ARTICLE I: ON THE MATTER OF THE EUCHARIST

1279. Principles. - I. Bread and wine are the remote matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It is established: 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, chapter Firmiter;⁵ in the Council of Florence, in the Decree of union; and in Trent, Session 13, in almost all the chapters. - To all these is added the unanimous tradition of both Churches, Latin and Greek.

II. Only wheaten bread, and only wine from the vine, whether foreign or native, white or red,¹ are valid matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It is established from the Council of Florence in the Decree cited above, 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 agree.

Bread must be made with water; hence bread kneaded with another liquid, for example with milk, butter, etc., is not apt matter, or at least is very doubtful.²

Must may be employed in general only when necessity makes it lawful; but juice from grapes altogether unripe is unfit matter.³

Generally, however, a slight admixture of unfit matter does not dissolve the species.⁴

III. A very small quantity of water must be mixed with the wine, and this not by necessity of the Sacrament, but by ecclesiastical precept.

The first proposition is drawn: 1° from the perpetual practice of the Church and the universal tradition of the Fathers; 2° from the Declaration of the Councils, and especially of Florence - which declares that the matter of the chalice is wine from the vine, with which a very small quantity of water must be mixed - and of Trent.⁵

The second proposition is drawn from this, that Christ, in the institution of this Sacrament, designated only wine, and the Councils, in making mention of this mixture, speak of precept alone, as Trent does in the cited place; there is added the doctrine of the Catechism of the same Council, which, after it taught that this mixture cannot be omitted without mortal sin, adds: Yet if this (water) is lacking, the Sacrament can stand.

1280. Questions. - Query 1° Is bread made from rye or secale valid matter?

Resp. It is controverted. Some affirm, because rye, they say, seems to be of the same species as wheat, although it is of different quality. - But others, much more commonly and more probably, deny; because rye bread is of a different species. Therefore in practice this matter is prohibited under grave obligation.⁶ (5) p. 417.

Query 2° Is bread made from far or spelt (in English: spelt) valid matter?

Resp. It is likewise controverted as concerning rye. Hence that matter also is to be held as doubtful, and therefore as gravely illicit.¹ - Nevertheless one must note that in various regions there are given different species of true wheat, which come under the name of spelt. Hence it seems that attention must be paid to the common estimation of men.

Query 3° Is bread, both unleavened and leavened, valid and lawful matter of the Eucharist?

Resp. 1° As regards validity, affirmatively. The reason is because each is true bread, and is also called simply bread in Scripture; and each is made from wheaten flour and natural water. It is also established from the definition of the Church. For thus the Council of Florence in the Decree of union: We define that the Body of Christ is confected in unleavened or in leavened wheaten bread.

Resp. 2° As regards lawfulness, Latins are held under grave obligation to consecrate in unleavened bread, and Greeks in leavened bread, each according to the rite of his own Church. It is established: 1° from the practice of each Church; 2° from the Council of Florence in the cited Decree, where it is added: And priests must confect the very Body of the Lord in either one, each one namely according to the custom of his Church, whether Western or Eastern. - But a Latin priest, passing through the regions of the Greeks, in which no church of his own rite is present, can consecrate in leavened bread; likewise conversely.²

Query 4° Does a priest consecrating in wine turning sour sin gravely?

Resp. Affirmatively, although that wine is still valid matter of the Sacrament. Indeed mortal sin is committed, not only if the wine is near to vinegar, but also if it certainly begins to turn sour and be corrupted, because even so grave irreverence seems to be brought upon the Sacrament. - It is established from the Rubric, tit. 4, n. 2, where it is said thus: If the wine has begun to turn sour, or to be corrupted, or has become somewhat sharp, ... the Sacrament is confected, but the one confecting sins gravely.

Nevertheless Gobat, Sporer, and Lacroix probably say that, if other wine is lacking, it is lawful without scruple, as upright men are accustomed, to employ wine turning a little sour, or not notably acid; and Sporer and Mazzotta add that, in urgent necessity, it is lawful to use wine even notably turning sour, provided that it is certainly wine. - Hence the Rubric does not seem to be accepted with such rigor that it comprehends even all the first degrees of sharpness, but only those which proximately begin to constitute wine turning sour.¹

Query 5° Is frozen wine valid matter?

Resp. It is controverted. More probably affirmatively, although it is illicit. The reason is: 1° because it remains substantially wine, since it retains the same color, taste, and odor; 2° because from the Rubric of the Missal the species of frozen wine after Consecration must be liquefied by applying heated cloths, and then taken, inasmuch as it is a true Sacrament (Rubr. de defect. § 10, n. 11). Therefore it supposes that the species of frozen wine retains the Blood of Christ; therefore the sacred species are not changed substantially through freezing after Consecration; therefore neither before it. - Thus St. Alphonsus,² where he says that it is the truer sentence because of the reason drawn from the cited Rubric.

Query 6° What quantity of water is to be mixed in the chalice?

Resp. A very small quantity of water suffices, as the Council of Florence says above, n. 1279. Probably water can be poured in up to an eighth part of the wine, indeed up to a fifth part according to Lugo.³ Busembaum adds that it suffices that the water not exceed a third part. But in practice this last sentence is not to be admitted, although a third part does not corrupt the wine, if it is generous. Generally one must counsel 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.⁴

1281. Principles. - I. For valid Consecration, besides apt matter, it 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 was not present would be demonstrated as present; 2° that it be determined in the individual by the intention of the Minister; 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. Nevertheless actual determination is not required, but virtual suffices.¹

II. For lawful Consecration it is required: 1° that the priest in no way depart from the use of the Church, especially that determined by the Rubrics of the Roman Missal: hence first of all it is necessary that the matter to be consecrated be decent and clean, on account of the reverence due to so great a Sacrament; likewise, from the prescription or use of the Latin Church, that the host be of round, thin, whole, and fresh form. Cf. St. Alphonsus;² 2° that it be placed on the altar and on the corporal, indeed also on the sacred stone; 3° that the ciborium or chalice to be consecrated be uncovered; 4° that it be done at the time prescribed by the Rubric of the Canon.³

1282. Resolves. - 1° Hosts hidden under others, or otherwise covered, are validly consecrated. Likewise wine is validly consecrated in a chalice covered with a veil, pall, or in any way whatever; because it suffices for the true presence of the matter that it can be demonstrated by the pronouns this or here.⁴

2° The Consecration is valid if the priest thinks that only one or two hosts to be consecrated are present, although there are several placed either by him or by another; the reason is because the priest is always presumed to wish to consecrate whatever is decently consecrable. Hence if the celebrant notices after Consecration that two Hosts are joined together, let him take each as consecrated according to the Rubric of the Missal. But if before Consecration, after he has offered, he notices this, let him set one aside, and after Mass let him or another consume it as blessed bread. But if in some case unconsecrated hosts are mixed with consecrated ones, the whole mass is to be consecrated under condition, if they are not consecrated.⁵

3° The same must be said if someone has brought several hosts to the altar to be consecrated, or before the Sacrifice he has been warned concerning hosts to be consecrated already placed upon the altar, or he has noticed that they are brought by another that they may be consecrated, even if, while he consecrates, he does not so expressly remember them, or even has not uncovered them at the oblation, provided that they are present on the corporal; because the preceding intention virtually perseveres.¹

4° Hosts would not be consecrated, if the priest did not know of them, even placed on the corporal, but separated from the heap, because the wholly unaware priest did not have the intention of consecrating them.²

5° If small hosts for communicating the people are brought to the priest a little after the oblation has been made, he will be able lawfully to consecrate them, the oblation being supplied mentally. "And this, even if the Canon has been begun, ... when several would remain without Communion." ... But if only one remained, rather a part of the large Host is to be given to him, "or a smaller Host is to be divided. And it suffices for a cause if the one about to communicate would have to wait a long time," or if he is a grave or noble person, or, among us, a person of principal standing.³

6° It is never lawful to consecrate only one species. Nevertheless such a Consecration is more probably valid, even if the priest had a positive intention of not consecrating the other species.⁴

1283. Questions. - Query 1° Is a ciborium left outside the corporal or the stone through forgetfulness to be judged consecrated?

Resp. There is no difficulty if there is question of a ciborium placed indeed outside the stone, but nevertheless on the corporal, and with this extended over the stone; for in this case it is morally found on the stone. Otherwise it is controverted. The first sentence, probable, affirms, because the will of consecrating had at the beginning of Mass was not retracted.

The second sentence, common and more probable according to St. Alphonsus, denies. The reason is because that intention of consecrating outside the corporal would have been a grave sin, and was not necessary for the Sacrifice, and therefore the priest is not presumed to have had it.

But since it is illicit to administer Sacraments with doubtful matter, in practice that ciborium will have to be consecrated again under condition in another Mass, if the particles cannot easily be consumed. Otherwise they must be consumed after each Communion and ablution - because the remains of the Blood are certainly a Sacrament, but those hosts in the ciborium are only doubtful - and before purification. I said: must; because while they can be consumed, a sufficient cause is lacking for consecrating them under condition.¹

Query 2° Is a ciborium placed indeed on the corporal, but which through forgetfulness remained closed at the time of Consecration, judged consecrated?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is: 1° because certainly hosts can be validly consecrated in a closed ciborium, as was said above; 2° because the priest is always judged to have the absolute intention of consecrating whatever, with his knowledge, is above the corporal, is honestly consecrable, and is held by way of one continuous whole.

Query 3° Are drops of wine adhering to the chalice, whether exteriorly or interiorly, judged consecrated?

Resp. 1° Drops adhering exteriorly are never judged consecrated. The reason is because the intention of the priest is deservedly presumed to be to consecrate that one thing which is lawfully consecrable; but those little drops would be consecrated illicitly and irreverently, and without any utility. Therefore ... Thus all.

Resp. 2° More probably, neither are drops adhering interiorly judged consecrated, when they are altogether separated from the greater quantity, or are not next to the bottom. The reason is because it seems to be the intention of the Church, and therefore of the priest, not to consecrate except wine which is drinkable by way of one whole, and is found gathered together in the chalice.³

Query 4° What kind of sin is it to consecrate a broken or stained host?

Resp. Scandal being excluded, and without a reasonable cause, it is venial, unless the stain or fracture is enormous. But if some fracture or even notable stain is discovered in the host after the oblation, outside the case in which scandal of the people is feared, such a host will lawfully be consecrated, because through the oblation it has already been in some way dedicated and sanctified to God.⁴