available to all. For, as we said in the prior special part, an act of charity is not to be thought difficult, and he who truly renounces sin easily complies with the grace of perfect contrition.

A priest who, with confession omitted although in itself necessary, has celebrated the sacred rite, is bound by a new precept of confessing as soon as possible. As soon as possible, that is, within two or three days, and therefore not neglecting an occasion of confession, if some single one is foreseen to be going to occur within three days. And it is manifest that confession must be made before another sacred rite, unless the same necessity of celebrating and the same lack of a confessor persist.

This precept is imposed on the priest who was legitimately excused from confession, but not on him who has celebrated sacrilegiously: the law would burden this one without utility with a new sacrilege; nor probably does it oblige him who only after consecration remembers the state of sin, since he is excused by ignorance or inadvertence rather than by necessity. Indeed d'Annibale, III, 409, admits what Lugo, d. 14, n. 746, judged sufficiently probable, that he is excused from the special precept of confession who, scarcely after Mass has begun, remembers or has committed mortal sin. These appeal to the rubric of the Missal, De defectibus, 8, 4, which prescribes only this to him who in the celebration itself remembers that he is stained by mortal sin: "let him be contrite with the purpose of confessing and satisfying."

— III. On Separate Celebration. In the Latin Church concelebration of several is forbidden, except in the Mass of ordination of priests and consecration of bishops. Cf. n. 287. Yet in Portugal, in the Bragan rite, concelebration occurs on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord.

— IV. On the Condition of Once in the Day. Except on the day of the Lord's Nativity and the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed, on which all have the faculty of sacrificing three times, it is not lawful for a priest to celebrate several Masses on the same day, except from an apostolic indult, or by power made by the local Ordinary (c. 806, §1).

From common law, the Ordinary cannot permit the same priest more than two Masses on the same day; and this only on a feast day of precept, and because he judges that a notable part of the faithful cannot, because of scarcity of priests, be present at Mass.

The faculty on the day of the Nativity of the Lord is circumscribed by no condition. For, after a word had been had with His Holiness, on January 26, 1920, the Sacred Congregation of Rites, contrary to what it had answered on April 11, 1844 in Barcelona, ad 3 (Decr. auth., n. 2802), declared that it is lawful for a priest who, because of weakness of sight or another just cause, celebrates by apostolic indult a daily votive Mass or Mass of the dead, to say precisely the same Mass three times. We understand the same Mass, either the votive to which he is accustomed, or even, from the mind of the legislator, one of the three assigned for that day (A. A. S., XII [1920], 122). But he who wishes to celebrate only one Mass must take the Mass which corresponds to the hour of celebration: that is, in the night the first, at dawn the other, by day the third (Sacred Congregation of Rites, June 19, 1875 [n. 3354]; February 13, 1882 [n. 3767 ad 21]). He who has preferred to read only two, which remains whole for him (Sacred Congregation of Rites, June 19, 1875, n. 3355), if he separates them, should observe the hour of celebration, if he says one at night, the other at dawn or by day. If he says both by day, he seems able to omit either of the two prior ones.

But on the day of the Commemoration of All the Dead, one of the three Masses must be applied gratis in suffrage of all the faithful departed; another also gratis, according to the mind of the Supreme Pontiff; the third can be said for a stipend at the judgment of the priest. But free option is made to the priest of choosing which of the three Masses he says for a stipend, which according to the mind of the Supreme Pontiff or for all the dead (cf. Sacred Congregation of the Council, October 15, 1915 ad 1; A. A. S., VII, 479, 480). But the gratuity of the two Masses is understood so severely that not even by title of extrinsic labor can anything be received; nor can the intentions prescribed on the day of Commemoration be deferred to another day, with a triple stipend received on the very day of the Commemoration of All the Dead (Sacred Congregation of the Council, cited response ad 3 and 4).⁽¹⁾ But he who celebrates only one Mass must celebrate the first, which is proper to the day; he who reads only two should add to the first that which is prescribed in the second place. But it is always whole to accept a stipend for one Mass; and he who reads only two must apply the other of the two for all the faithful departed, so that the sacred rite must then be offered according to the mind of the Supreme Pontiff only when three Masses are celebrated (cf. response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, February 28, 1917; A. A. S., IX, 186, 187). This can be observed everywhere, even if certain regions, for example Latin America, previously had to apply two Masses in suffrage of all the faithful departed (cf. Ferreres, II, 487).

And what on the day of the Nativity of the Lord was conceded to those who can read a daily votive Mass or one for the dead, that they might say the same Mass three times, was also permitted on the Commemoration of All the Dead by the same response of January 26, 1920.

As to the power of the local Ordinary: a feast day of precept is understood as a feast day on which the people in reality must hear Mass (Genicot, II, 239; Noldin, III, 206); a notable part of the faithful supposes at least twenty persons (d'Annibale, III, 405 [55]). Yet centenary custom can permit more, if the Ordinary judges that it cannot prudently be removed (c. 5) (cf. Simenon, Revue ecclesiastique de Liege, 1923, p. 263).

This necessity of the people is chiefly had when one priest administers two distant parishes, and there is no other who may celebrate in the other place; or even when, for various causes, the whole people cannot morally come together for a single Mass (these causes occur frequently).

This faculty of binating on account of the necessity of the people is real, so that whatever priest takes the place of him to whom it was made can use it. And it ceases with the necessity. Wherefore, if another priest happens to arrive who wishes to say Mass at the usual hour of the people, the faculty of binating is in reality taken away. But in a case of unforeseen necessity, as if one of two priests who are accustomed to celebrate in the parish suddenly falls ill, and no other can be supplied, the priest who remains, provided he is fasting, can presume the license of the Ordinary (Noldin, III, 206).

Indults of the Holy See are conceded so that on days not of precept but of great devotion the whole people might be able to hear Mass, or so that in a region where the occasion of Mass is rare, all might be able to use the occasion of a passing priest. More benign indults have sometimes been conceded to certain pious communities. Because of extraordinary causes, as in the recent war, or in Mexican regions, three Masses have been permitted.

Before the Code, many bishops were accustomed to obtain quinquennial faculties by which, besides many other things, they were permitted to concede bination for causes other than the necessity of the people who otherwise could not satisfy the precept of hearing Mass. But those indults have not been restored. Indeed, concerning the faculty of permitting bination, there is complete silence in the new formulae of broad faculties which the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide is accustomed to lavish on Vicars and Prefects Apostolic.

In an extraordinary necessity of celebrating so that a sick person constituted in imminent danger of death can be refreshed by Viaticum, several authors concede bination.

⁽¹⁾ R. P. Cappello thinks that this severity by which remuneration of extrinsic labor is excluded has been tempered by canon 824, §2, by which, in a general manner, some remuneration from an extrinsic title is permitted to be received by him who celebrates several times in a day. Yet canon 6, 2°, by which confirmed old law is to be understood as before the Code, seems to stand in the way of this interpretation, so that the general concession of c. 824, §2 by no means impedes the special prohibition for the day of the Commemoration of All the Faithful. But, according to Ferreres, II, 487, in Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia, and Majorca, regulars can receive three stipends and seculars two on that day.

— V. On an Incomplete Mass. Mass must be said completely. Never, not even with extreme necessity urging, is it lawful to consecrate one matter without the other (c. 817). And if a priest who has begun to sacrifice, one or the other consecration having been performed, cannot complete the sacrifice, another priest must complete the Mass. Nor, if a more worthy one is lacking, does it stand in the way that he himself is not fasting, or is excommunicated or irregular. Yet after an hour, moral union is no longer judged certainly to be present, so that, although the faculty remains, the obligation of supplying is no longer to be urged.

Nor do we think that then the faithful who have been present at a Mass essentially completed must assist at another Mass. It is clear that the supplying priest is not permitted to celebrate another Mass afterward.

1. Therefore it will never be lawful for anyone who omitted consecrating the ciborium to repeat the consecration, even so that he may refresh many with the sacred banquet. But consecrated species must be brought from another church; and, if not even this can be done, those about to communicate must in themselves be dismissed, deprived of the sacred banquet. Yet if anger, blasphemies, or other scandals are to be feared, the license of binating will rather have to be presumed, since this is repugnant to no divine precept.

2. Noticing before communion that only the prior species has been consecrated, for example, because of unsuitable matter, let him place the other and at once consecrate, resuming from the words Simili modo. If he notices this after he has consumed the sacred species, whether from taste or in another way he has noticed the unsuitable matter of the other consecration, in itself he should place both species, offer, consecrate, and consume. Yet in a public place, to avoid scandal, the rubric permits that only the species which was lacking be placed (De defectibus missae, IV, 5); and Suarez, De Sacram., p. I, d. 68, s. 6 and d. 85, s. 4, holds almost equally that someone repeat both consecrations,⁽²⁾ or only the other one which was invalid. In the former way, you more certainly complete one sacrifice, but the prior sacrifice of which only one species had been consecrated seems to remain incomplete. In the other way, you join the single consecration which you perform more closely with the prior one; but it is less clear that, after one species has been consumed, the sacrifice can be completed by the other consecration. Tamburini, Exped. sacrif., l. 1, c. 8, and Lugo, De Sacram., d. 15, s. 4, warn that by him who notices that water had been placed instead of wine while he receives it with the mouth, with the intention of drinking the blood of Christ, that water must not be spat out: the danger of rejecting a fragment of the consecrated host stands in the way, and also the irreverence itself. He who after Mass, in the sacristy, has known the error of the other consecration will have to supply nothing, nor will he be able to (Suarez, De Sacr., 1 p., d. 85, s. 1). Already the very reason of scandal would stand in the way of correction.

If, at the consumption of the blood, you positively doubt with an insoluble doubt about the truth of the species of wine, and therefore about the value of the consecration, it seems better that even then by a new consecration of true wine you make the sacrifice certainly complete.

3. Before the canon, if the celebrant remembers some impediment from the fast having been broken, from sin committed, from a censure contracted, and can leave without note; or if an excommunicated vitandus presumes to be present at the sacred rite, he will have either to break off the Mass or interrupt it until the impediment has been removed.

⁽²⁾ But it is never lawful to consecrate both matters outside the celebration of Mass (c. 817).

— VI. On the Continuity of the Action. Mass must be said without interruption, unless a just cause excuses, which "before the canon has been begun must be grave; after it has been begun, graver; after the consecration has been made, gravest" (d'Annibale, III, 404).

And so it will be lawful to interrupt:

1. after the Gospel, on account of a sermon or a procession to be received;

2. in favor of an arriving prince, bishop, Cardinal, or crowd of pilgrims who otherwise would not have the whole Mass. Then several permit that a priest who has not yet arrived at the oblation begin everything again. What the usage of places has is to be seen;

3. when grave necessity urges, either one's own, for example, of illness, or of the neighbor, as if one dying must be aided by a sacrament of necessity. To confer Viaticum and Extreme Unction, which are not sacraments of necessity, it is not lawful to interrupt Mass between consecration and communion, unless sight of the altar is preserved, or at least in a place of the same floor, from which the voice of the priest can be heard (cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, December 19, 1829 ad 1 and 2 [n. 2672]; and February 1874 ad 1 and 2 [n. 3322], and d'Annibale, III, 404 [37]). Indeed better, with Lehmkuhl, II, 339, we shall distinguish absolution and the repeated administration of Viaticum from devotion alone. We shall permit absolution in every place sufficiently nearby that the priest need not put off the sacred vestments; the administration of Viaticum repeated from devotion, in the places just mentioned. A priest, returning afterward to the altar after consecration, will simply continue the Mass, repeating nothing; if before consecration, he will do the same, provided he has returned within an hour. After a longer delay, he will begin again from the beginning.

— VII. On Preparation and Thanksgiving. Mass must be said after pious preparation and with devout thanksgiving (c. 810). That you assign a fitting time to this, at least a quarter of an hour, the doctors advise, and the most abundant fruits to be gathered from this devotion advise.

In the Missal itself there is proposed a "preparation for Mass, to be made according to the opportunity of the priest"; but there is added a thanksgiving which, insofar as it consists of the antiphon "Trium puerorum," the canticle "Benedicite," the psalm "Laudate Dominum," and a few versicles with three prayers, pertains to the preceptive rubric. Yet it is not clear that these rubrics oblige under sin. But it is very laudable that the priest make the preparation at least in part as it is indicated in the Missal; but the prescribed thanksgiving he should learn by memory, since it is to be recited while withdrawing from the altar and putting off the vestments.

— VIII. On the Assistant. Mass must be said without an assisting priest, unless the celebrant enjoys the use of pontificals (c. 812), or this is done for reason of prudence, for example, for helping one with weak sight or a blind man, or a newly ordained priest, or one celebrating at sea, but with one server ministering and responding, of the masculine sex. "Let the minister serving Mass not be a woman, unless a man is lacking, from a just cause, and under this law, that the woman respond from afar and by no means approach the altar" (c. 813).

Under mortal sin a server is required, and the ministry of a woman at the altar itself is prohibited. A sufficient cause for your celebrating without a server will be if, on a feast of precept, you can be present only at the Mass which you celebrate.

A lesser cause allows using a server who does not know how to respond, or, when a server is lacking, admitting a woman, especially a nun or Sister, who responds from afar, while the priest performs the rest alone. To admit her without just cause does not exceed venial sin; but when a server is lacking, it is lawful from devotion alone. But if the server has gone away and, after being awaited for a little, has not returned, they commonly permit that the priest continue alone the Mass begun, especially if the oblation has been made (d'Annibale, III, 401).

Since the server offers the sacrifice and represents the Christian people, a catechumen truly cannot serve sacred things.

What it performs through another, the people in itself is not prohibited from doing. Wherefore concerning the Mass called "dialogue," in which those present assume the parts of the responding server, when the Sacred Congregation of Rites was asked, in the response of August 4, 1922, it distinguished the secret parts of the Mass from the others. It in every way refused that the things which are to be said secretly by the priest be read aloud by the people, but in itself it indirectly declared or supposed that it is lawful for the assembly of the faithful jointly to respond to the celebrant. It permitted this matter to be defined by the Ordinary, yet at the same time judging that, because of inconveniences easily about to arise, it is expedient that common practice be preserved. Therefore where inconveniences are absent or can be removed, that which favors a more intimate participation of the people, as such, can be commended (cf. I. M. Hanssens, S.J., Nouvelle Revue Theologique, 1921, p. 292; D. L. Beauduin, O.S.B., Ephemerides liturgicae, 1921, p. 396; Questions liturgiques, 1921, p. 263; and cf. 1922, p. 227; Periodica, XII, 154).

The rescript of celebrating without a server, from an audience of His Holiness or through special faculties, is conceded both through the Sacred Congregation of Rites and through the Sacred Congregation of the Sacraments or of Religious. In the rescript of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, it is suitably added that the celebrant should take care to have at least some man or woman who assists at Mass and so represents the people. For every Mass is an act of public worship.

— Appendix VI belongs to this section. IX. On Vesture. Mass must be said in the prescribed sacred vesture, concerning whose first origin cf. Appendix VI. Canon 811 itself, §1, demands that one about to celebrate Mass wear a becoming garment which reaches to the ankles, besides the prescribed sacred ornaments; §2 commands that the priest abstain from skullcap and ring, unless he is a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, a bishop or blessed abbot, or this is permitted to him by apostolic indult.

And so, 1. On the Prescribed Vestments. They are: amice and alb, which must be of linen or hemp, but by no means of cotton; the cincture, which, although another material is not reprobated, is more fittingly made of linen or hemp; maniple, stole, chasuble, which cannot be entirely of such material from which common garments are made, but must at least bear silk threads superimposed.

Silk or precious material is to be preferred; nevertheless half-silk or silk-warp material is admitted. Cheap material is entirely excluded, and also glassy texture, lest fragments fall into the corporal and sacred chalice and afterward be consumed by the priest, not without danger to himself (cf. Lehmkuhl, II, 346). The extreme parts of the amice and alb can be adorned with denticulated fabric, representing various figures; and, for more solemn days, an alb is admitted which from the cincture downward is adorned with fringes or netting.

The priest must also be shod; but sandals suffice.

It is mortal sin to sacrifice without any sacred vestment, or to omit at the same time the maniple and stole. The defect of alb or chasuble is so great that scarcely, and not even scarcely, can they be omitted for confecting and administering Viaticum. But grave necessity, such as that of carrying Viaticum, of scandal of the people who on a feast day await Mass, will excuse from wearing the other vestments, even those which are prescribed under grave obligation. A reasonable cause, such as the very fervor of devotion, will excuse a defect which in itself is venial.

It is equally illicit to celebrate without sacred vestments and without blessed vestments, since by blessing they are made sacred. Nevertheless a grave cause, from those just indicated, seems to permit that you put on an alb and chasuble not blessed, since no exterior irreverence appears (cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, IV, 1083, 1084).

The color of the chasuble seems prescribed under venial sin. By accident, from scandal, as if in a great solemnity you use black, or from a grave prescription of the bishop violated, one will be able to sin mortally in this matter. Neither yellow nor blue color, without privilege, is admitted. Rose is permitted only on the third Sunday of Advent and the fourth of Lent. And also on ferias of Advent on which the Mass of the third Sunday is resumed, rose color is lawful. Gold can be used for white, green, and red, but not for violet or black. One chasuble which displays various colors cannot fill the place of several, but use is to be circumscribed by the dominant color. Yet the bishop can permit the use of multicolored chasubles to poor churches until those chasubles are consumed. Varied color of cinctures is not prohibited.

2. On Prohibited Vesture. During Mass, the use of the red skullcap is now permitted to Cardinals, the violet to bishops and abbots or prelates nullius by c. 811 itself, §2, collated with c. 325; the use of the black or white skullcap, according to the color of the vestments, to every blessed abbot (c. 811, §2). The same can use the ring. To others the use of a skullcap through the whole Mass is prohibited under grave obligation; under light obligation, if you remove it from the canon to communion. Wherefore, from a sudden and non-permanent cause of infirmity, etc., to celebrate with covered head, except from the canon to communion, will not be illicit even without apostolic indult (cf. Benedict XIV, De sacrif. missae, l. 1, c. 9, n. 3). Indeed in a private place, or even in a public place, if the reason is manifest to those present, St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 697, judges it probable that this is simply lawful from a reasonable permanent cause. This can also be said after the Code, since the necessity of apostolic indult was introduced by the precept of Urban VIII attached in the Missal, and canons which report the old law integrally are to be estimated from interpretations received among approved authors (c. 6, 2°).

If in some region, as among the Chinese it was, or still is, to cover the head manifests reverence, but to uncover it irreverence, the prohibition is seen to be removed, since the end of the law ceases in the contrary way (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 897).

The use of a wig, which Innocent XII gravely prohibited, is expressly forbidden by no canon of the Code. In several regions custom had tempered the law (Lehmkuhl, II, 336, 3). Wherefore, although Benedict XIV permits only false hairs mixed with natural ones, a wig which, as it is made today, modestly imitates nature does not seem certainly excluded by law (cf. Benedict XIV, Syn., XI, 9, 5; Inst. 34, 96). Yet it will be better to seek license, which the Nuncio or Apostolic Delegate can concede.

— X. On Rite. Mass must be celebrated in one's proper rite, so that unleavened or leavened bread must everywhere be used according to one's proper rite, and celebration must be made in the proper ritual language (cc. 816, 819).

Until now the Holy See almost never permitted celebration in another rite except after passage to that rite. Yet very recently, to foster the reconciliation of schismatics, it has begun to admit that missionaries of the Latin rite, as also the monks who are now placed over the Greek College in the City, could adapt themselves to the Oriental rites.

— XI. On Rubrics. Mass must be celebrated according to the rubrics of the ritual books, any contrary custom being reprobated; and the priest is commanded to take care not to add other ceremonies or prayers by his own judgment (c. 818).

Theologians distinguish directive rubrics from preceptive rubrics. Most of the latter oblige under sin, unlike the former, which merely give a norm, although violation of them is often, by accident, joined with venial sin. From Trent, sess. 7, c. 13, and the decree of St. Pius V at the front of the Missal, they gather that the rubrics to be observed within Mass, if you except certain ones, as not a few wish, are preceptive, and this, according to the matter, under grave or light obligation. This is confirmed by c. 818. The rubrics before or after Mass can probably be held as directive.

What is to be observed under grave and what under light obligation we are taught first by the common opinion of the doctors. Then we can be helped by this consideration: "1. Whether reverence owed to the Holy Sacrament, either of itself or only from human law, has been injured; 2. whether the defect occurs in the nobler part of the Mass, or in that matter which the Church, because of mystical signification, most highly esteems, or in another; 3. whether the defect is materially notable or in great quantity, or not" (Lehmkuhl, II, 327).

Rubrics can be violated both by omission of an action to be done or of a prayer to be said, and by undue addition, and by change.

— A. On Omissions. 1. To omit the prayers while vesting seems venial to some; to others it is not clear that it is sinful (Lehmkuhl, II, 327). But it is by no means fitting to pass them over. But the washing of the hands, even before Mass, is not a properly so-called precept (Suarez, Sacr., 1 p., d. 82, beginning), although not even this is to be omitted.

2. On prayers and ceremonies during Mass: a) it is more easily grave to omit an ordinary than an extraordinary part.

Hence they judge it grave to omit: the Confiteor with the other prayers which occur at the beginning of Mass; the epistle with the tract, gradual, etc., which follow, unless the epistle is sung in the Mass; the first Gospel, unless it is sung in the Mass; the first collect with the corresponding secret and postcommunion; the offertory; several prayers which are said from the offertory to the canon; the preface.

On the contrary, they think it light to omit an imposed prayer, or the other commemorations besides the first prayer; the Gloria, Creed, Sequence; one or another supernumerary epistle, indeed all according to Sporer; what occurs specially in the preface, "communicantes"; the last Gospel. Nor does it seem grave in Holy Week to omit the Passion itself and to recite only the part which is to be said in the tone of the Gospel. Yet he who is excused from a long recitation by weakness will have done better by saying another Mass of the Passion of the Lord. Yet some think it grave to omit at the same time so many extraordinary parts that they make a notable quantity (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 404; Palmieri, IV, 1105).

b) An omission made in the canon is more easily graver. St. Alphonsus, VI, 405, judges it mortal "to omit any prayer in the canon, or to change its words so that the sense is varied, or to omit some word, which having been removed, the remaining words do not make sense," or to omit the Pater Noster, or ten names of saints.

He who omits only the Agnus Dei (St. Alphonsus speaks more severely), or something similar, does not seem to Lehmkuhl, II, 330, to sin gravely.

c) As to ceremonies, it will be grave to omit the infusion of water into the wine, the breaking of the host and the commixture, on account of symbolic significations; the purification of the chalice or paten, unless you see that no fragment is present, on account of irreverence. But it is light in itself, unless you have done it from contempt or with scandal, to omit blessings, genuflections, inclinations, one or another cross over the offerings, or the striking of the breast, or the washing of the fingers; or to use water alone in purification. For more, cf. St. Alphonsus.

— B. On Additions. 1. Whatever you have added with the intention of introducing a new rite will be mortal. 2. With such intention set aside, although one sins gravely more easily in addition than in omission, to add the Gloria or Creed will be light, unless in this way you gravely deform a Mass of Requiem (d'Annibale, III, 404 [47]). 3. From some just cause, or from devotion, though not very laudable, to add one collect St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 411, judges not even venial. The same must be said of a short ejaculatory prayer secretly interposed. But it is better to stir up affections by the mind alone.

— C. On Changes. 1. To postpone Matins to the sacred rite in private recitation, especially today, where so often the Mass differs from the Office and the psalms generally have no relation to the saint or mystery which is honored, is not demonstrated to be sinful. This some already held before the reform of the psalter effected by Pius X, while others judged it grave; but St. Alphonsus, VI, 347, with the more common and more probable opinion, judged it light, from which venial sin any reasonable cause excused, such as convenience of study or of travel.

2. From a reasonable cause, it is lawful to lower the voice, provided some distinction remains between those things which are to be recited in a high voice and those which are to be recited in a subdued voice. Without reasonable cause, to say by way of a secret what is to be pronounced aloud seems venial (Lehmkuhl, II, 333). Yet to say secretly in such a way that you cannot even hear yourself, in the consecration, will easily be grave, because of the doubt which arises concerning validity (St. Alphonsus, VI, 414, end; Lehmkuhl, l. c.; d'Annibale, III, 253 [9]). To recite aloud what is to be said secretly in itself does not exceed venial sin.

But those things which can be perceived by the ministers alone are not yet judged to have been recited aloud. Grave scandal could be had if the words of consecration or of the canon are heard at forty paces: thus St. Alphonsus, VI, 416.

— You ask whether or not he can celebrate who, from cause of infirmity or something similar, is impeded from observing all the things prescribed?

Response. He licitly celebrates who is compelled to omit or change only the lighter things, especially in a private place. In a public place, it is necessary that the witnesses be conscious of the impediment. St. Alphonsus, VI, 402, reports these examples from Gobat: if you need a cane; if you must lean on the altar with both arms; if you are unable to elevate the host. Yet for a notable defect of external decorum, permission will have to be sought either from the Nuncio or Apostolic Delegate, or from the Ordinary, if he has the faculty, as some religious Superiors do; or, in a graver matter, from the Holy See, as if you have to sit, or use an artificial hand, or must be sustained by another.

N. B. The art of imitating nature has progressed to such a degree that more things can today be conceded by the Holy See, even ordinations themselves, to those who have been mutilated in some member, especially if the cause was honorable, such as a wound received in a just war.

— 3. On account of a reasonable cause of avoiding confusion, the sound of the little bell can also be omitted in Masses which are celebrated at the same time at secondary altars of a chapel or small church. The sound of the little bell is not prescribed except at the Sanctus and during each elevation. A small ringing to announce the consecration is laudably added (Sacred Congregation of Rites, October 25, 1922; A. A. S., XIV, 557).

You ask whether the things which, distracted, you have omitted must be repeated? 1. He who does not remember that he said or did something should not be disturbed, but should go on further. The Missal (De defectibus) refers this to the very words of consecration. 2. If something accidental has certainly been omitted, unless he notices the matter morally at once, let him not repeat it; before consecration, however, the mixing of water and the offering, mentally, must be supplied. But he who either certainly, or probably in a positive way, omitted something essential must repeat that absolutely or under condition, according to the case, and continue the rest in order from the point at which he had arrived before the repetition (Missal, De defectibus).

But repetitions are to be prohibited to a scrupulous priest, unless he is most certain (cf. the excellent counsels in Lacroix, VI De Euchar., p. 2, n. 190 ff.).

— You ask concerning prayers which local Ordinaries can command. From the most recent variations which have been added in the rubrics of the Missal, we gather these things: 1. no more than two can be prescribed; 2. they are recited in the last place, after the prayers prescribed by the rubrics, before those which the celebrant freely adds; and they are never joined under one conclusion with the prayer of the Mass; 3. one can be said as a third prayer, prescribed indeed, but to be chosen at the discretion of the priest: then it occupies the place of that prayer; 4. imposed prayers must be omitted in all doubles of the first and second class, on greater Sundays, unless the first of them is chosen in place of the prayer at discretion, on privileged ferias, vigils, and octaves, in votive Masses celebrated for a grave matter and a public cause at the same time, or after the manner of solemn Masses, and whenever in Mass, according to the rubrics, four prayers have already been said. Yet collects which, at the command of the Ordinary, are to be said for a grave matter are omitted only on the vigils of the Nativity and Pentecost, on Palm Sunday, and in all doubles of the first class. But those which are expressly ordered as to be said even in doubles of the first class are omitted only on the Nativity and Epiphany of the Lord, Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, Holy Saturday, Easter Sunday, Ascension of the Lord, Pentecost, the Feast of the Most Holy Trinity, and the Feast of the Most Holy Body of Christ.

Collects for the dead, although in Masses of Requiem admitting three prayers they have place at any time of the year, must besides be omitted in other Masses during Paschal Time, and in all Masses of a double or semidouble office, or in which a commemoration of either is made. But the prayer or collect for the dead always occupies the penultimate place, even if the celebrant adds permitted prayers.

The collect for a grave matter is to be placed before the other.

If both were grave or not grave, "first is placed, according to the order of the Litanies, the collect concerning some mystery or saint which has been prescribed; afterward that which is to be taken from the diverse votive Masses or from the prayers which are had at the end of the Missal, with the order itself of the Missal preserved."

— What Mass Is to Be Said. The Mass to be said is that which on that day is permitted or prescribed by the rubrics.

1. To change the quality of the Mass, with scandal or contempt set aside, or "unless frequently, on forbidden days, Masses not agreeing with the day are said," does not exceed venial sin (Lehmkuhl, II, 328; St. Alphonsus, VI, 420).

2. Private votive Masses can be read, from a reasonable cause, on semidouble feasts, on days within common octaves, on Friday after the octave of the Ascension, and in all offices of simple rite not excepted.

The Ember ferias are excepted; Advent from December 17 to 23 inclusive; ferias of Lent from Ash Wednesday, and of Passiontide to Wednesday of Greater Week inclusive; Monday of Rogations; vigils; simple octave days, even if only their commemoration has been made in the Office; days on which the Mass of an impeded Sunday must be resumed. But the Mass for bridegroom and bride, and a solemn votive Mass, are privileged.

Daily votive Masses of the dead can be celebrated without singing on the same days, and besides, in Lent, on the first free day of any week, that is, on which there is made an office of a semidouble feast or of a non-privileged feria.

Provided there does not occur a Sunday or feast of precept, even suppressed, the Commemoration of All the Faithful Departed, a double of the first or second class, even transferred, or some one of the privileged ferias, vigils, or octaves: 1. on the very day on which in a church or public oratory the funeral of the deceased is solemnly carried out, private Masses for the day of death can be said there, yet under this law, that the sacrifice be applied for the deceased himself; and this whether the body is present, or, because of a reasonable cause, absent or already buried; 2. in semipublic oratories which, with a public oratory or church lacking, hold the place of these, the same private Masses can be said on one day at discretion, from death until the burial of the deceased; 3. but the same Masses can be said daily, through the same time, in semipublic oratories which do not hold the place of a church or public oratory, and in strictly private oratories of the house of the deceased, "provided the corpse is physically present in the house where those oratories are erected"; 4. on the more opportune day after notice of death has been accepted, as on the third, seventh, thirtieth, and anniversary day from the death or burial of the deceased, one Mass for the deceased, sung or even read, is permitted in any church. If the day has been impeded, the Mass, then to be celebrated in chant, can be anticipated or transferred to the nearest non-impeded day; 5. in the public and principal oratory of a burial place, indeed in any chapel of a burial place duly erected or to be erected, Masses can be of Requiem, provided the burial places actually serve burial and are in a cemetery.

N. B. On the first day of any month, except the month of November, outside Advent, Lent, and Paschal Time, on which the Office is made of the feria, in Masses which are not of the dead, the prayer Fidelium is said in the penultimate place among all the prayers, "with none of the prayers assigned for the diversity of the time omitted on account of it." The same is done on Monday of any week outside Lent and Paschal Time, provided no vigil occurs, and the Mass of the preceding impeded Sunday is not to be resumed.

The faculties themselves given show that no special cause is required, besides the very application to be made to the deceased, why, on days on which it is lawful, a Mass of Requiem may be substituted for a Mass agreeing with the Office. Indeed, although in itself a priest satisfies his obligation who, having been asked for a Mass in honor of some saint or for the dead, celebrates a Mass conforming to the Office, "it is more advisable that, as far as can be done, satisfaction be made to the intention of the one spending the alms by a Mass of Requiem or votive Mass." Thus the Sacred Congregation of Rites, January 13, 1899 ad IV (Decr. auth., n. 4031).

— You ask what Mass is to be said outside one's own church or house?

With privileges afterward conceded preserved, such as those which belong from the Code to Cardinals (c. 239, 9°) and bishops (c. 349, §1, 1°), by decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, July 9, 1895, confirmed December 9, 1895 (Decr. auth., n. 3862), the matter was ordered thus: 1. one celebrating in a church or in a public oratory must say a Mass entirely conforming to the calendar of that church or oratory, even if the Mass was of a Blessed, or proper of regulars, with peculiar rites proper to Orders excluded. And then, on May 22, 1896 (Decr. auth., n. 3910), it was declared that, for the effect of the mentioned decree, the principal chapel of bishops, seminaries, colleges, pious communities, and prisons is to be held as public. But among nuns or religious women who lack their own calendar, the calendar of the diocese prevails, which therefore is to be followed (cf. response of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, July 17, 1896 [Decr. auth., 3927]).

Yet if, in oratories of this kind, an office is carried out of a rite which is inferior to double, it is whole to each celebrant, except on days on which the rubrics or decrees remove this option, to choose the calendar of the place, and therefore to say a votive Mass, etc., or to celebrate his own Mass as festive.

In other oratories, the Mass is to be said which agrees with one's proper Office, even if perhaps it is of a Blessed, concerning whom in itself, outside the Church where it is conceded, commemoration is not to be made.

Yet everywhere, as using a personal privilege by which conformity to the calendar of the place is not impeded, religious to whom this is lawful can invoke their founder or founders in the Confiteor after the holy apostles; but all regulars can name their founder in the prayer A cunctis, just as it is lawful, for example, for the Friars Preachers everywhere to sacrifice in their own rite.

— Quality of Celebration. Mass must be celebrated devoutly, and therefore with due attention and within a fitting space of time.

1. With contempt set aside, full voluntary distraction does not seem to be charged as a mortal sin, although it is graver within the canon than outside the canon, and gravest in the consecration itself: then St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 410, though not all, judges it to be mortal.

2. If you complete Mass, even from the shorter ones, within less than a quarter of an hour, you will with difficulty be excused from mortal sin, according to the doctors and St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 400, both on account of scandal of exterior irreverence and because of the moral necessity of violating the rubrics in a grave matter.

He who completes the sacred rite notably within half an hour is scarcely excused from venial sin, because by his haste he voluntarily impedes the devotion which so holy an action most greatly befits.

But he who notably exceeds half an hour affects those present with weariness.

N. B. Since it easily happens that in a daily action errors and ways of acting less congruent with the rubrics and edification creep in gradually and without being noticed, it is to be advised that priests once in the year, for example during spiritual exercises, read through the order of Mass and the rites of Mass together with the appended chapter on defects of Mass: all of which are found at the beginning of the Missal, together with additions and variations according to the norm of the Bull of Pius X, Divino afflatu, November 1, 1911, and subsequent decrees of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.