Defects to Be Corrected Both in the Dispensation of the Holy Eucharist and in the Oblation of Mass

I. "If a consecrated host, or some particle of it, falls to the ground, it should be reverently taken up, and the place where it fell should be cleaned and somewhat scraped, and the dust or scraping of this kind should be put into the sacrarium. If it falls outside the corporal onto the altar cloth, or in any other way onto some linen, the altar cloth or linen of this kind should be diligently washed, and the washing itself poured into the sacrarium."¹ The prescribed washing does not oblige under grave sin. Hence it should rather be omitted whenever it would excite wonder, for example if the host should fall into the beard or clothing of the communicant. If it has slipped into a woman's bosom, she herself should look for it and hand it to the priest, or herself put it into her mouth with her own hands (St. Alphonsus, VI, 250). If the host has fallen inside the enclosure of nuns, the priest should enter the enclosure.

II. If through negligence something of the Blood of Christ has fallen, one must proceed as follows:

1. If indeed it has fallen upon the ground or upon a board, it should be licked with the tongue, and the place itself scraped as much as is enough, and the scraping burned; the ashes, however, should be stored in the sacrarium.

2. But if it has fallen upon the altar stone, let the priest absorb the drop, and let the place be well washed, and let the washing be cast into the sacrarium.

3. If it has fallen upon the altar linen, and the drop has reached another linen; if even to the third, the linens are to be washed three times where the drop fell, with the chalice placed underneath, and the water of the washing is to be cast into the sacrarium.

4. But if it has fallen only on the corporal itself or on the priestly vestments themselves, it should similarly be washed, and the washing cast into the sacrarium. If it has fallen on the cloth spread under the feet, or on a carpet, it should be well washed, as above.²

Moreover, in the spilling of the Blood, at least some washing must be done under grave obligation.

III. If in winter the Blood freezes in the chalice, the chalice should be wrapped in warmed cloths; if this does not help, it should be placed in boiling water near the altar, provided the water does not enter the chalice, until it liquefies.³

IV. If the priest "discovers after the consumption of the Body and Blood, or even after the ablution, that some consecrated remnants have been left behind, let him consume them, whether they are small or large, because they pertain to the same sacrifice."⁴ Let him do this also if the priest is already in the sacristy, with the vestments not yet removed. If he has removed the vestments, let him place the fragments in the tabernacle or reserve them for a priest who is to celebrate that same morning; and let him proceed in the same way if the fragments are remnants of another sacrifice, because the Rubric permits him to consume only remnants which pertain to the same sacrifice (St. Alphonsus, VI, 251, question 3). But if an entire consecrated Host has been left, "let him put it in the tabernacle with the others; if this cannot be done, let him leave it for the following priest who is to celebrate there, decently covered on the altar over the corporal, to be consumed together with the other which he is going to consecrate; or if neither of these can be done, let him preserve it decently in the chalice itself or on the paten until either it is put into the tabernacle or consumed by another; but if he has no way in which it can be preserved honorably, he can consume it himself."⁵

V. If a ciborium which another priest needs must be purified, and the server through forgetfulness took the purification of the chalice before it had been purified, it is lawful - although the natural fast has ceased - to consume the small remnants found in the ciborium, because the consumption can be counted as by way of one act with Communion. It is more difficult to say that it is lawful to consume an entire host, since it can be kept for the following day.⁶

VI. If a sick person, or "a priest, vomits the Eucharist, if the species appear whole, they should be reverently consumed, unless nausea occurs; for then the consecrated species should be carefully separated and placed in some sacred place until they are corrupted, and afterward they should be cast into the sacrarium. But if the species do not appear, the vomit should be burned, and the ashes put into the sacrarium."⁷ If the sick person cannot swallow the host, or, after receiving Viaticum, immediately dies, the host, if it still appears in the mouth, should be extracted and preserved until it is corrupted.

¹ Roman Missal, De defectibus, title X, n. 10.

² Roman Missal, De defectibus, title X, n. 12.

³ Roman Missal, De defectibus, title X, n. 11.

⁴ Roman Missal, De defectibus, title VII, n. 2.

⁵ Roman Missal, De defectibus, title VII, n. 3.

⁶ Tamburini, De methodo communicandi, chapter 2, n. 37.

⁷ Roman Missal, De defectibus, title X, n. 14.

391. On defects occurring in celebration. - Defects occur in celebration when the prescribed rites are not observed. This can happen voluntarily or involuntarily, and voluntarily either without a just cause or from some necessity, in notable or in small quantity, so that the defect must be supplied or corrected, or not corrected nor supplied. Therefore several things must be inquired about these matters.

A. Can one celebrate who foresees that he will omit certain things on account of inability or forgetfulness; and are omitted things to be supplied?

Resp. The omission of lighter ceremonies or parts can be excused, such as, for example, genuflections down to the ground, profound inclinations, one or another commemoration, provided that scandal of the people is avoided and grave indecency is absent. - On the contrary, if greater parts must be omitted or there must be a notable departure from the rites, the priest cannot celebrate unless an indult has been obtained.

Hence 1) they permit celebration to a priest who cannot approach the altar without a cane, or who cannot elevate the host above his head, or who cannot stand erect and celebrates with his arms leaning upon the altar; at least if the people is warned.

2. One who from forgetfulness has omitted something and, when he has already progressed somewhat, remembers it, ought not to supply it, because he would disturb the order of the Mass; unless while praying secretly after a few words he noticed that he had omitted something, or unless he had omitted something of the substance of the sacrifice.

3. One who has recited the wrong gospel or epistle ought not to repeat it.

B. Can Mass be interrupted, and once interrupted must it be resumed?

Resp. To interrupt Mass of itself and deliberately is illicit; incidentally, however, it can be licit if a just cause is present, which, outside the canon, is required to be grave, once the canon has been begun more grave, and between consecration and communion most grave. And indeed:

1° Outside the canon it is licit:

a) For making a sermon or proclamations to the people, for receiving religious vows, for conferring sacred Orders; likewise for receiving the offerings of the people where the use exists; but not for reciting public prayers, beyond the rubrics, by inserting them among the other things. Thus also after the communion of the priest, communion is licitly distributed to the faithful, and a sermon can be held from the altar to the people before communion is distributed to them, or the profession or renewal of vows can be made before the communion of religious or nuns; but communion is not to be distributed outside the view of the altar or in the rooms of the sick (can. 868).

b) If a prince, bishop, crowd of pilgrims, or procession arrives on a feast day, on which otherwise they could not hear Mass; in which case, if the oblation has not yet been made, the priest can begin anew, so that they may hear the whole sacred rite. Or for a similar cause, as if otherwise a later solemn Mass could not be omitted without scandal.

c) If the church is polluted (can. 1173, § 2), - or if a vitandus arrives who cannot be expelled, unless grave inconvenience excuses from ceasing (can. 2259, § 2), - or if the priest remembers some impediment, for example that he is not fasting or in the state of grace, or is irregular or excommunicated, provided that the Mass can be left without scandal or grave discredit.

2° Even once the canon has been begun, indeed between consecration and communion, it is licit on account of grave danger of death or bodily integrity or profanation of the sacrament on the part of enemies or impious persons breaking in, or of impending flood or ruin of the church, for instance from fire or earthquake; likewise on account of urgent bodily necessity of the celebrant, and on account of grave spiritual necessity of the neighbor, namely, for ministering a sacrament to one dying. Nevertheless:

a) After consecration and before communion this will not be licit unless the dying person needs a necessary sacrament, namely Baptism or Penance, or even, if he cannot receive Penance, Extreme Unction; otherwise it is not licit to minister Extreme Unction, as also Viaticum, unless the dying person is nearby, so that the priest need not take off the sacred vestments.

b) To break off the sacrifice so that perhaps it cannot be completed will not be licit, unless on account of physical inability if the celebrant becomes so infirm that he absolutely cannot continue, or on account of danger so imminent that it cannot be avoided otherwise than by abandoning the sacrifice and the priest lacks time to complete it.

Let it be noted: 1) A priest interrupting Mass after the consecration must take care that meanwhile the sacrament be guarded, and therefore he should enclose it in the tabernacle, if one is present.

2. But if Mass must be altogether broken off after the consecration of one species, the priest can receive the consecrated host or take it with himself together with the chalice to be consecrated in another place; - but if he has completed both consecrations, let him receive both species at once if he can, or if he cannot, let him take them with himself to be received afterward in a safe place.

3. Mass interrupted before the consecration is not to be resumed if the priest becomes gravely ill or dies; - it is to be resumed from the beginning if the interruption is so notable that morally one action is not judged to persist, as if the priest had been absent for longer than one hour; in which case, if the oblation has already been made, new matter must be taken and the matter previously offered must be consumed after the Blood has been received; - on the contrary, it is to be resumed where the priest left off, if the interruption was shorter.

4. When Mass has been interrupted after the consecration of one species, it is to be resumed where it was left off; and indeed the very priest who began it, if he can, must complete it even if for this he would have to break the fast, because the precept of the integrity of the sacrifice obliges more than the precept of the fast; but if he cannot, let another approach, even if not fasting, or irregular or excommunicated, who divides the host and offers one part to that priest who began the sacrifice, if he can receive it. But if the priest fails after the reception of only the body of Christ, the chalice must be received by another.

5. A priest who has completed another's sacrifice cannot celebrate again, unless in a case in which the faculty of celebrating twice is present.

C. What must be done if a defect happens concerning the very matter of bread and wine?

Resp. Attention must be given to the practical rules established in the Missal:

1. As to a defect of bread, there it is read, de def., tit. 3, n. 4-7:

a) "If the celebrant before the consecration has noticed that the host is corrupt, or is not wheaten, after that host has been removed, let him place another and, after the oblation has been made, at least conceived in the mind, let him proceed from that place where he left off."

b) "If he has noticed this after the consecration, - even after the reception of that host, - after placing another, let him make the oblation, as above (i.e., at least conceived in the mind), and begin from the consecration, namely, from those words Qui pridie quam pateretur; and the former one, if he has not received it, let him receive after the reception of the body and blood, or let him hand it to another to be received, or preserve it reverently somewhere. - But if he has received it, nevertheless let him receive that which he has consecrated; because the precept concerning the perfection of the sacrament is of greater weight than that it be received by those fasting."

c) "But if this happens after the reception of the Blood, new bread must again be placed, and new wine with water; and after the oblation has first been made, as above, let the priest consecrate, beginning from those words: Qui pridie; and immediately let him receive both, and proceed with the Mass, lest the sacrament remain imperfect and so that the due order may be observed."

d) "If the consecrated host should disappear, either by some accident such as wind, or by miracle, or having been taken by some animal, and cannot be found, then let another be consecrated, beginning from that place: Qui pridie quam pateretur, after its oblation has first been made, as above."

2. As to a defect of wine, it is said in the same place, tit. 4, n. 3-6:

a) "If the celebrant before the consecration of the Blood, although after the consecration of the Body, notices that either wine, or water, or both are not in the chalice, he ought immediately to place wine with water, and after the oblation has been made, as above (i.e., at least mentally), to consecrate, beginning from those words: Simili modo..."

b) "If after the words of consecration he notices that wine had not been placed but water (or that it is corrupt), after the water has been deposited into some vessel, let him again place wine with water in the chalice, and consecrate, resuming from the aforesaid words: Simili modo..."

c) "If he notices this after the reception of the Body or of water of this kind, let him place another host to be consecrated again, and wine with water in the chalice, let him offer both, and consecrate and receive, although he is not fasting. - Or, if Mass is celebrated in a public place, where many are present, in order to avoid scandal he will be able to place wine with water, and after the oblation has been made as above, to consecrate, and immediately to receive, and to proceed with the rest." Let it be noted that this second mode is indicated merely subsidiarily, if scandal must be avoided; the first absolutely as to be used of itself, which moreover is proposed by St. Thomas, a. 6, ad 4: "If he has perceived this (i.e., that wine is lacking) after the reception of the Body, he ought to place another host to be consecrated again together with the Blood; and I say this for this reason, because if he were to say only the words of consecration of the Blood, the due order of consecrating would not be observed; and, as is said in Conc. Tol. VII (decr. 7, q. 1, resp. ad 1), 'Sacrifices cannot seem perfected unless they are completed in perfect order.' But if he were to begin from the consecration of the Blood and repeat all the following words (which shall be poured out for you and for many), it would not be fitting, unless a consecrated host were present, since in those words certain things occur to be said and done not only concerning the Blood, but also concerning the Body."

Let it be noted that water or corrupted wine is not to be spat out by a priest who detects it while he has it in his mouth, but is to be swallowed, both on account of the danger of casting out a particle of the host, and also on account of indecency.

d) From tit. 10, n. 13 there is added: "If it happens that the whole Blood is poured out after the consecration, if indeed something or a little has remained, let it be received... - But if absolutely nothing has remained, let him again place wine and water, and consecrate from that place: Simili modo..., the oblation of the chalice having first been made, however, as above" (namely, mentally).

3. As to a defect of either one, let it be noted:

a) "If the matter which would have to be placed on account of a defect either of bread or of wine could in no way be had, if this is before the consecration of the Body, one must not proceed further; - if after the consecration of the Body, or even of the wine, the defect of the other species is detected, the other already having been consecrated, then, if in no way it can be had, one must proceed, and the Mass must be completed, in such a way, however, that the words and signs which pertain to the lacking species are omitted. - But if by waiting for some time it can be had, one must wait, lest the sacrifice remain imperfect" (tit. 4, n. 8).

b) "If something poisonous, or something which provokes vomiting, has fallen into the chalice, the consecrated wine is to be placed in another chalice, and other wine with water is to be placed to be consecrated anew; and when Mass has been finished, the Blood placed aside is to be kept in a linen cloth, or tow, until the species of wine have dried, and then the tow is to be burned, and what is burned is to be thrown into the sacrarium. - If something poisoned has touched the consecrated host, then let him consecrate another, and receive in the way that has been said, and let that one be kept in the tabernacle in a separate place, until the species are corrupted, and when corrupted let them then be put into the sacrarium" (tit. 10, n. 6-7).

c) In doubt whether the matter, whether of bread or of wine, has already been validly consecrated, one must proceed in the same way as has been said concerning the case in which bread or wine after the consecration is detected to be lacking; because in doubt concerning the validity and integrity of the sacrifice the safer course must be taken, nor can the sacrifice be exposed to the danger of nullity or mutilation. But they dispute whether it must be consecrated again absolutely or under condition.

VII. QUESTION IV. Would one who should omit some part of the Mass sin mortally? ANSWER. The ordinary parts of the Mass are the confession, the introit, Dominus vobiscum, the collect, the epistle, the gospel, the offertory, the preface, the whole canon, and so forth. Not ordinary are the Gloria in excelsis, and so forth, the number of prayers, the Creed, the plurality of epistles, and so forth. He who deliberately omits a notable part of the canon sins mortally. He who should omit a light matter, even of the canon — say the name of one saint — would sin venially. He nevertheless who should deliberately omit something in the canon which would corrupt the sense would sin mortally. Nothing therefore is to be added and nothing omitted. But all things are to be pronounced clearly and distinctly. Many things would have to be said here of priests who are too hasty, who muttering within their lips truncate the words, who recite with a raised voice what is to be said with a lowered one, or the contrary. The congruous time for the celebration of Mass ought to be neither shorter than a third part of an hour nor longer than half an hour. The brevity of a compendium does not permit a fuller discourse upon this argument.