What's the absolute minimum for a valid mass?

[DarkLight]

Suppose, for example, a newly ordained priest finds himself in a refugee camp after a war. There is neither church nor liturgy book available and nothing is expected to change in the near future. What would the bare minimum of form be needed to provide a valid Mass? I know that he must have wheat bread and grape wine, but other than that, what minimal parts must be performed for a valid Mass? (I would presume given the circumstances pretty much any valid Mass would be licit.)

 

[BayCityRickL]

it might be valid but not licit

 

[DarkLight]

it might be valid but not licit

One, clearly a Mass requires more than just handing out bread and wine. So what does it require? What’s the minimum a priest has to say for it to be a valid Mass and not a vaguely spiritual snack?

Two, I’m pretty sure it would be licit under those circumstances as long as it was a valid Mass. The law allows for us to work with what we have, and in that case a Mass is better than no Mass. Under the circumstances described, the usual requirements of vesting and an altar and candles and such things would clearly be waived

 

[promethian_rule]

The sacrament of the Eucharist requires the same as any other: proper form, matter, minister, and intent.

Let’s assume the intent is there (to do as the church does). The minister is the priest. the matter is the bread, wine, and (preferably) water. The form is the words of institution (This is my Body/Blood).

That’s the minimum. Now, none of that would be licit if the priest deliberately stuck to ONLY that portion of the Eucharistic rite, and the priest absolutely SHOULD carry out as much of the Eucharistic prayer and process as possible, offering the best vessels possible, and possibly giving readings/homily if possible too… suffice it to say there are probably a great many things which, in normal circumstances, would be illicit but would be tolerated due to the circumstances of such a scenario.

 

[DarkLight]

The mass as a sacrament requires the same as any other mass: proper form, matter, minister, and intent.

Let’s assume the intent is there (to do as the church does). The minister is the priest. the matter is the bread, wine, and (preferably) water. The form is the words of institution (This is my Body/Blood).

Thanks. That’s kind of why I specified the scenario - I would presume in such a case it would be “say the Mass as best you can, and what cannot be had must needs remain absent.” It would be better that the faithful have access to mass, than that it not be offered, if those are the options.

 

[AdamP88]

I think the absolute bare minimum is the words of consecration and the bread and wine. For example, if a priest was on a plane about to crash he could do this. Obviously this is unlikely but that’s my understanding.

 

[DignumEtJustum]

My grandpa, who attended seminary in the 1950s, seems to believe that only an Offertory and Consecration is required for a Mass to be valid. I would not take this as a definitive answer though as my pastor would perhaps say otherwise.

Certainly though in such a situation as you describe, if no books were available and the priest could remember the necessary parts of the consecration; all that may be required is an Offertory and some bread (and wine, if available). I heard of one priest in a Soviet prison for decades who only had the crumbs he was able to consecrate to keep him going. If these Masses included a double consecration I’d be surprised. Where would one in such a situation get even a sip of wine from? Certainly there was no doubt in this priest’s mind as to the validity.

 

[1ke]

what minimal parts must be performed for a valid Mass

The rubrics of the mass dictate whether a mass is being celebrated correctly. Daily mass, Sunday mass, feast day mass, etc., have different rubrics. Priests have options as to what they must include and may omit depending upon the particular mass.

Let’s be precise, because masses really aren’t “valid” or “invalid”. The consecration of the Eucharist is valid or invalid.

Without a valid consecration, a given liturgy isn’t actually a mass. With a valid consecration, and without the rest of the liturgy, you have a valid Eucharist but not a Eucharistic celebration. And that is expressly forbidden, see below. So the priest in question would need to know the rubrics and prayers and follow them to conduct a Eucharistic celebration.

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.

 

[Mattapoisett64]

How did St. Maximillian Kolbe celebrate Mass in Auschwitz? Surely it must have been along such “minimalist” lines.

 

[1ke]

I think that the implication in the original post was that this was a “new priest” who might not know the mass by heart as opposed to St Maximillian, an experienced priest of many years.