116. On the Matter and Form of the Eucharist

1. Donatus, a new priest, celebrating his first Mass, confected the Eucharist from bread indeed of wheat, baked by pure fire, but kneaded with rose-water; and from wine expressed from sour grapes, or not mature grapes, to which nevertheless sugar had been mixed, so that it altogether had the flavor of sweet wine.

Quaer. Whether Donatus consecrated validly?

R. As regards the bread kneaded with rose-water, the matter is doubtful, and therefore this species was doubtfully consecrated. In Rubr. de Defect. § 3. n. 2 it is said: "If it is made (the bread) from rose-water, or from another distillation, it is doubtful whether it is confected." But as regards the wine expressed from sour grapes or not mature grapes, from Rubr. de Defect. § 4. n. 1., the matter is altogether invalid, and therefore the sacrament was not confected. But the sugar mixed in could indeed have simulated the taste of wine, but could not make true wine.

2. "It was set forth by a Bishop of France that, since the wine of that place has an acid taste, due to an excess of tartaric acid, it is customarily sweetened with potassium tartrate, a salt which is extracted from the lees of wine, and which forms with the excess tartaric acid a potassium bitartrate that precipitates to the bottom of the cask. Meanwhile it was asked whether this wine so treated was lawful for Mass.

R. "It is not expedient." S. O. 9 May 1892. M. E. v. 7. p. 2. p. 204.

3. Paul, a missionary among Easterners, asks whether he can give communion to Easterners in his own Church of the Latin rite, and whether he can give them communion in unleavened bread.

4. Peter, likewise a missionary among Easterners, asks whether Latins can receive communion in the Churches of the Easterners, and whether they can receive communion in leavened bread.

Quaer. What answer is to be given to each missionary?

R. In the Letter of S. C. de P. F., 30 Apr. 1862, to the Apostolic Delegate of Egypt, these things are contained as regards the proposed questions: "The second doubt concerns the reception of the sacraments which the Easterners make in the Latin Churches, namely of penance and of the Eucharist... Regarding the sacrament of the Eucharist, it is fitting to distinguish the Easterners who, according to their own rite, use unleavened bread, from those who use leavened. For the former there is no prohibition, nor can the Eastern bishops forbid their own subjects to receive the Eucharist from Latin missionaries in their churches, it being well understood in cases in which parochial right does not enter. But for the others, that is, for those who, in Eucharistic matter, use leavened bread, it must first be noted that they also can receive holy communion in Latin churches, provided they receive it according to their own rite, and from national priests, as Benedict XIV teaches in the Encyclical Allatae sunt, at numbers 33, 35, 36. Indeed, sometimes this is a necessity for those places where the Easterners do not have churches of their own rite. But it is another thing if the users of leavened bread wished to receive communion from the Latins in unleavened bread. Two rules have been established for the users of leavened bread: the first is that they cannot at their own choice communicate in unleavened bread when they have the opportunity of doing so in their own rite; the second is that when there occurs the difficulty of communicating in leavened bread, they can do so also in unleavened bread, not only in the article of death and to fulfill the Easter precept, but also in other cases, as is established in the pastoral instruction of Benedict XIV, Eo quamvis tempore § Neque etiam.

"In the third doubt the Latins are treated, that is, the users of unleavened bread. These can communicate in the Eastern churches in their own rite from priests who use unleavened bread, but they cannot without pontifical dispensation communicate in leavened bread, even though there should occur the difficulty of communicating in unleavened bread. The maxim is found established in the Constitution Etsi pastoralis of Benedict XIV, n. 12 of § VI, where it is said absolutely that Latin laypeople are altogether prohibited and forbidden to receive communion from Greek presbyters under the species of leavened bread. Consistently, the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda have always prohibited the users of unleavened bread from communicating in leavened bread; and only in the cases in which there occurred the total lack of priests of their own rite, and of those of another rite in which consecration is made in unleavened bread, have they implored for them the pontifical dispensation, which, however, has not been granted except for the two cases of true necessity, namely of Viaticum and of the Easter precept." Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 735. I. M. 505.

But very recently, by the Decree of the same S. C. de P. F., 18 Aug. 1893, Monitore Ecclesiastico Conversano v. 8. p. 2., p. 79., "to all the faithful of whatever rite, whether Latin or Eastern, dwelling in places in which there is no church and priest of their own rite, the faculty is granted in the future by the Holy See of receiving Most Holy Communion, not only in the article of death and for fulfilling the Easter precept, but also at any time for the sake of devotion, according to the rite of the church existing in the aforesaid places, provided it is Catholic."

And in Blessed Leo XIII, Orientalium dignitas, the day before the Kalends of December 1894, these things are contained: "Where there is lacking a priest of their own rite to whom the Eastern Patriarch may entrust the spiritual administration of his own people, there let a parish priest of another rite undertake their care, one who uses the same species as they themselves, unleavened or leavened, for consecrating; those are to be preferred who use them in the Eastern rite. - But let the faithful have the faculty of communicating in either rite, not only in those places where no church nor priest of their own proper rite is available, as was decreed by the Sacred Council for propagating the Christian name on 18 Aug. 1893, but also where, because of the distance of their own church, they cannot approach it except with grave inconvenience; concerning this let the judgment belong to the Ordinaries. And let this remain fixed: that one who has communicated by another rite or on another day is not therefore to be judged to have changed rite, but in all other duties continues to remain attached to his own parish priest...

"For a woman of the Latin rite who has married a man of the Eastern rite, as also for an Eastern woman who has married a Latin, it will be intact that, on entering or during the marriage, she may pass over to the rite of the husband; but when the marriage has been dissolved, there will be free power of resuming her own rite."

From these Documents the solution to be given to each missionary is clearly evident.

5. A Latin priest, in consecrating the bread, omitted the words which precede the consecration, who on the day before, etc. But a Greek priest, in consecrating the bread, omitted the words, which shall be given for you.

Quaer. Whether each consecration was valid?

R. Affirmatively. There are not lacking those who hold that those words who on the day before, etc., although they are not part of the form, nevertheless are necessarily required for the validity of the form. But this opinion, as Lugo says, d. 11. n. 39., is rejected by all. The altogether convincing reason is that the Fathers and Councils say that this sacrament is confected by the words of Christ, and not by others. But those words who on the day before, etc., are not the words of Christ, but of the Evangelist. Cf. Conc. Flor. Decr. pro Iacob. E. M. 521.

But although the Greeks add to the form of consecration of the bread those words, which shall be given for you, nevertheless these do not belong to the essence of the form. For, as the Roman Catechism says, n. 19., "we are taught by the holy Evangelists Matthew and Luke, and likewise by the Apostle, that this is the form: This is my Body. For it is written: While they were dining, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, This is my Body. Since this form of consecration was indeed observed by Christ the Lord, the Catholic Church has perpetually used it." - Lugo d. 11. s. 3., D'Annib. 241. 387., I. M. 521. 524.

6. Laelius the sacristan warned Narcissus the priest, who was soon to celebrate, that he should wish to consecrate the small host already placed upon the altar. But at the time of the oblation, since he had not found the small host upon the altar, he made the oblation in the usual manner of the larger host, and consecrated it. But then, folding the Corporal, he found the small host, which had been placed under the Corporal.

Quaer. Whether the aforesaid small host was consecrated?

R. It seems that that small host was not consecrated. The reason is that, since Narcissus sought it upon the altar and did not find it, he seems already not to have had the intention of consecrating another host than the larger host. Wherefore he implicitly retracted the intention he had previously had. Moreover, those words, this and here, signify matter that is certain, present, and placed nearby. Wherefore, just as the consecration would be invalid if the matter were placed far away, for example, if it were more than 50 paces away, so also it would be invalid if the matter were not placed in sight, for example, if it were placed in a pyx kept in the tabernacle. Hence the consecration is also not valid if the host is placed under the corporal. - I. M. 510.

"For consecration it is required," says Castropal. punct. 6. num. 5., "that the matter to be consecrated be present to you, so that you can point it out by the pronoun this or here, and perceive it by sense; otherwise it will not be present to you in a moral and human manner. It does not stand in the way of this presence that it is contained in some vessel or linen cloth; for by reason of the container the content is present to you. It would be otherwise if bread or wine were placed behind a wall or a linen cloth, because then by no sense can you point out that matter. And it is the same if the bread exists under a cloth, or in the tabernacle, because it does not exist there as in a container which can be perceived by sense. Thus Suar., Vazq., Bonac., Aegid. de Coninch., Paul. Laymann." La-Croix l. 6. p. 1. n. 443. 444., D'Annib. p. 3. n. 388.

7. Aloysius, lying ill with a grave disease, after sacramental confession had been completed, received Viaticum. As soon as the sacred host had descended into the stomach, Aloysius is seized by a sudden and unexpected vomiting, and casts out the sacred host, which appears intact. The physician is consulted, who declares the matter altogether accidental, and says that Aloysius can receive Viaticum again without any new danger of vomiting. Wherefore Aloysius and his parents ask the parish priest to be willing to minister the Most Holy Viaticum again after lunch.

Quaer. Whether the parish priest can minister the sacred Viaticum again in the Case?

R. Negatively. For it is contrary to the practice of the Church to minister sacred Viaticum twice in a day, and while the same danger of death remains, to the sick person. For Aloysius, notwithstanding the vomiting, truly received Viaticum. For it was altogether verified that he ate the Body of Christ. Wherefore he also received sacramental grace. I. M. 496. For the use of this sacrament is had in the eating of the Body of Christ; when this eating has been verified, the fruit of the sacrament is received, according to Christ's clear promise of grace to be given: He who eats the bread shall live forever. But eating in this sacrament must certainly be understood as in other foods, which certainly, in a human manner, are said to have been eaten not when they are only in the mouth or in the throat, but when they have already descended into the stomach, and are already judged to have been irrevocably swallowed. Cf. Lugo d. 12. s. 2.