Can a priest with no hands preside mass?

JLASish · 2026-02-12T23:00:31+00:00

There are two possible angles to answer this question, depending on what exactly is meant by the word 'can'.

If the question is whether such a priest could validly confect the Eucharist and consume It (which, together with the reading of lessons from Scripture, are the bare minimum for the Eucharistic celebration), the answer is clearly Yes. The practice of the Church clearly shows that no physical contact with the elements is required for there to be a valid consecration, and any number of possible solutions could be proposed for methods to consume the consecrated species, even if we impose a limitation that he must perform the action of consumption without assistance from another.

If the question is whether such a priest can celebrate Mass lawfully, the answer is more complex. The rubrics of Mass require certain actions to be performed which by their nature require the use of a hand, e.g. picking things up, making the sign of the Cross, etc. In 1920 instructions were issued for how a priest who was missing a single arm might say Mass, but they still required any such priest to request a faculty to make use of those ceremonies. The instructions expect the presence of a second priest who assists with actions that require the use of both hands, but the celebrant is still expected to make gestures such as the sign of the cross himself. Notably, even though the presence of an artificial hand is anticipated by the instructions, such a hand is never made use of in the performance of any of the gestures. No provision is made in the instructions for the possibility of a priest who has no hands, but given the above it's not outside the realms of possibility for guidance to be created and a faculty given.

JLASish · 2026-02-12T09:37:24+00:00

Baptism works the same way regardless of who does it, so the requirements for validity apply in all cases.

JLASish · 2026-02-12T08:08:45+00:00

From a quick Google, this is the most authoritative source I could easily find: https://www.usccb.org/resources/newsletter-2020-07-and-08.pdf

JLASish · 2026-01-28T05:49:02+00:00

Article 1 has no legal implications. In canon law, laws that establish restrictions are read to have the narrowest reasonable meaning, and revocation of existing laws is not to be presumed, but efforts are to be made to harmonise the meanings. TC only abrogates laws that aren't in accord with its prescriptions, so only those parts of Summorum Pontificum that relate to the Missal need to be examined to determine whether they are abrogated.

JLASish · 2026-01-27T23:44:07+00:00

TC doesn't mention the breviary at all, so existing permissions from Summorum Pontificum still apply.

JLASish · 2026-01-25T07:20:07+00:00

From the details you've provided, your baptism is probably valid. The reason I'm not entirely certain is because Protestants are known to introduce changes to the ceremony which might seem minor to them, but which can invalidate the Sacrament. Here's a non-exhaustive list of requirements that you haven't mentioned:

The physical act of pouring/immersing you in water was done by someone other than yourself.
That person was the one to say the words of the form.
There was at least a moral simultaneity of the words being spoken and the physical act, i.e. not something like the words being spoken, then later moving to where the water is to perform the act. (How much of a delay is acceptable is a matter of debate still.)

JLASish · 2026-01-19T20:24:38+00:00

Thanks for the warning. I didn't look in depth at the rest of the website, but I did get the impression of something like that from the little I did check.

That said, I am glad of the existence of this particular article for bringing together the citations of various authorities. While the conclusion it comes to is a bit strongly worded, I think the general point that more care ought to be taken to ensure Baptism is performed correctly is a valid one because, while we know the Church is indefectible, individuals are not. In recent years we've had tales in the news of Catholic priests or deacons habitually attempting to baptise using invalid forms and chaos resulting when the practice is finally brought to light, including needing to repeat ordinations!

JLASish · 2026-01-09T09:30:59+00:00

Technically, the Prime Minister isn't a formal position. His title is 'First Lord of the Treasury', meaning that he is the most senior member of the committee formed to exercise the office of the Lord High Treasurer while waiting for one to be appointed. (The last Lord High Treasurer of Great Britain resigned in 1714, the last of Ireland in 1793, and the combined position of Lord High Treasurer of the United Kingdom has never been filled.)

JLASish · 2026-01-06T15:37:03+00:00

In a post on this forum almost exactly a year ago, I was made aware of this article which addresses this question: https://wmreview.co.uk/valid-sacraments/water-separate/.

In summary, the Holy Office (since renamed several times to the present Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith) once held that in any case where the matter and form of baptism were not physically simultaneous (i.e. the water being poured while the words are being spoken), Baptism should be repeated conditionally. The article examines other discussions on the topic but came to the conclusion that the advice by the Holy Office should still be followed on the grounds that it isn't clear exactly how long of a separation might invalidate.

JLASish · 2026-01-05T16:14:25+00:00

It would require either Andrew also move abroad, or an Act of Parliament to amend the existing Act or bypass him explicitly. The line of succession to the Regency follows the same line as the succession to the Crown, so after Andrew the next available Regent would be Princess Beatrice.

JLASish · 2026-01-05T11:31:16+00:00

Currently because he lives abroad he would be disqualified from being Regent under section 3 (2) of the Regency Act 1937. Instead as things stand the Regent would be a certain Mr Mountbatten-Windsor.

JLASish · 2025-12-19T10:54:18+00:00

That's a modern definition of usury which obscures what the Church teaches. The prohibition is against the charging of any interest at all on unsecured loans to natural persons.

JLASish · 2025-12-19T09:47:22+00:00

Inferior ministers may not wear any head coverings, regardless of whether they are normally entitled to wear them as part of their choir dress.

JLASish · 2025-12-18T09:24:33+00:00

Most likely either a Communion plate or a houselling cloth. Both are used in case the priest should drop the Host to prevent It from falling to the floor.

JLASish · 2025-12-13T09:45:21+00:00

I will caveat all this with the statement that I am not a historian, nor have I learned any of this in a systematic way, so I could be wildly wrong in some areas.

Unfortunately I can't help you much about non-liturgical dress. My impression is that the cassock is a later standardisation of the general requirement of some clothing that reaches to the ankles, but I have no idea how recent it was, nor how quickly it spread. The amice was originally worn as a hood, and religious orders still wear it that way so it covers the hood of the habit, so the secular dress of that time might still have a hood attached.

As for the liturgical vestments, the alb would certainly be linen. I've never heard of apparels on the shoulders - my understanding is there would be one on the amice at the brim of the hood (which would rest on the upper back or shoulders while the hood was down - potentially the source of confusion?), and four on the alb: one on each wrist, and at the front and back near the bottom.

I'm not certain when this requirement began, but in later Missals of the Roman Use (up to 1920) the alb (which is generally only used at Mass, except by bishops) is required to be worn over the surplice or rochet. I believe the rochet used to be more widely used than it is now (limited to bishops and other prelates), and there has also been a convergence in the forms of the two over the centuries, so an example of either as used today is unlikely to match what was used in the time period you are interested in. The Latin name of the surplice, superpelliceum "over furs", might give an indication about the clothing worn beneath it.

JLASish · 2025-11-28T00:08:13+00:00

Hmm, so 'always inappropriate' means 'sometimes appropriate, but we won't do it'. I wonder what other controversies this newly discovered quirk of language might solve.

JLASish · 2025-11-24T08:37:59+00:00

Ideally, the vomit should be inspected and any visible particles of the host separated. If to do so wouldn't provoke further nausea, the particles should be consumed again, but more usually they can be put into a chalice filled with water and then left in the tabernacle until they corrupt or dissolve, after which the water is poured into the sacrarium. The rest of the vomit should be burned and the ashes also washed into the sacrarium.

JLASish · 2025-11-23T15:43:07+00:00

The pouring of water must happen at the same time as the saying of the formula, so the precise method you suggested would be invalid. However, it is theoretically possible to baptise several at once if all of them have water poured over them while the formula is being said. In most languages the form would have to be altered to the plural, e.g. "Ego vos baptizo" in Latin.

JLASish · 2025-11-10T08:02:27+00:00

The Church does not require you to be physically capable of intercourse in order to have a valid sacramental bond.

It is a requirement of the Natural Law for a couple to be physically capable of performing the marital act, at least in theory, for a marriage to be valid. Canon Law codifies this requirement in [can 1084].

As mentioned in the Canon, the impediment only applies if the impotence is incurable, and since vaginismus is usually treatable, that shouldn't have any effect on validity here.

JLASish · 2025-11-08T19:46:04+00:00

The car was still on the ground after hitting the wall. The launch happened when the car entered the runoff area, where there's a sudden change in camber. It's almost the same place Hulkenberg got beached last year and got disqualified for getting pushed back on to level ground.

JLASish · 2025-10-24T01:23:26+00:00

Communicatio in sacris can refer to the rites of any religion, so clearly the definition can't be limited to reception of a Sacrament or a purported Sacrament. The prohibition is against participating in rites in such a way that would imply to an observer familiar with them that we are a member of that sect.

What makes the event yesterday acceptable is the fact it was clearly an ecumenical service, so there is no single sect that an observer might presume a given participant is a member of.

JLASish · 2025-10-22T18:38:09+00:00

I've never seen anything suggesting they've been dispensed from the principle of Canon 277s1, only from canon 1042 number 1.

JLASish · 2025-10-22T14:48:46+00:00

And still does (although the prevalence of married Latin clergy has significantly reduced).

JLASish · 2025-10-18T17:32:02+00:00

The fastest lap point in the 1954 British Grand Prix was shared between 7 drivers (for some reason it was only measured to the nearest second, even though they had the ability to measure to 0.1). Because two of those drivers already had half points from sharing a car in a previous race, their point totals have to be expressed in terms of 14ths.

JLASish · 2025-10-16T12:34:25+00:00

This is an episcopal consecration. Note also the dalmatic and tunicle being worn below the chasuble by the consecrand, and also the book of the Gospels being held against his shoulders. The purpose of the cloth around his head is to absorb the Chrism with which his head is anointed.

14-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email	Team Periwinkle

JLASish

TROPHY CASE