The Rubrics of the Missal

In the rubrics of the Missal the Church has laid down a series of minute rules for the celebration of Mass. Their number and minuteness show her solicitude concerning the proper performance of this divine sacrifice. Those which have reference to the Mass itself are in general preceptive and bind under pain of sin. Grave sin, then, is committed by violating the rubrics of the Mass in serious matters; venial sin is committed by their violation in smaller matters. If a notable or important portion of the rite is omitted, or if notable additions are made to it by private authority, or any considerable change be made in it, there is a serious violation of the law. The rubrics which ordain that certain portions of the Mass be said in a loud or low or middle tone of voice only bind under venial sin, and so, if their observance would cause annoyance to other priests who are saying Mass, they cease to bind. Similarly, if through infirmity a priest is unable to observe some smaller rubrics, it is not the mind of the Church that he should be obliged to abstain from celebrating the holy mysteries.

It is a probable opinion that those rubrics in the Missal which have reference to what should be done out of Mass are only directive, not strictly preceptive so as to bind under pain of sin.

The general rule is that the Mass must agree with the office which the calendar prescribes to be said. However, by the decree S.R.C., December 7, 1895, when Mass is said in a church or public oratory which is not one’s own, which uses a different calendar, and celebrates a feast of double or higher rite, the Mass must always agree with the calendar of the church or public oratory, and not with the office of the celebrant.

When Mass has been once begun it may not be broken off without grave reason, even before the consecration. After the consecration a still graver cause is required, as, for example, the sudden breaking out of fire in the church, when the sacred species might be at once consumed and the Mass brought to an end. Moreover, even temporary interruptions of Mass are forbidden except after the Gospel, according to custom. The prohibition is stricter according to the greater solemnity of the part of the Mass where there is question of interruption. However, for good cause, an interruption may be permitted before the offertory; to justify an interruption between the offertory and the consecration a graver cause is required, and a very grave cause after the consecration.

II. Real sacrilege is committed:

1. By unworthily treating things sacred by their nature, or consecrated or blessed things. To this are referred: 1. invalid or unworthy administration and reception of the sacraments; 2. profanation of relics (cf. can. 1289, § 2), altars, images of the Saints, sacred oils, etc.; 3. illicit touching of the Holy Eucharist, of sacred vessels, etc. (cf. treatise on the Holy Eucharist and can. 1306); 4. abuse of Sacred Scripture, by twisting its words to an impious or obscene sense (St. Alphonsus, III, 40).

2. By applying to a profane use things sacred by their nature, or consecrated things, or things blessed by a constitutive blessing (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.; cf. can. 1150). This nevertheless seems lawful if they have lost their consecration or blessing; canon 1305 explains when this occurs.

3. By stealing sacred things, for example relics or ecclesiastical goods, provided these already belong to the dominion of the Church; otherwise if they are only owed but have not yet been handed over (St. Alphonsus, III, 42, 45, 532).

4. By exchanging a spiritual thing for a temporal price. This is real sacrilege, which is called simony; but it will be treated specifically.

Corollary. The circumstance of time induces a grave sin of sacrilege only insofar as the action, from the sense of the faithful and of the Church, involves an extraordinary repugnance with the mystery which is celebrated at some time, as if someone on Good Friday were to institute solemn banquets furnished with meats (St. Alphonsus, III, 46, 273).

In order that Mass be celebrated according to the prescribed rite, the following are required:

I. An altar, and that consecrated (canon 822, § 1). Now either the whole altar must be consecrated, if there is question of an immovable altar, or only the portable altar-stone, if there is question of a movable altar (canon 1199, § 1). Moreover, per se Mass must be celebrated on an altar of the proper rite; but when such an altar is lacking, it is lawful for a priest to celebrate according to his own rite on an altar consecrated for another Catholic rite, but not upon the antimensions of the Greeks (canon 823, § 2).¹ Finally, on papal altars no one may celebrate without apostolic indult (canon 823, § 3). With these things summarily noted, several things about the altar must be noted.

1. Notion of an altar. In the liturgical sense it is understood: 1. by the name of an immovable or fixed altar, the upper table together with the supports consecrated with it as one thing; 2. by the name of a movable or portable altar, a stone, usually small, which alone is consecrated and which is also called a portable altar-stone or sacred stone; or the same stone together with a support which nevertheless was not consecrated together with it (canon 1197, § 1).

In a consecrated church at least one altar, especially the major altar, must be immovable; but in a blessed church all altars can be movable (canon 1197, § 2).

2. Construction of an altar. a) Both the immovable table and the sacred stone should consist of one natural stone, whole and not friable (canon 1198, § 1).

b) In an immovable altar the stone slab or table must extend to the whole altar and suitably cohere with the support; the support should be of stone, or at least the sides or little columns by which the table is supported should be of stone (canon 1198, § 2).

c) The sacred stone should be so large that it holds at least the host and the greater part of the chalice (canon 1198, § 3).

d) Both in an immovable altar and in a sacred stone there should be, according to the norm of liturgical laws, a sepulcher containing relics of Saints, closed with stone (canon 1198, § 4). Concerning this, observe that for due consecration it is required that relics from the bodies of at least two martyrs be deposited in the sepulcher, and that these be enclosed with a stone cover. Nevertheless, for the validity of consecration the relics of only one martyr suffice.² For the rest, relics of other Saints can be added.

3. Consecration of an altar. Portable altar-stones can be consecrated validly and licitly by Cardinals (canon 239, § 1, 20), all bishops (canon 1199, § 2), vicars and prefects apostolic within the limits of their territory and while their office endures (canon 294, § 2), and abbots and prelates nullius (canon 323, § 2). Immovable altars can be validly consecrated by the same persons who validly consecrate portable altar-stones, excepting, however, vicars and prefects apostolic who lack the episcopal character. In order that they act licitly, the Ordinary of the territory must grant permission, with the right of Cardinals to consecrate altars of their own title remaining firm (canons 1155; 1199, § 2). The consecration of an immovable altar, which is done without the dedication of a church, although it can be done on any day, is nevertheless more fittingly done on a Sunday or another feast of precept (canon 1199, § 3).

4. Execration of an altar. a) An immovable altar loses consecration if the slab or table is separated from the support even for a moment of time; in this case the Ordinary can permit a presbyter to perform the consecration of the altar again with the shorter rite and formula (canon 1200, § 1). It is not execrated if the table, not separated from the support, is transferred to another church or to another place of the same church.³

b) Both an immovable altar and a sacred stone lose consecration: 1. if they are broken enormously, whether by reason of the quantity of the fracture or by reason of the place of anointing (canon 1200, § 2, 1), but not if they are merely scraped; 2. if the relics are removed or the cover of the sepulcher is broken or removed, except in the case in which the bishop himself or his delegate removes the cover in order to secure, repair, or replace it, or to inspect the relics. But a slight fracture of the cover does not induce execration, and any priest can secure a little crack with cement (canon 1200, § 2, 2 and 3).

c) The execration of a church does not carry with it the execration of altars, whether immovable or movable; and conversely (canon 1200, § 4).

5. The title of an altar. a) Just as a church, so any altar of a church, at least an immovable one, should have its own title. The primary title of the major altar must be the same as the title of the church (canon 1201, §§ 1 and 2).

b) Altars cannot be dedicated to Blessed persons, even in churches and oratories to which their office and Mass have been granted, without an indult of the Apostolic See (canon 1201, § 4).

c) With the permission of the Ordinary, the title of a movable altar can indeed be changed, but not the title of an immovable altar (canon 1201, § 3).

6. Necessity of an altar. The precept of consecrating on a consecrated and not execrated altar is grave.⁴ Moreover, according to some it is never lawful to celebrate outside an altar; according to others this is lawful in a most grave necessity, for example for confecting Viaticum, because, they say, the precept of receiving Viaticum is divine, while the prohibition of celebrating outside an altar is ecclesiastical.

7. Things to be noted. a) The altar-stone, that is, the portable altar-stone or sacred stone, must be inserted in an altar made of wood or of another material.⁵

b) Both an immovable and a movable altar must be reserved only for divine offices and especially for the celebration of Mass, any profane use being altogether excluded (canon 1202, § 1).

c) No corpse should be hidden under the altar; but corpses which perhaps are buried near the altar should be distant from it by a space of at least one meter. Otherwise it is not lawful to celebrate Mass on the altar until the corpse is removed (canon 1202, § 2).

¹ An antimension is a consecrated cloth in which there are relics, and which, spread upon any table, can be used for saying Mass.

² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 February 1906, n. 4180, ad III.

³ The decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 3 September 1879, n. 3504, ad I, which is opposed, seems to speak of the transfer of the table alone, separated from the support.

⁴ Roman Missal, General Rubrics, title XX; De defectibus, title X, n. 1.

⁵ Roman Missal, loc. cit.

II. Three altar cloths - or two, one of which is doubled - blessed by the bishop or by another having the faculty; this faculty belongs to the same persons who enjoy the faculty of blessing sacred vestments (n. 266). The altar cloths must be made of linen or hemp.¹ The upper cloth should be long, descending to the floor on both sides; the custom of using a shorter cloth cannot be observed.²

It is a grave sin to celebrate without any altar cloth; nevertheless this is lawful in grave necessity. The other things oblige under venial sin, for example the precept of using several cloths, of using blessed cloths, etc. Hence a respectively just cause excuses from every sin (St. Alphonsus, VI, 375).

¹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 May 1819, n. 2600.

² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 June 1899, n. 4029, ad I.

III. A cross with the image of the Crucified, placed between the candlesticks and projecting in such a way "that the celebrating priest and the people assisting at the Sacrifice can easily and conveniently look upon the same Crucifix; which cannot happen if only a small cross is displayed."¹ Another cross is not required if there is a large statue of the Crucified on the altar, or if the image of the Crucified is painted on the altar panel as holding the first place;² nor is a blessed cross prescribed.³ If the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed, a cross can be used or not used, according as custom bears.⁴ Finally, the use of placing the cross on the throne which serves for the public exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament cannot be tolerated.⁵

The obligation of using a cross is light.

¹ Constitution of Benedict XIV Accepimus, 16 July 1746; Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 June 1663, n. 1270, and 17 September 1822, n. 2621.

² Constitution of Benedict XIV, cited.

³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 July 1704, n. 2143.

⁴ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 2 September 1741, n. 2365.

⁵ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 2 June 1883, n. 3576, ad III; 11 June 1904, n. 4136, ad II.

IV. Two lighted candles.¹ Besides this, according to the rubric,² near the altar a candle is to be prepared, to be lighted at the elevation of the sacrament; but a contrary custom can be observed. The candles must be made of wax.³

Nevertheless, to the question: "Whether, considering even the great difficulty either of having true beeswax or of eliminating improper mixtures with other wax, the candles to be placed upon altars must be wholly and entirely of beeswax; or whether they can be mixed with other material, whether vegetable or animal?" the Sacred Congregation of Rites⁴ responded: "Considering the asserted difficulty, Negative to the first part; Affirmative to the second and according to the mind. The mind is that bishops should, according to their powers, take care that the paschal candle, the candle to be immersed in the baptismal water, and the two candles to be lighted at Masses be of beeswax, at least in the greatest part; but it is necessary that the material of the other candles which are to be placed upon altars be of the same wax in a greater or notable quantity. In this matter pastors and other rectors of churches and oratories will be able safely to stand by the norms handed down by their respective Ordinaries, nor are private priests who are going to celebrate Mass bound to inquire anxiously about the quality of the candles." Besides, the Sacred Congregation of Rites⁵ granted to missionaries in Oceania that they might use candles made and formed from whale fat, which in those regions are called bougies a l'etoile.

The candles must be placed upon the altar, not fixed to a wall almost touching the altar.⁶ For the rest, note:

a) Apart from an indult, by reason of some personal distinction it is not lawful for priests below a bishop - not even for the vicar general - to use more than two candles; by reason of some greater solemnity of a feast or Mass, it is lawful.⁷

b) It is a grave sin to celebrate without any light; this is lawful only by reason of administering Viaticum or by special permission. Likewise, it is more probably mortal to celebrate without any wax light, or with only lights from tallow or oil. Nevertheless this is lawful in a case of necessity, for example so that Viaticum may be administered or so that the people may hear Mass on a Sunday (St. Alphonsus, VI, 394, doubt 1). The other things oblige under venial sin; hence, for example, if two wax candles are lacking, it is lawful for a reasonable cause, even by reason only of devotion, to celebrate with one wax candle (St. Alphonsus, VI, 394).

c) If either light goes out during the celebration, the priest can continue while it is lighted again. If every light fails and no other can be had, if this happens after the consecration the Mass must be continued; but if before it, more probably it must be interrupted (St. Alphonsus, VI, 394).

d) It is illicit above or within the altar, besides wax candles, to use stearin candles,⁸ gas illumination, or electric light.⁹ Moreover, "electric light is forbidden not only together with wax candles upon altars, but also in place of candles or lamps"¹⁰ which are prescribed before the Most Holy Sacrament or relics of Saints.¹¹ For other places of the church and other cases, electric illumination is permitted according to the prudent judgment of the Ordinary, provided that in all things the gravity which the holiness of the place and the dignity of the sacred liturgy demand is preserved. Nor is it lawful, during private or public exposition, to illuminate the interior part of the ciborium with electric lamps placed in that very interior part, so that the Most Holy Eucharist can be better seen by the faithful;¹² these things are also to be applied to stearin candles and gas illumination.

¹ Roman Missal, General Rubrics, title XX.

² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 June 1899, n. 4029, ad II.

³ Roman Missal, De defectibus, title X, n. 1.

⁴ 14 December 1904, n. 4147.

⁵ 7 September 1850, n. 2985.

⁶ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 September 1865, n. 3137.

⁷ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 12 September 1857, ad IX, n. 3059.

⁸ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 September 1875, n. 3376.

⁹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 June 1895, n. 3859; 16 May 1902, n. 4097; 22 November 1907, n. 4206; 17 January 1908, n. 4210, ad I; Secretariat of State to the bishops of Italy, 3 October 1923.

¹⁰ Namely, so that it is substituted in their place.

¹¹ Namely, on the occasion of their solemn exposition.

¹² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 24 June 1914, n. 4322.

V. An antependium; namely, from the rubric:¹ "The altar is also to be adorned with a frontal of the color, as far as possible, corresponding to the feast day or office." It is required more probably under venial sin, unless the altar is of marble or another precious material, or has the form of a tomb (St. Alphonsus, VI, 395). No determinate material is prescribed, nor is it required that it be blessed. There are also those who judge that, from custom, celebration can take place without an antependium.

¹ General Rubrics, title XX.

The following are required:

I. Chalice and paten; both of which must be consecrated.¹

1. Matter. The chalice must be gold or silver, at least as regards the cup;² by reason of poverty one made of tin is permitted,³ and, under certain conditions, one made of aluminum mixed with other metals;⁴ but not one of bronze, glass, or wood. The cup, unless it is gold, must be gilded under grave obligation (canon 1305, § 2). As regards the form of the chalice, the Sacred Congregation of Rites⁵ prescribed: "let them not differ from the traditional forms, because of the danger of spilling the sacred species and of exciting astonishment."

The paten should be of the same material as the chalice,⁶ and unless it is gold, it must be gilded under grave obligation (canon 1305, § 2).

2. Consecration. Chalices and patens can be consecrated by: 1. Cardinals (canon 239, § 1, 20); 2. bishops (canon 1147, § 1); 3. vicars and prefects apostolic, but if they lack the episcopal character, only within the limits of their territory and while their office endures (canon 294, § 2); 4. abbots and prelates nullius, but if they are not adorned with the episcopal character, only for their churches (canon 323, § 2).

a) They lose consecration: 1. if they have undergone such injuries or changes that they have lost their former form and are no longer held suitable for their uses (canon 1305, § 1, 1), for example when a chalice is pierced in the bottom or near the bottom; when the cup is separated from the foot, unless the chalice is turnable; when it is broken or struck in such a way that it can no longer decently serve the sacrifice. They lose consecration, 2. if they have been used for indecorous uses or exposed to public sale (canon 1305, § 1, 2).

b) They do not lose consecration because of the wearing away or renewal of the gilding, with the grave obligation of gilding them again remaining safe, however, in the former case (canon 1305, § 2).

3. It is a grave sin to celebrate without a chalice or paten, likewise without consecrated ones, likewise with a chalice or paten made from prohibited material or not gilded (cf. canon 1305, § 2).

4. It is an abuse to execrate sacred vessels before they are handed over to an artisan to be repaired or recast.⁷

¹ Roman Missal, Rite to be observed, title I, n. 1.

² Roman Missal, loc. cit.

³ Roman Missal, De defectibus, title X, n. 1.

⁴ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 December 1866 (Acta Sanctae Sedis VI, p. 590).

⁵ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 30 June 1922 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1922, p. 437).

⁶ Roman Missal, Rite to be observed, title I, n. 1; De defectibus, title X, n. 1.

⁷ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 20 April 1822, n. 2620.

II. A blessed corporal.¹ It must be made of linen or hemp.² It is a grave sin to celebrate: 1. without a corporal; 2. without a blessed corporal; 3. with an enormously unclean corporal (St. Alphonsus, VI, 387). Grave necessity of celebrating excuses, for example so that the people may hear a Mass of precept. If it is not very unclean, strange priests are excused.

¹ Roman Missal, Rite to be observed, title I, n. 1.

² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 18 May 1819, n. 2600. From this decree it is clear that linen and hemp are equated.

III. A blessed pall,¹ made of linen or hemp; nevertheless it is lawful to use a pall covered on the upper part with silk, or with gold or silver interwoven and embroidered, provided the upper material is not black and does not represent signs of death.²

To the question: "From the decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites n. 3832, Resolution of Doubts, 17 July 1894, ad IV, it is permitted that the chalice pall on the upper part be covered with silk cloth, or with gold or silver, and embroidered, provided that the linen pall joined beneath covers the chalice and that the upper part is not black nor with any sign of death. It is asked: Can this pall joined beneath be a linen cloth furnished with a cross and sewn beneath, after the manner of a pall, and not removable?" the Sacred Congregation of Rites responded: "Negative, and the pall joined beneath, properly so called, should be linen, clean, and easily removable."³

The pall, and likewise its blessing, are sufficiently probably prescribed only under light obligation. If it is lacking, the chalice should be covered with the purificator, burse, or corporal (St. Alphonsus, VI, 388).

¹ Roman Missal, Rite to be observed, title I, n. 1.

² Roman Missal, Rite to be observed, loc. cit., compared with Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 July 1894, ad 4, n. 3832.

³ 24 November 1905, n. 4174.

IV. A purificator; this can be blessed, but need not be.¹ If a purificator cannot easily be had, in its place a small towel can be used, which afterward is not to be used for another use (St. Alphonsus, VI, 389).

¹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 7 September 1816, n. 2572, ad XII.

V. The chalice veil is required under venial sin; it can be blessed, but need not be.¹ If it is not had, it is lawful to celebrate without it (St. Alphonsus, VI, 395).

¹ Roman Missal, General Rubrics, title 20.

VI. The burse and hand towel, which likewise can be blessed, but need not be.¹ It is fitting to use these (St. Alphonsus, VI, 390).

¹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 28 April 1866, n. 3149.

VII. A small spoon, by which water is placed into the chalice, can be used. It does not need a blessing, and can be made from any material.

VIII. Cruets per se must be glass,¹ but by legitimate custom gold and silver ones are permitted;² it is fitting to bless them.

¹ Roman Missal, Rite to be observed, title I, n. 1.

² Roman Missal, loc. cit.

IX. A little bell, by which a sign is given, is prescribed under venial sin.

Note 1. The blessings about which there was mention above can be imparted by the same persons who enjoy the faculty of blessing sacred vestments (n. 266).

Note 2. Some have erroneously judged that vessels and other things do not need consecration or blessing if they have been used in the celebration of the sacrifice before they were consecrated or blessed (St. Alphonsus, VI, 380).

Question 1. To whom is it lawful to touch sacred vessels and sacred linens?

Response 1. While they contain the Holy Eucharist, they are licitly touched only by priests and deacons. To others this is prohibited under grave sin, except in a case of necessity.

Response 2. While they do not actually contain the Holy Eucharist, canon 1306, § 1 should be considered: "Care should be taken that the chalice with the paten, and before washing the purificators, palls, and corporals which have been used in the sacrifice of the Mass, not be touched except by clerics or by those who have custody of them."

The canon regards: 1. chalices and patens, as soon as they have been consecrated; 2. purificators, palls, and corporals that have been used and not afterward washed; 3. by parity of reason, ciboria and lunules that have been used, that is, after they have in fact touched the Holy Eucharist; but not ostensories, since they do not immediately touch the Holy Eucharist.

The canon permits touching: 1. to clerics; 2. to those who have custody of these things, such as sacristans, both men and women. Nevertheless, to others it is prohibited at most under venial sin; and a just cause excuses (St. Alphonsus, VI, 382).

Question 2. What things are to be observed as regards the washing of linens used in Mass?

Response. Three washings are prescribed. The first cannot be done except by a cleric constituted in major orders. The second and third, however, can also be done by laypersons. The water of the first washing should be put into the sacrarium or, if this is lacking, into the fire (canon 1306, § 2). For the rest, the first washing is prohibited at most under venial sin, so that a reasonable cause excuses (St. Alphonsus, VI, 387).

I. Sacred vestments, considered according to their importance, are distinguished into greater and lesser. The greater are the alb, chasuble, and more probably also the stole and maniple. The lesser are the amice and cincture (St. Alphonsus, VI, 377). The following things are to be explained:

1. The existence and object of the precept. "A priest about to celebrate Mass," says canon 811, § 1, "shall wear a becoming garment reaching to the ankles and the sacred ornaments prescribed by the rubrics of his rite." If such a garment cannot be had, for example by an outsider, there is an excusing reason. As regards the sacred ornaments, the amice, alb, cincture, stole, maniple, and chasuble are prescribed. Therefore the sacred vestments should be:

a) Made of the due material; likewise entire, becoming, clean, and beautiful.¹ As regards the material, the amice and alb should be of linen or hemp.² The cincture, without another material being reprobated, can be woolen,³ also silken, but more fittingly⁴ linen; it should not be a band but a cord.⁵ The stole, maniple, and chasuble, although they need not be made of silk, should nevertheless be made of precious material, not of cotton, linen, or wool; a semi-silk or silk-threaded material suffices.⁶

b) Made according to the customary form. The Sacred Congregation of Rites declared that "it is not lawful, in making and using vestments for the sacrifice of the Mass and sacred functions, to depart from the usage received in the Church, and to introduce another mode and form, even an ancient one."

c) Blessed.⁷ The blessing can be imparted by: 1. all Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church and all bishops; 2. local Ordinaries lacking episcopal character, for the churches and oratories of their own territory; 3. the pastor for churches and oratories situated in the territory of his parish, and rectors of churches for their own churches; 4. priests delegated by the local Ordinary, within the limits of the delegation and of the jurisdiction of the one delegating; 5. religious superiors - and therefore even non-exempt superiors - and priests of the same religion delegated by them, for their own churches and oratories and for the churches of nuns subject to them (canon 1304).

A sacred vestment loses its blessing: 1. if it has undergone such injuries or changes that it has lost its former form, and is no longer held suitable for its uses (canon 1305, § 1, 1); and this is valid even if one vestment is made from another. Therefore the blessing is lost if the cincture is so broken that neither part suffices for girding the minister, if the alb loses a sleeve, if a maniple is made from a stole, etc. A sacred vestment loses its blessing, 2. if it has been used for indecorous uses or exposed to public sale (canon 1305, § 1, 2).

2. The gravity of the precept. a) It is mortal to celebrate without any sacred vestment; indeed, not even the ministering of Viaticum is held to be an excusing cause. It is disputed whether fear of death excuses, scandal and contempt being excluded (St. Alphonsus, VI, 377).⁸ Likewise it is grave to celebrate without any blessed sacred vestment.

b) It is also mortal to celebrate without an alb or chasuble, or with them unblessed; likewise to celebrate without a stole and without a maniple, or with them unblessed. A most grave cause would excuse, for example lest a dying person lack Viaticum (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

c) More probably it is mortal to celebrate without a stole or without a maniple, or with either one unblessed. The reason is that the aforesaid vestments seem, according to the mind of the Church, to be numbered among the greater; and this mind of the Church is evident both from the doctrine of the ancient theologians, who rather commonly hold the aforesaid vestments as greater, and from the fact that, just like the chasuble, they must be made from precious material. Nevertheless a grave cause excuses, for example that the people may hear the prescribed Mass (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

d) It is light to celebrate without an amice or cincture. A just cause excuses, for example "fervor of devotion or the opportunity of alms for a priest who is not wealthy" (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

e) The color assigned by the rubrics is of precept, as is clear both from what is to be said about rubrics in general (n. 270), and from responses of the Sacred Congregation of Rites.⁹ The obligation, however, apart from grave scandal, is light, so that a just cause excuses; indeed, as St. Alphonsus (VI, 378, doubt 5) teaches with Sporer, it is better "on any day whatever to say Mass in any color whatever than to omit it."

3. Things to be noted. a) Besides sacred vestments, it is prescribed that the priest about to celebrate Mass wear a becoming garment reaching to the ankles (canon 811, § 1). Moreover, he should be shod.¹⁰ The shoes should be such as approved clerics of the diocese commonly use in public.¹¹ "For this, however, it suffices that he be dressed in slippers commonly called pianelle or pantofele" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 402).

b) He should abstain from the skullcap and ring, unless he is a Cardinal of the Holy Roman Church, a bishop, or a blessed abbot, or unless an apostolic indult permits him to use them in celebrating Mass (canon 811, § 2).

Moreover, it would be mortal to use the skullcap throughout the whole Mass; outside the Canon, however, it is venial, scandal nevertheless being excluded. Hence it is not "illicit to celebrate without a dispensation with the skullcap (except during the Canon and with scandal set aside) for a reasonable cause, if it is evident to those standing by the celebration, for example because of the priest's old age or the coldness of the place, so that one could not celebrate with head uncovered without notable inconvenience" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 397, doubt 1).

c) The use of artificial hair is illicit.¹² Authors note, however, that this prohibition has become obsolete in many regions.

d) To no celebrating priest, except bishops and other prelates enjoying the use of pontificals, is it lawful, solely for the sake of honor or solemnity, to have an assisting priest (canon 812).

¹ Roman Missal, Rite to be observed, title II, n. 1.

² Linen and hemp are equated (n. 257).

³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 December 1862, n. 3118.

⁴ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 22 January 1701, n. 2067.

⁵ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 24 November 1899, n. 4048.

⁶ Cf. Ephemerides liturgicae I, 24, 32; 9 December 1925 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1926, p. 58).

⁷ Roman Missal, Rite of Mass, title II, n. 2; De defectibus, title X, n. 1.

⁸ Cf. Constitution of Benedict XIV, Aestas anni, 11 October 1828^†.

⁹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 10 December 1829, n. 2675; 12 November 1831, ad 5, n. 2682.

¹⁰ Roman Missal, Rite to be observed, title I, n. 2.

¹¹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 31 August 1872, n. 3268, ad 3.

¹² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 4 April 1699, n. 2027, ad 5; indeed it was prohibited by Innocent XI under pain of suspension (in St. Alphonsus, VI, 388).

II. The Missal is required, although the priest should know by memory the Mass which he intends to say;¹ indeed, considering the danger of erring gravely, it is commonly prescribed under grave obligation. Nevertheless, rather probably one celebrating without a Missal does not sin gravely "if he could not easily have one and, because of past experience, the moral danger of erring were absent. Hence they probably infer that a priest celebrates licitly who, because of weakness of sight, recites the Mass from memory, provided that, to avoid notice, he has the Missal on the altar, or another book in its place" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 390).

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

III. A cushion or small lectern for the Missal, and the altar cards of the secrets, are not of precept; nevertheless they are fittingly used.

IV. A server assisting at Mass is required, and indeed a male. If a man is lacking, a woman can be employed for a just cause, under this law, however, that she answer from a distance and in no way approach the altar (canon 813). Even devotion alone involves a just cause for employing a woman. When the case occurs, however, everything required for the sacrifice should first be conveniently arranged (St. Alphonsus, VI, 392, doubt 2).¹ Moreover:

1. It is mortal to celebrate without any server; nevertheless a grave cause excuses, for example the necessity of ministering Viaticum; likewise, more probably, that the people may hear a Mass of precept. Besides this, rather probably, "once Mass has begun, especially if the oblation has been made, the celebrant is permitted to proceed without a server if the latter has gone away and is not going to return shortly" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 391, doubt 1). Indeed, since nowadays celebration without a server is easily conceded if no one can be found, and this even on a weekday and without a woman answering from afar, therefore, if unexpectedly a priest in a particular case lacks a server, it seems that permission can be presumed even by reason of devotion alone.

2. It is also mortal to employ a woman who ministers immediately; nor does grave necessity excuse, because it is preferable to celebrate without a server than with a woman immediately ministering.

3. It is more easily lawful to celebrate with a server who does not know how to answer than without a server; not, however, so easily as with a woman answering from afar. For the rest, "let the celebrant not make a scruple if the server pronounces badly, nor easily correct errors, lest he disturb himself or those standing around or the order of the Mass, although Croix with Gobat admonishes that the celebrant should supply what has been omitted by the server" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 391).

¹ Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 August 1836, n. 2745, ad 8; 18 March 1899, n. 4015, ad 6.

Canon 818 states: "Any contrary custom being reprobated, the celebrating priest shall accurately and devoutly observe the rubrics of his ritual books, and shall take care not to add other ceremonies or prayers at his own discretion." And canon 819: "The sacrifice of the Mass is to be celebrated in the liturgical language of each one's rite approved by the Church." Therefore Mass in general is to be celebrated according to the rite or rubrics assigned by the Church in the Roman Missal. But authors disagree somewhat about the solution of the question, which rite or which rubrics are in fact prescribed. Hence the matter must be explained more fully:

I. The object of the precept; concerning which the following points seem to be established.

1. The rubrics to be observed within Mass are preceptive. This assertion, which more recent authors commonly admit, is clear from the Council of Trent;¹ likewise from the Bull Quo primum tempore of St. Pius V,² placed at the beginning of the Roman Missal: "commanding and strictly enjoining upon all... in virtue of holy obedience, that they sing and read Mass according to the rite, manner, and norm which are now handed down by Us through this Missal, and that in the celebration of Mass they not presume to add or recite other ceremonies or prayers than those which are contained in this Missal." Canon 818 is added to this. The opinion which excepts certain lesser things is scarcely reconcilable with the words cited (St. Alphonsus, VI, 399).

2. It is disputed whether the rubrics to be observed outside Mass, that is, before or after Mass, are preceptive or merely directive. Moreover, with St. Alphonsus (VI, 399) and most more recent authors, it seems that one must say that they are generally merely directive, unless they present those things which are obligatory from the nature of the matter. The reason is that the Bull cited speaks only of rubrics to be observed in the celebration of Mass, and canon 818 speaks only of the celebrating priest.

3. In particular it is disputed - even among those who admit the assertions under 1 and 2 - whether the following are truly prescribed or not:³

a) The prayers assigned before Mass in the Roman Missal. Rather commonly, and rightly, it is denied that they are truly prescribed, because they are said to be "to be said according to the opportunity of the priest" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 410, doubt 2). The same must be said of the prayers assigned after Mass.

b) The washing of hands before Mass. This seems truly to be prescribed, namely by reason of reverence toward the sacrifice, and in view both of its spiritual signification (namely, of spiritual cleanness) and of the precept given in the Old Law. It obliges under venial sin; but from the nature of the matter under grave sin, if the hands are very unclean. After Mass, however, it can be omitted, since it is not prescribed (St. Alphonsus, VI, 409).

c) The prayers to be recited while the vestments are being put on. More commonly they teach that these are truly prescribed, because they seem morally to pertain to Mass (St. Alphonsus, VI, 410, doubt 2).

d) The canticle Benedicite. Some affirm that it is imposed, because in the Order of Mass it is said: "The priest says"; but rather probably it is not truly prescribed, because by the rubric of the Roman Missal⁴ it is equated with the other prayers assigned after Mass (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 410, doubt 2).

4. The Ceremonial of Bishops obliges just as the Roman Missal does. This is clear both from the three Bulls prefixed to it and from the declaration of the Sacred Congregation of Rites⁵ (St. Alphonsus, Examen ordinandorum, n. 112).

5. Responses of the Sacred Congregation of Rites present obligation if they regard rubrics to be observed within Mass; otherwise they are merely directive, unless the contrary is to be drawn from the tenor.

6. As regards custom against the rubrics, note:

a) Any custom contrary to the rubrics is reprobated (canon 818), and therefore is not reasonable (canon 27, § 2); nevertheless, when circumstances have changed, more probably it can become reasonable (vol. I, n. 194).

b) Custom cannot derogate from rubrics contained in liturgical books by way of prescription; but it can by way of connivance, or by force of the legislator's personal consent (vol. I, n. 193). Besides this, a usage contrary to the rubrics can be tolerated until it can conveniently be removed by the bishop (vol. I, n. 193). If a decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites contrary to the custom is added, the custom is of itself abrogated;⁶ if it cannot conveniently be removed, the Ordinary should propose the matter to the Sacred Congregation and await the response.

¹ Session 6, canon 13; session 22, decree on what is to be observed and avoided.

² 12 July 1570.

³ On the recitation of Matins with Lauds before Mass, see the treatise on the duties of clerics, n. 2.

⁴ Rite to be observed, title XII, n. 6.

⁵ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 8 January 1904 (Acta Sanctae Sedis XXXVI, p. 428).

⁶ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 17 August 1894, n. 3839.

II. The gravity of the precept. The precept or obligation of rubrics that are truly preceptive is grave from its genus. But the gravity of the matter must be judged not only from the quantity but also from the quality of the rites, as will be clearer from the corollaries. Moreover, one can sin against the precept by omission, addition, change, breaking off, and interruption.

1. Omission. Concerning this, notice with St. Alphonsus (VI, 404 sq.): 1. that the ordinary parts, that is, those which occur in every Mass (such as the principal prayers, Epistle, Gospel, etc.), oblige more gravely than the extraordinary parts (such as the Gloria, Creed, Commemorations); 2. that among the ordinary parts, those oblige more gravely which must be said or performed within the Canon, especially from the Consecration to Communion. With these points noted, with the Doctor mentioned we resolve:

a) It is grave to omit an essential or integral part; the Confession with the other prayers to be said at the foot of the altar; the Epistle; the Gospel; the principal prayers; the mixing of water in the chalice; the oblation of the bread and wine; the Preface; the Pater noster; the Libera nos; the breaking of the host and the mixing of it with the Blood; the purification of the chalice after Communion. Likewise in the Canon it is grave to omit any prayer whatever; or to change its words so that the sense is varied; or to omit some word such that, once it is removed, the remaining words do not make sense; or to omit, for example, ten names of Saints; or finally to omit several extraordinary parts together (St. Alphonsus, VI, 404, 405).

b) It is light to omit the washing of hands before Mass with the accompanying prayers; the prayers to be said while the priest clothes himself in the sacred vestments; the Psalm Judica; Kyrie; Gloria; Creed; Commemorations; or, in place of the proper Preface, Communicantes, or Hanc igitur, to take the said prayers as they occur in the common (St. Alphonsus, VI, 409).

c) An omitted part must always be supplied when it belongs to the essence or integrity of the Mass; likewise the mixing of water in the chalice, if it is noticed before the Consecration. For the rest, one who by error or forgetfulness has omitted something: if indeed it is light, should proceed; if it is grave and the error is noticed shortly afterward, that is, after a few words, he should resume what was omitted. Hence the Gloria or Creed are not to be resumed if the following prayers have already been begun; nor the Epistle, Gospel, Preface, or Communicantes, if he has taken one for another, unless, for example, he detects the error from the beginning of the false Epistle (St. Alphonsus, VI, 403).

2. Addition. a) It is a grave sin to add anything with the intention of introducing a new rite; likewise - even without the aforesaid intention - to add something notable (St. Alphonsus, VI, 411).

b) It is light to add: 1. a collect,¹ Gloria, Creed, Pater, Ave, or something similar; 2. at the elevation, even in a low voice, certain pious words;² otherwise, if it is done only mentally; 3. while the Gloria and Creed are being sung in Mass, to recite a canonical Hour from a book³ (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

3. Change. It is light: 1. scandal being excluded, to change the office, that is, to celebrate a Mass which cannot be celebrated on that day; 2. not to sing in solemn Mass the things which are prescribed to be sung; 3. to pronounce the words in a voice other than that prescribed. This, however, is grave: a) when someone pronounces a notable part, especially of the Canon, or the words of Consecration alone, in so loud a voice that they can be heard at a great distance, for example forty paces; b) when the priest forms the words of Consecration so secretly that he cannot even hear himself, unless perhaps deafness or noise prevents hearing. The reason is that he exposes the sacrament to the danger of nullity (n. 24; St. Alphonsus, VI, 413-416). According to the Roman Missal:⁴ 1. those things which are to be said in a clear voice must be pronounced "neither... in a voice too loud, lest he disturb others who perhaps are then celebrating in the same church, nor so low that he cannot be heard by those standing around." 2. "But those things which are to be said secretly he should pronounce in such a way that he himself hears himself, and is not heard by those standing around."

4. Breaking off consists in this, that Mass begun is not continued but is dismissed. Moreover, breaking off can and must take place:

a) Before the Consecration: 1. if the priest before the Consecration notices that he is not fasting, and can withdraw without infamy or scandal; 2. if the church is polluted before the Canon; 3. if before the Canon it is known that a vitandus excommunicate is present and cannot be expelled (St. Alphonsus, VI, 353).

b) Before and after the Consecration: 1. if danger threatens, for example because of an attack by enemies, danger of death, or profanation; in which case the priest, according to the circumstances, should at once consume the sacrament or carry it with him while fleeing; 2. if, once the Consecration has certainly or doubtfully been performed, the priest fails; in which case the following should be observed: If the priest who fails is foreseen after some time - even after taking food or drink - to recover his strength, he should be awaited, so that he may complete the sacrifice. If he cannot complete the sacrifice, another should be sought - even one not fasting, if one fasting is lacking⁵ - who may complete the sacrifice, beginning where the other left off; if the other still lives and can communicate, and another consecrated Host is not available, the priest who supplies the Mass should divide the Host, and give one part to the sick man, and take the other himself⁶ (St. Alphonsus, VI, 355). If, however, Mass cannot be continued within an hour, it need not be completed, because the required unity is probably lacking; nevertheless it can - even after a longer time - be completed, because the said unity is also probably present (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). If the sacrifice is not completed, the Host and chalice should be placed in the tabernacle, and on the next day they should be consumed by the celebrant before the purification.

5. Interruption is lawful: 1. if an instruction or sermon must be given, or certain things must be announced to the people, which is customarily done after the Gospel; 2. if a religious profession is made within Mass,⁷ or if it is permitted by liturgical law for another reason; 3. if necessity befalls the priest; 4. if one's neighbor falls into danger of death. But if this takes place before the Consecration, the priest can minister Baptism or Penance, Viaticum, and Extreme Unction to the dying person. If it occurs after the Consecration, he can confer Baptism or Penance upon him; he must defer the conferral of Viaticum and Extreme Unction until he has finished Mass, or at least has taken the Most Holy Blood; nevertheless Viaticum can be ministered if the dying person is so near that it is not necessary to take off the sacred vestments⁸ (St. Alphonsus, VI, 353, 354). Besides this, if the necessity of one's neighbor urges after the Consecration, "let the priest take care that the Sacrament meanwhile be guarded, or let him enclose it in the tabernacle; and after he has returned, let him continue Mass from the point where he interrupted it. If the Consecration has not been made, and a short delay has intervened, for example within an hour, let him proceed where he left off; but if the delay is longer, let him begin from the beginning."⁹

¹ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 March 1779, ad VI, n. 2514.

² Cf. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 6 November 1925, ad I (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1926, p. 21).

³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 20 March 1869, ad IX, n. 3201.

⁴ General Rubrics, title XVI, n. 2.

⁵ Indeed, if no other is available, even an excommunicate, who in the case must, after grace has been recovered, complete the sacrifice.

⁶ Roman Missal, De defectibus, title X, n. 3.

⁷ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 27 August 1894, n. 3836; 5 June 1896, n. 3912.

⁸ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 19 December 1829, n. 2672, ad 1.

⁹ Aertnys-Damen, Theologia moralis, n. 259.

III. The excusing cause. One who because of illness or another cause cannot observe all the rubrics can nevertheless celebrate both privately and publicly, if he must omit or change only certain things that are of lesser importance, for example deep inclinations, genuflections down to the ground. If the matter is of greater importance, for example if the priest cannot approach the altar without a cane, or cannot celebrate except with both arms placed on the altar, privately indeed it is lawful to celebrate; publicly, provided the people are warned (St. Alphonsus, VI, 402). Finally, if the matter is wholly extraordinary, for example if the priest cannot celebrate except sitting or by briefly interrupting Mass or while continuously supported by another, a dispensation must be sought from the Holy See, or, for a transitory case, from the bishop.

Corollary I. In view of the things explained above, St. Alphonsus and most authors rightly teach with Benedict XIV¹ that "Mass should not be shorter than a third of an hour, nor longer than half an hour, because in a shorter space everything cannot be performed with due decorum, and in a longer space it would be tedious to those standing by. Hence we say that a priest who would finish Mass in under a quarter of an hour could with difficulty be excused from mortal sin, even if the Mass is among the shorter ones, or of St. Mary on Saturday; because in so brief a time he must necessarily commit two grave defects, one of grave irreverence toward the Sacrament, the other of grave scandal toward the people... But it is impossible for Mass to be completed in under a quarter of an hour without either words or ceremonies being omitted; or at least without the decency and gravity due to so great a Sacrifice being notably diminished. This must be carefully noticed; for someone perhaps will say that he pronounces the complete words of the Missal well and fulfills all the ceremonies of the Mass well. But although there may be someone so expeditious in tongue and movement that within such a time he would satisfy all the words and ceremonies of the Missal, nevertheless it is at least morally impossible that he celebrate without notably detracting, on the one hand, from the reverence to be offered by him toward the Sacrifice, and, on the other, without himself being the cause that the people assisting fail in the veneration which is owed to that same Sacrifice" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 400).

Corollary II. In conformity with the doctrine stated, St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.) notes with others that "bishops and prelates of regulars are bound under grave obligation to root out disgraceful and scandalous speed."

¹ De Sacrificio Missae, section 2, n. 217.

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.

Is it Lawful to Discontinue a Mass?—(a) To terminate Mass before the end has been reached is unlawful unless there be a serious reason; otherwise, disrespect is shown the Holy Sacrifice. A grave reason (e.g., sudden sickness) suffices if Mass be discontinued before the Consecration; a most grave reason (i.e., danger of death or of profanation of the Sacrament) if Mass be discontinued between the Consecration and the Communion. But a Mass that is broken off after the Consecration and before the Communion must be completed by the celebrant or another, at least if this can be done within an hour from the time of cessation; else the sacrifice is mutilated.

(b) To interrupt Mass is also unlawful without serious cause. Thus, a grave reason excuses an interruption outside the Canon, for example, to preach a sermon after the Gospel or Communion; but only a very grave reason excuses an interruption during the Canon, for example, a sick call to give a necessary Sacrament (Baptism, Penance, Extreme Unction, or Viaticum) to a dying person.

1. Ambrose, a regular, administers a secular church, committed to him precariously by the Ordinary together with the care of souls. Although the people had up to now been accustomed to the feasts of the diocesan calendar, Ambrose nevertheless performs all the sacred functions according to the calendar of his own Order. Hence he also omits to celebrate the feast of the Dedication of the church, of the Titular, and of the Patron of the place. - Does he act rightly?

R. Negatively. S. R. C., Feb. 4, 1898, ad 2, n. 3979. Ambrose errs still more as to the feast of the Dedication of the church, of the Titular, and of the Patron. For the feast of the Dedication of a church is more solemn and primary, so that it is to be preferred to others, according to the General Decree of the S. R. C., Feb. 4, 1896, n. 3881. The feast of the Titular is to be celebrated by the whole clergy of the church, or by the priest rector assigned to the church or public oratory, through the entire office, and in defect of any clergy by Masses alone. General Decree of the S. R. C., June 5, 1899, n. 4025. But the feast of the Patron of the place is also generally to be observed by regulars. General Decree of the S. R. C., July 9, 1895, n. 3863.

2. On Mass before the Most Holy Sacrament. - Onuphrius, a parish priest, without any scruple celebrates Mass, when occasion is given, at an altar on which the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed, and at it distributes communion to the people. For he says that no difficulty can be present in this matter, since it is altogether fitting that the most holy sacrifice be offered at that altar on which the most holy Eucharist is exposed.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Onuphrius does not act rightly. For by several Decrees of the S. R. C. it is prohibited that Mass be celebrated at an altar on which the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed without necessity, or without grave cause, or without immemorial custom, or without a special indult. By the same Decrees it is also prohibited to distribute sacred communion at the aforesaid altar. But as regards the reason of Onuphrius, the contrary is found in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, l. 1, c. 12, n. 9: "It would be, not congruous, but most becoming, that at the altar where the Most Holy Sacrament is situated, Masses should not be celebrated, which seems to have been observed anciently." For the people, intent upon adoration, ought not to be distracted by other prayers and actions, though sacred, from Him to whom they are uniquely and principally intent. But there is an urgent necessity of celebrating Mass at an altar of this kind if other altars are lacking in the same church or in neighboring churches, especially where the precept of hearing Mass urges. But in order that sacred communion can be distributed to the people, the sacred Eucharist must be reserved at another altar.

The following things, moreover, are to be noted concerning Mass before the Most Holy Sacrament: The celebrant at an altar where the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed, whenever he is in the middle of the altar, must first kiss it and afterward genuflect; but when he comes from one side of the altar, he first genuflects, and afterward kisses the altar.

In solemn Masses which are celebrated at the altar of exposition, a commemoration of the Most Holy Sacrament is always made; in private Masses, whether they are read at the altar of exposition or at another within the same church, the aforesaid commemoration is made at the pleasure of the priest, except on feasts of the 1st and 2nd class, on which it cannot be made. The commemoration of the Most Holy Sacrament, on account of the identity of the Mystery, is to be omitted only on the feasts of the Passion, the Cross, the Most Holy Redeemer, the Most Holy Heart of Jesus, and the Most Precious Blood. S. R. C., July 3, 1896, ad 4, n. 3924.

In the exposition of the Most Holy Sacrament, whether for the Prayer of Forty Hours or for any other cause, the three altar cards are altogether to be removed from the altar of exposition, except during the time of Mass. S. R. C., Dec. 20, 1864, ad 3, n. 3129.

At the reposition of the Most Holy Sacrament the prayer Deus, qui nobis... must be concluded, Qui vivis et regnas in saecula saeculorum. S. R. C., Mar. 29, 1851, ad 6, n. 2986.

3. On Requiem Masses - Alexander, a noble man, having died, the principal hall of the house was at once turned into an oratory. Several altars were erected in it; and, many from the people coming together, several Masses were celebrated in the presence of the corpse, so that the soul of the deceased might be aided by stronger suffrages. Alexander and his family enjoyed no privilege of a private oratory; whence the faculty of celebrating Masses thus was given by the bishop. - Licitly?

R. Negatively, speaking in itself. For first, when a certain hall of a house is chosen and is transiently turned into an oratory, so that when that function has been completed it is soon turned back to its former use, there is question not of the erection of a private oratory, but of the erection of a portable altar. And cardinals, bishops, and certain missionaries only have this privilege, which is granted only by the Apostolic See. Moreover, although bishops can grant the faculty of celebrating in private oratories, if great and urgent reasons are present, and only by way of an act; yet in the Case there is question neither of a private oratory, nor are great and urgent reasons present. Finally, private Requiem Masses can indeed also be celebrated in the presence of the corpse, but only in churches and oratories, both public and private, and in chapels belonging to seminaries, colleges, and religious or pious communities of either sex. S. R. C., May 19, 1896, n. 3903. E. M. 639; I. M. 639.

Speaking in itself, namely prescinding from legitimate and approved custom and from a special indult. Very recently the S. R. C., Apr. 3, 1894, n. 3822, established: "that while the body of a deceased diocesan bishop, clothed in sacred vestments, lies publicly and solemnly exposed in the great hall of his own residence, Masses may be celebrated throughout the whole morning in suffrage for his soul, all those things being observed which are prescribed in the Caeremoniale Episcoporum, l. 2, c. 38, concerning the exposing of the body of a deceased bishop and the offering of suffrages. Which privilege granted to bishops in their own diocese is to be understood, for the same reason, as extended to vicars apostolic in their vicariates, and also to abbots and the other prelates of no diocese enjoying ordinary jurisdiction over the people when they departed from life, yet in their own territory. Finally, by special grace, the S. R. C. grants that deceased titular bishops also may be able to enjoy the same privilege; provided that their bodies are exposed in a suitable hall, and, if outside the City, have been clothed with pontifical ornaments (yet without the pastoral staff); but if in the City, only in prelatial habit." M. E. vol. 8, p. 2, p. 76.

4. Sempronius the priest, in Requiem Masses, always reads the prayers as they lie in the missal, and always omits the sequence. Does he act rightly?

R. Negatively. For from the General Decree of the S. R. C., June 30, 1896, n. 3920: "In daily Masses of every kind, whether read or with chant, several prayers are to be said, of which the first is to be for the deceased person or deceased persons certainly designated for whom the sacrifice is offered, from those which are inscribed in the missal, the second at pleasure, the last for all the faithful departed. But if Mass is celebrated for the dead in general, the prayers are to be said which stand in the missal for daily Masses, and in the same order in which they are there inscribed. But if in the same daily Masses it pleases the celebrant to add several prayers, as the rubrics grant the power, this can be done only in read Masses, with an odd number preserved along with the others prescribed, and with the prayer for all the faithful departed assigned to the last place." But the sequence from the same Decree is to be said in any sung Masses, as also in read Masses, on the Commemoration of all the faithful departed and on the day and for the day of death or burial. In the rest it can be recited or omitted at the pleasure of the celebrant. I. M. 657. Cf. also General Decree of the S. R. C., Commemorationis omnium Fidelium Defunctorum, July 9, 1895, n. 3864.

5. Onuphrius the parish priest, since the rite was semidouble, after celebrating a Requiem Mass for the soul of his parishioner Urban, deceased on the preceding day, deferred the absolution at the tomb to another day, on which the corpse was to be brought into the church. - Does he act rightly?

R. Affirmatively. For the absolution is to be made after the Requiem Mass, or without Mass when the corpse is brought to the church, and in its presence. S. C. de P. F., Mar. 21, 1851, Collect. S. C. de P. F., n. 913. This is also clear from the Roman Ritual, title de Exequiis. For at the end it is said: "Mass, if the hour is suitable, in the rite for the dead as on the day of death, with the body present, is not to be omitted, unless a great solemnity of the day stands in the way, or some necessity advises otherwise."

6. On the invalid consecration of wine. - Paschal, a priest, at the taking of the Chalice, notices that water had been placed instead of wine. Having the aforesaid water already in his mouth, he remains very uncertain for some space of time whether he ought to throw it from his mouth back into the Chalice, so that, fasting, after the consecration has been made again, he may communicate, or whether rather he ought to swallow it. At last he does this latter thing, yet not without some fear.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Paschal acted rightly. For, this Case occurring, since in practice it is morally most difficult not to swallow the water, one can do this without scruple. Moreover, it seems to be a certain irreverence and indecency to throw the aforesaid drink from the mouth back into the Chalice. It can also be confirmed from the rubric of the missal, which, in the Case in which a particle of the consecrated host adheres to the Chalice while the Blood is being consumed, prescribes that the same either be brought with the finger to the lip of the Chalice, or be consumed after wine has been put into the Chalice, de Defect. tit. 10, n. 8; which latter mode is more approved, as Merati observes in the Notes to Gavantus. Cas. Bonon. Dioeces., year 1791, month of March, Case 3; Gavantus, tom. 1, part 3, tit. 4, n. 5; Merati, ib., tit. 10, n. 8; G. 361; Elbel 148.

But from the rubric of the missal de Defect. tit. 4 it is prescribed that also a new host, in the Case, be consecrated, if, scandal being excluded, it can be done; otherwise, that only wine be consecrated. Yet all things are not to be repeated again; but it will be enough to repeat only those things which pertain to the consecration itself, beginning for the former consecration from the words, Qui pridie quam pateretur; and for the other from the words, Simili modo. But before the first consecration the offering of the Host and Chalice must be made mentally. Rubr. missal. de Defect. tit. 2, n. 5; tit. 4, n. 4, 5; Cas. Bonon. Dioec., year 1792, month of Apr., Case 3; G. 360, 361; I. M. 329 ff.

But if a consecrated particle of the host has remained in the chalice with part of the water, then before the new consecration the water is to be poured into a clean vessel, the particle of the consecrated host being retained in the chalice, or extracted from it and soon reverently consumed; but the water poured into that vessel is to be consumed after the ablution, or put into the sacrarium. But if only a little water has remained in the chalice, whether with or without a particle of the consecrated host, wine can be poured upon this, which is then consecrated. Elbel 148.

7. On the omitted consecration of the host - Marinus the priest, after the consecration of the chalice, notices that through distraction he omitted the consecration of the Host. Hence he remains uncertain, not knowing what he should do; for he fears to consecrate the Host after the wine. For thus the nature of the sacrifice seems to him no longer to be verified.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. There is no doubt that what Marinus must do in the Case is to consecrate the host. This is clearly had in the rubr. missal. de Defect. tit. 3, n. 4, 5, 6, where there is discussion of defect of the bread, and a fourfold case is distinguished: that someone notices the defect of the matter of bread before its consecration; after its consecration; after its consumption; after the consumption of the chalice. In the first Case, after a host has been supplied and a mental offering made, the priest is to continue from the place where he left off, and then the host is to be consecrated. In the second and third Case, after other matter likewise has been placed and a mental offering made, that matter also is to be consecrated, beginning from those words, Qui pridie quam pateretur, etc.; and the other corrupt or non-wheaten host, if he has not consumed it, he is to consume after the consumption of the Body and Blood; or he is to hand it over to others to be consumed, or preserve it reverently somewhere. In the fourth Case new bread and wine with water must again be supplied, and, after a mental offering has first been made, both matters are to be consecrated, beginning from those words, Qui pridie, and at once both are to be consumed, and the Mass continued. Hence it is clear that even after the consecration of the chalice and before its consumption, the host is to be consecrated, notwithstanding that inversion of order, that the wine was consecrated first, and afterward the host is consecrated. This is also clear from the same rubric, ib., in the following number, namely 7, where it is said: "If the consecrated host disappears, or by some accident, or by wind, or by miracle, or being taken by some animal, cannot be found, then another is to be consecrated, beginning from that place, Qui pridie quam pateretur, its offering having first been made, as above." And hence it is clear that the order of consecrating first the bread and then the wine does not pertain to the substance of the sacrifice. Hence also from the defect of a change of order in consecrating, a sufficient foundation cannot be taken for doubting about the validity of the sacrifice. Suarez, d. 75, s. 6; d. 86, s. 1; Casus Bonon. Dioeces., year 1792, month of Febr., Case 3.

8. On the consecration of small hosts - Euphrasius always has to consecrate these small hosts; indeed he places them on the corporal, but by no means sees to it that they also are upon the altar stone. For he says that it suffices that the larger host and the chalice are upon the altar stone.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Euphrasius does not act rightly. For first, in rubric tit. 20 it is said: "The altar on which the most holy sacrifice of the Mass is to be celebrated must be of stone and consecrated by a bishop, or at least a stone altar-slab similarly consecrated by a bishop inserted in it, which is so large that it can contain the host and the greater part of the chalice." Therefore, as the larger host must be upon the altar stone, so also upon the same must be placed the other small hosts, which constitute part of one and the same sacrifice which is celebrated. Yet, as it suffices, if the altar stone is small, that the greater part of the chalice be upon it, so also it suffices that the greater part of the aforesaid hosts, which are taken by way of one matter, be upon the same altar stone, if it is so small that it cannot contain them all. - Moreover, in rubr. tit. 2 it is said: "If the priest is going to consecrate several hosts for communion to be given, which on account of their quantity cannot remain on the paten, he places them on the corporal before the chalice, or puts them in some consecrated chalice or clean blessed vessel behind the chalice, and covers them with another paten or pall." Hence it is sufficiently understood that small hosts also are to be placed upon the altar stone, since they are to be placed near the chalice, and if on the altar stone there is space for the chalice and for the larger host, there consequently will also be space for the small hosts, unless that stone is very small, and the hosts are very many. Hence Merati in l. c. says: "When several particles are to be consecrated for the communion of the lay faithful and of others not celebrating, which on account of their quantity cannot remain on the paten (for when the particles are few, such as five or six, they must be placed upon the paten and beneath the host, so as to offer them together with the host at the same time, and after the offering they are placed upon the corporal separated from the host; yet in such a way that they remain upon the altar stone, and at the left side of the celebrant, according to common usage; but before the chalice according to the higher rubric), the priest, while he prepares the chalice at the beginning of Mass, places them on the corporal; so that, as we have just said, they remain upon the altar stone and before the chalice, according to the higher rubric, and as Quarti, Bissus, Hippolytus a Porto also teach, or according to the more common usage on the side of the Gospel or at the left of the celebrant, as the Caeremoniale missae privatae teaches, cap. 11, de consecrat. particular. et commun. fidelium § 1, and also Gervasi above § Se poi."

And here, as to communion to be distributed to the people outside Mass, the following things are to be noted:

In the administration of most holy communion outside Mass, after the Most Holy Sacrament has been put back in the tabernacle, the priest must bless the people before he folds the corporal, or does something similar. This is inferred from the word then placed in the rubric.

In the blessing after communion outside Mass the priest does not kiss the altar. S. R. C., Mar. 16, 1833, ad 6, n. 2704.

During the whole Paschal season after the administration of the most holy Eucharist outside Mass, to the antiphon O sacrum... and the versicle Panem de coelo..., Alleluia is added, and the Prayer is said: Pour into us, O Lord, the Spirit of thy charity: that those whom thou hast satisfied with the paschal Sacraments, thou mayest make by thy piety to be of one accord. Through Christ our Lord. - Amen. Roman Ritual.

9. On communion to be given from the larger host - "A chaplain celebrating at an altar in which the Eucharist is not reserved, so that he might satisfy the devotion of a pious woman seeking communion in the Mass, gives to her a part of the consecrated (larger) host.

It is asked: Licitly?

R. Suarez, 3 p., d. 85, s. 2, with Paludanus, and Gavantus, in rubr. p. 3, tit. 10, n. 3, affirmed that this was licit, relying on the old custom of the Church, which seemed to have been abrogated by no law; and not undeservedly did they write thus in their own age. But now there exists a Decree of the S. C. C., Feb. 12, 1679, approved by Innocent XI, by which, the old custom having now been changed, it is prescribed that none are to be handed over except the customary forms, or particles, of the Eucharist. From this Cavalerius, tom. 4, c. 4, Decret. 2, n. 9, infers that it is not licit to give a part of the host to a layman, one exception being danger of death. And he confirms it from rubr. p. 3, tit. 10, n. 3, where it is established: If the priest celebrating becomes ill, or falls into syncope after the consecration, yet so that he can communicate, and there is not another consecrated host, the priest who supplies the Mass divides the host and gives one part to the sick man. Now, if only in defect of another host is part of the host of the sacrifice to be given in the Case to a priest already sacrificing, how much more will it be necessary to beware lest it be furnished to a layman outside the case of extreme necessity? Therefore it will not be licit for the chaplain, merely to satisfy the devotion of the woman, to assign to her part of the host." Casus Conscient. Bonon. Dioec., year 1778, month of May, Case III.

But that rigid resolution is not proved by the Documents adduced. For from that first cited Decree nothing else is held except this: that ordinarily and from the general rule it is not licit to give anything except the customary Eucharistic forms or particles. Likewise from the cited Rubric nothing else is held except what must be done if there is, or is not, another consecrated host. By no means, however, does it follow from this that only in a case of extreme necessity can a part of the larger host be given. For fittingly, if another consecrated host is present, this is given to the former sick priest, and the other larger host, lest it be divided, is consumed whole by the other priest, since he then supplies and completes the Mass; rubr. l. c. And thus it is already the common opinion that this can licitly be done even outside the case of extreme necessity, when another just and proportionate necessity exists. For here there is not question of any most grave and graver, or even of any grave precept. And thus La-Croix, l. 6, p. 1, n. 498: "When is it licit for a priest to give to a layman part of his larger host? R. When there is a reasonable cause. Graff., Zanard., Zambran. indeed think that it is not licit outside necessity; but S. Anton., Sylv., Sa, Angel., Io. Sanch., Bon., Barb., Marchant., Possev., Dian., Dic., Aversa, Tamb., Gob., Verj. better contradict this, because Christ Himself did this, nor is it now prohibited, nor is there also any irreverence or indecency in this; but the contrary custom or non-use does not oblige under sin, but arises from this, that ordinarily smaller hosts are also had, which if they do not suffice for the number of those communicating can also be divided into several particles, of which individual particles are given to individual persons. The cited authors say that reasonable causes are present if someone has great devotion toward communicating and it is not convenient for him to wait; if a grave or noble person wishes then to communicate, so that afterward he may in good time dispatch himself to business; if servants cannot easily wait without loss to their duties; if the priest would have to wait a long time that a small host might be brought before the offering, etc." And St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 217: "But if," he says, "only one remained (without communion), Gobat advises rather that there be given to him part of the large host, which can now licitly be done, as Croix says with S. Anton., etc. And it suffices for a cause if the one about to communicate would have to wait a long time for communion." And at n. 245 the same holy Doctor says: "If this is done without cause it is not licit, but it does not exceed venial, as Tournely rightly says with Poss. But it suffices to excuse it if the one to be communicated is sick, a noble man, a servant, or another who could not wait without inconvenience, even if he communicates only from devotion, as the same Tournely and Conc., Salm. with Dic., Diana, Gran. and Elbel with S. Anton., Sylvest. and Bon. commonly say." And Scavini, l. 3, n. 133, ed. Milan 1874: "To no one," he says, "are several particles to be handed, nor larger ones, but the customary ones. S. R. C., Feb. 12, 1679, General Decree approved by Innocent XI. When the particles do not suffice, the custom of dividing consecrated particles is to be preserved, if necessity is present. S. R. C., Mar. 16, 1833. Benedict XIV advises, if there is one to be communicated and particles are lacking, to give him part of the large host, if namely the one to be communicated would have to wait a long time."

Therefore to the proposed Case it must be said that the chaplain indeed acted illicitly if he did that so as to satisfy the importunate devotion of a woman who desired to receive communion from the great host of the priest himself. But the chaplain by no means acted illicitly if he did that lest the woman, e.g., a mother of a family, be deprived of communion, or lest she wait a long time with grave inconvenience to herself and her family. - I. M. 536.

10. Mass without a Minister - On a Sunday, about to celebrate Mass in a certain public oratory, into which many had come together to hear it, the chaplain finds no one who knows how to serve Mass, nor is it easy then to find someone suitable for this; for the oratory is distant from the parish, and it is near midday.

It is asked: What must the Chaplain do?

R. In a Case of this kind the chaplain must employ some man who may offer him wine and water in the ministry of the Mass. But as regards the prayers which must be recited either alternately by the priest and the minister, or by this latter alone, the celebrant alone will be able to recite them by himself, and to respond to himself. For in a case of necessity, such as the proposed Case is, the doctors commonly agree that this is licit. And certainly, if the rubric of the missal in the rite to be observed in the celebration of Mass, tit. 4, concerning the Kyrie eleison, expressly warns at n. 2 at the end: If the minister, or those who are present, do not respond to the celebrant, he alone says it nine times; and tit. 7, n. 7 likewise warns that, if by the minister or by the bystanders at the Orate fratres there is no response, May the Lord receive the sacrifice from thy hands, the priest himself by himself says: May the Lord receive the sacrifice from my hands, etc., up to the end; why could not the celebrant also say by himself the remaining things to be said in the Mass with the minister, or by this latter only, if the minister does not know how to respond? For indeed it is forbidden to celebrate Mass entirely without a minister, as is had in the rubric de Defectibus, tit. 10, n. 1, where it is said: If there is not present a cleric, or another serving in the Mass, or there is present one who ought not to serve, as a woman: but it is not forbidden in a case of necessity to employ a minister who does not know how to respond, provided however that he can furnish wine and water in the ministry itself, especially for washing the fingers, both before the consecration and after the consummation. Casus Bonon. Dioeces., year 1766, month of Aug., Case 3; I. M. 653.

11. On prayers before and after Mass - A certain priest, while vested he goes to the altar to offer the sacred rite, is accustomed on the way to recite in a low voice the psalm Miserere, which, if he cannot complete it before he reaches the altar, he continues to the end while he unfolds the corporal and opens and arranges the missal; and sometimes, if the way from the sacristy to the altar was very short, he remains a little while in the middle of the altar, so that he may finish that psalm before he descends to begin Mass.

Is there also given a precept of the external act of faith? As to the external act of faith, there is given a negative precept, prohibiting the denial of the true faith or the profession of a false one. Likewise there is given an affirmative precept, obliging sometimes to confess the faith even with danger to life. Proof of the first part. To deny the true faith, or to profess a false one, is to deny God and Christ. But Christ says: He who shall deny me before men, I will also deny him before my Father who is in heaven. Matt. 10:33. Proof of the second part. For ordered charity, which we owe to God and neighbor, requires that, when God's honor and the spiritual utility of the neighbor would be withdrawn privatively or contrarily, for professing the faith we should sometimes spurn temporal goods and even life. - Privatively, as if therefore great honor to God and great utility to neighbor would cease. Contrarily, as if otherwise God would be affected by injury, or the neighbor by grave evil, e.g., if the conversion or perversion of others, contempt of religion, scandal, depended on it. Suarez, d. 4, s. 2; L. 10; Laymann, c. 11, n. 2; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 3, aa. 1, 2; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., nn. 1647, 1648, 1653, 1657, 1683, 1827.

By positive law all to be baptized are bound to profession of faith, either by themselves or through sponsors; converted heretics; Bishops before consecration, and before the dispatch of letters of their own provision, Trid. s. 25, C. 2, de R.; Sixtus V, C. Romanus; Gregory XIV, C. Onus Apostolicae; all regular Prelates, Pius IV, C. Iniunctum nobis, id. Nov. 1564; nevertheless this Constitution has not been received in use as to those regular Prelates who are not immediately set over government by the Holy See, but either by chapter or by a higher superior, Thesaurus, de Poenis, c. 1, v. Fides, cf. 550; those about to have ecclesiastical benefices, and those who must assemble in a diocesan synod, Trid. l. c.; likewise those provided with a benefice with care of souls, within two months from possession obtained, before the Bishop himself, or if he is impeded, his vicar general, otherwise they do not make the fruits their own; canons and dignities of a cathedral church, who likewise within two months from begun possession are bound to do this also in chapter; otherwise neither do they make the fruits their own, although they can gain distributions for their choir assistance, S. C. C. 1726; Trid. s. 24, C. 12, de R.; Primates, Archbishops, Bishops in the first provincial synod which they attend, Trid. s. 25, C. 2, de R.; those to be chosen for the government and chairs of Universities and public gymnasia; and also those to be promoted to scholastic degrees of doctor, master, etc., Pius IV, C. In Sacrosancta, 13 Nov. 1654, § V. But Doctors and Masters of Universities at the beginning of any year must issue a solemn oath by which they are bound to hand down orthodox doctrine, Trid. s. 25, C. 2, de R. It belongs to the Rector or Prefect to see that this is observed. - Profession of faith can be emitted immediately after institution or collation of a benefice, and before possession, S. C. C. 11 May 1782; but cf. here below, paragraph Non manet, and it must altogether be made in the form proposed by Pius IV, C. Iniunctum nobis. But a few things are to be added, so that account may also be taken of the Decrees of the Vatican Council, S. C. C. 20 Jan. 1877. Made otherwise, it will not profit toward avoiding the canonical penalties laid against those who omit this profession. Conc. Rom. Bened. XIII, tit. 1, c. 1; Bened. XIV, Inst. 60; Ferrar., v. Fidei professio; L. 41; Collectan. cit., n. 1670; E. M. 364.

Those who are announced as doctors in Sacred Scripture are bound to furnish an oath according to the prescribed formula approved by the Motu Proprio of Pius X, 29 June 1910. Likewise an oath, according to the prescribed formula, must be furnished by all those who are listed in the Motu Proprio of Pius X, Sacrorum antistitum, 1 Sept. 1910, a profession of faith having been premised; - and also, by reason of office, synodal examiners and parish-priest consultors and those who are listed in C. Sapienti consilio, Order of Service in the Roman Curia, and others, concerning all of whom cf. below n. 550. This obligation of profession of faith seems grave, unless it has been derogated by legitimate custom. The penalty of restoring the fruits probably needs a declaratory sentence of the delict. Sanchez, l. 2, c. 5; Tamburini, l. 2, c. 1, D. 12, n. 4. The faculty made by the Council of Trent no longer remains, by which those provided with any benefices whatever can emit profession of faith within two months from the day of possession obtained; and consequently in the future profession of faith must be emitted before possession of the benefice. S. C. Cons. 1 Mar. 1911.

In external confession of faith and divine worship, the rite of one's own church, Latin or Oriental, is to be observed. Cf. for the Ruthenian rite constituted in the United States of North America, Apostolic Letter of Pius X, 18 Kal. 1907, and for the same rite constituted in the Canadian region, Decr. S. C. de Pr. I., 18 Aug. 1913. E. M. 365.

Blasphemy is opposed to confession of faith. For by it man in heart or mouth, according to intellect or affection, attributes to God things which do not befit him, or denies things which befit him. The vice of blasphemy thus pertains to unbelief. Speech concerning it will occur in the second precept of the Decalogue. S. Th. 2. 2. q. 13.

Can sacred vessels and vestments, and can churches, be converted to profane use? - R. To the first. Affirmative, if the thing is totally changed in such a way that it is reduced to common material; for example, if a chalice by fire or iron is made a mass of silver. But otherwise, if it is not totally changed. Hence it is not permitted to repair profane clothing from an old chasuble, nor to apply the ornaments of priests to profane uses. But otherwise concerning those things which are not blessed, such as carpets and candlesticks. "To use sacred vestments, even worn-out ones, for profane uses is mortal. Yet sacred vestments employed in profane uses do not lose their blessing." L. l. 6, n. 376. R. To the second. Likewise a consecrated church is not to be transferred to profane uses unless it has been profaned, has ceased to be a church, and the Apostolic approval is present. L. 31; l. 6, n. 371; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 100, a. 4 ad 2; 3 p., q. 83, a. 3 ad 3.

To whom is it licit to touch sacred vessels? - To all and only clerics without special license; but it is venial, and if a cause is present, not even venial. This is also granted to regular lay sacristans, from the privilege of Sixtus IV, and also to nuns who are sacristans, from communication of privileges; likewise by custom and from necessity to lay oblates of more recent Congregations of priests who are sacristans, and to all who serve churches in clerical habit. The first washing of palls, corporals, and purificators is to be done by a sacred person, and it is the proper office of the subdeacon. The second and third washing can also be done by laypersons. The water of the washing is to be thrown into the sacrarium. C. Nemo 40, de Consecr., D. 1; Roman Pontifical, de Ordinat. subdiac.; S. R. C., 12 Sept. 1857, ad 26, n. 3059; L. l. 6, n. 387.

But it is permitted to all to touch other sacred things, of which sort are, for example, Agnus Dei medals, at least from present custom; relics of Saints, and consequently to carry them hanging from the neck; sacred ornaments, except those which immediately touch the Holy Eucharist. C. 41, de Consecr., Dist. 1; L. 48; l. 6, nn. 94, 382; l. 7, n. 340; E. M. Clerics initiated with first tonsure only can touch sacred vessels and sacred linens, and prepare the chalice in the sacristy, without special indult. S. R. C., 23 Nov. 1905, ad 1.

A deacon by reason of his ministry can, even when priests are present and outside the case of necessity, carry the Most Holy Sacrament from one altar to another. S. R. C., 23 Nov. 1906, ad 3. But to others, even subdeacons, it is not permitted to touch sacred vessels containing the Most Holy Sacrament, ibid.

What sacred vestments are required for the administration of the sacraments? - The surplice and over it the stole. Roman Ritual, de Sacram. admin., at the beginning; S. R. C., Jan. 10, 1852, n. 2993; Aug. 31, 1867, n. 3158; March 11, 1871, n. 3237. But in extreme necessity baptism and penance can be conferred without these; indeed also confirmation and extreme unction; La Croix l. 6, p. 2, n. 2116; L. 184, 726. Indeed even viaticum itself without sacred vestments, if it can be done without offense, is not illicit. S. R. C., Feb. 4, 1871, n. 3234; L. 241. But it is not grave not to use the stole in the sacrament of penance, and several deny that not using it in the Eucharist is grave, nor does St. Alphonsus 241 disapprove. The rochet is not a sacred vestment to be used in the administration of the sacraments. S. R. C., Jan. 10, 1852, n. 2993; Jan. 12, 1878, n. 3438; March 23, 1882, n. 3542; S. R. C., General Decree, July 12, 1892, n. 3784; E. M.

Must the ciborium be consecrated and silver? - Resp. To the first: It need not necessarily be consecrated, but it suffices that it be blessed. This is clear from the Roman Ritual, in which the blessing of the pyx is noted among those things which do not need anointing with chrism. Likewise from the Roman Pontifical, where only the blessing of the pyx is had. - Hence it is altogether fitting that even the pyx, or ciborium, and the luna, or little sphere of the monstrance, and whatever containing vessel, and one immediately touching the Eucharist, and also the small vessel containing chrism, be blessed. But whether this is necessary, several and grave doctors, not improbably from St. Alphonsus, deny; and it is not necessary, they add, to place on the pyx a linen vessel blessed with the blessing of the corporal. The reason is that there is nowhere an expressed precept concerning this; nor does the Pontifical make us certain, since blessings are assigned there also for bells and cases of relics, which nevertheless are blessed not by precept, but only by fittingness. But others more probably from St. Alphonsus affirm that the pyx must be blessed by precept, because it is more conformable to the Rubric and to reason, and therefore in practice it is to be advised. L. 248, 383-385; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 3; Rubr. Missal. t. 2, n. 3.

Resp. To the second: Nothing is established by common law. And indeed it would seem to have to be equated with the chalice and paten, which must be of gold or silver, or at least of tin, if the Church is very poor. But it cannot be of copper, nor of wood, or glass, etc. De Consecr., Dist. 1, c. 45. For the rest, if the sacred vessels are not of gold, they must be gilded inside. S. R. C., Aug. 31, 1867, n. 3162, responded that a ciborium, or sacred pyx, of gilded copper can be permitted, likewise a monstrance (ostensorium) and lunula, which embraces the sacred host to be shown. Cf. 645; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 3 ad 6; E. M.

How are a church, altar, and sacred vessels execrated, and how are they rendered fit again for worship? - "Execration is said to occur when a sacred thing loses its consecration, so that it must be consecrated anew, which happens when it is so destroyed that it loses its form and use." L. 368. - Now a church is judged to be execrated when it falls down or is destroyed totally or for the greatest part, so that it must be built anew, at least for the greater part. S. R. C., Aug. 31, 1872, n. 3269. "A church is not execrated if one part is destroyed after another. And this even if through intervals of weeks or days the whole church becomes new, because whatever part is added remains consecrated, since the more worthy greater thing draws to itself the less worthy. And this proceeds even if there is an intention of destroying the whole church, because that intention does not prevent the consecration from enduring. Nor if the roof falls, because the consecration is in the walls." L. 368. Likewise a church is not execrated if the whole coating of the walls, commonly intonaco, is removed even at once. For the consecration adheres to the whole church. S. R. C., May 4, 1882, n. 3545; May 19, 1896, n. 3907. - An execrated church must again be blessed or consecrated, according to the rite and form prescribed for the blessing or consecration of churches.

A fixed altar, whose mensa must consist of one and entire stone, loses consecration when the mensa or upper stone is removed from its support. S. R. C., May 15, 1819, n. 2599; May 19, 1896, n. 3907; Feb. 12, 1897, n. 3947; Nov. 10, 1906. Altars, whether portable or fixed, lose their consecration through an enormous fracture, or through violation of the tomb in which the sacred Relics are enclosed, or through the loss of the same Relics. S. R. C., Mar. 14, 1861, n. 3106. Nor does it suffice to bury other authentic Relics in them; rather, the altars must be consecrated again. S. R. C., Dec. 7, 1844, n. 2880.

Sacred vessels and other consecrated things are execrated when they lose their form and can no longer serve their use. Moreover, "the chalice and paten lose their consecration through new gilding, and thus they need a new consecration." S. R. C., June 14, 1845, n. 2889. A sacred vestment, of which a notable part has been torn, so that it cannot serve its due use, remains execrated, although it is immediately mended, because it has now lost its form. "To use sacred vestments, even worn out ones, for profane uses is mortal. Yet sacred vestments used in profane uses do not lose their blessing." L. 370, 371, 376.

When part of a church is polluted, the entire church is judged polluted, even with the adjacent cemetery. On the contrary, when the cemetery is polluted, the church is not polluted. But when the church is execrated, the cemetery is not therefore execrated, nor do the fixed and entire altars lose consecration. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 3 ad 2, ad 3, ad 4, ad 5; L. 367 seqq.; Suarez disp. 81, sect. 2; E. M.

642 bis. Note: The altar must be stone, consecrated, and adorned with three blessed cloths; this is required under grave sin for the celebration of Mass. - One altar is consecrated fixed, another consecrated portable, and finally another simply fixed by reason of the fixed structure of the whole altar, not by reason of the mensa upon which Mass is celebrated, which can be a portable sacred stone. - For the consecration of a fixed altar it is necessary that the upper mensa be immediately supported by stone columns placed beneath it, S. R. C., May 24, 1901; July 5, 1901, or that, with cement, the stone mensa in which the receptacle of relics is located be joined to the lower base. - For the valid consecration of a fixed or portable altar, it suffices that in the sepulcher there be enclosed Relics of one Martyr and of Confessors or Virgins, or of only one Martyr. S. R. C., Feb. 16, 1906; Apr. 13, 1867. - A fixed altar, otherwise than a portable one, is consecrated with a title, which cannot be changed without pontifical indult, and for which it by no means suffices that it be expressed behind in a glass tablet or in a window. S. R. C., Nov. 10, 1906. - Bodies must be distant from the altar by three cubits; and three cubits are almost one meter in length; and this distance of tombs from the altar suffices. S. R. C., Jan. 12, 1867. - The celebration of Mass cannot be permitted in chapels in which the prescribed distance of the altars from burial niches is not had. S. R. C., Jan. 12, 1899; June 19, 1908. - An altar can be consecrated in a church only blessed. But nothing is to be placed upon the altar which does not pertain to adorning it and to the sacrifice of the Mass. - All privileges of the portable altar granted before the Council of Trent and not afterward confirmed have been removed. - All Bishops, whether diocesan or titular, are honored with the same privilege which the Cardinal Fathers enjoy, namely that not only can they themselves celebrate Mass in the oratory of their own dwelling or on a portable altar wherever they stay, and permit another Mass for their own convenience, but also all the faithful hearing either of those Masses fulfill the precept of the Church as often as needed.

At papal altars, or at the greater altars of the Basilicas of the City, Mass cannot be celebrated by others than the Supreme Pontiff himself except by special faculty of the same Supreme Pontiff. A. A. S. vol. 5, p. 151.

The altar is also to be adorned with a frontal of the color, as far as possible, suitable to the feast of the day or Office. Thus it is prescribed by the Rubric. Hence St. Alphonsus n. 305 judges that it is required under venial sin. But if the altar is of marble, almost everywhere this is not observed, and in many places it is never used.

Must the chalice and paten be consecrated under grave sin or only under light sin; and from what material must they be made? - Resp. To the first.

They must be consecrated under mortal sin, for the precept concerns a grave matter. Gousset 323; L. 379.

Resp. To the second. At least the cup of the chalice must be gold, or silver, or tin, in case of necessity, gilded inside; not bronze or glass. A chalice of aluminum is permitted, with the prescribed conditions observed. But the Decrees of Sept. 1 and Dec. 6, 1866, have been struck from the new Collection. But it cannot be made of brass or copper. An indult was sometimes granted to missionaries of using chalices made from the metal commonly called cuivre blanc, or fashioned from white bronze. - The paten likewise must be of gold, or silver, or another solid metal, but always gilded. Rubr. Rit. serv., etc., tit. 1, de Praepar., etc., n. 1; de Defectibus, tit. 10, n. 1; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 83, a. 2 ad 6; Suppl., q. 37, a. 5; L. 370; Benedict XIV, Const. Etsi pastoralis, May 20, 1742; Const. Imposito nobis, Mar. 29, 1751; cf. 551; E. M.

What kind of sin is it to celebrate without sacred vestments? - To celebrate without any sacred vestments, i.e., blessed ones, namely chasuble, stole, maniple, alb, amice, and cincture, at least regularly speaking, is never licit, even in necessity of receiving Viaticum. For the reverence due to this sacrament and sacrifice is a just cause why the Church does not permit this sacrament to be celebrated and ministered without sacred vestments, because of the grave inconveniences which can arise from this permission. At least regularly speaking: for if death is threatened unless the priest celebrates without sacred vestments, altar, or chalice, some say it is licit, others that it is not licit. Leo XII granted to the Apostolic Vicars in China the faculty of permitting priests to be able to celebrate without sacred vestments, in time of persecution, and especially when necessity of ministering the Most Holy Eucharist to the people or to the sick is urgent. Collect. S. C. de Prop. Fide, n. 853. - To celebrate without amice or cincture is a light sin, from which a just cause excuses; without stole and maniple, and probably without stole or maniple, unless in grave necessity, is grave; without alb or chasuble, unless in most grave necessity and scandal removed, is likewise grave.

The cincture probably is to be blessed by the Bishop. It is more suitable to use linen than silk. Wool can be used, and of the color of the vestments. But when it is grave not to use some sacred vestment, it is likewise grave to use it not blessed, unless grave and proportionate necessity excuses. For it is the same as if no vestment were used, since it becomes sacred only through blessing. Nonetheless, a somewhat lesser necessity excuses, for enough provision has been made for external decorum. - To make sacred vestments of profane ones, e.g., a chasuble from a woman's silk garment, is not prohibited. - In the Roman Ritual there is a blessing of priestly vestments in general; but in the Pontifical there is both a blessing in general and a special blessing of each vestment. But when an inferior priest having faculty blesses some priestly vestment, he must use the blessing of the Roman Ritual. S. R. C., Mar. 16, 1876, n. 3392. - La Croix 327, 328, 339, 392; L. 289, 367, 377; St. Thomas Suppl., q. 37, a. 5; q. 40, a. 2 ad 2, a. 7; Benedict XIV, Notification 21, n. 10; Pius VII, Brief Quo luctu.

Amices, albs, and towels, or little cloths, cannot be made from any other material than linen or hemp. S. R. C., May 15, 1819, n. 2600.

The cincture can be made from linen, or from wool, or silk, S. R. C., Jan. 22, 1701, n. 2067; Dec. 23, 1862, n. 3118, of the color of the vestments, n. 2194 ad 3. - Chasubles, stoles, and maniples cannot be made from linen cloth or cotton, commonly percale, dyed or painted with the prescribed colors. S. R. C., Sept. 23, 1837, n. 2769.

Is the color of the vestments of precept? - "Tamburini, Quarti, Diana with Homobonus, likewise Suarez and Aversa cited by La Croix 340, deny it... but Sporer and Quarti contradict this. And I think this is more probable.... Yet Sporer and Quarti rightly judge that this Rubric does not oblige under grave sin unless scandal is present, for example if on the day of Easter or in any festal Mass whatever one celebrated in black vestments. Sporer adds that on whatever day it is better to make the sacred rite in any color than to omit it; hence he rightly says that a fortiori every reasonable cause excuses, as if vestments of the due color would not suffice for the concourse of priests." L. 378. According to the S. R. C., the color of the vestments is commanded to be observed.

Both the yellow and the blue color are prohibited. Vestments woven of gold can be used for white, red, or green color. S. R. C., Feb. 23, 1839, n. 2788; Dec. 5, 1868, n. 3191. - E. M.

“Do the chalice and paten lose their consecration through new gilding and thus need a new consecration?—Response. Affirmative: namely, they lose it and need a new consecration, according to the things set forth.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 June 1845, Liège.

It is an abuse that a priest should wish to exsecrate the aforesaid sacred vessels before he again hands them to the artisan to be repaired or recast. Therefore, if there is need, they must be handed to him without the priest attempting to exsecrate them either directly by hand or through the intervention of some instrument. Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 April 1822, Doubts, response to 1.

“Can a chalice whose gilding alone is renewed be blessed simply, without anointing, by a priest not marked with the episcopal order, or must it in this case also be brought to a Bishop so that it may be blessed by him with anointing?—Response. As regards the first part: Negative; as regards the other part: Affirmative to both.” Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 May 1857, Esztergom, response to 1.

"Altar stones or portable altars which consist of true hard and compact stone, even if not marble, ought to be held suitable; but those which have been made from pumice stone, or from gypsum, or another similar material, are altogether illicit. But as regards altars whose sepulcher or confession was dug not in the middle of the stone but in its front, they are not to be admitted, as not conforming to the prescriptions of the Roman Pontifical." S. R. C. 24 Nov. 1885.

"The consecration both of a stable Altar and of a Traveling or portable Altar, as regards the essential prayers, rites, solemnities, is altogether the same; in this however it differs, that the portable Altar, or stone, in the middle of which the Sacred Relics are stored, is anointed with sacred unction only on the surface; but on the contrary in a fixed Altar not to be transferred, another sacred unction is employed, by which the stone is joined in the corners and connected with the lower support or structure; and by this method not one stone, but the whole Altar, is judged consecrated. Therefore a portable Altar is execrated if either it has been enormously broken, or the sepulcher of the Relics violated; but a fixed altar is execrated even if, without violation of the sepulcher, the stone alone is removed from the support. Thus Alexander III, chap. Ad haec, On the Consecration of a Church or Altar: 'To this, if the Altar has been moved, or only that stone placed beneath which contains the seal has been broken or enormously diminished, it must be consecrated anew.' And in chap. Quod, same title: 'But an altar in which the table, to which the blessing of consecration is applied by pontifical ministry, has been removed or enormously broken, ought not undeservedly to be consecrated.' And although there are not lacking those who think that a fixed Altar loses consecration even if the whole Altar is transferred from the place in which it was built and anointed with sacred ceremonies to another place, nevertheless the common opinion is that in this case a new consecration is not necessary. The reason is that although a fixed Altar in this seems to differ from a portable altar, that the latter is transferable from one place to another, but the former is not so, and therefore is called fixed and immovable, nevertheless this difference is merely extrinsic, accidental, and respective to the place itself rather than between the Altars themselves; for the formal reason by which a fixed Altar intrinsically differs from a portable one properly consists in this, that a fixed Altar has and essentially imports the joining of the Table with its lower structure, or base, to which the Table therefore must necessarily be united; where on the contrary a portable Altar by its nature imports being separated from a base; for because of this it is portable, because of itself it has separation from the base; otherwise it would no longer be a portable Altar but a fixed one. Hence the essence of a fixed Altar truly and properly consists in the said joining, that is, in the mensa or table united with the base; and it imports fixation in such a place for this reason, that he who had it constructed willed it there: which therefore is something extrinsic and accidental to the Altar itself. For that same one could have been built elsewhere. Wherefore since the Altar is supposed to preserve the same joining, namely of the Table with its base, notwithstanding its transfer from one place to another, it must be said that it still retains its own being and, consequently, its consecration, which had accrued to it: for it is fitting that the accessory, since it is founded upon the principal, follow the nature of the principal; from Rule 42, On Rules of Law in VI. Therefore, so that that word 'moved' may be verified, it is not necessary that the Table have been transferred from one place to another, but it suffices that it has been separated from its base; and thus through this the Altar needs a new consecration. Hence the Gloss both to Canon Si motum and to Chapter Ad Haec, I, v. Altar; Panormitanus in the same place and others, by Altar understand the Altar Table itself which is connected with its lower structure; but by moved they understand the supervening disjunction of the same Table, or even of the consecrated Stone, from the lower structure itself; so that the sense of that Text: If the Altar has been moved, etc., is this: If the Table itself, or the consecrated Stone of the Altar, has been disjoined from its lower structure: the Altar must be consecrated anew. But if the Table which we call the mensa, placed upon a stone and stable Altar, although it is of such size that it surpasses or at least equals the subject structure, nevertheless had never been joined and united with the lower support, and in some way bound together in the corners through sacred unction, it would not lose Consecration by removal and translation from place to place, because in this case it would have no other character except that of a portable Altar, which is execrated only either through enormous fracture or through violation of the sepulcher of the Relics. Therefore since in the proposed species of fact the matter is of a fixed and stable Altar, and the superimposed Stone of the great Altar was removed from the lower support to which it had been joined through Sacred unction, it plainly follows that through removal of this kind the Altar was execrated and needs a new Consecration, as the S. R. C. declared." Note of Gardell. n. 4562.

Pius IX, 26 May 1867, by special Rescript as regards a Privileged Altar declared "that it suffices for constituting the quality of a fixed Altar that in the middle of a stable and immovable Altar, although not consecrated, a stone even removable be placed." Cf. Acta S. Sed. Vol. 3, p. 100. The S. I. C., 20 March 1846, likewise declared as regards a Privileged Altar: by a fixed or local Altar "the S. C. understood indeed a fixed altar, which cannot be moved from the place, but not one whose upper part or mensa is of whole stone or so joined with lime that the consecrated stone cannot be removed; otherwise, when an altar which had been conceded privileged because of the image of some Saint was destroyed, after new construction it would need a new privilege." But by a portable Altar "it understood an Altar, as it is called viaticum, which consists only of one whole stone of such magnitude that it can contain the foot of the chalice with the paten at least for the greater part, or which is transferred from one place to another." Cf. Wolfgang Mühlbauer, Decreta Authentica, v. Indulgence 6.

403. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Are all the Rubrics of the Mass preceptive?

Reply 1. According to the common opinion ¹, all the Rubrics which are observed within the Mass are preceptive, since they concern so sacred a matter. They bind, however, under grave or light sin according to the gravity or lightness of the matter, as will be said below. - St. Lig., no. 399. Reply 2. The Rubrics which are observed outside the Mass, that is, before or after the sacred rite, are commonly regarded as merely directive ², as, for example, the prayers for preparation or thanksgiving; for other prayers can be recited. There is controversy, however, concerning the prayers which according to the Rubric are to be recited while the vestments are put on; but it must be held with the common opinion, says St. Lig., no. 410, that their omission is venially culpable. Others, however, maintain with Suarez that this omission is free from every fault.

¹ It scarcely appears in fact why the Author calls this opinion common and adduces St. Alphonsus in its support. St. Alphonsus, as we have observed elsewhere, writes (bk. 6, no. 399) that there are four opinions of the Doctors concerning this question. The first says that all the rubrics are directive, and for this he adduces two authors. The second teaches that all the rubrics are preceptive, and for this he adduces eight. The third holds that some are preceptive and others, even those pertaining to the Mass, are directive, and for this he cites nine Authors. Finally, the fourth holds that those which are observed within the Mass are preceptive, while those which are observed outside it are directive, and for this he adduces three. Now, by joining the Authors of the second and fourth opinions, we have eleven; and by joining the Authors of the first and third, we likewise have eleven. How, then, is that called the common opinion which, taken according to all its parts, has only three patrons, but, taken according to its individual parts, has no more than its contrary?

They also derive this from the decree of St. Pius V: Mandating and strictly commanding each and all... by virtue of holy obedience, that, all other methods and rites from other Missals... being henceforth entirely omitted,... they chant and read Mass according to the rite, manner, and norm which is now delivered by Us through this Missal; nor in the celebration of Mass are they to presume to add or recite other ceremonies or prayers than those which are contained in this Missal. Now, 1. it is manifest that by these words merely the use of one Roman Missal is prescribed. 2. In the Missal, however, there are also things which are to be done or said outside the Mass; and nevertheless the Author, with St. Alphonsus, maintains that these rubrics are merely directive. 3. Indeed, St. Alphonsus (bk. 6, no. 412) judges it probable that it is not forbidden to add one collect for some cause or devotion, although the decree seems to prohibit every addition. Let us therefore conclude that Pius V certainly prescribes that the things contained in the Roman Missal be observed, but as they are proposed in the Missal, namely, either as commanding or as merely directing; while additions are forbidden, not those which are taken from the same Roman Missal, but those which are taken from other Missals, as the words and context of St. Pius most clearly suggest.

² The VV. object here (p. 933, no. 103) that St. Alphonsus (Exam. Ordin., no. 112) judged only some of them to be directive according to the opinion of the Doctors; whence it must be concluded that others are therefore regarded as preceptive.

Reply. In order that rubrics of this kind may truly be regarded as preceptive, it must be certain that they are so, because merely probable precepts have no power to bind, as St. Alphonsus teaches as certain.

407. • QUESTION 8. Is it ever lawful to interrupt Mass?

Reply 1. It is never lawful to interrupt Mass essentially, that is, in such a way that the Sacrifice which has been begun remains truncated, unless a most grave or extreme necessity urges, as in the case of an imminent fire or of an enemy rushing in to kill; for then the Priest, omitting the consecration of the chalice, could consume the Host already consecrated, or carry it away with him as he fled. But if he has completed both consecrations, let him consume both species immediately, if he can; or, if he cannot, let him carry them with him, to be consumed as quickly as possible in a nearby place. - St. Lig., no. 352 et seq.

Reply 2. It is lawful to interrupt accidentally, namely, by interposing something for a just cause before the Canon: 1. On account of a sermon after the Gospel, prayers to be recited for the dead, proclamations of banns to be made, or a procession to be received, etc. 2. For the sake of a Prince who arrives, or of a crowd of pilgrims on a feast day, if otherwise they cannot hear Mass. Then, if the oblation has not been made, the Priest can begin anew so that they may hear the whole Mass. 3. If the Priest remembers some impediment, for example, that he is not fasting, or is not in the state of grace, or is irregular, provided that the Mass can be broken off without scandal or disgrace. - St. Lig., ibid.

Reply 3. It is not lawful, however, to interrupt even accidentally once the Canon has been begun, and a fortiori after the consecration has been completed, except for a most grave cause, for example, if a dying person must be baptized or absolved. It is not lawful, however, to administer the other Sacraments between the consecration and Communion, because they are not of such great necessity. Nevertheless, Holy Viaticum could be administered to a dying person who was nearby, so that the Priest would not have to remove the sacred vestments. - St. Lig., ibid. - But for this it is also required that the celebrant not lose sight of the altar (S. Congregation of Rites, Dec. 19, 1829).

— 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

⁵¹⁵ Theol. mor. l. 6, n. 403.

⁵¹⁶ Theol. mor. II, n. 332.

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

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

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

⁵²⁰ Cf. ibid., a. 6 ad 2.

⁵²¹ Ibid.

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

390. On the sacred rites, or on the things to be recited and done in the celebration. - During the celebration of Mass all the rites which are prescribed in the Missal to be said or done are to be observed integrally and accurately (can. 818); but each one must use the missal of his own rite, unless otherwise has been conceded to him or to the place in which he celebrates by privilege. And indeed he must always observe without variation all things which are common to all Masses, but vary the rest conformably to the office according to the Calendar of the church in which he celebrates, unless there is the faculty of saying a votive Mass and a reasonable motive for using it is present; but if he celebrates in a private oratory, he must always read conformably to his own Calendar.

Furthermore, in the Missal many things are prescribed to be said and done, "because," says St. Thomas, "in this sacrament the whole mystery of our salvation is contained, and therefore beyond the other sacraments it is performed with greater solemnity" (a. 4); "but in the celebration of this sacrament certain things are signified which pertain to the passion of Christ, which is represented in this sacrament, or also to the mystical body (and its disposition), which is signified in this sacrament; and certain things pertain to the use of this sacrament, which ought to be with devotion and reverence" (a. 5).

The obligation from its genus is grave of observing the prescribed rites (n. 385-386), so that one omitting them or notably changing them can sin mortally, both a) by reason of quality, as if a prayer or ceremony of great moment having a special signification were omitted; and b) by reason of quantity, if many things are omitted.

It is grave to omit ordinary parts of great moment, as the confession with the other things at the beginning of Mass, the epistle with the gradual and verses, the gospel, the principal collects, the oblation of bread or wine, the infusion of water into the wine, the preface, a notable part of the canon such as a special prayer or an entire period, the elevation of the most holy species, the Pater noster and Libera, the breaking of the bread or the mingling with the Blood, the purification of the paten and chalice; - likewise to mutilate notably ordinary parts of great moment; - to pronounce the words of consecration very loudly, or so softly that the priest cannot perceive them and incurs the danger of erring; - to omit lesser or extraordinary parts but in great quantity, because they coalesce into one grave matter since they pertain to the transgression of one and the same precept; - likewise to add many things, for example long public prayers, especially when they are not contained in the missal, or many prayers or ceremonies altogether impertinent; - to celebrate in a rite other than his own, or in a language other than his liturgical one (can. 819).

On the contrary, only light is judged: a) to omit ordinary parts of lesser moment, such as the psalm Iudica, the Kyrie eleison, the Gospel of St. John, one of the three prescribed collects, the ablution of the fingers, etc., unless it is done in notable quantity; likewise the prayers after Mass prescribed by Leo XIII; b) to omit extraordinary parts: Gloria, Credo, a commemoration or an ordered prayer, tract, sequence, proper preface, special communicantes, unless several are omitted and in great quantity; c) voluntarily to mutilate a few words, even in the canon, with the sense preserved and scandal excluded; d) to change the Mass of the day, contrary to the rubrics and with scandal excluded, or the place of the prayers; e) to say the secrets in a clear voice or conversely; f) in a sung Mass not to recite the things which are sung by the minister or choir, or not to sing certain things which are to be sung; g) to omit or mutilate some blessings, genuflections, inclinations, elevations of the hands, unless it is done in notable quantity, or the incensation in a solemn Mass; h) to add several commemorations or the name of some saint in the Canon, or Gloria, Credo, Pater, Ave, or some other prayers from importunate devotion; thus at the elevation to pronounce in a low voice certain pious words, as the S. C. R. declared, Nov. 6, 1925, ad 1; i) to proceed too hastily in all things.

That the celebration of Mass is fittingly ordered in all the things which are said and done in it, after St. Thomas, a. 4 and 5, Billuart shows, diss. VIII, a. 11, "by explaining the chief ceremonies of the Mass, in which diverse parts are distinguished: preparation, instruction, oblation, consecration, and reception.

A. First the priest prepares himself: 1° by the Confession, according to that saying Prov. XVIII, 17: The just man is first the accuser of himself; 2° by the Introit, which is divine praise taken for the most part from the Psalms; 3° he commemorates present misery while mercy is sought by saying: Kyrie eleison three times for the person of the Father, three times for the person of the Son, three times for the person of the Holy Spirit, against the threefold misery of ignorance, fault, and punishment; 4° he commemorates the heavenly glory to which we tend after present misery, by saying: Gloria in excelsis Deo, which is sung on feasts in which mention is made of this glory, and is omitted in mournful offices, which pertain to the commemoration of misery; 5° the priest recites the Prayers for the people, that he may be held worthy of such great mysteries.

B. After the preparation follows the Instruction of the people; because this sacrament is a mystery of faith. But this instruction is made dispositively through the doctrine of the prophets and apostles, commonly called the Epistle, perfectly through the doctrine of Christ contained in the Gospel. And because we believe Christ as divine truth, the Symbol of faith is sung, in which the people shows that by faith it assents to the doctrine of Christ. Here formerly ended the Mass of the catechumens, and when these things had been completed they were dismissed.

C. After the preparation and instruction follows the Oblation, concerning which two things are done: the praise of the people in the chant of the Offertory, by which the joy of those offering is signified, and the Prayer of the priest who asks that the oblation of the people be accepted by God (a. 4). Then the priest incenses the altar, both for reverence of this sacrament, namely, so that by the good odor whatever bad odor there may have been in the place may be driven away, and also for representing the effect of grace, with which, as with a good odor, Christ was full, and which is derived from Him to the faithful through the ministry of the priest (a. 5, ad 2). According to others, by this ceremony the faithful are admonished to ascend to heavenly things with fervent desire, as smoke ascends from burning incense.

D. Then the priest approaches the Consecration, which, since it is done by supernatural power, he asks from the faithful the help of prayers to perform it duly, saying: Orate fratres; afterward in the Preface he stirs up the devotion of the people, and therefore they are admonished to have their hearts lifted up to God. When the preface has been finished, the people praises the divinity of Christ with the angels, saying: Sanctus, Sanctus, Sanctus, and His humanity with the children, saying: Benedictus qui venit. Then the priest secretly commemorates those for whom the sacrifice is offered, then he commemorates the saints whose patronage he implores, and asks for the effect of consecration, when he says: Quam oblationem tu Deus benedictam, adscriptam, ratam, rationabilem acceptabilemque facere digneris. The sense of these words is: deign to make this oblation blessed, i.e., through which we may be blessed; ascribed, i.e., through which we may be enrolled in heaven; ratified, i.e., through which we may be judged to be from the bowels of Christ; reasonable, i.e., through which we may be stripped of bestial sense; acceptable, that we, who are displeasing to ourselves, may through this be acceptable to His only Son (a. 4 and ad 7). Others explain these words a little differently.

With these things premised, the priest performs the Consecration by the words of the Savior when he says: Qui pridie quam pateretur, etc. Then he excuses the presumption through obedience to the command of Christ when he says: Unde et memores. Afterward he asks that this sacrifice thus completed be accepted by God, saying: Supra quae propitio, and that it may profit those receiving, the dead, and the priests themselves offering" (a. 4).

But let it be noted "that the priest after the consecration does not use the signing of the cross for blessing, as before the consecration, but only for commemorating the power of the cross and the mode of the passion of Christ (a. 5, ad 4). But signs of the cross are made either once, or three times, or five times: once on account of the unity of essence, three times on account of the Trinity of persons, five times on account of the wounds of Christ the Lord and the express representation of His passion (cf. ibid. ad 3)."

E. "Finally there is question of the Reception of the sacrament, for which the people is prepared both through the common Prayer of the whole people, which is the Lord's, by saying Pater noster, and through the private prayer which the priest specially offers for the people, saying: Libera nos; and through the peace which is given by saying: Agnus Dei; for this is the sacrament of unity and peace. Nevertheless in Masses of the dead, in which the sacrifice is not so much offered for present peace as for the rest of the dead, the peace is omitted. The Reception of the sacrament follows, the priest receiving first, and afterward giving to others. Finally the whole celebration of Mass is terminated in thanksgiving, the people exulting for the reception of the mystery, which the Chant after Communion signifies, and the priest offering thanks through the Prayer; when these things have been completed the deacon dismisses the people, saying: Ite, missa est (a. 4)."

If those assisting wish to conform themselves to these things, let them first elicit contrition and hope in the preparatory part; then faith during the instruction; afterward let them have an oblative, immolative, and unitive love of charity, respectively under the oblation, consecration, and communion; to all these things let thanksgiving be added at the end.

I say. With any contrary custom reprobated, the celebrating priest is to observe accurately and devoutly the rubrics of his ritual books, and to beware lest he add other ceremonies or prayers by his own judgment (Can. 818).¹

The reason is taken both from the Scriptures, which threaten a great penalty to him who does the work of the Lord negligently, and from the positive will of the Church. Therefore the Fathers of Baltimore, after they had said that no rite is employed in performing this sacrifice which can be thought empty without impiety, add: "We will and strictly command that all priests in these Provinces follow exactly all those things which are contained in the Roman Missal." - Cf. Conc. Plen. Balt. II, n. 357 and seq.

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1144, n. 116.

Question 1. Whether all the Rubrics of the Mass are preceptive? Resp. According to the common opinion, all the Rubrics which are observed within the Mass are preceptive, since they regard so sacred a thing. But they oblige under grave or under light sin, according to the gravity or lightness of the matter, as will be said below. But the Rubrics which are observed outside Mass, that is, before or after the Sacrifice, are commonly held as merely directive, as, for example, the prayers for preparation for Mass or thanksgiving; for other prayers can be recited. There is controversy, however, concerning the prayers which from the Rubric are to be recited while the vestments are put on; but with the common opinion it must be held, says St. Alphonsus, that their omission is venially culpable. Others, however, hold that this omission is free from all fault. - Cf. Conc. Plen. Balt. II, n. 358. - De Herdt, vol. 1, n. 2. - St. Alphonsus, n. 399 and seq.

Question 2. Whether a sick priest can celebrate, although he cannot observe all the Rubrics? Resp. Affirmatively, if he omits only a few and lighter ones, especially if he celebrates privately. Indeed several authors of grave note permit a sick celebrant even to use a cane if he needs it, etc. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 402.

Question 3. Whether the use of a small spoon for pouring water into the chalice is lawful for all? Resp. S. C. R., when the doubt had been proposed, responded that the Rubric must be observed. But this formula implies that the use of a small spoon is not prohibited, according to the response given to the Archbishop of Baltimore, 6 Febr. 1858. - Cf. Acta S. Sedis, vol. 3, pp. 600 and seq.

Question 4. Whether it is ever lawful to interrupt Mass? Resp. It is never lawful to interrupt Mass essentially, that is, so that the sacrifice begun remains truncated, unless a most grave or extreme necessity presses, as in the case of imminent fire or of an enemy rushing in to kill; for then the priest, omitting the consecration of the chalice, could consume the host already consecrated or carry it away with him in fleeing. But if he has completed both consecrations, let him immediately consume both species, if he can; or if he cannot, let him carry them with him, to be consumed as quickly as possible in a nearby place. But it is lawful to interrupt accidentally, namely, by inserting something for a just cause before the canon: 1°. because of a sermon after the Gospel, because prayers for the dead are to be recited, because the proclamations of Banns are to be made, or because a procession is to be received, etc.; 2°. for the sake of a crowd of pilgrims on a feast day, if otherwise they cannot hear Mass, and then, if the offertory has not been made, the priest can begin anew, so that they may hear the whole Sacrifice; 3°. if the priest remembers some impediment, for example, that he is not fasting or is not in the state of grace or is irregular, provided the Mass can be broken off without scandal or notice. Yet it is not lawful to interrupt, even accidentally, once the canon has begun, and a fortiori after the consecration has been completed, except for a most grave cause, for example, if a dying person must be baptized or absolved. But it is not lawful to administer other sacraments between the consecration and communion, because they are not of such great necessity, except for Holy Viaticum, which could be administered to a dying person who was nearby, so that the priest would not have to remove the sacred vestments. But for this also it is required that the celebrant not lose the altar from his sight. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 352 and seq.

At the first Communion of adolescents, brief sermons, commonly called Fervorini, can be held in Mass after the consumption; or for any other cause whatsoever. Dec. Auth. C. S. R. n. 3009.

Question 5. What is to be done if a priest, seized by illness or death, is unable to complete the Sacrifice? Resp. If the priest fails before the consecration, nothing is to be done by another priest, because the sacrifice properly was not begun. But if he fails after the consecration of even only one species, then another priest who is fasting, if one is present, must supply; if no fasting priest is present, let another even not fasting supply and complete the Sacrifice; because the precept of procuring the integrity of the sacrifice presses more gravely. Indeed even an irregular or excommunicated priest would have to supply. Yet if another priest could not be found immediately, after one hour has been interposed, probably he would no longer have to be sought, because moral union would be lacking, and consequently it would not be judged the same Sacrifice. But if a priest, seized by illness during the celebration, is able to complete the Sacrifice after some interruption, he himself will complete it better than another, even if he is not fasting. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 355.

Question 6. What is the Gregorian Thirty? Resp. The Gregorian Thirty, or Gregorian Masses, are Masses which, for thirty continuous days, after the example of Saint Gregory the Great, are celebrated on any altar for souls to be freed in Purgatory. Concerning this Thirty let the following things be noted. The practice of celebrating these Masses in the Church is approved. The confidence by which the faithful hold the celebration of thirty Masses as specially efficacious from the good pleasure and acceptance of divine mercy for the liberation of a soul from the punishments of Purgatory is pious and reasonable. S. C. Indul. 15 March 1884. The Thirty is not validly celebrated for the living; nor is it certain that an indulgence has been given for it. S. C. 24 Aug. 1888. An essential condition is that for thirty continuous days Mass be said for the soul whose liberation from Purgatory is implored. But it does not obstruct this that in the last three days of Holy Week an interruption occurs, provided that afterward the Masses are immediately said continuously. S. C. Ind. 14 Jan. 1889. A priest does not satisfy in a case in which on the same day twice or three times, either by himself (for example, on the day of the Nativity of the Lord) or through others, he resumes the celebration, so that all the Masses are celebrated within the space of thirty days. S. Off. 12 Dec. 1913: A priest who cannot celebrate by himself is bound to substitute another for himself who is to celebrate some Mass of the Thirty. One does not satisfy "the obligation, if he commits the thirty Gregorian Masses, distributed to several priests, to be all celebrated on the same day or within the space of a few days for the said intention." On days occurring in the Thirty on which a Mass of Requiem is permitted by the Rubrics, it can laudably be read, for the sake of piety toward the dead person, but it is not required for satisfying the burden of the Thirty that that Mass of Requiem be read. S. Off. 12 Dec. 1913. It is not required that the Masses be celebrated at the same altar. S. C. Indul. 14 Jan. 1889.

Question 7. By what rite is the sacrifice to be celebrated? Resp. In the celebration of Mass the priest, according to his own rite, must use unleavened or leavened bread wherever he offers the Sacrifice (Can. 816).

Question 8. In what language is the sacrifice to be celebrated? Resp. The sacrifice of the Mass is to be celebrated in the liturgical language of each one's own rite approved by the Church (Can. 819).

I. QUESTION I. Of how many kinds is the ceremonial of the Mass? ANSWER. Twofold. Certain ceremonies go before, which regard the place, the time, and the person; others accompany, and are parts of the sacred Liturgy itself. Under the name of place are understood temples, altars, sacred vessels, and lights. The time indicates the hour of celebrating. To the person pertain the sacred vestments, and they are six: the amice, the alb, the girdle, the maniple, the stole, and the chasuble or planet, the use of which is most ancient. Those vestments ought to be blessed.

II. Outside a case of urgent necessity it is never lawful to celebrate without the sacred vestments. While the sacred vestments are put on, the prescribed prayers are to be recited devoutly.

III. Sacred vessels are necessary for the lawful celebration of Mass, namely a chalice and paten consecrated by the bishop. Necessary also are the linens, namely the corporal, the pall, and the purificator, similarly blessed by the superior. The corporal and the pall ought to be of linen, white, and clean. Upon the altar there must be three cloths, and a cross in the middle of the altar which bears the image of the Crucified, not painted but carved. The sacred vessels cannot be touched by laymen. There is required besides a veil with the burse, which can be touched by all. The host to be consecrated among the Latins ought to be of circular shape, whether large or small. The Greeks use a host of quadrangular shape. No one relying on memory ought to celebrate without a missal. If a missal be lacking, it is enough that he have the Mass written out.

IV. Priests ought to go to the church in a long garment. They do not dare, says Benedict XIV, Vol. 1, note 14, to sit before great men without a long garment; and afterwards they are not ashamed to depart from home clothed in a short garment, and with it to approach the temple of the Lord about to celebrate! See Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 2, chapter 9. Concerning the periwig, commonly parrucca, many things would have to be said. In a few words I shall say that priests ought to celebrate with head bared. Some teach that some cause suffices for priests to celebrate with head covered. This Urban VIII forbids in the reformed Missal. The periwig Innocent XI expressly forbade in encyclical letters given to the Nuncios of the Apostolic See in the year 1689, which Fr. La Croix reports, Book 6, part 2, no. 401, who nevertheless adds: “Those things notwithstanding, we see daily priests celebrating in a false periwig, who think that by this they satisfy their conscience if they so celebrate, the judgment of one or another honest physician being had, that otherwise they could not without danger of grave inconvenience.” Nor does Fr. La Croix mutter anything against so great a corruption. We see also daily several priests celebrating Mass precipitately, or rather profaning it with unworthy gesticulations, reading most swiftly with a stammering tongue; and many other absurdities we behold daily. Why are physicians obtruded upon the scene? Has the nature of rich and noble priests been changed in our age, that they need false periwigs? Before these periwigs, which assuredly are not ancient, were introduced, did not noble and rich priests celebrate? And do not plebeian priests of middling condition celebrate today? Let those who cannot celebrate unless they be long-haired abstain from celebration. The rites of ecclesiastical discipline, not the vain axioms of flattering physicians, are to be consulted in the celebration of Mass.

V. QUESTION II. Into how many parts is the Mass distributed? ANSWER. It is distributed into four parts. First, from the beginning up to the offertory, and this is called the Mass of the Catechumens. Second, from the offertory up to the consecration. Third, from the consecration up to the communion. Fourth, from the communion up to the end.

VI. QUESTION III. Is it a mortal sin to neglect the rubrics in celebrating Mass? ANSWER. The affirmative opinion is common, unless smallness of matter excuse. Since by a grave precept from the Supreme Pontiffs, and especially from St. Pius V, the observance of them is commanded. There is a twofold kind of rubrics. Some are called preceptive, others directive. Preceptive are called those which command that celebration be made in a sacred place, on an altar, in sacred vessels and vestments, in the prescribed matter and form, with fasting going before, and many others. Directive are called those which according to the common sense of theologians do not oblige under mortal sin, as to pray before and after Mass, the number of collects, and many other things of that kind.

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.

Caius, a priest, had charge of a certain mission in England. When the Bishop visited that mission, he found some things, as it seemed to him, less conformable to ecclesiastical laws. Among other things, a chasuble of yellow-colored silk thread was used for Mass; other chasubles were made externally of silk mixed with cotton, but internally of alpaca; electric light was attached on either side of the tabernacle and served to give light; and the chalice used for celebrating Mass bore the donor’s name engraved around the foot, with the inscription “Pray for the happy condition of N.” added. In the decree of visitation the Bishop prescribed that these things were to be reformed according to the rubrics unless Caius could allege approved authors who permitted them. Hence Caius asks:

1. From what material must chasubles be made?

2. Must the color of vestments for Mass be observed under pain of sin?

3. What is prescribed concerning altar lights?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. Of what material should the chasuble be made?

Chasubles should be of silk, or silver or gold cloth, although the cross and other ornaments on them may be of linen, wool, or cotton.¹

1 Gasparri, De SS. Eucharistia, n. 692.

1 Génicot, Theol. Moral. Institutionee, vol. II, p. 246.

2. Is the color of the vestments a matter of precept?

Yes, of light precept, according to St. Alphonsus, VI,

3. What is prescribed about the lights of the altar? There should be two wax lights, or more according to the quality of the Mass, on the altar while Mass is being said. Besides these, no lights should be placed on the altar, though nothing prevents lamps, gas, or the electric light, from being used in the church to give light; but any theatrical effect should be avoided.¹

4. The case. Yellow vestments have often been forbidden and they should not be used.²

2 Gasparri, De SS. Eucharistia, n. 693.

Chasubles of silk mixed with cotton should not be used; unless the cotton appears only in the ornaments and accessories. The Sacred Congregation of Rites answered (23 March, 1882) that lining of cotton or linen or wool, and we may add alpaca, for silk chasubles could be tolerated in poor churches.

The electric light on the tabernacle is forbidden (S. R. C. 13 April, 1883).

There is nothing reprehensible in the inscription on the chalice.³

3 Ibid., n. 749.

It has been a certain fact heretofore that with the Blessed Sacrament exposed ex causa privata Requiem Masses have been permissible at the altars of a church with the exception of the altar of exposition. Stipend Masses, Rorate Masses, Sodality Masses, coram Sanctissimo, are classed amongst the category of expositiones ex causa privata. Recent theological opinions have, however, interpreted the decree of the R. C., of June 13, 1900, in the sense that Requiem Masses even at side altars are not permissible if the Blessed Sacrament is exposed in a church. To this interpretation the following objection has been raised. The decree has reference to a certain oratorium publicum, a public chapel, which has two altars, situated in niches opposite each other. The priest standing at the altar on which the Sanctissimum is not exposed, turns his back to the ostensorium, a thing in itself objectionable. Something forbidden for a chapel, furthermore, may not be necessarily forbidden in a church. A decree of the S. R. C. of July 9, 1895, seems also contrary to the above. interpretation, as it directs that whenever the Forty Hours' Devotion is kept on All Souls' Day, all masses with the exception of a single one are to be said pro defunctis, but in purple vestments. It may therefore be concluded that the decision quoted above has reference to one certain instance and that it does not interfere with already existing decisions.

This last argument is a weighty one. It is a frequent error to generalize decisions rendered pro casu. It is possible that a further inquiry would result in a general decision, conforming to the one pro casu, but as long as this has not been decided, the decision pro casu can not be stated as a general law. Take, for instance, the jejunium naturale. Because in Lourdes a fast of four hours has been prescribed before the midnight Mass, many have held this to apply also to the Christmas Mass, but such is not the case.

In large churches, where the case cited at the beginning of this article occurs not infrequently, it will therefore be safe to continue the previous usage, until the R. C. sees fit to pronounce universally on this subject

The curate, Father Christopher, was celebrating holy Mass at a station some eight miles distant from his church; the Blessed Sacrament not being kept at this station. Suddenly he heard a commotion in the sacristy—and immediately the sexton comes to him at the altar, reporting in a whisper that an old lady in the village had had a stroke of apoplexy and was near death. The priest had just finished the Pater Noster, and considering that his Mass would be over within a few minutes, he continues in celebratione. Before the sumptio corporis he breaks off a particle from the large host, as the Viaticum for the sick person. The Mass finished he hurriedly responds to the urgent sick call.

^* By J. C. Gspann.

Now the question: Did the priest do right in both points—namely: (1) In finishing the Holy Sacrifice, and (2) in fractione alicuius partis ab hostia maiori? If not, what ought he have done?

Ad I. We may here suppose two cases:

a. If the moribunda is considerable distance from the chapel, where the holy Mass was being said, so that the priest realizes he can not return within tempus debitum missam celebrandi ante meridiem to finish his Mass he should immediately consume the consecrated species omissis omnibus aliis (Cfr. de Herdt, Sacrae Liturgiae Praxis, tom. II. p. 3, pag. 237).

b. If, however, he can return within the time he should interrupt the Mass, to continue it where he left off when returning from administering the last Sacraments. But in this case The priest must take the greatest care that the Most Holy Sacrament be reverently guarded, unless he has thought it advisable to enclose it in the tabernacle (de Herdt pag. 236 with quotation from Bened. XIV de Sac. 118).

Still another possibility may be supposed. The priest may be of the opinion that he can return before the close of the time set for the celebration, ad continuationem missae, but it becomes impossible for him to do so, be it on account of a long General Confession, or a second sick call, or for some other good reason. De Herdt is of opinion that in that case the Blessed Sacrament should be reserved, to be consumed upon the following day post sumptionem s. sanguinis.^*

^* Would it not be allowed, in this case of extremely rare occurrence, to continue the Mass post tempus debitum, per epikiam, as there are exceptions made, for instance in Loretto?

Ad 2: Bishop Miiller (Theolog. Moralis, III. pag. 223) allows “to give a lay person part of the larger host.” 1. In a case of necessity, when smaller hosts are lacking, namely, when Holy Viaticum must be administered to a dying person. 2. If one or another person who is to be refreshed by Communion could not without inconvenience wait until smaller hosts had been consecrated in another Mass.

No. I is literally true here; a doubt in regard to permissibility is completely excluded. A difficulty would exist where there were lack of a proper vessel or of a second corporal. If a pyx is not at hand, then the Blessed Sacrament should be conveyed in a corporal. If there is not even a second corporal, then there is nothing to be done, but to cover the chalice with the paten upon which the Sacred Host is laid, and let it remain upon the altar; the Viaticum to be carried in the corporal to the dying. For the sake of completeness, we will suppose the possibility of the priest being called to a moribundus, ante consecrationem. If he returns within an hour, he should continue the Mass where he left off; but if the interruption is of longer duration, "ordietur ab initio" (Alph. lib. VI, n. 354).

It happens frequently that at an altar upon which the Blessed Sacrament is exposed, Masses are said, and holy Communion is given. The question is whether this usage is in accordance with the precepts of the Church.

The question cannot be answered by a simple yes or no. The answer depends upon various circumstances.

1. It is a generally prevailing precept that at an altar upon which the Blessed Sacrament is exposed no Masses may be said without special papal indult, such as given for the Octave of Corpus Christi, except for the purpose of reposition. The Ceremoniale Episcoporum (lib. I. cap. 12 n. 1). contains about this: It would be not merely fitting, but most becoming, that Masses not be celebrated at the altar where the Most Holy Sacrament is placed, which appears to have been observed from ancient times. And Clement XI., in his famous instruction of January 21, 1705, subsequently confirmed by Innocent XIII., Benedict XIII. and Clement XII., respecting the celebration of the Forty Hours’ devotion (§XII.), provides, as of precept, that upon the altar of Exposition only the solemn Masses at Exposition and Reposition, but no other Masses may be said. It is true, no doubt, that the regulation of the Ceremoniale Epp. is only directive, and the Instructio Clementina of precept only for Rome; but there are other special decrees of the S. Rit. Congr. by which those regulations are made the universally binding law. Thus this Congregation, under date of August 9, 1670, ordained: It is not lawful to celebrate Masses at an altar when the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed upon it, especially since there are other altars at which they can be celebrated, and again, under date of June 13, 1671: Mass ought not to be celebrated at an altar where the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed, unless it is for the purpose of repose. Gardellini, in his commentary upon the Clementine Instruction, writes: The rule is therefore certain which generally prohibits Masses at an altar on which the Sacrament is exposed. For the two decrees must be regarded as general, although they were issued in particular cases.

The reason for this general law is plain: since Christ is present in the Blessed Sacrament, and exposed to the view and for the adoration of the faithful, it is at least superfluous to call Him, through consecration, once more from heaven down upon the same altar for the same purpose.

If, therefore, during exposition of the Blessed Sacrament, a Mass is to be said, it must be celebrated at an altar other than the altar of exposition. It should be remarked that even at another altar neither a low nor a high Mass pro Requie may be said, also that in private Masses to the orations prescribed by the rubrics the Oratio de Ss. Sacramento may be added, and that at the Sanctus and the Elevatio the striking of the bell must be omitted. Though these rules are explicit and definite, there is even here nulla regula sine exceptione. An exception is permissible by reason of necessity, and also by reason of ancient and established custom. A case of necessity, in which celebration of holy Mass is allowed before the exposed Blessed Sacrament, would be, for instance, if for important reasons holy Mass has to be said and there is no other altar in the church. This is evident from the provision of the decree of August 9, 1670, and it is expressly admitted by Gardellini in the words: Stante praesertim quod adsint alia altaria, in quibus celebrari possit.

In this latter case, when the praeceptum audiendi sacrum presses for fulfilment and another church is not in the neighborhood, the offering of the holy Sacrifice would even then be permitted on the altar of exposition if the other altar is so situated that if Mass is celebrated there it will be necessary to turn the back towards the altar of exposition.

Besides necessity, there excuses from observance of the general rule also an ancient custom, difficult to change. A custom which is truly immemorial and which cannot be abolished without scandal and offense to the people (Gardellini). This exception received indirect approval by the decree of the S. R. Congr. of May 7, 1746. In Poland it frequently happened that while the Blessed Sacrament was exposed, there were at the same altar, in addition to the Mass of Exposition, other private Masses said. To the question whether in these Masses a commemoration of the same Most Holy Sacrament ought to be made, the Congregation answered: A commemoration of the Most Holy Sacrament may be made during the exposition. By not expressing itself about the existing custom of saying Mass at the altar of exposition it tacitly let it be understood that it may be tolerated, according to the popular axiom: qui tacet consentire videtur.

Nevertheless, even if an urgens necessitas and a consuetudo vere immemorabilis allow of exceptions from the general rule, they do not abrogate the latter but rather serve to confirm it. Exceptio firmat regulam. Particular cases, observes Gardellini, do not destroy the universal law and rule, nor can particular cases be equally adapted to everyone so that all alike would not be bound strictly to follow the universal law. For this rule must be observed so strictly and accurately that no one may depart from it. It is evident from what has been said that the celebration upon altars upon which the Blessed Sacrament is exposed must be regarded in general as an offense against ecclesiastical liturgical ordinances.

2. Just as impermissible as it is in general to celebrate at an altar where the Blessed Sacrament is exposed it is also to administer holy Communion from the same, even then if, for some good reason, holy Mass has been said there. The poor Clares of Tarentum were by a foundation obliged to have on the three days of carnival the Blessed Sacrament exposed for adoration in their chapel. As they only had one altar, and in order not to be deprived of holy Mass on these days, they presented a petition to the Holy See that the celebratio Missae might be permitted upon the altar of exposition. The favor was granted, but with the expressed condition: provided that in the Mass the holy Eucharist is not distributed (November 12, 1831). If it is prohibited to distribute holy Communion during holy Mass from the altar of exposition, still less may it be distributed outside of holy Mass. The reason is obvious: the distribution of holy Communion from the altar of exposition would not merely disturb worshipers in their devotion, but the priest giving holy Communion would be guilty of irreverence by turning his back to the Blessed Sacrament. In order that the faithful during exposition may not be deprived of holy Communion, the holy Eucharist should be kept, in a ciborium or chalice, on a side altar and distributed from there. Innocent XI. ordains so in his decree of May 28, 1682: But if holy Communion must be administered at the same time at which the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed, let this be done at another altar, taking the Most Holy Sacrament from the ciborium; and when Communion has been completed, let it be replaced in the tabernacle, or let it be covered with a veil in such a way that it cannot be seen.

If in the church of exposition there is only one altar, must the distribution of holy Communion be omitted altogether, or may it in this case be done from the altar of exposition? The latter view is favored by a decree of the S. R. C. of September 26, 1868, as also by the fact that Masses are allowed at the altar of exposition in case of necessity or custom. In that case care should be taken that holy Communion be distributed as much as possible to the side of the altar to avoid turning the back towards the Blessed Sacrament. It is plain that, after giving holy Communion, the blessing with the ciborium must not be given from the altar of exposition, nor from a side altar.

Hence it is always a gross offense against liturgical ordinances when, no doubt more from lack of information than from indifference, coram exposito Ss. Sacramento, except in cases of necessity, holy Communion is administered from the altar of exposition, and if even the blessing is given with the ciborium.

Bernard Schmid, O.S.B.

Father A. informs his confrater B. that a careful study of the rubrics has convinced him that the words: Calicem salutaris accipiam must be spoken while the fragments are collected and wiped from the paten into the chalice. On the contrary, Father B. is of the opinion, also based on a study of the rubrics, that these words are to be spoken after the paten has been purified and while the chalice is taken with the right hand. Which of the two views is the right one?

The difference in opinion is caused by an actual difference between the rubrics in the Ritus servandus in the Missal, and those found in the Canon itself, and thus both priests may quote the rubrics. The rubric in the Canon to which Father A. may refer, reads: Then he uncovers the chalice, genuflects, gathers the fragments, if there are any, wipes the paten over the chalice, meanwhile saying: What shall I render ... I will take the chalice of salvation. ... And only then follows: He takes the chalice in his right hand and, signing himself with it, says: The Blood of the Lord. ... Contrary to this rubrica specialis the rubrica generalis in the Ritus servandus regulates ceremonies and words in the following manner: Then, having lowered his hands, he says secretly: What shall I render ... he has rendered to me, and meanwhile he uncovers the chalice, genuflects, rises, uncovers the paten, inspects the corporal, gathers with the paten any fragments that are upon it, and carefully wipes the paten over the chalice with the thumb and forefinger of his right hand and wipes those fingers themselves, lest any fragments remain upon them. After wiping the paten, with thumbs and forefingers joined, he takes the chalice with his right hand below the cup and the paten with his left, saying: I will take the chalice of salvation.

While, therefore, the words Calicem Salutaris, according to the special rubrics (infra missam) must be spoken during the extersion of the paten, the rubrica generalis directs quite plainly that these words should be spoken post extersionem patenae. It appeared, therefore, to some authorities that it was optional with the priest to speak these words either during or after the Extersio patenae. This is the opinion of de Herdt, who, in his Prax. S. Lit. (tit. I, n. 267), writes: “During the gathering of the particles and the extersion of the paten the priest may say the words: Calicem Salutaris, in accordance with the rubrics contained in the Ordo Missae, according to the general rubrics, however, these words are spoken after the purifying of the paten,” and in the following paragraph (n. 268) he says: “Taking the chalice in his hand the priest says the words Calicem Salutaris—unless he has already said them while gathering up the particles and purifying the paten.”

Other authorities believe, however, that these words should be said after the extersio patenae, when actually taking the chalice. Thus teaches Meratus (ad Gavantum. t. I., p. II., tit. X. N. 12). This is also the opinion of St. Alphonsus and of most rubricists following him, thus J. Fornici (Institution, Lit., p. I., c. 31), Jos. Schneider, S.J., in his Manuale Sacerdotum, and Hartmann in the Repertorium. Moreover, Benedict XIV. has defended this view in his book De Sacrificio Missae. If number and importance of these authorities are considered this opinion deserves preference. But it does so also for intrinsic reasons. The rubrics in ordine missae are brief and find explanation in the rubricis generalibus, which, in our case, direct explicitly the order of ceremonies and words, while the special rubrics do this more summarily. Furthermore, the principle that actions and words should agree must be considered. This agreement is present if the words Calicem Salutaris accipiam are said while the hand takes the chalice. Nevertheless, so the Monitore Ecclesiastico observes, we should not find fault with one who adheres to the special rubrics in ordine missae, because these are indeed the weightiest and most authentic guide for the offering up of holy Mass.

Ig. Rieder.

Father Perplexus, a priest suffering in a high degree of absent-mindedness, commits at holy Mass not infrequently small errors and various mistakes, which he then strives to remedy in various ways. We will quote a few of these errors together with his attempts at correction, and examine them critically.

(1) Now and again it happens that our Father Perplexus, in his haste, omits the Gloria, or Credo; if he, directly after the Dominus vobiscum, realizes the omission he then recites the Gloria, or Credo, without repeating the Dominus vobiscum.

(2) Occasionally he takes the wrong proper: if then, during the Mass, he becomes aware of his error, he is in doubt whether to continue the Mass begun, or pass over to the Mass of the day. His practise in this respect differs and is uncertain.

(3) Sometimes he forgets to take a prescribed Collecta and only remembers it at the Post-Communio: then he endeavors to make good his mistake by supplementing the first Oratio and the Secreta,

(4) If through forgetfulness he takes the Communicantes commune and recalls at its conclusion that a Communicantes proprium was prescribed, he does it all over by repeating the whole Communt-cantes in the proper form.

(5) Once when at the first consecration he absent-mindedly had said the words bibite ex eo, instead of manducate ex hoc, he corrected himself quickly and then proceeded; another time, however, the same error having happened, he did not consider such a correction sufficient, but begins once more with the words Qui pridie, quam pateretur, etc. (6) Sometimes the first prayer after the Agnus Dei, omitted in Requiem Masses, escapes his attention, if he then becomes aware of the omission after the second prayer, he inserts the first prayer here and then goes on with the third prayer.

Now let us examine what is to be thought of these attempts at correction made by Father Perplexus. First of all, let us recall the three principles which must guide us in judging these cases:

(1) Parts of holy Mass that belong to the essence of the Sacrifice must, in every case, be repeated if one becomes aware of a mistake before the Mass is finished. (2) Prayers not essential, but important, must, in case of a mistake, be repeated if noticed so soon that the words still have a proper meaning at that place, and provided it can be done without exciting undue comment. (3) Less important parts, or prayers, especially such that do not always occur in holy Mass, need not to be repeated, if they have been forgotten at their proper places (cf. Ligouri, Theol. Moral. I., VI., n. 403 sq.; Lehmkuhl, Theol. Moral. II., n, 241 sq.).

In the light of these principles it is not difficult to judge these various cases. Ad. 1, Father Perplexus should not have repeated the Gloria and Credo because these prayers are not very important and do not occur in every Mass: moreover, the repetition of these prayers could hardly take place without exciting comment. Lehmkuhl (/. c.. 242) says about this: Let the priest never resume the Gloria, Creed, and similar things, nor the epistle, gospel, etc., if he has taken one for another, unless perhaps he notices the error at the beginning of the wrong epistle, etc. Ad. 2, In this case Father Perplexus should at all times have acted on the principle which applies in this respect to the breviary, namely, error corrigatur, ubi deprehenditur, if it could be done without comment and without long search. Ad. 3, When one notices only at the Postcommunio that an Oratio or Secreta has been left out, it is not necessary to repeat them, because, as a rule, these prayers have no longer the proper meaning at that time. If one remembers at the Secreta that the first Oratio has not been recited, then it will not be out of place to make up for it; but it is not necessary in this case. Ad. 4, Father Perplexus need not repeat in this case, because there is no essential difference between the various Communicantes, and because that which is peculiar to this prayer does not belong to the more important parts of holy Mass (cf. Lehmkuhl, |. c. n. 241). The same rule would apply if in regard to the Preface such a mistake happened. Ad. 5, Since the words in which Father Perplexus erred do not belong to the strictly essential formula of Consecration, it suffices if he simply corrects himself as is done generally in speaking or reciting, and which is quite intelligible. This would even suffice in the strictly essential words of the Consecration. But here, where absolute security is necessary, it would be advisable ad cautelam to begin all over again; if one, for instance, had said calix, instead of corpus, he should recommence with the words Hoc est enim, etc. Ad. 6, The attempt at correction made by Father Perplexus in this case may be regarded as permissible, as this prayer is not out of order even in second place, and gives there a good meaning.

Similar faults, or errors, in the prayers of the Mass, of which various others may occur, should be judged by the rules given above, and remedied accordingly.

Dr. Joseph Niglutsch.

1. Is it permitted for the priest, while he genuflects and elevates the sacred species after the consecration of the Mass, to say some vocal prayers, like: Credo, Dme or Adoro te?