If a priest needs to urgently administer viaticum

[YoungTradCath]

and there are no reserved hosts, may he consecrate a host and some wine without performing an entire mass?

 

[Tarpeian_Rock]

and there are no reserved hosts, may he consecrate a host and some wine without performing an entire mass?

I don’t have the specific citation, but I believe that the Eucharist can only be validly consecrated in the context of a valid Mass, with the possible exception of an extraordinary circumstance such as a POW camp or similar. Certainly in the danger of death the most “urgent” Sacrament would seem to be Reconciliation, or in the event of unconsciousness, the Sacrament of the Sick, not Viaticum.

 

[Sacred_Heart_1]

I don’t have the specific citation, but I believe that the Eucharist can only be validly consecrated in the context of a valid Mass, with the possible exception of an extraordinary circumstance such as a POW camp or similar. Certainly in the danger of death the most “urgent” Sacrament would seem to be Reconciliation, or in the event of unconsciousness, the Sacrament of the Sick, not Viaticum.

I agree.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I believe the Eucharist could indeed be validly consecrated outside any liturgical context by a priest simply saying the consecration over bread and wine, but ordinarily this would be a grave abuse. I don’t know if there is a provision in the law for extreme circumstances.

 

[puzzleannie]

and there are no reserved hosts, may he consecrate a host and some wine without performing an entire mass?

no he may not, no Mass, no consecration.
No consecration = no Mass.

 

[YoungTradCath]

no he may not, no Mass, no consecration.
No consecration = no Mass.

Well… can’t a consecration be performed at any time? I understand now that it would be highly illicit, but a consecration doesn’t require Bible readings, a Eucharistic prayer, etc. It only absolutely requires the words of institution and proper intent and matter, does it not?

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Well… can’t a consecration be performed at any time? I understand now that it would be highly illicit, but a consecration doesn’t require Bible readings, a Eucharistic prayer, etc. It only absolutely requires the words of institution and proper intent and matter, does it not?

As I mentioned, I believe you are right.

Redemptionis Sacramentum’s non-exhaustive list of liturgical abuses includes, under the category of graviora delicta includes:

d, the Consecration for sacrilegious ends of one matter without the other in the celebration of the Eucharist or even of both outside the celebration of the Eucharist.

That’s from the document as provided in my copy of Mass Revision by Jimmy Akin, which I happened to have within reach. I believe it can also be found online if you want to check the accuracy of the quote.

Now, this is a little confusing because the document includes two presumably problematic elements together, on the one hand consecration for sacrilegious ends and on the other the consecration of only one element or of the elements outside the Eucharistic celebration. I would guess that both parts would be grave abuses, and I’m a little confused why the document mixed the two clearly distinct elements instead of condemning them separately. I would guess they had two or more specific real-life incidents in mind in which the two elements had in fact happened together. But anyway, the condemnation seems to presuppose that one element could be validly consecrated without the other and that the Eucharist could be validly consecrated outside its proper liturgical celebration.

 

[YoungTradCath]

As I mentioned, I believe you are right.

Redemptionis Sacramentum’s non-exhaustive list of liturgical abuses includes, under the category of Graviora delicta includes:

That’s from the document as provided in my copy of Mass Revision by Jimmy Akin, which I happened to have within reach. I believe it can also be found online if you want to check the accuracy of the quote.

Now, this is a little confusing because the document includes two presumably problematic elements together, on the one hand consecration for sacrilegious ends and on the other the consecration of only one element or of the elements outside the Eucharistic celebration. I would guess that both parts would be grave abuses, and I’m a little confused why the document mixed the two clearly distinct elements instead of condemning them separately. I would guess they had two or more specific real-life incidents in mind in which the two elements had in fact happened together. But anyway, the condemnation** seems to presuppose that one element could be consecrated without the other** or that the Eucharist could be consecrated outside its proper liturgical celebration.

Yes, this is rather disconcerting.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

Yes, this is rather disconcerting.

Note I meant it could be validly concecrated, not licitly. I edited my post to clear up that possible confusion.

It actually does open up a similar question, namely whether in an extreme circumstance like a gulag or a colony cut off from all contact with any other population, in which one element (likely wheat bread) was present but not the other (likely grape wine), could a priest licitly consecrate only the bread rather than deprive a population of the Eucharist indefinitely?

 

[FrDavid96]

and there are no reserved hosts, may he consecrate a host and some wine without performing an entire mass?

No. A priest may legitimately never do this, regardless of the circumstances.

Doing this is possible, but it is strictly forbidden.

 

[MarkThompson]

Well… can’t a consecration be performed at any time? I understand now that it would be highly illicit, but a consecration doesn’t require Bible readings, a Eucharistic prayer, etc. It only absolutely requires the words of institution and proper intent and matter, does it not?

It is theologically possible to perform a consecration outside the Mass, but it is absolutely forbidden with no exceptions:
Can. 927 It is absolutely forbidden, even in extreme urgent necessity, to consecrate one matter without the other or even both outside the eucharistic celebration.

[But anyway, the condemnation seems to presuppose that one element could be consecrated without the other…] Yes, this is rather disconcerting.

Yes, you could. Indeed, at Mass when the priest has consecrated the bread and genuflects, but before he has consecrated the wine, what you have is one element consecrated without the other. Similarly, if (unbeknownst, hopefully, to the priest) the bread were not wheaten, or the wine were not of the grape, then you would have an entire Mass where only one species was consecrated. Simply attempting to consecrate a host made of rice flour does not imply that the consecration of the wine must also fail.

So again, it is theologically possible to consecrate only one species, but absolutely forbidden.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

It’s probably not good for any of us to speculate on such extreme circumstances. As another poster said, in the danger of death, the primary sacrament would be a good confession, and then the priest could annoint the person even if he didn’t have the Eucharist.

 

[MarkThompson]

It’s probably not good for any of us to speculate on such extreme circumstances.

We do not need to speculate. The Church has already answered the question. “Would it be okay to do it in a case of extreme necessity, when someone is on death’s door?” No, it is still forbidden.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

We do not need to speculate. The Church has already answered the question. “Would it be okay to do it in a case of extreme necessity, when someone is on death’s door?” No, it is still forbidden.

Agree.

 

[YoungTradCath]

It is theologically possible to perform a consecration outside the Mass, but it is absolutely forbidden with no exceptions.

Yes, you could. Indeed, at Mass when the priest has consecrated the bread and genuflects, but before he has consecrated the wine, what you have is one element consecrated without the other. Similarly, if (unbeknownst, hopefully, to the priest) the bread were not wheaten, or the wine were not of the grape, then you would have an entire Mass where only one species was consecrated. Simply attempting to consecrate a host made of rice flour does not imply that the consecration of the wine must also fail.

So again, it is theologically possible to consecrate only one species, but absolutely forbidden.

But I thought if one species was not consecrated then the entire mass itself is completely and utterly invalidated. And if it does mean the mass is invalid, does the invalidation come from some cosmological divine law, or does it come from the binding and loosing power of the papacy expressed though the Canons of the CIC?

 

[Matthew_Holford]

It’s probably not good for any of us to speculate on such extreme circumstances. As another poster said, in the danger of death, the primary sacrament would be a good confession, and then the priest could annoint the person even if he didn’t have the Eucharist.

The Sacrament of the dying is neither penance nor anointing of the sick. It is the Holy Eucharist as Viaticum. When a person is in this state it is proper if giving all the Last Rites for these sacraments to be administered: 1) Penance, 2) Anointing of the Sick, and 3) Viaticum. These are then followed by the Apostolic Blessing at the Hour of Death. It is, however, Viaticum that is considered to be the proper sacrament of the dying and the most important to give to the dying.

 

[Mrs_Sally]

The Sacrament of the dying is neither penance nor anointing of the sick. It is the Holy Eucharist as Viaticum. When a person is in this state it is proper if giving all the Last Rites for these sacraments to be administered: 1) Penance, 2) Anointing of the Sick, and 3) Viaticum. These are then followed by the Apostolic Blessing at the Hour of Death. It is, however, Viaticum that is considered to be the proper sacrament of the dying and the most important to give to the dying.

Correct. However, we have come to this twilight zone where viaticum is not available and the priest, for some reason cannot say a complete Mass. In that case, the priest must do what he can and cannot do what isn’t possible.

This is one reason why I think these sorts of speculations are not helpful and can possibly be dangerous to an unformed faith.

 

[MarkThompson]

But I thought if one species was not consecrated then the entire mass itself is completely and utterly invalidated. And if it does mean the mass is invalid, does the invalidation come from some cosmological divine law, or does it come from the binding and loosing power of the papacy expressed though the Canons of the CIC?

Mass ≠ Eucharist. Eucharist ∈ Mass.

Yes, if one species were not consecrated, you would not have a Mass. You would still have one consecrated species of the Eucharist, though. The Eucharist is just one element of what makes up a Mass, which also includes such elements as an offertory and the priest’s Communion.

In fact, let’s take that last as an example. We know that if the priest fails to receive Communion, then the Sacrifice is not completed and consequently there is no Mass, since the Mass is the completed Sacrifice. Now, it is possible (prohibited, but as a matter of law, not theology) for him to receive Communion last, after the congregation. Suppose that he distributes Communion to the congregation first, but then runs out or forgets before receiving himself. That does not mean that all the hosts the congregation received revert back to being bread, or that, by some back-in-time process, they were now always bread. No, the Eucharist was valid, and the people received Communion. It just wasn’t a Mass! So it does not have the spiritual fruits of a Mass; the priest cannot accept a stipend for having said Mass; etc.

 

[Matthew_Holford]

Correct. However, we have come to this twilight zone where viaticum is not available and the priest, for some reason cannot say a complete Mass. In that case, the priest must do what he can and cannot do what isn’t possible.

This is one reason why I think these sorts of speculations are not helpful and can possibly be dangerous to an unformed faith.

OK I’m glad you accept that as it’s not what you were previously saying about the most important sacrament for the dying.

To what speculations are you referring? I don’t believe there’s any speculation as to what a priest can or cannot do. If he’s no hosts may be a good solution would be to ring another parish to see if they have hosts. In no way can a priest consecrate any. I believe if he did it would be valid. Valid in the sense that the sacrament could actually be confected. However, the Church has made it abundantly clear that doing this is most strictly prohibited!

 

[MarkThompson]

Correct. However, we have come to this twilight zone where viaticum is not available and the priest, for some reason cannot say a complete Mass. In that case, the priest must do what he can and cannot do what isn’t possible.

No. The priest can consecrate the Eucharist outside of Mass – it is possible – but he must not do that.