This is all theoretical, although in fact not, since it happened to me at a different time during the Mass over 20 years ago, but let's say a priest becomes ill or dies after the conclusion of the Eucharistic Prayer and because of sickness leaves the rest of the Mass for someone else to conclude who is not a priest, for example a deacon or if the deacon isn't there an extraordinary minister of Holy Communion.
Is the Mass completed, if the priest who is the celebrant does not complete the sacrifice by his consumption or reception of Holy Communion? The deacon or the lay minister concludes the Mass with the "rite of Holy Communion."
In my case, over 20 years ago at our main Mass which was packed I begin ill and faint during the Liturgy of the Word and had to leave because of it, so I asked the deacon present to conclude with a Communion Service with hosts from the tabernacle. So what started as a Mass, with the Kyrie and Gloria and Gospel, but before the homily, ended as a communion service.
What do you all say about these things. It happens here and there. What about validity, concluding a Mass and more importantly, the priest who is celebrating the Mass, not receiving Holy Communion because he is unable.
8 comments:
Surely this is addressed by the Church somewhere.
It happened at our church twice in three weeks with the same priest. The first time he did not make it to the consecration so we ended with a communion service. The second time he was brought a chair so he could get through the consecration. Both times he was taken out to a waiting ambulance.
If the matter, form and intent are all present, the Eucharist itself, even if only the bread, is validly consecrated and all who receive It receive Christ regardless of if the Mass itself is valid. The graces that flow from the Sanctissimum exist regardless of if the Sacrifice is itself completed (ie Consecration occurs but no reception by a priest).
If the Consecration has commenced and at least one of the Species is consecrated, the Mass is invalid unless and until a priest (another priest, the same priest, it doesn't matter) consecrates the other Species, if need be, and completes the Sacrifice by receiving It himself. Thus the graces that flow from the Mass are not merited until the Sacrifice is complete. I believe there is an obligation to complete the Sacrifice.
If no Consecration occurs because the Mass is interrupted before it, then I do not think there is an obligation to complete the Sacrifice, because no Sacrifice has, by definition, begun. In such a case I think instead doing a Communion service is fine.
As I understand it the Mass can be said to have taken place once the sacrifice is completed by the Priest's receiving the Blessed Sacrament.
The principles outlined in J.B. O'Connell's The Celebration of the Mass cover what should be done if a Priest ceases to be able to celebrate Mass at various points. The cases where a Priest is unable to continue at a point before the consecration or after his communion are comparatively easy, the case of a Priest who becomes unable to continue between the consecration is the one of most delicacy.
ytc's second and third paragraphs speak to different scenarios. His first paragraph raises an interesting point: The can apparently be a valid consecration without there being a valid Mass.
I would be interested in seeing specifically what Jacobite's book has to say about that.
Continuing with Moderate's reference to O'Connell--THE bible that every TLM priest should study and follow religiously (so to speak)--some quotes from the section on interruption of Mass by illness or death of the celebrant:
If the celebrant should collapse after consecration but before communion, the sacrifice must be completed . . .
If the celebrant himself can do this after some delay . . . he is to do it . . .
If the celebrant cannot complete the Mass, then another priest must do so, as soon as possible, and the obligation is a grave one . . .
If a second priest cannot be got, and the celebrant cannot consume the Sacred Species, These should be put into the tabernacle, even by a layman, to be consumed later by another priest . . .
My understanding was that if the celebrant had to discontinue the Mass prior to the Offertory, then the Mass was to end at that point and was not to be completed. However, if the celebrant had begun the Offertory, then there was a serious moral obligation to complete the Sacrifice. Another priest had to resume offering the Mass at the point that the original celebrant had stopped.
Of course there can be a valid Consecration without there being a valid Mass. They are two different things in which the former happens to always occur (licity) within the latter.
Post a Comment