The Dispositions of the One Offering Mass

The priest who is going to celebrate should be fasting from midnight, in the state of grace, and duly prepared.

I. The natural fast. It is not lawful for a priest to celebrate unless the natural fast from midnight has been observed (canon 808). See the things which regard the natural fast set forth in n. 187 sq. Add canon 247, § 5: "It, that is, the Congregation of the Holy Office, alone is competent concerning all those things which regard the Eucharistic fast for priests celebrating Mass." Finally, the Holy Office declared¹ that priests dispensed from the Eucharistic fast can, before the second Mass, take the ablution in the first.

¹ 16 November 1923 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1923, p. 584).

II. The state of grace is required both for carrying out the consecration worthily (n. 26), and for receiving Communion (n. 179).

1. One who has lost the state of grace is bound per se to recover it through sacramental confession (canon 807); per accidens an act of perfect contrition suffices, namely if necessity urges and availability of a confessor is lacking (cited canon). See each of these things more fully explained in n. 179.

2. But if a priest conscious to himself of mortal sin has celebrated, availability of a confessor being lacking and necessity urging, yet after eliciting an act of perfect contrition, let him confess as soon as possible (canon 807).¹ It is said:

a) A priest; and so the law does not bind a layperson or a cleric not yet initiated into the priesthood (St. Alphonsus, VI, 268).

b) Availability of a confessor being lacking and necessity urging, yet after eliciting an act of perfect contrition; hence the law does not regard a priest who has celebrated without confession when either availability of a confessor was not lacking, or necessity was not urging, or the act of contrition was neglected. Those who celebrate thus commit sacrilege; but the reason why the law does not include sacrilegious persons is that it would become useless and an occasion of a new transgression (St. Alphonsus, VI, 260).

c) Without sacramental confession having been made beforehand; and so a priest is not held by the law if he celebrated after a confession in which he inculpably forgot a mortal sin, because he did not celebrate without a previous confession (St. Alphonsus, VI, 267).

d) Has celebrated; therefore a priest who has merely communicated is excepted. It is disputed, however, whether the law includes a priest who, while celebrating, remembers a grave sin or becomes guilty of one. Several deny this, because in the rubric² it is said that a priest who before Mass remembers a sin and celebrates from necessity, not having availability of a confessor, is bound afterward to confess at the first opportunity. But speaking of one who remembers a sin in the celebration itself, the rubric³ says: Let him be contrite with the purpose of confessing, without adding: at the first opportunity (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 267).

e) Let him confess as soon as possible. Moreover:

alpha) Here there is a true precept; hence Alexander VII condemned the proposition: "The mandate of Trent made to a priest sacrificing from necessity with mortal sin, to confess as soon as possible, is counsel, not a precept."⁴ Moreover, that precept by the consent of all obliges under grave sin.

beta) This "as soon as possible," according to the common opinion, is understood as within three days, or in such a way that it is not lawful to wait beyond three days.⁵ The obligation of confessing exists even if someone is not going to celebrate except after a longer time. Moreover, meanwhile the priest cannot again celebrate without previous confession unless both necessity of celebrating is present and availability of a confessor is lacking. Finally, if someone can confess now and foresees that afterward the occasion of confessing will be lacking, he is bound to confess now, for example already on the first day (St. Alphonsus, VI, 266).

¹ Council of Trent, session 13, chapter 7.

² De defectibus, title VIII, n. 3.

³ De defectibus, title VII, n. 4.

⁴ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1138.

⁵ Alexander VII condemned the proposition: "That particle 'as soon as possible' is understood as, when the priest will confess in his own time" (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 1139).

III. Preparation and thanksgiving. Let the priest not omit to dispose himself by pious prayers for the oblation of the Eucharistic sacrifice, and, once it has been completed, to give thanks to God for so great a benefit (canon 810).

Dispositions for the Celebration of Mass.—(a) Dispositions of Soul.—The celebrant must be in the state of grace, and must go to confession before Mass if he has a serious sin on his conscience (see 2701 c). He must have the intention and attention which the validity of the consecration requires (2701 b), and the reverence and devotion which is due the prayers of the Mass (2153 sqq.), Voluntary and fully deliberate distractions entertained for a considerable time during the Canon seem to be seriously sinful. It is most suitable, though apparently not commanded by the Church, that Matins and Lauds be said before Mass. There is, however, a duty of religion and of charity to self to make a suitable preparation and thanksgiving; but negligence here is a light sin, unless there be contempt or serious scandal. Fifteen minutes or a half-hour is recommended by ascetical writers, and the prayers may be taken from those given in the Breviary and Missal, Internal prayer, however, is more important than external recitation (Canon 810).

(b) Dispositions of Body.—The Eucharistic or natural fast is of grave obligation for the celebration of Mass (Canon 808). The only excuses are necessity according to divine law or exemption by ecclesiastical law. Necessity occurs when one must complete the sacrifice (e.g., when after the Communion the priest notices that he consecrated one species invalidly), or must avoid scandal (e.g., when a priest remembers after going to the altar that he is not fasting), or must consecrate for the Viaticum (e.g., when there is no consecrated host for a dying person). Since the law is ecclesiastical, the Church could dispense for a grave reason (e.g., to enable a sickly priest to say Masses on Sunday at widely separated points of his missions). It is clear that the celebration of Mass calls for cleanness of body, suitableness of dress, neatness and rubrical correctness of vestments (Canon 811). The omission of a principal vestment (i.e., blessed alb, stole or chasuble) is a serious sin, except in grave necessity; the omission of minor vestments (e.g., amice) is a venial sin, unless there is a just reason. The color of the day is not gravely obligatory, except by reason of scandal, and a good reason makes it lawful to use another color.

384. For licit celebration three things are required: 1. on the part of the body, immunity from a defect which impedes celebration and constitutes an irregularity from defect (can. 984, n. 2), - fasting (can. 808), - and cleanliness, as was explained above (n. 280-284); 2. on the part of the soul: the state of grace, after consciousness of mortal sin, proved by confession, as was said in n. 271-272 (can. 807), immunity from censure, irregularity, and other canonical penalties and impediments (can. 2261), and due preparation (can. 810); 3. on the part of external circumstances: observance of the ceremonies, rites, and other things prescribed by the Church.

385. The obligation of observing the ceremonies and rites and other precepts of the Church as to the celebration of the sacrifice is very grave. - For since nothing is holier than the sacrifice of the altar, the Church wills that it be offered with much apparatus and external worship, and therefore has prescribed many things concerning place or time, concerning the things to be used and the rites to be observed, so that the sacred action may be exercised with decorum, reverence, and piety, namely, as the Council of Trent says, sess. 22, c. 5: "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 stirred up to contemplation of the most lofty things which lie hidden in this sacrifice." Concerning this, see the Council of Trent, sess. 7, can. 13; sess. 22, c. 4 and 5, can. 7 and 9; and in the Code of Law, can. 733, 811, 818, 821 and 822.

The Church has ordained certain things which from received interpretation are held as merely directive, such as those which precede or follow Mass; but many are truly preceptive; among these, however, certain ones, by reason of the reverence due, are urged altogether strictly, so that never, or scarcely ever, would celebration without them be licit: thus the sacrifice could never be offered without a chalice, almost never without sacred vestments or outside an altar, rarely outside a sacred place.

386. It is a sin grave from its genus to change the prescribed rubrics of the sacrifice. - For it is the grave transgression of a precept of the Church; and indeed:

1. to add to the rubrics from an intention of changing or introducing a new rite is a grave sin, because it is to usurp the authority of the Church in a matter of great importance; but from indiscreet devotion, it is venial if the matter is slight, grave if notable;

2. to omit something from the rubrics notable of itself, containing a special signification, is grave by reason of quality; but to omit lighter ceremonies is venial, unless it is done in great part, in which case it is grave by reason of quantity.

Titius, a priest, at the annual retreat of the clergy, makes a general Confession for the past year. In the course of his Confession, the confessor asks him, whether, during the past year, he always said Mass with the right dispositions. To this Titius replies that once, having committed a mortal sin, he said Mass without having previously gone to Confession. His reasons for doing so, he said, were that he was obliged to say Mass before he had an opportunity of going to Confession, because his confessor lived quite some distance from him, and there was no other priest to whom he could make his Confession, except his own assistant, who was much younger than himself, and besides was his nephew, and he could not bring himself to make his Confession to him.

He admitted, also, that on another occasion he had fallen into alike sin, and had said Mass the next day without having gone to Confession, but having made an act of perfect contrition. His reason was that he could not have omitted Mass without giving grave scandal, and he had no "copia confessarii." The confessor inquired further of Titius whether in both of these instances he had complied with the Tridentine law of going to Confession "quam primum" after the Mass.

Titius answered that he had complied with the law of the Council of Trent, by his weekly Confession, which happened, in these instances, about four or five days after saying Mass. In fact, Titius admitted, that on this second occasion he not only said Mass on the following day, when necessity obliged him to say it, but also on the three following days, when he might have easily omitted it. In this he thought he was justified, because by an act of perfect contrition he had recovered the state of grace, and, being in the state of grace, he was free to say Mass every day if he so desired.

Hearing all this the confessor hesitated in forming his judgment about Titius, and first put the following questions to himself:

1. What dispositions of soul are required of a priest who desires to say Mass worthily?

2. How are we to understand the law of the Council of Trent (s. xiii., c. 7), which obliges priests to go to confession "quam primum"?

3. Did Titius do wrong by saying Mass on these several occasions, and what is to be said about the reasons he advanced to justify himself?

Solution.

1. Benedict XIV treats this matter in his work "De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio" (lib. 3. c. 11), where he gives the common and sound teaching of all theologians, when he says: “A priest ought to be in grace and cleansed of every mortal sin.” If the state of grace is required of a lay person, before receiving Holy Communion, with much greater reason is it required of a priest, who desires to say Mass.

Wherefore St. Thomas (3, q. 80, a. 4) treating this question, not especially in its relation to priests, but in its relation to all the faithful, whether priests or lay people, says: “whoever receives the Sacrament of the Eucharist while in mortal sin commits sacrilege, as a violator of the sacrament, and therefore sins mortally.” This doctrine he draws from the letter of St. Paul to the Corinthians: “he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment upon himself.” He interprets this text by the authority of Peter Lombard: “he eats and drinks unworthily who is in a state of sin.” The Council of Trent merely recalls the doctrine of St. Thomas, with the text from St. Paul, and then adds: “therefore, for one wishing to receive Communion, his precept must be recalled to mind: but let a man examine himself.”

All of which, in our case, is equivalent to saying that as often as a priest is about to say Mass, and is conscious of mortal sin, it is necessary that he should first cleanse his soul from mortal sin and then approach the altar of God. Further on, the Council authentically interprets the text from St. Paul, and declares that the way to cleanse the conscience from mortal sin before Holy Communion is sacramental Confession. The words of the canon (12) are as follows:

“Lest so great a Sacrament be received unworthily and therefore unto death and condemnation, the Holy Synod itself decrees and declares that those whose conscience is burdened by mortal sin, however contrite they may consider themselves, must necessarily make sacramental confession beforehand when a confessor is available.” With right, therefore, is this obligation of going to Confession before saying Mass, if conscious of mortal sin, drawn from the words of the apostle; for whosoever approaches the holy table must have the testimony of a good conscience, and if he be in sin, he must needs cleanse his soul. Now the ordinary way of cleansing the soul from mortal sin is by means of sacramental Confession. Therefore, sacramental Confession is necessary for any one desiring to receive Holy Communion and conscious of mortal sin. And, therefore, also, only in case of necessity is it sufficient to make an act of perfect contrition with a firm purpose of confessing.

2. “But if, when necessity presses, a priest has celebrated without prior confession, let him confess as soon as possible,” says the Council of Trent. This law binds priests alone.

Two false interpretations have been put on this law of the Council of Trent. Both of them have been condemned by Pope Alexander VII.

The first is that this law contains only a counsel or recommendation, and not a strict command. This can not be maintained, because the Council of Trent uses the imperative mode. Therefore, Alexander VII (prop. 38 damnata) condemns any interpretation of the words of the Council that would destroy their imperative nature.

The other false interpretation, condemned by the same Pontiff, says, “that phrase ‘as soon as possible’ is understood as when the priest shall confess in his own time.” To put such a construction on the words of the Council, says Alexander VII, would be to make the law ridiculous: “the precept would be derisory.”

Quam primum, therefore, means the same day or at least within three days after saying Mass, for the word is to be taken in a moral sense, as in all human laws. All theologians are agreed on this. If the priest must say Mass the following day, he is not permitted to put off his Confession for three days, but must make his Confession the same day, if he can possibly do so.

3. From what has been said we conclude that Titius did not act rightly in the first instance, because there was a confessor at hand, to whom he should have gone to Confession. That the confessor was younger than Titius, and his nephew, made no difference under the circumstances. He was a "verus confessarius et, in casu, necessarius." The shame that Titius would experience in making his confession to his nephew was not a sufficient excuse, because more or less shame accompanies all confession of sin.

In the second instance, Titius acted according to the laws of the Council of Trent, and, therefore, is not to be blamed.

In the third and fourth instances he sinned.

The villages M. and G. are about two miles apart. One Sunday morning, having said Mass, and breakfasted shortly afterward, I was called from M. by a messenger to the pastor of G., who had been suddenly taken ill and who wished me to officiate in his stead at High Mass, as otherwise his congregation would go without Mass. Even if they had betaken themselves to M., where there was another Mass, they could have reached the church only after the elevation, as the sermon (according to custom there) was preached after the Communion. “The same case,” so writes Holzmann, “recently happened, or at least could have happened, at Ried in my native country, where the Reverend Parish Priest was suddenly taken ill on a feast day and rendered unable to celebrate on that day. A messenger was sent to... the Benedictine monastery at Ursin with a request that a priest be sent to conduct the divine offices in place of the Parish Priest. But since the messenger arrived only around or after the tenth hour, all the priests had already celebrated, except only the Most Reverend Lord Prelate and Abbot Bernard; who therefore immediately prepared himself for the journey and, conveyed by carriage to Ried, there offered sacrifice at the altar with the greatest edification and consolation of the people.” Abbot Bernard was of course in the fortunate position to render the asked assistance, not having broken the jejunium naturale; I, however, had, as already mentioned, partaken of ablution and of food before becoming aware of the embarrassment of the pastor in G., and I therefore gave, regretfully, a declining answer. He, however, considered my view a rigoristic one, and expressed his belief that in this case I might, even after breaking the fast, celebrate Mass, because if the Mass were omitted the people would be given scandal. That scandal would not be absent, he, as pastor, were better able to judge than I, a stranger, and for this reason he advised me to lay aside my opinion and be guided by his. The people not understanding that the prohibition to say Mass after breaking the fast, and concerning only the individual person of the priest, was more binding than the obligation of a whole parish to hear Mass. “But,” I replied, “how can the people be scandalized, if it is made known to them that the pastor has been unexpectedly disabled, and that the summoned priest, not having foreseen the case, had broken the fast and therefore is prevented from celebrating a second Mass? In my opinion the people, if properly instructed, are more appreciative than you assume. Besides, those well disposed and those less critical will not give much heed to the matter beyond some surprise, and in simple faith they will take for granted what is told them.” This was the extent of my reply. My offer to hold a devotion instead of saying Mass was not accepted, and I was dismissed in disfavor. That same day I looked over Holzmann’s Moral Theology, not from any uncertainty, but to reassure myself, and there I found, besides the above extract, also the following passage: “But if, therefore, in this case the aforesaid Most Reverend Lord himself had already celebrated previously, no other priest who might offer sacrifice in place of the Parish Priest could have been sent, because, on account of the ablution taken in the Mass already read, no one was fasting any longer.” Nevertheless, had the pastor been able to convince me, or could I have convinced myself, that without doubt, or even only probably, through the omission of the Mass scandal for the people would have ensued, that is to say, “grave offense of the people, danger of grave suspicion or slander against the priest, or the danger that several persons, although they can and ought to go elsewhere to hear Mass, may take occasion from that unforeseen case to neglect Mass with grave sin” (LEHMKUHL, Theol. Moral, II, n. 162), then it would not have been unlawful for me to say a second Mass, after breaking the fast, as, what is here presupposed as conditio sine qua non, my defectus jejunii was neither known, nor could have easily become known to the people.

In confirmation of what has been said I add a few more lines from Holzmann: “You will say: if scandal should arise among the people from not saying a second Mass, a priest who was no longer fasting would be permitted to celebrate; therefore it will also be permitted in our case. The answer is made by granting the antecedent under the stated supposition and denying the consequent. The difference is that, in a case where scandal would arise, it would be permissible to use epikeia and to interpret the mind of the Church as not wishing a repeated celebration to be forbidden to a priest, even one no longer fasting; since the precept not to give scandal, being of natural law, ought to prevail over the ecclesiastical precept that the Sacred Mysteries be celebrated by a fasting priest and ought to be observed more strictly. It is otherwise in our case, in which no scandal intervenes, since the people are not scandalized if they are instructed that the Parish Priest suddenly fell ill, while the other priests, not foreseeing the Parish Priest’s case, had already celebrated and therefore, because of the lack of the natural fast caused by taking the ablution, could not celebrate a second time, and that the parishioners are excused from sin because of their inability to hear Mass, although they do not hear Mass on that feast day.” (Theol. Moral, II, n. 379).

All this fits my case. Similar cases occur not infrequently, and each individual case should be well weighed and considered. Ordinarily there ensues from the omission of Holy Mass, and the solemnity joined to it, a regret only, but no scandal. Even if some ignorant people, or the roundtable at the tavern, may be given an opportunity to hold forth against the priest who inadvertently broke the jejunium, this would be by no means sufficient reason to ignore the ecclesiastical precept. But if one might have to fear what I am about to relate? What in such case?

I once heard a malicious person say that a certain priest was not in the state of grace, and that he purposely partook of some food to have a pretext for not saying Mass, to escape in this way the mortal sin of celebrating sacrilegiously. Where such suspicions and calumny are to be feared (a case not likely to happen often) a priest, to prevent the same, may, if possible, keep his mishap secret, and in good conscience celebrate Holy Mass.

It may happen, and this would be more likely, that some people in town or country, if Mass was not said in their own church, would not take the trouble to go to another church within their reach, and thus sin grievously. In this case, likewise, if no other priest were obtainable, a sacerdos non jejunus could say Mass. Provided of course the defectus jejunii is neither known to the people, nor likely to become known. I have repeatedly noticed how priests, videnti populo, partook of the ablution, and later said another Mass. This was wrong, although the people believed this could be done in case of necessity (and in every one of these instances fortunately they so regarded the case). If at other times a priest in distraction should do something similar, it will not be easy for him to avoid talk, if he makes this (correctly) the ground for not saying Mass.

BERNARD DEPPE.

Father Caius, about to celebrate Mass, was in doubt if, perhaps, he had not grievously sinned by voluntary consent to a certain thought. While not positive of the fault, he was neither certain of the contrary. He decided to celebrate, because, according to the opinion of many theologians, the obligation to confess in such case is not certain. Neither did he feel obliged to awaken perfect contrition, since he reasoned that positive contrition cannot be felt about a doubtful matter. With trepidation he read subsequently in Elbel (Part II. n. 166, p. 65 of the new edition) that this great theologian and probabilist teaches that the view of confession being necessary in such a case should certainly be adhered to omnimodis sectanda. He decided to submit the question to his confessor. He read also Elbel’s opinion that a priest need not abstain from celebration if in doubt whether he had taken a drink of water before or after midnight. In the following night Father Caius awakened and, feeling great thirst, he drank some water, without bothering about the time, and said Mass the following morning, not, however, without some concern. He submits both matters to his confessor. What must the latter reply?

1. Concerning the first point, we may say that it seems certain to present-day moralists that in this case, before the reception of the holy Communion, or before celebration, there is no obligation to confess. Thus Ballerini, Lehmkuhl, Hilarius and others (even St. Alphonsus maintains this view, at least in his work Homo Apostolicus, tr. 15. n. 34. and tr. 16. n. 31, where he reverses the opinion stated in his larger work, n. 475). I am not of opinion that the speculative doubt of commission or non-commission of a mortal sin can generally (communiter) by the attending circumstances be resolved into certainty one way or the other. My pastoral experience has shown that such a doubt under many circumstances may remain indissoluble, and under such condition there exists no strict obligation to confess. The Council of Trent obliges to Confession only those who are conscious of mortal sin; the doubter, however, is not conscious of mortal sin. Elbel, otherwise a pronounced probabilist, is here, after citing that this argument is accepted by many theologians, not consistent. The cause of this inconstancy is the fact that Elbel leaves almost entirely out of consideration the safety which the act of perfect contrition affords, and upon which he, like many other moralists of his time, does not venture to rely. To arouse this act is, of course, of obligation, unless in the case of imperfect contrition Confession is made, because there is to be avoided the danger of receiving the Most Blessed Sacrament in a manner that its effects would be lost. It would, no doubt, be most deplorable if a priest were not conscious, with moral certainty, of having perfect contrition, for there is hardly a subject about which he should. instruct the people more frequently and impressively than the act of the love of God and the contrition proceeding from it. Through this act is given the certainty of the state of grace. If any doubt should remain, even in one well informed, I agree with Lehmkuhl (/. ». 150), who says that there is no obligation to seek further certainty (after having done the best one could and what was considered necessary). I should not even advise the priest to confess, at least not one who confesses every week or fortnight, since the advice to confess doubtful sins, while proper in the instance of the laity who easily deceive themselves in regard to their sins, is less in place for the well-informed priest who celebrates daily and confesses regularly within the stated times. It may be asked: Is it possible to awaken certain contrition about an uncertain sin? It may be admitted that it cannot be done because contrition must contain the consciousness of committed sin; but the obligation to awaken the act of contrition, or at least the perfect act of charity which virtually includes contrition, remains, because without moral certainty of being in the state of grace one must not approach holy Communion. He who makes an act of perfect love of God, and by reason of this love repents of all previous sins he may have committed, has surely complied with this obligation.

2. As concerns the second point, the drinking of water, Father Caius did not correctly, or at least not fully, comprehend the teaching of Elbel (. 167), to which to-day, as in Elbel’s time, the moralists satis communiter adhere. This teacher says that when in doubt whether he ate or drank before or after midnight, one is not obliged, for this reason, to abstain from holy Communion; it is not positive that he has not been fasting, therefore reception of the Most Blessed Sacrament is not prohibited to him. It is nowhere asserted, as Elbel rightly observes, that the Church wishes her commandment be complied with so rigidly, that even those who doubt whether their fast has not been broken should deny themselves holy Communion. Father Caius, however, has overlooked what Elbel has to say, in conclusion, about the dubium antecedens. It is not permissible to cause such a doubt by voluntary action. It is the quite elementary condition of probabilism that we have done what we ought to have done, or what we could, in order to avoid uncertainty. We are obliged to take care that we keep the Commandments, and that we do not transgress their prohibitions. In the Commandment and prohibition, of which there is question here, is conveyed the injunction that we must avoid any uncertainty, and not cause it to exist, as to whether we are fasting from midnight or not. He, therefore, who drinks something, and purposely refuses to ascertain what time it is, cannot avail himself of the probabilistic principle. By receiving the Blessed Sacrament he would confirm his grievously sinful indifference as to whether the Commandment of the Church in this important matter is observed or not. If Father Caius had in his simplicity intended to follow the probabilistic principle, then he has subjectively not sinned; in reality, however, this application of the principle is not allowed.

If, in this case, the celebration is imperatively necessary, and if Father Caius has foreseen the necessity, he will have to proceed like one conscious of a grievous sin.

Julius Müllendorff, S.J.

Case.—Father Titus, suffering from illness for many months, has secured the privilege of a private oratory. Twice every week a priest friend celebrates Mass in this oratory, and Father Titus, by privilege of the decree of December 7, 1906, receives Holy Communion without fasting. One morning, feeling stronger than usual, and having partaken of nourishment by “drinking” the raw contents of two eggs, he feels the desire to celebrate Mass himself, instead of only receiving Holy Communion. His friend arrives and, finding Father Titus in the preparation to say Mass himself, he dissuades with some difficulty Father Titus from his intention.

Question: 1. Was Father Titus allowed to say Mass?

2. Could he at least receive Holy Communion?

Solution.—The decree of December 7, 1906, permits a sick person under certain conditions to receive Holy Communion even after he has partaken of some food per modum potus; this permission, however, must not be extended to the celebration of Holy Mass. Noldin sets forth: “Priests may indeed use this privilege, granted to those who are bedridden but not dangerously ill, under the required conditions, for receiving Communion in the manner of laymen, but not for celebrating Mass.” (Summa Th. Mor. III¹⁰, 157, e.)

Such permission is hardly ever given. Ojetti states: “The Sacred Universal Inquisition is accustomed almost never to grant the favor of celebrating Mass to those who are not fasting.” (Synopsis, II*, n. 2344, p. 2159.)

Cardinal Gennari asks the question, Can a priest obtain from the Holy See the privilege to partake before Holy Mass of some food per modum potus? and he positively answers, “He can not. Such a privilege is never conceded to priests. It is sometimes given to a bishop, in order that he may not have to omit pontifical functions. The priest may, however, obtain from the Holy See permission to celebrate immediately after midnight.” (Questions de Morale, etc. n. 255.)

2. Father Titus, after “drinking” two eggs, cannot even receive Holy Communion. If he cannot fast he may take some food per modum potus but “It is not lawful to sip an egg, because it is not liquid food,” as we find it stated by Ballerini Palmieri, who, however, adds “But an egg diluted with coffee, since it truly becomes liquid, seems able to be taken.” (Opus theologicum morale, IV, p. 730.) This is also the view of Cardinal Gennari, whom modern authors like to quote as an authority on such questions.