|
Objection 1: It seems that the defects occurring during the
celebration of this sacrament cannot be sufficiently met by observing
the statutes of the Church. For it sometimes happens that before or
after the consecration the priest dies or goes mad, or is hindered by
some other infirmity from receiving the sacrament and completing the
mass. Consequently it seems impossible to observe the Church's
statute, whereby the priest consecrating must communicate of his own
sacrifice.
Objection 2: Further, it sometimes happens that, before the
consecration, the priest remembers that he has eaten or drunk
something, or that he is in mortal sin, or under excommunication,
which he did not remember previously. Therefore, in such a dilemma a
man must necessarily commit mortal sin by acting against the Church's
statute, whether he receives or not.
Objection 3: Further, it sometimes happens that a fly or a spider,
or some other poisonous creature falls into the chalice after the
consecration. Or even that the priest comes to know that poison has
been put in by some evilly disposed person in order to kill him. Now
in this instance, if he takes it, he appears to sin by killing
himself, or by tempting God: also in like manner if he does not take
it, he sins by acting against the Church's statute. Consequently,
he seems to be perplexed, and under necessity of sinning, which is not
becoming.
Objection 4: Further, it sometimes happens from the server's want
of heed that water is not added to the chalice, or even the wine
overlooked, and that the priest discovers this. Therefore he seems to
be perplexed likewise in this case, whether he receives the body
without the blood, thus making the sacrifice to be incomplete, or
whether he receives neither the body nor the blood.
Objection 5: Further, it sometimes happens that the priest cannot
remember having said the words of consecration, or other words which
are uttered in the celebration of this sacrament. In this case he
seems to sin, whether he repeats the words over the same matter, which
words possibly he has said before, or whether he uses bread and wine
which are not consecrated, as if they were consecrated.
Objection 6: Further, it sometimes comes to pass owing to the cold
that the host will slip from the priest's hands into the chalice,
either before or after the breaking. In this case then the priest will
not be able to comply with the Church's rite, either as to the
breaking, or else as to this, that only a third part is put into the
chalice.
Objection 7: Further, sometimes, too, it happens, owing to the
priest's want of care, that Christ's blood is spilled, or that he
vomits the sacrament received, or that the consecrated hosts are kept
so long that they become corrupt, or that they are nibbled by mice, or
lost in any manner whatsoever; in which cases it does not seem possible
for due reverence to be shown towards this sacrament, as the Church's
ordinances require. It does not seem then that such defects or dangers
can be met by keeping to the Church's statutes.
On the contrary, Just as God does not command an impossibility, so
neither does the Church.
I answer that, Dangers or defects happening to this sacrament can be
met in two ways: first, by preventing any such mishaps from
occurring: secondly, by dealing with them in such a way, that what
may have happened amiss is put right, either by employing a remedy, or
at least by repentance on his part who has acted negligently regarding
this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 1: If the priest be stricken by death or grave
sickness before the consecration of our Lord's body and blood, there
is no need for it to be completed by another. But if this happens
after the consecration is begun, for instance, when the body has been
consecrated and before the consecration of the blood, or even after
both have been consecrated, then the celebration of the mass ought to
be finished by someone else. Hence, as is laid down (Decretal vii,
q. 1), we read the following decree of the (Seventh) Council of
Toledo: "We consider it to be fitting that when the sacred mysteries
are consecrated by priests during the time of mass, if any sickness
supervenes, in consequence of which they cannot finish the mystery
begun, let it be free for the bishop or another priest to finish the
consecration of the office thus begun. For nothing else is suitable
for completing the mysteries commenced, unless the consecration be
completed either by the priest who began it, or by the one who follows
him: because they cannot be completed except they be performed in
perfect order. For since we are all one in Christ, the change of
persons makes no difference, since unity of faith insures the happy
issue of the mystery. Yet let not the course we propose for cases of
natural debility, be presumptuously abused: and let no minister or
priest presume ever to leave the Divine offices unfinished, unless he
be absolutely prevented from continuing. If anyone shall have rashly
presumed to do so, he will incur sentence of excommunication."
Reply to Objection 2: Where difficulty arises, the less dangerous
course should always be followed. But the greatest danger regarding
this sacrament lies in whatever may prevent its completion, because
this is a heinous sacrilege; while that danger is of less account which
regards the condition of the receiver. Consequently, if after the
consecration has been begun the priest remembers that he has eaten or
drunk anything, he ought nevertheless to complete the sacrifice and
receive the sacrament. Likewise, if he recalls a sin committed, he
ought to make an act of contrition, with the firm purpose of confessing
and making satisfaction for it: and thus he will not receive the
sacrament unworthily, but with profit. The same applies if he calls
to mind that he is under some excommunication; for he ought to make the
resolution of humbly seeking absolution; and so he will receive
absolution from the invisible High Priest Jesus Christ for his act
of completing the Divine mysteries.
But if he calls to mind any of the above facts previous to the
consecration, I should deem it safer for him to interrupt the mass
begun, especially if he has broken his fast, or is under
excommunication, unless grave scandal were to be feared.
Reply to Objection 3: If a fly or a spider falls into the chalice
before consecration, or if it be discovered that the wine is poisoned,
it ought to be poured out, and after purifying the chalice, fresh wine
should be served for consecration. But if anything of the sort happen
after the consecration, the insect should be caught carefully and
washed thoroughly, then burned, and the "ablution," together with
the ashes, thrown into the sacrarium. If it be discovered that the
wine has been poisoned, the priest should neither receive it nor
administer it to others on any account, lest the life-giving chalice
become one of death, but it ought to be kept in a suitable vessel with
the relics: and in order that the sacrament may not remain incomplete,
he ought to put other wine into the chalice, resume the mass from the
consecration of the blood, and complete the sacrifice.
Reply to Objection 4: If before the consecration of the blood, and
after the consecration of the body the priest detect that either the
wine or the water is absent, then he ought at once to add them and
consecrate. But if after the words of consecration he discover that
the water is absent, he ought notwithstanding to proceed straight on,
because the addition of the water is not necessary for the sacrament,
as stated above (Question 74, Article 7): nevertheless the
person responsible for the neglect ought to be punished. And on no
account should water be mixed with the consecrated wine, because
corruption of the sacrament would ensue in part, as was said above
(Question 77, Article 8). But if after the words of
consecration the priest perceive that no wine has been put in the
chalice, and if he detect it before receiving the body, then rejecting
the water, he ought to pour in wine with water, and begin over again
the consecrating words of the blood. But if he notice it after
receiving the body, he ought to procure another host which must be
consecrated together with the blood; and I say so for this reason,
because if he were to say only the words of consecration of the blood,
the proper order of consecrating would not be observed; and, as is
laid down by the Council of Toledo, quoted above (ad 1),
sacrifices cannot be perfect, except they be performed in perfect
order. But if he were to begin from the consecration of the blood,
and were to repeat all the words which follow, it would not suffice,
unless there was a consecrated host present, since in those words there
are things to be said and done not only regarding the blood, but also
regarding the body; and at the close he ought once more to receive the
consecrated host and blood, even if he had already taken the water
which was in the chalice, because the precept of the completing this
sacrament is of greater weight than the precept of receiving the
sacrament while fasting, as stated above (Question 80, Article
8).
Reply to Objection 5: Although the priest may not recollect having
said some of the words he ought to say, he ought not to be disturbed
mentally on that account; for a man who utters many words cannot recall
to mind all that he has said; unless perchance in uttering them he
adverts to something connected with the consecration; for so it is
impressed on the memory. Hence, if a man pays attention to what he is
saying, but without adverting to the fact that he is saying these
particular words, he remembers soon after that he has said them; for,
a thing is presented to the memory under the formality of the past (De
Mem. et Remin. i).
But if it seem to the priest that he has probably omitted some of the
words that are not necessary for the sacrament, I think that he ought
not to repeat them on that account, changing the order of the
sacrifice, but that he ought to proceed: but if he is certain that he
has left out any of those that are necessary for the sacrament,
namely, the form of the consecration, since the form of the
consecration is necessary for the sacrament, just as the matter is, it
seems that the same thing ought to be done as was stated above (ad 4)
with regard to defect in the matter, namely, that he should begin
again with the form of the consecration, and repeat the other things in
order, lest the order of the sacrifice be altered.
Reply to Objection 6: The breaking of the consecrated host, and
the putting of only one part into the chalice, regards the mystical
body, just as the mixing with water signifies the people, and
therefore the omission of either of them causes no such imperfection in
the sacrifice, as calls for repetition regarding the celebration of
this sacrament.
Reply to Objection 7: According to the decree, De Consecr.,
dist. ii, quoting a decree of Pope Pius I, "If from neglect any
of the blood falls upon a board which is fixed to the ground, let it be
taken up with the tongue, and let the board be scraped. But if it be
not a board, let the ground be scraped, and the scrapings burned, and
the ashes buried inside the altar and let the priest do penance for
forty days. But if a drop fall from the chalice on to the altar, let
the minister suck up the drop, and do penance during three days; if it
falls upon the altar cloth and penetrates to the second altar cloth,
let him do four days' penance; if it penetrates to the third, let him
do nine days' penance; if to the fourth, let him do twenty days'
penance; and let the altar linens which the drop touched be washed
three times by the priest, holding the chalice below, then let the
water be taken and put away nigh to the altar." It might even be
drunk by the minister, unless it might be rejected from nausea. Some
persons go further, and cut out that part of the linen, which they
burn, putting the ashes in the altar or down the sacrarium. And the
Decretal continues with a quotation from the Penitential of Bede the
Priest: "If, owing to drunkenness or gluttony, anyone vomits up
the Eucharist, let him do forty days' penance, if he be a layman;
but let clerics or monks, deacons and priests, do seventy days'
penance; and let a bishop do ninety days'. But if they vomit from
sickness, let them do penance for seven days." And in the same
distinction, we read a decree of the (Fourth) Council of Arles:
"They who do not keep proper custody over the sacrament, if a mouse
or other animal consume it, must do forty days' penance: he who loses
it in a church, or if a part fall and be not found, shall do thirty
days' penance." And the priest seems to deserve the same penance,
who from neglect allows the hosts to putrefy. And on those days the
one doing penance ought to fast, and abstain from Communion.
However, after weighing the circumstances of the fact and of the
person, the said penances may be lessened or increased. But it must
be observed that wherever the species are found to be entire, they must
be preserved reverently, or consumed; because Christ's body is there
so long as the species last, as stated above (Question 77,
Articles 4,5). But if it can be done conveniently, the things in
which they are found are to be burned, and the ashes put in the
sacrarium, as was said of the scrapings of the altar-table, here
above.
|
|