A reader writes:
What happens when a priest does not consume the body and blood of Christ at Mass. I was at a mass where when it came time for the priest to take communion, he told us that he could not because he had to fast for a medical procedure the following day.
What happens is that the priest commits a grave violation of liturgical and divine law.
The Church has acknowledged that the laity are not required by divine law to receive Communion under both or either species at Mass, any priest who is celebrating Mass is required by divine law to do both. Jesus statements to "take and eat" and "drink this" were directed to the apostles, who are represented at Mass by the celebrating priest(s). Priests do not have the option of celebrating Mass but refraining from Communion under either species.
As a result, if a priest is not able at the moment to receive Communion (for whatever reason) then he is not qualified at the moment to celebrate Mass.
Also, I’d add that that’s a pretty dang sensitive medical test if it would pick up the tiny amount of nourishment represented by the post-Real-Presence elements that the priest would typically consume.
All of this pertains to the actions of the priest, though, and does not affect the lay faithful. Transubstantiation and the eucharistic sacrifice both take place since these are accomplished with the words of institution.
How about if a priest is conscious of being in a state of mortal sin? Do the requirements for the laity who receive communion apply to the priest?
” . . . that’s a pretty dang sensitive medical test if it would pick up the tiny amount of nourishment represented by the post-Real-Presence elements that the priest would typically consume.”
He might also be scheduled for a very early a.m. procedure which will require him going under general anesthesia.
The hospitals usually tell you to fast for a number of hours starting the day before the procedure.
To aspirate vomit while under sedation is always a danger and can lead to pneumonia and other complications.
“No gum, no breath mints, not even mouth wash,” is what they tell you.
“Transubstantiation and the eucharistic sacrifice both take place since these are accomplished with the words of institution’…..
Hm m m….transubstantiation,yes….but Jimmy…the sacrifice is only completed when the priest “eats and drinks” the body and blood of Christ.So in ….his case the Mass was not completed..and..as an aside..the priest ought to take a refresher course.
An example we learned was if the priest dies or becomes ill after the consecration another priest must complete the Mass..(if before the consecration,the bread and wine may be placed in a suitable spot for another priest to use or disposed of)…Also we learned that the attendace at Mass is done if one is there before the prayers begin of the preparation of the gifts and one could leave after the priest has consumed the consecrated species..
But…new times…new ideas..
A priest I know who celebrates Mass daily has a cancer that apparently prevents him from eating. He only drinks from the chalice. I don’t think anyone here has raised the question.
The rules about receiving the Body and Blood of Christ are the same for everybody. Any priest conscious of being in a state of mortal sin should refrain from celebrating Mass. If he is unrepentant regarding the sin he should reconsider his position regarding the sacred ministry and speak to his bishop straight away. If he is sincerely repentant then the same rules apply to a priest as to anyone else: he should seek out the Sacrament of Reconciliaton as soon as possible. These are the NORMATIVE rules. In extreme cases (the asteroid is about to hit in 20 minutes, the Russians have fired off a salvo of nukes)a priest conscious of mortal sin would be entitled to celebrate Mass for the general well-being of both himself and his parishioners always provided that he was sincerely repentant of the sin, had prayed an act of contrition, and was prevented by circumstances from celebrating sacramental confession. I was once present at a large concelebrated Mass when, in the confusion of priests being directed by an inexperienced MC, an elderly and disabled concelebrant who was sitting at the side was accidentally overlooked in the administration of the Precious Blood – the last remaining chalice was consumed before anybody realised that he had not received communion from it. Though we were all upset at this mistake, there could be no sin in it as there was no INTENTION to do wrong. The Lord understands when we make mistakes. In this case everybody had thought that somebody else had taken a chalice over to the man.
I’m pretty sure this is incorrect.
AFAIK, the sacrificial moment of the Mass, the moment when Jesus is offered as a sacrifice to the Father, is the moment of consecration. The sacrificial offering is complete at that moment.
The larger ritual may require the priest to eat and drink, but this is not the moment of sacrifice AFAIK.
I know a priest who has a severe case of celiac disease and, as such, only drinks from the chalice. Since the whole Christ is contained in either species, this seems like a legitimate option for an exceptional case such as this.
The priest could have also eaten just a small fragment of the body of Christ instead of the whole thing.
Hey, can we get a ruling on this? I thought that the priest had to receive under both species for the Sacrifice to be completed. So, if the priest doesn’t receive under both species-transubstantiation=yes, Holy Sacrifice of the Mass=no.
Can someone clarify this, citing chapter and verse?
Anybody have experience with an alcoholic priests?
A great preist, who happens to be alcoholic, never receives the Blood of Christ when he celebrates the eucharist.
In fact, while consecrating for us, he has a separte tiny little mini-chalice on the altar into which he puts only water (the same water he mixes with wine at the beginning), and drinks that.
Because of his alcoholism, which is under control but acknowledged, he only receives the Body of Christ (and water).
Being a celiac is not always a problem to receive the Host.
I am celiac and I buy a low gluten altar breads from the Benedictine Sisters of Perpetual Adoration.
These altar breads have 0.01% gluten content. And approved for Eucharistic Liturgy by the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops.
I hope I am helping someone with the same problem.
Marie
The fasting guidelines for general anesthesia are just that–guidelines. If you are in a car wreck on your way home from dinner out and need emergency surgery, they don’t wait 12 hours to get all the food out of your system first.
Regarding priests who are aware of grave sin and their ability to celebrate the Eucharist, Canon 916 of the New Code states: “Anyone who is conscious of a grave sin may not celebrate Mass or receive the Body of the Lord without previously having been to sacramental confession, unless there is a grave reason and there is no opportunity to confess; in this case the person is to remember the obligation to make an act of perfect contrition, which includes the resolve to go to confession as soon as possible.”
The Code of Canon Law sections that deal with the reception of communion are to be found in The Sacraments, Title III: The Blessed Eucharist – that is from Can. 897 to Can. 958. None of these canons specifically states that the priest must receive communion under both kinds though the assumption is that he will, particularly as Can. 927 reads: “It is absolutely wrong, even in urgent and extreme necessity, to consecrate one element without the other, or even to consecrate both outside the eucharistic celebration.” Canon 925 deals with the distribution of communion:”…under the species of bread alone or, in accordance with the liturgical laws, under both species or, in case of necessity, even under the species of wine alone.” Citing chapter and verse about the legalities of alcholic priests receiving under one kind only, for example, is not straightforward. Obviously the Precious Blood must be consumed because it MUST be consecrated (Can. 927) but the laws do not say by whom it is to be consumed – indeed, it might be that an alcoholic and a celeriac sufferer could in certain circumstances and because of great need divide the species between them! Can. 925 makes it clear that the whole Christ is received through reception of either one of the species.
I read that alcoholic priests could use wine that had been frozen to prevent fermentation (mustum) and celiacs can use low-gluten (but not gluten-free) hosts. Then Cdl. Ratzinger issued something on this that I’m trying to track down.
Here’s the link for the CDF document:
http://www.adoremus.org/CDF_Lowgluten-mustum94.html
Note that celiacs and alcoholics are not to be ordained and that, if already ordained, they are limited in concelebrating. (These are the CDF’s rules, so don’t blame me.) This (and other aspects of the note) suggests to me that the priest MUST partake of our Lord’s Body and Blood BOTH under the form of wine and that of bread.
So, Old Zhou, I don’t think your priest’s way of doing it is licit. He may use mustum with his ordinary’s permission. Also, as regards validity, is there a distinction between the validity of the Mass and whether or not the elements have been consecrated? I’m sure, in the case Old Zhou references, the elements have been consecrated, but I think it might not be a valid Mass.
Jimmy —
Is it possible that some of these folks have been dispensed for what they do? Or have they just been badly catechized by their diocese or some other priest organization?
Re: Boko’s posting about priests being dispensed. Taken together with the CDF document’s interpretation of the relevant Canon Law the situation seems to be that the use of low gluten hosts and mustum is extendable to the highest degree in order to facilitate priest sufferers from celiac disease and alcoholism being able to celebrate Mass. Dispensations are available and should be sought. Also, we should note that the pronouncements of the CDF are NORMATIVE even when they are attempting to cover margin situations: they are not “of the Faith”. This means that the seeming blanket prohibition of celiac sufferers and alcoholics from ordination if their condition is known at the time of ordination can be, in itself, dispensed by the relevant authority. This would mean that a local ordinary would seek permission for a dispensation from Rome which would be granted if sufficient good cause could be shown. There is very little in Church Law that cannot be dispensed. The normative advice about alcoholic priests receiving Communion by intinction is sensible – and it DOES underline the fact that priests must receive the Body and Blood of Christ under both species if it is at all possible – particularly when you realise that it is possible to consume only the very smallest amount of the species of wine in this circumstance. The prohibitions about PRESIDING (i.e. being chief concelebrant) at concelebrations are sensible when the sign-value of the actions is taken into consideration. However, CDF documents about this sort of thing always mention the avoidance of scandal, by which they mean anything that offends because it culpably demeans or trivialises a sacramental action or condition. It could be a scandal if a sick priest unable to receive solids was prohibited from celebrating Mass – as in the situation mentioned in an earlier posting. This is why dispensations FOR GOOD CAUSE are always available in margin situations.
St. Thomas Aquinas seems to think a priest must communicate:
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/408204.htm
The priest must communicate (both the Body and Blood of Christ in Holy Communion) in order for the Sacrifice of the Mass to be complete. Yes, the consecration has happened, but the sacrifice is not complete until the priest communicates. He must communicate.