When a priest cannot complete the consecration

[HomeschoolDad]

Picture this scenario: a priest is celebrating Mass and has completed the words of consecration of the Body of Christ. He has a medical emergency, whether fatal or not, that renders him unable to continue. The EMTs come and get the priest and take him to the hospital. Assuming there is no other priest to take over, the Mass stops. The rectory contacts another priest and tells him that the Mass needs to be continued. The priest cannot get there until the next day, but he does come. Does he literally continue the Mass from the point at which the first priest was incapacitated, consecrate the Precious Blood, and then finish the Mass?

Don’t dismiss this as an idle hypothetical. Recently a priest was assaulted during Mass at a church in Quebec. Presumably another priest continued the Mass, either immediately or as soon as he could get to the church.

I really don’t want to get into the question of whether the faithful attending the Mass, assuming it was a Sunday Mass, would have fulfilled their obligation or not. If others wish to split that hair, that is their prerogative.

 

[Beryllos]

I would assume the second priest would start from the very beginning. The Mass is an integral unit, not the sum of its parts. The Consecration likewise.

The exception might be if the second priest was present during the Mass, waiting in the wings, so to speak, and could step in without a significant break in continuity.

 

[Prodigal1984]

I assume the obligation for going to mass is fulfilled.
I think a priest used a Latin phrase for this something I once was concerned about.
It was a Holy Day of obligation and the priest forgot to say the Creed and solemnities you are supposed too. I asked the priest if that invalidated the mass but I guess it didn’t because it was of no fault of the people. Also if the priest accidentally forgets to do something in the liturgy it is still valid.( May sound crazy but one time the priest forgot to consecrate the wine into the blood.) That bothered me too but it would still be valid since he probably just legitimately forgot or something and we still made the obligation to go.
As for the circumstances you bring up, the people would leave of course. All night vigils stopped being popular toward the end of the middle ages. It would technically not be ended as there was no ite missa est but for the people it would be like a Maundy Thursday thing where there is no dismissal. So yah the mass wouldn’t technically be over but the people nonetheless fulfilled there obligation.
That’s what I think anyways. I’m not a canon lawyer though so I don’t know.

 

[Beryllos]

The exception might be if the second priest was present during the Mass, waiting in the wings, so to speak, and could step in without a significant break in continuity.

On second thought, there are some prayers and rituals which precede and by which the priest prepares himself for the Consecration. The priest is, after all, acting in the person of Christ and not just an actor reading his lines. So the second priest, even if present prior to the interruption, couldn’t just pick up where the first left off.

 

[OldCAFMember]

The Mass , once started, must be completed, no matter how long the delay. Fortescue and O’Connell speak of this necessity. I once had this exact scenario take place—twice, as a matter of fact.

In the first, the elderly priest set down the chalice after the words of consecration, and collapsed. Another priest came and completed the Mass from the exact point where it had stopped. Ironically, the Mass was EF, but the second priest was unfamiliar with the EF, so he completed it in English with the OF. The other occasion was a regular parish OF Mass, where the pastor couldn’t continue at the Agnus Dei. We later found out that he was having the beginning of a stroke. The assistant pastor came and completed the Mass.

 

[dochawk]

Does he literally continue the Mass from the point at which the first priest was incapacitated, consecrate the Precious Blood, and then finish the Mass?

Yes.

This was settled long, long ago.

When the Mass is interrupted, and the priest cannot continue, another priest continues.

No issues about the point of interruption, or the reason. It will be completed. End of story.

hawk

 

[Gorgias]

I assume the obligation for going to mass is fulfilled.

Yep. If it’s a Sunday or holy day of obligation, the precept is fulfilled. The congregation isn’t “penalized” just because the celebrant at their Mass fell ill!

 

[HomeschoolDad]

As for the circumstances you bring up, the people would leave of course. All night vigils stopped being popular toward the end of the middle ages. It would technically not be ended as there was no ite missa est but for the people it would be like a Maundy Thursday thing where there is no dismissal. So yah the mass wouldn’t technically be over but the people nonetheless fulfilled there obligation.

I assume the obligation for going to mass is fulfilled.

Thank you. I was trying to avoid hair-splitting along the lines of “it is not a complete Mass so everyone has to run out and find another Mass in a hurry to fulfill their obligation” (which, if it were the last Mass of the day in town, would be a moot point).

 

[mythbuster1]

Of course, the second priest’s first priority is administering the Last Rites to the priest in distress.

 

[OldCAFMember]

You couldn’t wait any longer for someone to answer, so you decided to post the same question again, a few hours later?

The answer is that the Sacrament must be safeguarded. If that means returning It to the tabernacle, then so be it.

 

[ChuckB]

I wouldn’t worry about it. Some folks are easily offended.

 

[InThePew]

A priest is required to consume the body and blood of Christ in order to complete the sacrifice of the mass (and thus actually have said mass). It is possible to skip straight from the consecration to communion but only in ceases of extreme necessity.

If the mass is interrupted, the priest should continue at some point (picking up where he left off) but obviously if the priest is incapacitated this isn’t going to happen and receiving the sacrament of anointing is probably going to be more of a priority! However, if he has started the consecration, but not finished it, so that the body of Christ has been consecrated but not the blood, then another priest needs to finish the consecration of the blood (hopefully the mass-goers had been attentive).

Of course this relies on there being another priest handy which, in my neck of the woods, basically doesn’t happen! So, in answer to @(name removed by moderator)'s question, the body of Christ should be place in the tabernacle until a priest can get there. If both the body and blood of Christ have been consecrated then they can either be placed in the tabernacle or consumed.

As far as the mass-goers are concerned, it’s fair to say that any mass obligation for the day has been dispensed so there’s no need to go hunt out another mass (a prayer or two for the priest would be nice though).