II. On the Matter and Form of the Eucharist

What is the remote matter of the Eucharist? - Bread and wine are the remote matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist. This is clear 1. from the institution itself of this sacrament; for Christ in the Last Supper took bread and wine, and consecrated them into his Body and Blood. 2. From the definition of the Church in the Lateran Council, cap. Firmiter, in Florence, Decree of Union, and in Trent sess. 13 in almost all chapters. 3. To all these is added the unanimous tradition of each Church, Latin and Greek. - Only wheaten bread and only wine from the vine are valid matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist. This is clear from the cited Decree of Florence, where it is said: "The third is the sacrament of the Eucharist, whose matter is wheaten bread and wine from the vine." The perpetual tradition and practice of each Church, Latin and Greek, also agrees.

Only wheaten bread, namely that which from wheaten flour and natural water, even sea water, mixed and toasted or baked by fire, and uncorrupted in its species, is valid matter. But wheat is not any kind of grain whatever, but is the noblest kind of grain. But as there are various species of wine, so also there are various species of wheat. Matter altogether unsuitable is bread from barley, oats, starch. - Valid matter is bread made from crushed grains, and infused in water for some hours, but not however to the point of corruption, which grains are then pressed by hand and breads are made from the white matter coming forth, by hot iron, in the usual manner. Holy Office, June 25, 1852.

Wine from the vine, not another; natural wine from the vine, not made by chemical art. But the matter will be valid if the wine is frozen, or if must has then been pressed from grapes; but invalid if pressed from sour or unripe grapes. Rubr. Miss. De defect. t. 4, n. 1, 2. Likewise valid matter will be wine pressed from dried or desiccated grapes, unless they were cooked, or too much water is mixed in. Nothing prevents some quantity of spirit of wine, alcohol, extracted from the offspring of the vine, from being added for preserving weak wine, provided that this, with that which the wine already naturally contains, does not exceed the due proportion, namely 12 percent, or even 17-18 percent if the wines are generous, and the admixture is made when the so-called tumultuous fermentation has begun to subside. Likewise an admixture of sugar, unless it is excessive, does not take away the nature of wine. Wine, even from the vine, from which by art every spirit of wine, alcohol, is removed, is not valid and licit matter of consecration. Holy Office, June 1, 1910. - E. M. "Since the matter of this sacrament is determined by comparison to the use of the faithful absolutely; but the number of the faithful is indeterminate... it cannot be said that the quantity of the matter of this sacrament is determined." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 2.

A very little water is to be mixed with the wine; and this is not by necessity of sacrament, but of ecclesiastical precept. The reason for the first is drawn from the perpetual practice of the Church and the universal tradition of the Fathers; and from the Declaration of the Councils, especially of Florence, which declares the matter of the chalice "to be wine from the vine, with which a very little water must be mixed," and Trent sess. 22, c. 7. The reason for the second is drawn from the fact that Christ, in the institution of this sacrament, designated wine alone, and the Councils, in making mention of this mixture, speak only of precept, as Trent l.c. The doctrine of the Roman Catechism is added, which, after teaching that this mixture cannot be omitted without mortal sin, adds: "Yet if it [water] is lacking, the sacrament can stand." This precept is grave; and "if this mixture has been omitted, and this is noticed before consecration, it is still to be done, otherwise not if after." L. 208. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74; L. 198; S. C. de P. F., Jan. 30, 1635; Collectanea n. 797; E. M.

Is bread made from rye or siligo valid matter? - Rye (segala) is a kind of grain, and is black, heavy, bitter. Wherefore it certainly seems invalid matter. Siligo (grano bianco) is a kind of very light and very white wheat, from which very excellent bread is made. Wherefore it certainly seems valid matter. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 3 ad 2; Lugo d. 4, n. 3; La Croix 421; L. 200.

Is bread made from spelt or far valid matter? - In various regions there are given diverse species of true grain which come under the name of spelt. Whence it seems that attention must be paid to the common estimation of men. For every bread made from grain which is truly established to be wheat, although named otherwise, is certainly valid matter. But spelt has not the same signification in various regions and among various doctors. Spelt, from Forcellini, h.v., is a kind of grain which is thought the same as zea, which from the same Forcellini, h.v., is called a kind of grain similar to far. But far is called a kind of grain hardest of all, and now is distinguished from spelt, now is confused with it. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 3 ad 2; 4 d. 11, q. 2, a. 2, q. 4.

Is both unleavened and leavened bread valid and licit matter of the Eucharist? - As regards validity, in the affirmative. The reason is that each is true bread, and is also simply so called in Scripture; and each is made from wheaten flour and natural water. This is also clear from the definition of the Church. For thus Florence, Decree of Union: "We define that the Body of Christ is confected in unleavened or leavened wheaten bread." - As regards liceity, Latins are bound under grave obligation to consecrate in unleavened bread, and Greeks in leavened, each according to the rite of his Church. This is clear from the practice of each Church, and from Florence in the cited Decree, where it is added: "And priests must confect the Body itself of the Lord in either one, each one namely according to the custom of his own Church, whether Western or Eastern." St. Pius V, Const. Providentia Romani Pontificis, a. 1565; Benedict XIV, Const. on the rites of the Greeks § 6; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 4; E. M.

Can a Latin in places of the Greeks celebrate in leavened bread, and a Greek in places of Latins in unleavened? - The doctors agree that if among Greeks there is found a Church of Latins in which the Latin rite is observed, a Latin priest must consecrate in unleavened bread, and so conversely. - If a Latin passes through Greece, or the contrary, and no Church of his own rite exists in that place, the doctors commonly and most probably teach that each can celebrate either in leavened or in unleavened bread.

The reason is that each indeed can follow the custom of the region where he is found, yet is not bound to this. - Simple faithful also, as regards communion, must observe their own rite. But it is permitted to communicate in another rite when they cannot do so in their own rite without grave inconvenience, because of the distance of their church. - L. 203; Benedict XIV, Const. Etsi pastoralis n. 10 ff.; Enc. Allatae sunt § 23; Const. Eo quamvis tempore § Neque etiam; Leo XIII, Bull Orientalium dignitas, Pr. Kal. Dec. 1894; Collectanea of S. C. de P. F. n. 2000, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2017; E. M. "Ruthenian faithful in the Canadian region, in those places in which neither a church nor a priest of their own rite is had, will be able to conform themselves to the Latin rite, and the same faculty is granted to them also where, because of the distance of their own church, they cannot approach it except with grave inconvenience. - To all faithful of whatever rite, whether Latin or Ruthenian, in the Canadian region, the faculty is given that, for the sake of piety, they may receive the Eucharistic sacrament confected in any rite; and moreover, where necessity presses and no priest of a different rite is present, it will be licit for a Ruthenian priest to minister the Eucharist in unleavened bread, and conversely for a Latin priest to minister in leavened bread; but each will observe his own rite in ministering. - Each of the faithful will satisfy the precept of Paschal Communion if he receives it in his own rite, and indeed from his own pastor. - Holy viaticum is to be received by the dying in their own rite from the hands of their own pastor; but, when necessity presses, let it be lawful to receive it from any priest whatever, who however will minister according to his own rite." S. C. de P. F., Aug. 8, 1913, art. 24, 29, 30, 31.

The first article of the aforesaid Decree is also had in the Constitution of Pius X Ea semper, XVIII Kal. Jul. 1907, for Ruthenians in the United States of North America, art. 21; but the others are not found. But in the Decree of S. C. de Prop. Fide, Aug. 17, 1914, for Greco-Ruthenians in the United States of North America, the first article of the same aforesaid Decree is not found; but the following articles of the same aforesaid Decree are found in art. 23, 24, 25.

But the general Apostolic Constitution of Pius X Tradita ab antiquis, Sept. 14, 1912, is had concerning the Most Holy Eucharist to be received in a mixed rite, in which the following things are established.

I. On The Celebration of Mass. "It is not licit for priests to perform sacred things in a mixed rite; therefore let each one confect and minister the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord according to the rite of his own Church."

II. On Ministering the Eucharist. "Where necessity presses, and no priest of a different rite is present, it will be licit for an Eastern priest who uses leavened bread to minister the Eucharist consecrated in unleavened bread, and conversely for a Latin or Eastern priest who uses unleavened bread to minister in leavened bread; but each one will observe his own rite of ministering."

III. On Receiving the Eucharist. - "To all faithful of whatever rite the faculty is given that, for the sake of piety, they may receive the Eucharistic Sacrament confected in any rite."

IV. On Paschal Communion. - "Each of the faithful will satisfy the precept of Paschal Communion if he receives it in his own rite and indeed from his own pastor, to whom certainly he will remain attached in performing the other duties of religion."

V. On Viaticum. - "Holy Viaticum is to be received by the dying in their own rite from the hands of their own pastor; but, when necessity presses, let it be lawful to receive it from any priest whatever, who however will minister according to his own rite."

VI. On Not Changing One's Native Rite. - "Each one will remain in his native rite, even if he has long held the custom of communicating in another rite; nor is the faculty of changing rite to be given to anyone unless just and legitimate causes support him, concerning which the Sacred Council for the Propagation of the Faith for affairs of Orientals will judge. But among these causes there will not be numbered the custom, however long-standing, of communicating in another rite."

In a case of necessity for providing viaticum to a sick person, can a Latin priest consecrate in leavened bread? - Some affirm, but the common and more probable opinion denies it. The reason is that the Church most gravely urges observation of the prescribed rite, which consequently in this case is to be preferred to the private utility of one's neighbor, to whom such a sacrament is not simply necessary, because of the common good, lest there be confusion of rites and so that their distinction be preserved. L. 203. Yet it would be licit and obligatory to consecrate in leavened bread in order to complete the sacrifice, if it could not be completed otherwise, e.g., if the priest noticed that he had consecrated corrupted matter and could not have another licit host.

Does a priest consecrating in wine becoming sour sin gravely? - Resp. In the affirmative, although that wine is still valid matter of the sacrament. Indeed mortal sin is admitted not only if the wine is close to vinegar, but also if it certainly begins to become sour and corrupted, because then grave irreverence seems to be inflicted upon the sacrament. This is clear from the Rubrics, tit. 4, n. 2: "If the wine has begun to become sour or corrupted, or has been somewhat sharp, or is must then pressed from grapes, or water has not been mixed, or rose water or water of another distillation has been mixed, the sacrament is confected, but the one confecting sins gravely." "Yet probably, when other wine is lacking, it is licit without scruple, as upright men are accustomed, to use wine becoming a little sour, or not notably acid." L. 207. Hence the rubric does not seem to be taken with such rigor that it comprehends all even the first degrees of sharpness, but only those which proximately begin to constitute wine becoming sour. "But when grave necessity presses, it would be licit to use wine still notably becoming sour, provided it is certainly wine." L. 207. The same consequently must be said of bread growing moldy. Rubr. de Defect. tit. 3, n. 1, 3. L. 206, 207; H. A., App. 3, Exam. ordinand. 98; Benedict XIV, Notification 77; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 3, 5.

Is frozen wine valid matter? - Resp. More probably in the affirmative. The reason is, 1. because it remains substantially wine, since it retains the same color, taste, and odor; 2. because from the Rubrics of the Missal, the species of frozen wine after consecration must be liquefied by applying heated cloths, and then consumed, since it is a true sacrament. Rubr. de Defect. tit. 10, n. 11. Therefore it supposes that the species of frozen wine retain the Blood of Christ. Therefore the sacred species are not changed substantially by freezing after consecration. Therefore neither before. Thus St. Liguori 207, where he says it is the truer opinion because of the reason drawn from the cited Rubric. But concerning the denying opinion he says ibid.: "I think it has no solid probability." - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 4; Lugo d. 4, n. 14.

What quantity of water is to be mixed in the chalice? - A very small quantity of water suffices, as Florence says. Probably water can be poured in up to the eighth part of the wine, indeed up to the fifth part according to Lugo d. 4, n. 38. Busembaum adds that it suffices that the water not exceed a third part. But in practice this last opinion is not to be admitted, although a third part does not corrupt the wine if it is generous. Generally it is to be advised that the priest not exceed eight or ten little drops. But if by chance he has poured in too great a quantity of water, some quantity of wine can again be added. But one drop of water suffices, provided it is sensible. - L. 210; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 8; q. 77, a. 8; E. M.

What about the proximate matter, or the use of the matter required in the consecration itself? - For valid consecration besides suitable matter there is required:

1. That the matter to be consecrated be physically present; because the demonstrative pronouns of the form, this, here, necessarily require this; otherwise the form would be false, because that which would not be present would be demonstrated as present. 2. That through the intention of the minister it be determined in the individual; because just as the minister does not consecrate unless he intends to consecrate, so neither does he consecrate this matter unless he determinately intends to consecrate it. Yet actual determination is not required, but virtual suffices. L. 211-214. - For licit consecration there is required that the priest in no way depart from the use of the Church, especially as determined by the Rubrics of the Roman Missal. Hence it is necessary: 1. That the matter to be consecrated be decent and clean because of the reverence due to so great a sacrament. 2. That it be placed on the altar and on the corporal, indeed also on the sacred stone, according to Benedict XIV, de Sacr. miss. sect. 2, n. 139. 3. That the ciborium or chalice to be consecrated be uncovered. 4. That it be done at the time of the Canon prescribed by the Rubric. Trent sess. 22, c. 4, 5, 8; L. 218, 219; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 1 ad 4; q. 83, a. 3, 4, 5. 5. It is certain that it is necessary by necessity of precept to consecrate the Eucharist under each species. Likewise it is certain and common among all that it is not licit even at the point of death to consecrate one species for giving viaticum to the sick person. For the consecration of the Eucharist has the nature of sacrifice, and Christ instituted the sacrifice to be offered under each species. L. 195, 196. 6. From precept in the Latin Church the bread to be consecrated must be round in shape and whole. It is also licit to celebrate privately with a smaller host, such as is given to laymen, when no other can be had and scandal is absent; indeed, if a cause presses, even publicly on a feast day, because there is no precept nor is there certainty of a custom obliging under precept, and even from a cause of devotion, if scandal is absent. But it is not licit to take the small one and leave the larger, unless the priest in the same Mass also consecrated that one, because he must communicate from his own sacrifice. Wherefore a pastor acts badly who, about to renew the Eucharist, himself consumes a host consecrated by another and places in the tabernacle, or pyx, one consecrated by himself. L. 205; Diana tr. 1, de Celebrat. missar., r. 234.

You will resolve: Hosts placed upon the corporal at the beginning of Mass are validly consecrated, although the celebrant actually no longer attends to them; likewise hosts hidden under others, or otherwise covered. For all are consecrated after the manner of one. Likewise wine in a chalice covered with a veil, pall, or in any way whatever is validly consecrated; because for true presence of the matter it suffices that it can be demonstrated by the pronouns this or here.

The consecration is valid if the priest thinks that only one or two hosts to be consecrated are present, when there are several placed either by himself or by another; the reason is that the priest certainly intends to consecrate whatever is present and decently consecrable. Whence if the celebrant notices after consecration that two hosts are joined together, let him consume each as consecrated. But if before consecration, after he has offered, he notices this, let him put one back, and after Mass let him himself or another consume it as blessed bread. - The same must be said if someone has brought several hosts to be consecrated to the altar, or before the sacrifice has been warned about hosts to be consecrated already placed upon the altar, or in a reasonable manner has noticed that they are brought by another so that they may be consecrated, even if while he consecrates he does not expressly remember them in that way, or even has not uncovered them at the oblation, provided they are present on the corporal; because the preceding intention virtually perseveres.

Hosts would not be consecrated if, unknown to the priest, they had been placed even on the corporal, because the priest, being wholly unaware, did not have a general intention of consecrating them, and therefore neither can an intention virtually persevere which did not exist. If small hosts for communicating the people are brought to the priest a little after the oblation has been made, he will be able licitly to consecrate them, the oblation being supplied mentally. Rubr. de Defect. t. 7, n. 1, 2, 4; L. 212, 215, 216, 217; Elbel 35, 36, 48.

Can hosts to be consecrated be brought once the Canon has begun? - Theologians and skilled rubricists commonly deny it. Yet several doctors of great weight permit it from a very grave cause. Thus Benedict XIV, de Sacrif. missae l. 3, c. 18, n. 5: "The common opinion is, and one confirmed by the consent of very many, that particles cannot be consecrated when the canon has begun to be recited, even if it were a question of consecrating a particle which would have to be brought for viaticum to a sick person.

For in that case, some small particle could be taken from the host of the Mass and reserved for the sick person... Anyone easily understands that the order of Mass is perverted if particles to be consecrated are received after the preface has begun. Moreover, if this is to be done, it must not be done without a legitimate cause, of which kind it would be if a great multitude prepared to receive the Eucharist would lack the sacrament." St. Liguori seems to subscribe to this doctrine: "If small hosts for communicating the people are brought to the priest a little after the oblation has been made, Aversa adds before the preface has begun, Diana, etc., teach that they are licitly consecrated, the oblation being supplied mentally. And this even if the canon has begun, as Tamburini, etc. At least when many would remain without communion," Busembaum and St. Alphonsus l.c. But it is certain that they can never be admitted after the consecration of the bread.

What kind of sin is it to consecrate a broken or stained host? - Scandal and reasonable cause being excluded, it is only venial, unless the stain or fracture is enormous. Yet if some fracture or stain is detected in the host after the oblation, such a host will licitly be consecrated, unless scandal of the people is feared, because already by the oblation it has in some way been dedicated and sanctified to God. The same must be said proportionately of turbid wine. L. 204; La Croix 422.

Can doubtful matter ever be consecrated? - Never altogether, not even for avoiding death, is it licit to consecrate doubtful matter, namely because of the danger of material idolatry; and besides, if only one species is doubtful, because of the integrity of the sacrifice. But when this has been consecrated, to despise it or expose it to adoration, each is grave; but after the consummation, before purification, it will have to be consumed. And the same must be said if you doubt whether you have consecrated matter otherwise suitable; but this, if it can again be rightly consecrated conditionally, is to be consecrated again. St. Thomas q. 74, a. 3 ad 3; Rubr. de Defect. t. 3.

What must be done if unconsecrated particles are mixed with consecrated? - "If unconsecrated particles are mixed with consecrated, the whole heap is to be brought to the altar, so that the priest may intend to consecrate the unconsecrated; or rather let him consecrate the whole heap conditionally, if they are not consecrated. And this rather must be done, because in consecrating unconsecrated hosts, true determination of the matter is lacking, nor can the word this be verified; whence all the hosts must be consecrated conditionally, so that they may be validly consecrated." L. 216. - Lugo d. 4, n. 136; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 77, a. 8.

Is a ciborium left outside the corporal through forgetfulness to be judged consecrated? - It is controverted. The first probable opinion affirms. The reason is that there was already a positive will of consecrating that ciborium at the beginning of Mass, nor was that will retracted. Therefore it persevered virtually at the time of consecration. The second opinion denies. The reason is that that intention of consecrating outside the corporal would have been a grave sin, and therefore the priest is not presumed to have had it. - The second opinion is called by St. Alphonsus 217 common and more probable, namely because it could not have been consecrated without mortal sin, from the presumed intention of the celebrant. Thus indeed, if this was at some time certain for him, that he did not wish to do anything in celebrating Mass which could not be done without mortal sin. Otherwise one would have to say that he also does not consecrate who ignorantly celebrates with a chalice not consecrated or a corporal not blessed.

And indeed, excluding this preceding general will of not consecrating in such a case, that presumed will is nothing, since in reality it is not present because of ignorance of the thing, but on the contrary the will of consecrating the present matter is truly present. Since the matter is not without doubt, especially because of the extrinsic authority of the doctors, "in practice those particles are to be consumed after the Blood." L. ib. Rubr. de Defect. t. 3, n. 4, 5, speaking of a priest who consecrated a host either corrupted or not wheaten, prescribes that "if he has not consumed it, let him consume it after the reception of the Body and Blood." "But particles found outside the corporal, in doubt whether they are consecrated, are to be consumed even after the ablution." L. 251. - But there can be no doubt about the consecration if someone, not attending to the ciborium outside the corporal, had an actual intention of consecrating it together with the larger host. And the same consequently must be said of virtual intention, if, seeing the ciborium, he had the positive will of consecrating it.

Is a ciborium judged consecrated if it was indeed placed on the corporal, but through forgetfulness remained closed at the time of consecration? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is 1. because hosts certainly can be validly consecrated in a closed ciborium. Cf. 511. 2. because the priest has the absolute intention of consecrating whatever, with his knowledge, is upon the corporal, and is honorably consecrable, and is had after the manner of a continuum.

Are drops of wine externally adhering to the chalice judged consecrated? - Drops externally adhering are never judged consecrated. The reason is that the intention of the priest is of consecrating that one thing which is consecrable within the chalice itself. L. 215.

Are drops of wine consecrated which are in the chalice separated, when the priest intended nothing concerning them? - Some deny, others affirm, and finally others affirm concerning near drops and deny concerning remote ones. More probably drops altogether separated from the greater quantity are in no way judged consecrated. The reason is that it does not seem to be the intention of the Church, and therefore neither of the priest, to consecrate anything except wine which after the manner of one drinkable thing is found gathered in the chalice. - "La Croix says it is expedient that the priest intend to consecrate them, lest there be wine in the chalice which is not consecrated. But it seems better to me," says St. Alphonsus, "to intend this concerning drops near the bottom, but not concerning remote ones." L. H. A. Ex. ordin. 99. "Gavantus orders them to be wiped away, which custom approves. Yet Tamburini teaches that one who omits this does not sin, indeed that it is not expedient if you notice them when, the chalice having been uncovered, you are now about to consecrate, and the people await the elevation. But after consecration they are in no way to be wiped away." L. 219. If the separated drops are near the whole mass, they can easily be united to it by tilting the chalice a little. L. 215.

Is consecration of one species without the other valid? - No one doubts that it is valid if this happens by chance and contrary to intention. But whether a priest consecrates validly who has a positive intention of consecrating only one species without the other, the doctors commonly affirm. The reason is that in every sacrament, whenever the minister pronounces the form over the matter with the intention of doing what the Church does, the sacrament is perfected. L. 196; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 6; Lugo d. 19, n. 102, 104; Suarez d. 43, s. 2; Florence, Decree for the Greeks and Armenians.

What is the form of the Eucharist; what is its power? - The form in the consecration of the Body is: For this is my Body; but of the Blood: For this is the chalice of my Blood of the new and eternal Testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be poured out for you and for many unto the remission of sins. For the priest, speaking in the person of Christ, confects this sacrament. - But by the power of the words themselves the whole substance of the bread is converted into the Body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood: yet in such a way that the whole Christ is contained under the species of bread, and the whole under the species of wine. "Also under any part whatever of the consecrated host and of the consecrated wine, after separation has been made, the whole Christ is present." Florence, Decree for the Armenians. - Wherefore the words must signify the transubstantiation of the present thing in an instant. In an instant, that is, not in successive becoming, but in completed being; namely the form signifies not what is being done, but what has been done: This is, Here is. - Florence, Decree for the Greeks and Armenians; Trent sess. 13, c. 1, 3, 4; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78; q. 75, a. 7; E. M.

You will resolve: The consecration is valid, but illicit, if the one consecrating says: This food is my Body; This chalice, This drink is my Blood; Here is my Blood; for it is the same thing, since those words, This is the chalice, etc., are said by metonymy; or if he says: This chalice is the New Testament in my blood, Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; or if the particle enim is omitted. Likewise if he pronounces Colpus for Corpus; meus for meum, es for est, calis for calix; Sanguis for Sanguinis, etc. - But he cannot be excused from sin who does not use due diligence for rightly pronouncing the words of consecration.

The consecration will be invalid if you say: Hic adverbially is my Body; This Body is mine; This Blood is mine, where Body and Blood stand on the part of the subject, not of the predicate; That is my Body; Behold my Body; This my Body; This bread is my Body; Let this become, This becomes, Let this be my Body. - The consecration is doubtful if you say: That is my Body; This is my Flesh; for although flesh in Sacred Letters also signifies body, nevertheless commonly and from its own proper signification it imports only a part of the body. - The words of the form must be pronounced in the person of Christ formally and assertively, or recitatively and significatively at the same time, but not only historically; namely the words of Christ are to be pronounced by applying their signification to the present matter, so that this may be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ. Hence the form is invalid if someone says: This is the Body of Christ. Yet a scruple is not to be had whether the words are pronounced in the due sense; for any priest is presumed to have the intention of doing what Christ did and instituted, and thus he sufficiently intends to pronounce the consecratory words in each aforesaid sense. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 1, 2; L. 220, 221.

Is omission of the word enim in the form of consecration grave? - The first opinion probably denies it, because that word is not found in the words pronounced by Christ, and from another side, as regards the precept of the Church, it does not seem to constitute grave matter. - The second opinion affirms. The reason is that in so grave a matter there does not seem to be light matter in any deliberate change whatever. L. 220; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 2 ad 5.

Are those preceding words required as essential in the consecration: Who the day before he suffered, etc.; In like manner, etc.? - Resp. In the negative with the common opinion, which St. Liguori 222, Lugo d. 11, s. 3, etc. hold. The reason is that these words are pronounced only historically, and seem to have no sacramental efficacy, nor are they necessary so that the priest pronounce the words of consecration in the person of Christ, which depends only on the intention of the priest. Nor indeed are they counted in the Florentine Decree for the Greeks and Armenians, where the form of the Eucharist is explicitly handed down. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 2, 3.

In the consecration of the chalice, are only these words, This is the chalice of my Blood, of the essence of the form? - The first opinion affirms. The reason is 1. because the words of consecration of the bread are these: This is my Body. Nor indeed are the other words, which shall be given up for you, essential.

Therefore, by parity, the words of consecration of the wine are only these other words: This is my Blood, or other equivalent words; 2. because those words alone of themselves express the presence of the Blood of Christ under the species of wine. Thus more commonly and more probably. The second opinion denies it, because the later words, which for you, etc., designate the power of the Blood poured out in the Passion, which operates in this Sacrament. Moreover, by these words it is explicitly signified that the Eucharistic sacrifice is representative of the sacrifice of the Cross. This is confirmed from Florence, Decree for the Greeks and Armenians, where those words are counted in the form of words in the consecration of the Eucharist. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 3; Rubr. Missal. de Defect. tit. 5, n. 1.

St. Alphonsus 223 says that the opinion of the Angelic Doctor is very doubtful. Cf. Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25, and he adds: "For the rest, each opinion is speculatively probable; but in practice it is certain that the priest would sin gravely if he did not pronounce all the words which are had in the consecration of the chalice, and if perhaps he had said only the first words, he would certainly have to repeat the form integrally under condition." Thus indeed in the Rubrics de Defect. t. 10, n. 3 it is prescribed, where it is said: "If he [the priest] has died, the form of the Blood having been half-pronounced, then another is to continue the Mass, and over the same chalice let him repeat the entire form (understand conditionally, if perhaps he has already said the words: This is the Chalice of my Blood) from that place: In like manner, etc.; or he could pronounce the entire form over another prepared chalice, and consume the Host of the first priest and the Blood consecrated by himself, and then the chalice left half-consecrated."