Validity of mass in a specific instance

[YoungTradCath]

I just remembered something from this past Easter Vigil. My pastor was celebrating and one of the parochial vicars (who also happens to be his uncle!) was concelebrating. In the Eucharistic Prayer the pastor, who has a smoking problem, started coughing very badly and rushed off to the sacristy to calm himself, and the parochial vicar took over and prayed the rest of it until the pastor came back. I was wondering then, if this would invalidate the mass, since the Eucharistic Prayer wasn’t finished by the same priest. I don’t remember if, for example, the consecration of the hosts was done by the pastor and the consecration of the wine was done by the parochial vicar. In other words, I don’t remember when the pastor left and went to the sacristy. All I know is that it was during the Eucharistic Prayer.

 

[choliks]

I’m not really sure (so someone correct me). But I’ll give it a try and go out on a limb. Since, they are concelebrating, as you said, then they are celebrating as one. Therefore, one can finish what the other has started. It’s also probable that the priest who calmed his coughing won’t leave the sanctuary if he thinks leaving would invalidate the Mass.

 

[YoungTradCath]

I’m not really sure (so someone correct me). But I’ll give it a try and go out on a limb. Since, they are concelebrating, as you said, then they are celebrating as one. Therefore, one can finish what the other has started. It’s also probable that the priest who calmed his coughing won’t leave the sanctuary if he thinks leaving would invalidate the Mass.

Right, but in concelebration, all the priests present have to say the words of consecration, which is the cause of my concern. I don’t know if they both did or if that was the part of the mass where the pastor had to go to the sacristy.

I don’t think this invalidated mass, but just wondering. That would have been very unfortunate, as that was when I was baptized and confirmed! I know the validity of the mass has nothing to do with the validity of the baptism and confirmation, but still.

 

[Oneofthewomen]

My friend in Christ,
IMHO, you are worrying about something that you do not need too, and looking for problems where there are none.
I cannot speak of any specifics or Canon Law, but my faith tells me that this was a valid mass.

Please put these thoughts to rest and rejoice in the awesome gift of the Incarnation! :harp:
Merry Christmas and peace be with you on your journey.

I just remembered something from this past Easter Vigil. My pastor was celebrating and one of the parochial vicars (who also happens to be his uncle!) was concelebrating. In the Eucharistic Prayer the pastor, who has a smoking problem, started coughing very badly and rushed off to the sacristy to calm himself, and the parochial vicar took over and prayed the rest of it until the pastor came back. I was wondering then, if this would invalidate the mass, since the Eucharistic Prayer wasn’t finished by the same priest. I don’t remember if, for example, the consecration of the hosts was done by the pastor and the consecration of the wine was done by the parochial vicar. In other words, I don’t remember when the pastor left and went to the sacristy. All I know is that it was during the Eucharistic Prayer.

 

[YoungTradCath]

My friend in Christ,
IMHO, you are worrying about something that you do not need too, and looking for problems where there are none.
I cannot speak of any specifics or Canon Law, but my faith tells me that this was a valid mass.

Please put these thoughts to rest and rejoice in the awesome gift of the Incarnation! :harp:
Merry Christmas and peace be with you on your journey.

 

[Verbum_Caro]

The Church has contemplated one priest finishing a Mass started by another priest:

1. If before the Consecration the priest becomes seriously ill, or faints, or dies, the Mass is discontinued. If this happens after the consecration of the Body only and before the consecration of the Blood, or after both have been consecrated, the Mass is to be completed by another priest from the place where the first priest stopped, and in case of necessity even by a priest who is not fasting. If the first priest has not died but has become ill and is still able to receive Communion, and there is no other consecrated host at hand, the priest who is completing the Mass should divide the host, give one part to the sick priest and consume the other part himself. If the priest has died after half-saying the formula for the consecration of the Body, then there is no Consecration and no need for another priest to complete the Mass. If, on the other hand, the priest has died after half- saying the formula for the consecration of the Blood, then another priest is to complete the Mass, repeating the whole formula over the same chalice from the words Simili modo, postquam cenatum est; or he may say the whole formula over another chalice which has been prepared, and consume the first priest’s host and the Blood consecrated by himself, and then the chalice which was left half-consecrated.

from the Papal Bull De Defectibus of Pope St. Pius V.

Perhaps the situation you describe fits into the above? And even if it did not, provisionally it seems that in many (most? all?) cases switching priests wouldn’t invalidate the consecration, nor make the Mass itself “invalid” (though switching or continuing the Mass could be irregular or illicit depending on the rule currently in force?)

VC

 

[maryjk]

My friend in Christ,
IMHO, you are worrying about something that you do not need too, and looking for problems where there are none.
I cannot speak of any specifics or Canon Law, but my faith tells me that this was a valid mass.

Please put these thoughts to rest and rejoice in the awesome gift of the Incarnation! :harp:
Merry Christmas and peace be with you on your journey.

What she is saying is that somehow you are worried about a Mass that happened over 6 months ago. You are looking for problems.

At this point, over 6 months later, what would you do about this?

It sounds, at least from your posts, that this is more then shear curiosity.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Right, but in concelebration, all the priests present have to say the words of consecration, which is the cause of my concern. I don’t know if they both did or if that was the part of the mass where the pastor had to go to the sacristy.

I don’t think this invalidated mass, but just wondering. That would have been very unfortunate, as that was when I was baptized and confirmed! I know the validity of the mass has nothing to do with the validity of the baptism and confirmation, but still.

I am not aware of any such requirement, that is that all concelbrating priests must say the word of consecration, for the Mass to be valid.

 

[PacoG]

Right, but in concelebration, all the priests present have to say the words of consecration, which is the cause of my concern. I don’t know if they both did or if that was the part of the mass where the pastor had to go to the sacristy.

I don’t think this invalidated mass, but just wondering. That would have been very unfortunate, as that was when I was baptized and confirmed! I know the validity of the mass has nothing to do with the validity of the baptism and confirmation, but still.

From what I have read on these boards is that one of the theories of a concelebrated Mass is each priest is saying his own Mass. So Tio Priest’s Mass was valid and despite what happened to nephew Priest. So you had one valid Mass–Tio’s. (Tio=Spanish for uncle.)

 

[YoungTradCath]

What she is saying is that somehow you are worried about a Mass that happened over 6 months ago. You are looking for problems.

At this point, over 6 months later, what would you do about this?

It sounds, at least from your posts, that this is more then shear curiosity.

No, it is just curiosity. I was dreading the thought that at the Christmas mass tonight, the deacon would do a poor job at chanting the Christmas Proclamation as he is not a particularly good singer, then I recalled his chanting the Exsultet at the Easter Vigil, then I recalled the Eucharistic Prayer at that mass, since it was marked by a peculiarity.

Recalling this was just a series of thoughts, not anything that would make me die of scrupulosity or anything. I’m not that person.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

The Church has contemplated one priest finishing a Mass started by another priest:

from the Papal Bull De Defectibus of Pope St. Pius V.

Perhaps the situation you describe fits into the above? And even if it did not, provisionally it seems that in many (most? all?) cases switching priests wouldn’t invalidate the consecration, nor make the Mass itself “invalid” (though switching or continuing the Mass could be irregular or illicit depending on the rule currently in force?)

VC

That was the first thought that came to my mind. It seems to me that it validates this action in a less extreme case.

 

[YoungTradCath]

That was the first thought that came to my mind. It seems to me that it validates this action in a less extreme case.

However, De Defectibus, I believe, only applies to the Extraordinary Form of mass. There is no “On Defects” in the Ordinary Form.

 

[Chatter163]

The Mass would indeed be valid. In fact, any time a priest becomes incapacitated during a Mass that he is celebrating, another priest must complete the Mass, even if there is a delay in locating him. Twice in my life I have been present when this happened, and both times I was sent to fetch another priest. This has always been the precept of completing a Mass. The concelebration aspect does not matter. (Remember that concelebration as we know it today began only in the 1960s.)

 

[FrDavid96]

However, De Defectibus, I believe, only applies to the Extraordinary Form of mass. There is no “On Defects” in the Ordinary Form.

Yes and no.

It does apply in principle. What does not apply would be the references to the specific texts of the Mass, but these would simply be substituted with the new texts. There’s not much of that.

It’s an important point to remember that we did not (in 1969) get a “new Mass” but instead a new missal to be used in the same Mass.

De defectibus has been the law of the Church for 400 years.

When we ask “what to do when the priest gets sick?” The Church has already answered that.

This is like asking what is valid wine for the Eucharist. If we find a document from the Church from (let’s say) 1920 that says “white grapes can be used for the wine” We do not say that it “no longer applies” because it was before Vatican II, or before the Missal of Paul VI, or before the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Unless some the Church has a new law which would change what was in-effect, the older precedents still apply.

Once a practice of the Church is established precedence (and de defectibus is certainly that), the practice continues UNLESS the law specifies otherwise. So anything in today’s GIRM that is outright contradictory to De Defectibus would be binding.

Today, a priest can use a chalice that’s not necessarily consecrated by the bishop. That’s one example of a place where it would no longer apply.

For example, paragraph 20 in De Defectibus has the words of Consecration which were used at the time. In interpreting and applying it to contemporary situations, we would take out the old words and insert the current ones, but everything else would remain the same.

Most of the document deals with general instances in the Mass, rather than specific texts of the Missal. These principles still apply today, even though the Missal has changed.

 

[YoungTradCath]

Yes and no.

It does apply in principle. What does not apply would be the references to the specific texts of the Mass, but these would simply be substituted with the new texts. There’s not much of that.

It’s an important point to remember that we did not (in 1969) get a “new Mass” but instead a new missal to be used in the same Mass.

De defectibus has been the law of the Church for 400 years.

When we ask “what to do when the priest gets sick?” The Church has already answered that.

This is like asking what is valid wine for the Eucharist. If we find a document from the Church from (let’s say) 1920 that says “white grapes can be used for the wine” We do not say that it “no longer applies” because it was before Vatican II, or before the Missal of Paul VI, or before the 1983 Code of Canon Law. Unless some the Church has a new law which would change what was in-effect, the older precedents still apply.

Once a practice of the Church is established precedence (and de defectibus is certainly that), the practice continues UNLESS the law specifies otherwise. So anything in today’s GIRM that is outright contradictory to De Defectibus would be binding.

Today, a priest can use a chalice that’s not necessarily consecrated by the bishop. That’s one example of a place where it would no longer apply.

For example, paragraph 20 in De Defectibus has the words of Consecration which were used at the time. In interpreting and applying it to contemporary situations, we would take out the old words and insert the current ones, but everything else would remain the same.

Most of the document deals with general instances in the Mass, rather than specific texts of the Missal. These principles still apply today, even though the Missal has changed.

I suppose I want to derail my own thread. I understand now that the mass was indeed valid.

However, I would like to talk about De Defectibus. This document was part of the Missale as of 1962 and before, right? As in, it was actually printed in the Missale. Why, if it is still in force, is it not printed in the Missale anymore? I understand that we have the GIRM, but the GIRM does not cover everything that De Defectibus did, and vice versa. If it is still binding law, which I don’t doubt, then how do OF-celebrating priests know about it and comply with it? Is it, perhaps, taught in seminary or something?

I know that anything can theoretically, because it is a law, still be binding. However, if people don’t know about it, well… yeah. The only time I’ve ever heard of De Defectibus is in EF discussions on here and on blogs. In fact, I cannot find a full text of the document online even. So it seems rather obscure. If it still carries binding force of law, then, where/what/how, so to speak, is this document in the OF?

 

[FrDavid96]

I suppose I want to derail my own thread. I understand now that the mass was indeed valid.

However, I would like to talk about De Defectibus. This document was part of the Missale as of 1962 and before, right? As in, it was actually printed in the Missale. Why, if it is still in force, is it not printed in the Missale anymore? I understand that we have the GIRM, but the GIRM does not cover everything that De Defectibus did, and vice versa. If it is still binding law, which I don’t doubt, then how do OF-celebrating priests know about it and comply with it? Is it, perhaps, taught in seminary or something?

I know that anything can theoretically, because it is a law, still be binding. However, if people don’t know about it, well… yeah. The only time I’ve ever heard of De Defectibus is in EF discussions on here and on blogs. In fact, I cannot find a full text of the document online even. So it seems rather obscure. If it still carries binding force of law, then, where/what/how, so to speak, is this document in the OF?

OK. It’s not (currently) “law” as such–not in the strictest sense.

It’s a “guiding document,” an interpretation of certain principles involved in the Mass and how to deal with certain problems.

Here’s what I mean. Someone asks a question “what happens if the priest gets sick and has to leave in the middle of Mass?” (gee, sound familiar?)

The Church doesn’t just ask that question as if it were being asked for the very first time. We’ve already known the answer for 400 years now, so there’s no ned to come up with a new answer. We’ve known the right way to handle it for 400 years, so unless something comes along that would change the answer (like something more specific to the Missal used at the time, and which is different in today’s Missal), the answer itself will be the same as it’s always been.

I cannot say to what extend De Defictibus is still taught in seminaries; and that’s going to vary from one place to another and from one professor to another. What I can say though is that in principle it’s still being taught. The questions we see here on CAF are often those asked in the course of seminary training. After all, every priest needs to know what he is supposed to do if he gets sick during Mass, or if he accidentally uses water&water instead of wine&water at the offertory, or any of several other issues addressed in the document. The issues themselves are timeless and the responses don’t change. Seminarians today might never have heard of the document itself, but unless something is very lacking in their formation, they do learn the principles of it. Seminarians love to ask questions like “what do I do if a fly falls into the chalice?” If you think that happens a lot on CAF, just try being a fly on the wall in seminary liturgy courses.

I don’t know why it’s no longer printed in the Roman Missal. Personally I think it should be, or at least an updated version of it should be printed there. I think it would be useful. The GIRM does tell us what to do, but information on what to do if something goes wrong is useful information.

 

[Filii_Dei]

1. If before the Consecration the priest becomes seriously ill, or faints, or dies, the Mass is discontinued. If this happens after the consecration of the Body only and before the consecration of the Blood, or after both have been consecrated, the Mass is to be completed by another priest from the place where the first priest stopped, and in case of necessity even by a priest who is not fasting. If the first priest has not died but has become ill and is still able to receive Communion, and there is no other consecrated host at hand, the priest who is completing the Mass should divide the host, give one part to the sick priest and consume the other part himself. If the priest has died after half-saying the formula for the consecration of the Body, then there is no Consecration and no need for another priest to complete the Mass. If, on the other hand, the priest has died after half- saying the formula for the consecration of the Blood, then another priest is to complete the Mass, repeating the whole formula over the same chalice from the words Simili modo, postquam cenatum est; or he may say the whole formula over another chalice which has been prepared, and consume the first priest’s host and the Blood consecrated by himself, and then the chalice which was left half-consecrated.

They seem awfully afraid about their priests dying during the mass. Was there a clerical hit squad in the past?

 

[FrDavid96]

They seem awfully afraid about their priests dying during the mass. Was there a clerical hit squad in the past?

It still happens today.

People can die at any time, and if a priest does die during Mass, it’s better to have the question of what to do already answered instead of someone saying “I’ll call the Vatican on my cell phone and ask what we should do.”

Since I’m the only priest here, I have a copy of De Defictibus posted next to the fire extinguisher and the first aid kit in the vestibule—you never know.

 

[Filii_Dei]

It still happens today.

People can die at any time, and if a priest does die during Mass, it’s better to have the question of what to do already answered instead of someone saying “I’ll call the Vatican on my cell phone and ask what we should do.”

Since I’m the only priest here, I have a copy of De Defictibus posted next to the fire extinguisher and the first aid kit in the vestibule—you never know.

I meant no offense, Father. I treasure the clear and unambiguous directions given by St. Pius V. I was only remarking upon the very specific wording of the bull regarding death, when it could have been generalised to simply refer to any instance where the mass was interrupted by a priest being struck down by some unfortunate incident that renders him unable to continue with the mass, which is how we interpret it today.

However, this does raise another question. If there is only one priest present in the parish and (though I pray for the intercession of Our Blessed Mother that this may never happen) he is incapacitated upon half-saying the formula for the consecration of the Blood, how can it be completed?

I pray for your continued good health, Father.

 

[choliks]

I was just thinking… wouldn’t you be worried first about the priest’s health when that incident occurs?