Priest unable to finish mass....what to do?

  • Thread starter Thread starter lorathon
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Phemie said:
I was thinking the same thing. At the best of times the nearest priest would take 6-7 hours to drive here or have to wait until the next available flight. You could hardly lock the assembly in at the evening Mass and expect them to stay there overnight as the next flight would not be in until 11:30 the next morning.

Obviously someone would have to take charge but I can’t think who that would be. We have nobody ‘in charge’ of anything. I’m probably the only one who would know that everything has to stay as is until another priest gets here, but does that mean that all the assembly has to stay or that someone has to stay to keep things intact?
Click to expand...
I’m certainly not a canon lawyer (heaven forbid … :eek: ) but I have some limited experience and will weigh in with an opinion. (And it is only that: an opinion.)

The laws governing “what to do in case a priest is stricken at the altar” were written with the presumption that another priest would be readily available to finish the Mass. That is still the case in many places, and where the possibility exists, the law must be followed.

Now, in a case such as you describe, the law must, of course, still be followed in regards to the liturgy, but it would amount to cruel and unusual punishment to keep the congregation captive for 7+ hours. (The CIC has its quirks, but undue hardship on the faithful in a situation beyond their control is not one of them as far as I know.) Anyway, in such a circumstance I would agree with your last possibility: someone has to volunteer to stay and “keep watch” to ensure that the altar remains intact until the “relief” priest arrives to take charge. It makes sense for the congregation to be sent home (head usher, perhaps?) and the doors locked. A quick meeting of parish officers and/or interested parties in attendance should be able to sort out the details.
 
malphono said:
Now, in a case such as you describe, the law must, of course, still be followed in regards to the liturgy, but it would amount to cruel and unusual punishment to keep the congregation captive for 7+ hours. (The CIC has its quirks, but undue hardship on the faithful in a situation beyond their control is not one of them as far as I know.) Anyway, in such a circumstance I would agree with your last possibility: someone has to volunteer to stay and “keep watch” to ensure that the altar remains intact until the “relief” priest arrives to take charge. It makes sense for the congregation to be sent home (head usher, perhaps?) and the doors locked. A quick meeting of parish officers and/or interested parties in attendance should be able to sort out the details.
Click to expand...
I wonder if it would have to be the same *someone *for the full time period? I would guess that sometimes that means waiting in shifts.

There are no doubt cases where extreme isolation and/or weather conditions mean it would be days before a Mass could completed.
 
SMHW said:
I wonder if it would have to be the same *someone *for the full time period? I would guess that sometimes that means waiting in shifts.

There are no doubt cases where extreme isolation and/or weather conditions mean it would be days before a Mass could completed.
Click to expand...
I would opine that “shifts” would be the order of the day in such a situation. That’s pretty much a part of what I meant about “sorting out the details:” no one person could be expected to sit vigil for days.
 
I’m certainly not advocating that the congregation be locked up for multiple hours. As someone else said, the assumption in the procedure is that another priest is readily available. In this era of parish clusters, especially out in the small towns, that’s not realistic.

Geographically speaking, we have two priests in our school district. The next district over has one priest, but Sinsinawa is close, and there are a few Dominican priests there. If our pastor collapsed at the altar (and with his health, it is actually a concern), a replacement could realistically be here within the hour to finish.

If this happened in my parish and I was at the particular Mass, I would suspect that I’d be the one briefing the head usher on what to do. I’d certainly recommend that he release the congregation if the wait were going to be more than an hour.

I hope there’s a book someone in the Sacristy with the instructions outlined for the head usher to use! I really don’t have to be winging this.
 
Phemie said:
But in this case you already are assisting at Mass, one that has not ended.
Click to expand...
Except in the case of the OP, however, where the mass is all but finished, I don’t think you’d fulfill your obligation if you left during the “intermission”.
 
I think the Almighty would take exceptional and unusual circumstances into account. 🙂
 
Newbie2 said:
I think the Almighty would take exceptional and unusual circumstances into account. 🙂
Click to expand...
Yes, of course.

A couple of years back I had an experience where the bishop (who is very orthodox) was celebrating and at the very beginning of the service there was a smoke condition in the church. He dismissed the congregation immediately and dispensed the obligation.

When I spoke to him a day or two later, he stated that he really didn’t have to “dispense” but did so to allay the fears and questions of the congregation. His position was that the congregation was present with the intent to attend and fulfill their obligation, but were unable to do so through no fault or omission of their own. It’s quite similar to what I opined in an earlier post: Canon Law (for all its quirks) doesn’t place hardship on the faithful when a situation is totally beyond their control.

Another story from the archives:

Back in the days when mastadons and tyrannosaurs roamed the earth, in the days when the EF was the only form, I recall a huge blizzard on a Sunday. There was something like 2 feet of snow, and nothing was moving. Even the city plows were snowbound. A few diehards (including me) bundled up and walked a mile+ for High Mass. The pastor (ultra-orthodox, even then!) came out and was astonished to see that there were people in the pews! He quietly explained that the obligation was automatically dispensed and said we should have known that. At the same time, though, he was thrilled that people actually did trudge through the snow, and we had our missa cantata. (One of the other boys was drafted to serve, while I and a few other diehards ended up singing the Ordinary.)
 
malphono said:
A couple of years back I had an experience where the bishop (who is very orthodox) was celebrating and at the very beginning of the service there was a smoke condition in the church. He dismissed the congregation immediately and dispensed the obligation.
Click to expand...
So did the bishop finish celebrating the mass, after the congregation was evacuated? And what provisions are there for when say poison gas is leaking into the building, or the structure is burning to the ground - is it possible to take the essential elements to another location and complete the mass there?
 
Digitonomy said:
So did the bishop finish celebrating the mass, after the congregation was evacuated? And what provisions are there for when say poison gas is leaking into the building, or the structure is burning to the ground - is it possible to take the essential elements to another location and complete the mass there?
Click to expand...
There was a smoke condition (it was actually quite severe) so no, the bishop did not continue. (The problem started right at the beginning, well before the readings.) And it wasn’t only the congregation that was evacuated … everyone was evacuated including the bishop, priests, etc. The church was locked, the fire department came. Ultimately they gave the “all clear” but that was several hours later. Knowing the bishop, he may well have offered Mass later in his private chapel.

As for the other horrible scenarios, I suppose it would depend:
  • in a situation where a problem is noticed before it becomes crippling, I would think the celebrant would have to remove Holy Elements if physically possible. I would think this similar to the case of an incapacitated celebrant: if there’s a location where the service can continue safely, the celebrant and congregation repairs there and continues. If not possible to continue in another location within a reasonable time, I would think the celebrant would take charge of the Holy Elements and the congregants would be automatically dispensed.
  • in a situation where a problem is not detected in time, most likely all present would be stricken, and the point would seem to be moot. In this case the congregants who survived would, I believe, be dispensed automatically from the obligation.
 
I wonder who finished the Mass when Archbishop Romero was assassinated.
 
lorathon said:
On Sunday the priest saying the Mass collapsed (fainted) right before the recessional. ( Please pray for him - Last I heard he was fine, he just had to spend the night at the hospital for observation.)
Click to expand...
:crossrc: :crossrc:
 
Canon law (No. 927), in the strongest terms, forbids the consecration of both species outside of Mass or the consecration of one without the other even within Mass. This prohibition uses the Latin term “nefas,” a word used only four times in the code. The result is that there are practically no exceptions to this rule, not even in order to give Communion to someone in danger of death.

With this in mind, we can say that should a priest have to interrupt the Mass due to illness or another grave reason after he has consecrated either or both species — and is unlikely to be able to recover sufficiently within an hour — there is a grave obligation to have the celebration continued by another priest.

In grave emergencies even a priest who has been excommunicated, suspended or otherwise irregular may finish the Mass.

If the first priest is able to communicate he should be given communion from the species consecrated during the Mass.

If no priest is immediately available, the hosts and the chalice (even if not yet consecrated) should be placed in the tabernacle until a priest can come to finish the Mass.

The interval elapsing between the two parts may be of any duration but should be as soon as possible.

If not-yet-consecrated wine were to spoil, or be certain to spoil, before a priest can come to consecrate it, then it may be poured down the sacrarium and replaced with new matter (wine and water) when the priest arrives.

Only in very rare and extreme situations may the consecrated species of an interrupted Mass be consumed. Such occasions would be, for example, an imminent danger of profanation of the sacred species or the objective impossibility of safely keeping them, such as during wartime conditions or a climate where the species of wine would certainly become corrupt before a priest can come to complete the Mass.
 
dcnpaul said:
In grave emergencies even a priest who has been excommunicated, suspended or otherwise irregular may finish the Mass…

Only in very rare and extreme situations may the consecrated species of an interrupted Mass be consumed. Such occasions would be, for example, an imminent danger of profanation of the sacred species or the objective impossibility of safely keeping them, such as during wartime conditions or a climate where the species of wine would certainly become corrupt before a priest can come to complete the Mass.
Click to expand...
These are the sort of rare and bizarre hypotheticals that I love to hear about. Is this all from your own memory and logic, or do you have a particular source that can elaborate further on this and other topics?
 
Good question on the resource - see

ZENIT Daily Dispatch © Innovative Media, Inc.
ZENIT International News Agency
article: Jan, 2008
“When There’s a Medical Emergency”
by:
Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum University
 
dcnpaul said:
Good question on the resource - see

ZENIT Daily Dispatch © Innovative Media, Inc.
ZENIT International News Agency
article: Jan, 2008
“When There’s a Medical Emergency”
by:
Legionary of Christ Father Edward McNamara, professor of liturgy at the Regina Apostolorum University
Click to expand...
Thanks. Here’s one link to a reprint of that information.
 
My parents always told me that once a priest starts a mass he is not allowed to stop. When I was a kid, the church that I went to was very tiny. The lector had a massive heart attack and died on the alter. He had just received communion and everyone else was lining up. The priest continued on with the mass, as though there was nothing happening. One of the ushers called for an ambulance, but the priest just walked around the body as he finished mass. Some people in the parish were outraged. As we sang the closing hymn, the ambulance arrived and the man was pronounced dead as we filed out of church. It was very surreal. Was the priest obligated to continue with mass? Some people felt the priest should have halted mass while the man was evaluated. It seemed almost inhumane to see the man lying on the marble floor while the priest finished mass. The man, BTW, had gone to confession before mass.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top