If a priest needs to urgently administer viaticum

[YoungTradCath]

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.

I see. This makes sense. But this leads me to something else. Receiving the Eucharist on its own does, in fact, confer grace upon any disposed person who receives it. You say that there are no spiritual fruits of a mass if the sacrifice, thus the mass, is not completed, is invalid. But the people still receive grace from the Eucharist itself, correct?

The lack of grace from the invalidity of the mass does not nullify the grace from the Eucharist. That is, there are two “sets” of grace to be got at every mass. Am I right?

 

[Mrs_Sally]

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

If the priest does not have a viaticum, he should still hear the dying man’s confession (if possible) and annoint him. Since in the OP’s question, viaticum was not available, it cannot be offered.

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!

The speculation comes in when we start discussing these extreme situations. I do not believe it is helpful at all for lay people to start wondering and speculating about what a priest should or could do in various unlikely situations.

Since I have said that, I am going to take my own good advice and bow out of the discussion.

 

[MarkThompson]

I see. This makes sense. But this leads me to something else. Receiving the Eucharist on its own does, in fact, confer grace upon any disposed person who receives it. You say that there are no spiritual fruits of a mass if the sacrifice, thus the mass, is not completed, is invalid. But the people still receive grace from the Eucharist itself, correct?

The lack of grace from the invalidity of the mass does not nullify the grace from the Eucharist. That is, there are two “sets” of grace to be got at every mass. Am I right?

Presumably. I’m certainly not an expert in grace-ology, and frankly I think that over-precise attempts to calculate these things are part of what gave Scholasticism a bad reputation. But clearly, from the standpoint of the individual, there is a difference between a Mass which he just watches and has to make a spiritual Communion, and a Mass in which he receives the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Trent (Sess. 22, Cap. VI) acknowledged that the faithful should communicate “not only in spiritual desire, but also by the sacramental participation of the Eucharist, that thereby a more abundant fruit might be derived to them from this most holy sacrifice.” Yet the Mass itself has intrinsic spiritual fruits, which can, for instance, be applied to the intention of the Mass. Those are the fruits which would be diminished or eliminated were the Mass, as a whole, to turn out to have been invalid.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Presumably. I’m certainly not an expert in grace-ology, and frankly I think that over-precise attempts to calculate these things are part of what gave Scholasticism a bad reputation. But clearly, from the standpoint of the individual, there is a difference between a Mass which he just watches and has to make a spiritual Communion, and a Mass in which he receives the Sacrament of Holy Communion. Trent (Sess. 22, Cap. VI) acknowledged that the faithful should communicate “not only in spiritual desire, but also by the sacramental participation of the Eucharist, that thereby a more abundant fruit might be derived to them from this most holy sacrifice.” Yet the Mass itself has intrinsic spiritual fruits, which can, for instance, be applied to the intention of the Mass. Those are the fruits which would be diminished or eliminated were the Mass, as a whole, to turn out to have been invalid.

I see. Well, I love going deep into matters such as these. I don’t care if Scholasticism has a bad reputation, as you put it. I’m not advocating for putting it to use in our public schools.

 

[PacoG]

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

I might be wrong, but I think there would be five options:

1. Call all the deacons and extraordinary ministers who are scheduled to take communion to the sick that day and see if any of them have a host and have them bring it to him right away.
2. Call neighboring parishes. Maybe Our Lady of the Quick Trip Across Town can spare a host.
3. Use the host that is reserved for Eucharistic Adoration in the luna in the Tabernacle.
4. (And correct me on this)…say a Private Mass. With all the parts that are cut out for a Mass to be said privately, a priest could probably say a Private Mass in 10 minutes.
5. Say Mass at the bedside of the dying person and include the prayers and annointing as part of a Mass. This would provide even more graces.

 

[MarkThompson]

In some unrelated reading, I happened to come across this section of the The Casuist, Vol. III (1910; imprimatur etc.). The case was posed:

XIII. SAYING MASS WITHOUT WINE

A Catholic man died recently in an outmission belonging to the parish of A. The pastor of A. was absent from home on the annual retreat of the clergy of the diocese. He had made arrangements with the assistant of a neighboring parish, belonging to a neighboring diocese, to look after his parish as well as this outmission during his absence, in the matter of sick calls and funerals, if there should be any, which was thought unlikely. This assistant was a young priest, just ordained, and unfamiliar with the conditions at A., and, especially, at the outmission. As this Catholic man died suddenly, in fact had been killed accidentally, the assistant priest was not notified until almost the last moment. The family of the deceased wanted a Requiem High Mass, and the necessary arrangements were made with the choir of the parish of A., etc., The church was crowded with Catholics and non-Catholics, when the young priest arrived to say the Mass and bless the corpse. But he had forgotten to bring along any Mass wine, and there was none to be had in the neighborhood for several miles around. To send home for some was out of the question. At the same time the young priest was afraid to omit the Mass. In his excitement he said the Mass, consecrating only one species, that is, the bread. Now it is asked:

1st. Is it ever allowed to consecrate one species alone?

2d. Would the Mass, said with one species, i. e., with bread alone, or with wine alone, be a true sacrifice or a real Mass?

3d. Might a priest retain the stipend, if he said Mass only with one species?
The answer is given at some length with explanations that are very much worth reading. In brief it can be said:

1st. “No, it is never allowed, under any circumstances, to say Mass with one species. . . . St. Alphonsus maintains that the obligation to consecrate both species in the Mass, both the bread and the wine, is of strict divine command, from which neither the Pope nor the Church has any authority to dispense. . . . If this young priest was not aware that there was no wine until after the consecration of the bread, and there was no wine to be had, then he would be permitted to continue the Mass to the end, omitting only those words and signs that refer to the consecrated wine. But if at any time before the consecration of the bread he perceived the absence of the wine, he should have discontinued the Mass immediately. Not even in order to administer Viaticum to himself, or to another, would, or could, the Church allow him to consecrate one species alone.”

2d. “Modern theologians maintain that it would not. Thus, Father Lehmkuhl holds that it is dogmatically settled that the consecration of both species is required for the essence or substance of the Mass as a sacrifice. Without this double consecration, namely of the bread and of the wine, there is no adequate or sufficient showing forth or representation of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, as instituted and ordained and willed by Jesus Christ.”

3d. “If the young assistant acted in good faith he may retain the stipend. Ballerini says that he may not, because he cannot liquidate a debt that is quite certain by a doubtful payment.”

 

[Matthew_Holford]

If the priest does not have a viaticum, he should still hear the dying man’s confession (if possible) and annoint him. Since in the OP’s question, viaticum was not available, it cannot be offered.

I agree. If the Sacred Body is unavailable, for whatever reason, the priest may administer the other sacraments and sacramental of the Last Rites. The reason why I was saying that Viaticum is the sacrament of the dying is because this is taught by the Church but many people seem not to be aware of it.

The speculation comes in when we start discussing these extreme situations. I do not believe it is helpful at all for lay people to start wondering and speculating about what a priest should or could do in various unlikely situations.

Since I have said that, I am going to take my own good advice and bow out of the discussion.

It is only speculation with regards to what an individual priest does in such circumstances as mentioned in the OP: does he contact another parish to obtain the Sacred Body? Does he celebrate a Mass sine populo? What does he do?

It is not speculation regarding the Church’s teaching, which is open to the laity, that a priest is strictly forbidden to consecrate either of the sacred species outside Mass.

 

[Aelred_Minor]

I see. Well, I love going deep into matters such as these. I don’t care if Scholasticism has a bad reputation, as you put it. I’m not advocating for putting it to use in our public schools.

I’ll advocate for putting Scholasticism in our public schools! :yup:

And yes, certainly there are graces to be obtained at mass even of one does not receive the Eucharist.