Chapter I — The notion of the Eucharist, and its matter and form

I. QUESTION I. What is the Eucharist? ANSWER. Various acceptations being omitted, it is the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ really contained under the species of bread and wine, for the spiritual nourishment of the faithful, instituted by Christ himself. The body and blood are at once the thing and the sacrament, which are signified by the consecrated species; and moreover they signify the spiritual nourishment of the soul. Whence it is plain that the Eucharist is a sacrament, since to it belongs the character of a sensible sign divinely instituted, and it has annexed the promise of grace and the divine mandate of observing that sign: which three things are proved from divine Scripture to belong to the Eucharist. Bread and wine are the sensible sign: Matthew 26, Jesus took bread, and so forth. To those observing this sign grace is promised: John 6, He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. There is the mandate of using that sign: Do this for a commemoration of me. Luke 22.

II. QUESTION II. Are wheaten bread alone and wine of the vine the matter of the Eucharist? ANSWER. All affirm it, because this is the matter instituted by Christ. Jesus took bread, and so forth, Matthew 26. And of the matter of the chalice he adds there: I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, and so forth. There is added the universal and perpetual tradition of the Church. Any quantity of the matter is apt for consecration. That quantity nevertheless the priest ought to consecrate which he shall prudently have recognized as suited to the use of the faithful.

III. This matter must be present to the consecrating priest. This presence is moral, not physical. Wherefore the practice of certain priests is to be disapproved who are wont to move their mouth and lips to the bread and the chalice, and to breathe into the chalice itself. Such a presence is required as that it can be demonstrated by saying This is, or Here is. Some raise innumerable questions upon this presence, all of which as useless and arbitrary I pass over. They dispute also whether bread confected of almonds, chestnuts, beans, lentils, spelt, or barley be matter of consecration. And the common opinion denies it. Concerning siligo they dispute on either side. But a distinction must be made. If siligo be taken with Pliny for a kind of white grain, or for selected wheat, then it is a matter apt for consecration; but if it be taken for rye, commonly segala, it is an inept matter, and cannot be consecrated.

IV. QUESTION III. Ought the bread to be consecrated to be unleavened or leavened? ANSWER. The Council of Florence in the Decree of Union laid down these things: We define that in unleavened or in leavened wheaten bread the body of Christ is truly effected. That the Eucharist is validly confected in unleavened bread is established by the example of Christ the Lord, to which is added the perpetual tradition of the Church. That it is validly confected also in leavened bread is plain, because the Latin Church has never protested against the rite of the Greek Church consecrating in leavened bread. Neither ought the Latins to consecrate in leavened nor the Greeks in unleavened bread; but both Greek and Latin priests are bound to observe the rite of their own Church, as so many decrees enjoin, and most recently Benedict XIV, happily reigning, in the Constitution upon the Rites of the Greeks published in the year 1742, confirmed.

V. QUESTION IV. Is wine of the vine the matter of the Eucharist? ANSWER. All affirm it, as is plain from the evangelical text already adduced and from the perennial tradition of the Church. So great a quantity of wine ought the priest of the Latin Church to consecrate as he can take according to the custom of his own Church. Wine of the vine alone therefore — whether white or black, whether sweet or harsh — is the matter of the consecration of the chalice. It is fitting nevertheless that the wine be white, for the avoiding of the stains which black or red wine leaves in the purificator, which present an unseemliness. Frozen wine is not an apt matter, because it cannot be drunk. Wherefore it ought to be liquefied, if it should become frozen in the chalice.

VI. QUESTION V. Is water to be mingled with the wine in the consecration of the chalice? ANSWER. Luther reputed this mixture a human figment; but by the perpetual tradition of the Church it is established that water was always mingled with the wine. The Third Council of Carthage in the year 397, canon 24, and the Quinisext or Trullan Synod in the year 692, testify that this rite descended from the Apostles. There are added the testimonies of all the Fathers, and at last Trent, session 22, chapter 4, canon 9, confirmed all the earlier decrees. This admixture is necessary with the necessity of ecclesiastical precept, not of the sacrament. The water to be mingled must be natural. A small quantity also is to be mingled. That this water is by force of the consecration converted into the blood of Christ all Catholics hold. But theologians dispute whether this small quantity of water be first converted into wine and afterwards into blood. Some maintain that it is immediately converted into blood. The more common opinion defends that it is first converted into wine. And this second opinion the Tridentine Catechism adopted, part 2, On the Eucharist, § 17. Reason also favours it, because water is in no way matter, even partial, of the chalice. And therefore, that the conversion may be easier, a little water is enjoined to be mingled. Neither opinion nevertheless pertains to faith.

VII. Theologians dispute whether one species can be consecrated without the other, urgent necessity pressing, by dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff. Diana with some others affirms it. It is certain that one species can validly be consecrated without the other. But it is disputed whether it be sometimes lawful, urgent necessity pressing, to do this. St. Thomas denies it, III, q. 74, art. 1, to whom the graver theologians subscribe. And this doctrine Trent seems to confirm, session 22, chapter 1. For the sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted after the manner of a spiritual banquet, and as a sacrifice. Further, this sacrifice cannot be immolated under one species alone, since it is the commemoration of the bloody Sacrifice, in which the blood was separated from the body.

VIII. QUESTION VI. Are these dominical words alone — "This is my body" — essential to the consecration of the eucharistic bread? ANSWER. The affirmative opinion is certain, and defined in the Council of Florence in the Decree for the Instruction of the Armenians, and in Trent, session 13, chapter 3, where it is laid down that the consecration is made by the words of Christ. But Christ uttered these words: This is my body. Hence it follows that the words who the day before he suffered, and so forth, do not pertain to the essence of the consecration, because the aforesaid words are not dominical, that is, Christ did not utter them, but they are the Evangelists'.

IX. QUESTION VII. Are these words alone — "This is the chalice of my blood," or "This is my blood" — of the essence of the consecration of the chalice? Or do the others also which follow — "of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins" — pertain to the essence of the consecration? ANSWER. Theologians dispute on either side, even Thomists. The more probable opinion to me is that these words alone — This is my blood, or, what comes back to the same, This is the chalice of my blood — constitute the essential form of the consecration of the chalice. For as these words alone — This is my body — constitute the essential form of the bread, so the other aforesaid words effect the essential form of the chalice. Since indeed these words alone express and effect the conversion of the wine into blood, just as the former signify the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ. But these words are not uttered by the priest historically, as the Protestants contend, but assertively and significatively.

X. The particle for Christ did not use, as some contend; but it was added by the Church. Authors dispute whether he would sin mortally who voluntarily should omit this particle. The more probable opinion teaches that he sins mortally who voluntarily should omit this particle. Since although in itself it be something slight, nevertheless in the sacramental form it is of great moment. More gravely would he sin who should omit that particle out of contempt, whether formal or interpretative.