§ 1. On the Matter of the Eucharist

1515. "Just as in the other Sacraments there is a twofold matter, namely proximate and remote, so also here, but in an inverted order: for in the others, the remote matter is a permanent thing; but the proximate is its use, which passes away; here, however, the remote passes away, and the proximate remains, namely the species of bread and wine."¹² And since, for practice, one must treat only of the remote, that is, of that which, through consecration, passes into the body and blood of Christ, we shall treat: 1. of the remote matter in general; 2. of the matter of bread; 3. of the matter of wine; 4. of the conditions required for consecration on the part of the matter.

1516. Principles. I. The matter of the Eucharist is BREAD and WINE. It is of faith, from the definitions of the Council of Florence,¹³ Lateran IV,¹⁴ and Trent.¹⁵ The reason is that Christ, in instituting this Sacrament, employed bread and wine, and commanded His Apostles to do the same.¹⁶

1517. II. Each matter, namely bread and wine, is REQUIRED for making the Sacrament LICITLY. "It is certain that it is necessary by necessity of precept to consecrate the Eucharist under each species, as St. Thomas teaches¹⁷ with others commonly... Whence it is common and certain among all that it is not licit, even in the article of death, to consecrate one species in order to offer Viaticum to the sick person."¹⁸

But that this precept is not only ecclesiastical, but also divine, "is clear from Trent, sess. 22, cap. 1, where it is said that Christ commanded priests to offer His body in no other way than under each species. Behold the words of the Council: 'Christ offered His body and blood under the species of bread and wine to God the Father, and under the symbols of the same things, note, handed them to the Apostles that they might receive them, and to the same and their successors in the priesthood commanded that they offer, by these words: Do this in commemoration of Me; as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.'"¹⁹

But whether the Supreme Pontiff can DISPENSE so that it is licit to consecrate in only one species is controverted. Commonly, however, authors deny, both because the Church cannot change the divine institution in the manner of making the Sacraments and offering Sacrifice to God, and because it is not improbable that outside sacrifice a Sacrament is not made; whence the affirming opinion cannot be brought down into practice, and "the Church never dispensed in this precept, nor ever will dispense."²⁰

1518. It is asked: Whether the consecration of one species without the other is VALID?

Resp. 1. No one doubts that it is valid if this happens by accident, for example if someone through error had consecrated water for wine. 2. But if a priest should have the positive intention of consecrating only one species without the other, it is disputed. "Lugo denies, because, as he says, the notion of Sacrament cannot be divided from the notion of sacrifice... But others commonly affirm, because in every Sacrament, whenever the minister pronounces the form over the matter, with due intention, he perfects the Sacrament. This opinion is indeed very probable; but the opposite does not seem improbable."²¹

1519. Principles. I. The VALID matter of the Eucharist for the first consecration is only WHEATEN and USUAL BREAD; such namely as, in the moral judgment of men, is judged to be only that which is mixed from wheat flour and natural water, and cooked or baked by fire, and incorrupt in its species: because this alone is simply called BREAD. It is established from the Decree of Eugene IV, where it is said concerning the Eucharist: "whose matter is wheaten bread and wine from the vine"; and from the Rubrics of the Missal, where one reads: "If the bread is not wheaten, the Sacrament is not made."²²

It is the same for the value of the Sacrament whether the bread is unleavened or leavened. Yet from the precept of the Church, which obliges under grave obligation, Latins are held to use unleavened bread, Greeks leavened.²³

Hence: 1. By defect of wheat flour, INVALID matter is bread from rice, oats, millet, and similar grains: for these differ in species from wheat, according to common estimation. DOUBTFUL matter would be bread from spelt; likewise from rye. The admixture of a foreign substance in notable quantity, for example in equal or almost equal quantity, renders the matter invalid.

2. By defect of natural water, INVALID matter is bread kneaded from oil, butter, milk, eggs, sugar, or another liquid; because it would not be usual bread. The admixture of artificial water renders the matter at least doubtful.

3. By defect of preparation, INVALID would be raw wheaten dough, hardened by the heat of the sun, or not cooked after the manner of bread, but fried or boiled after the manner of a cake.²⁴

1520. II. Matter, although valid, is ILLICIT if it is not fitting and made according to the prescription of the Church. Now:

1. Bread would not be fitting if, for example, some grains or drops of another species were mixed with the wheat and water, even if the wheat and water greatly predominated. Likewise, moldy bread, which already tends toward corruption, would be unfitting or illicit. "This would be," says St. Alphonsus,²⁵ "if the taste were changed in some way, and then it would be mortal to use it." Therefore one must watch carefully that hosts and particles be fresh, made within one month at the most. For the Sacred Congregation of Rites condemns, as an enormous abuse, the custom of consecrating hosts which had been made three or four months before.²⁶ Nor must they only be fresh, but also whole and clean. Yet "scandal being excluded, it is only venial, without a reasonable cause, to consecrate a broken or stained host; unless the fracture or stain were enormous; for then it would be mortal. Yet if the fracture is discovered after the oblation, such a host will licitly be consecrated, unless scandal of the people is feared."²⁷

2. With respect to the FIGURE of the bread, among Latins a round host is required, larger for the celebrant, on which the sign of the cross is expressed, as is the constant custom of the Church.²⁸ If a larger host is lacking, the priest can probably, even for the sake of devotion, consecrate a smaller one, provided scandal is avoided: which can be avoided if, for example, the people are admonished concerning the lack of a larger host. Indeed, authors are not lacking who teach that a priest is HELD to consecrate in a smaller host if, from precept, the people would have to attend Mass, or if Viaticum had to be given to a sick person. But it is never licit for a priest, the larger host being set aside, for example for exposing in the monstrance, to take a smaller one, unless he has also consecrated this in the same Mass; because he must communicate from his own Sacrifice.²⁹

1521. It is asked: Whether a Latin can ever celebrate in LEAVENED bread, or a Greek in UNLEAVENED.

Resp. 1. In places where a church of one's own rite is had, this is absolutely prohibited, and indeed under penalty of perpetual suspension from Divinis;¹ even if Viaticum had to be given to a dying person: because in this case reverence toward so great a Sacrament is to be preferred to the utility of neighbor, for whom such a Sacrament is not simply necessary.²

Resp. 2. But in places where a church of one's own rite is not had, for example if a Greek passes through places of Latins, or a Latin through the territories of Greeks, it is licit to celebrate either in leavened or in unleavened bread.³

1522. Principles. I. Valid matter of the second consecration is only WINE FROM THE VINE, and indeed USUAL wine. This is established from Matthew 26:29: "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until the day, etc."; and from the Florentine Decree already cited, which the constant practice of the Church confirms.

Hence, the following is not apt matter for valid consecration:

1. "Strong drink, and any liquid from mulberries, pomegranates, apples, etc., whether it is called wine or not. 2. Verjuice, or omphacium, that is, juice expressed from immature grapes; because it is not wine, but on the way to wine, whose nature it has not yet put on. 3. Vinegar, which is wine substantially corrupted; whence, if the priest after consecration prudently doubts whether it was vinegar or wine, the consecration is to be repeated, but under condition, on account of the doubt. 4. Grapes, or wine contained within grapes, or imbibed in a morsel of bread; because it is not so much drink as food. 5. Sapa, or boiled-down must, that is, must cooked down to a half or third part; because it is no longer wine, nor drink, but food. 6. Lora, that is, water poured over pressed grapes. 7. Spirit of wine, since it is not properly wine."⁴

1523. II. Valid but ILLICIT matter is true wine, VITIATED in some way, or MIXED. The reason is that it is against the reverence owed to the Sacrament. Whence exotic wine must be employed cautiously, because it is very often mixed with foreign substances and therefore illicit; indeed, not rarely one finds that which is altogether artificial, and consequently invalid.

Hence, consecration is indeed valid, but illicit: 1. in must, and indeed under mortal sin, according to Suarez, at least outside necessity; for although it is substantially wine, nevertheless it is not perfect wine, nor pure, as being not yet ripened nor separated from the lees. 2. In wine so moderately mixed with other liquids or aromatics that it indeed retains the nature of wine. But if the mixing is immoderate, the matter will be doubtful. 3. In wine becoming sour: as is established from the Rubric, where it is said: "If the wine has begun to become sour or to be corrupted, or has been somewhat sharp..., the Sacrament is made, but the one making it sins gravely." Yet when other wine is lacking, it is licit to use wine only slightly becoming sour; for the Rubric does not seem to be accepted with so great rigor that it includes even the very first degrees of sharpness. 4. In frozen wine; whence it is gravely prohibited to consecrate it unless it has been liquefied. But in the case in which the priest had illicitly consecrated frozen wine, it must be held as truly consecrated, nor could he licitly consecrate another wine; for from the Rubric it is clearly evident that the consecration is valid; and the reason is that, although frozen wine is not actually drinkable, nevertheless it is drinkable from its nature.⁵

To the QUESTION: "Whether it is licit to celebrate with wine made from dried grapes?" the S. C. DE PROPAG. FIDE, July 23, 1706, responded: "It is licit, provided the liquid is recognized from color and taste to be true wine."⁶

1524. III. WATER is to be mixed ceremonially with the wine to be consecrated; not indeed from necessity of the Sacrament, but by force of a precept gravely obliging. Let Trent be heard:⁷ "Then the Holy Synod admonishes that it has been prescribed by the Church to priests that they mix water with the wine to be offered in the chalice: both because Christ the Lord is believed to have done thus, and also because from His side water came forth together with blood: which sacrament is recalled by this mixing; and since in the Apocalypse of Blessed John waters are called peoples, the union of the faithful people themselves with Christ the Head is represented."

But the water ought to be natural: "but he who would mix rose water or another artificial water, even in necessity, although he would validly consecrate, nevertheless would sin mortally."⁸ With respect to quantity, one drop suffices, provided it is sensible; but it is required, even if the wine is very strong, that it never exceed its third part. Indeed, if the wine is not very strong, this quantity is already held by many as excessive; wherefore it is advised that the priest not exceed eight or ten drops.⁹ Hence, if he pours in too much water, some wine must again be added.

But the mixing is to be done in the chalice itself and within the Sacred itself; for otherwise it would not suffice for the signification of the sacrament, and it would be a grave omission of the Rubrics. Hence, in the case in which it had been omitted, it must be supplied, if the omission is discovered before the consecration of the chalice; otherwise, if it is discovered after consecration.¹⁰

It is certain, although it is not of faith, that that mixed water is converted into the Blood of Christ. Thus St. Thomas,¹¹ who denies that the opposite opinion can be defended. But how this conversion is made, whether immediately or mediately, namely through a prior conversion of the water into wine, is affirmed on each side probably.¹²

1525. Principles. I. For VALID consecration, besides apt matter, it is required that this matter be PRESENT and DETERMINATE.

It is required 1. that the matter be morally and sensibly PRESENT to the consecrating priest. The reason is taken from the institution of Christ and from the demonstrative words of the form; likewise from the notion of Sacrifice, which requires a present victim. But for moral presence it suffices that the thing can be seen or touched, whether in itself or in another.

Hence: 1. Matter so small that it cannot be perceived by sense, or very remote, for example at a hundred paces, or placed behind the back, or enclosed in the tabernacle, is invalidly consecrated; because it is not judged morally present to the priest. 2. A blind man, or one existing in darkness, validly consecrates if he is otherwise morally certain concerning the presence of the matter. Likewise, the wine in a covered chalice, hosts in a closed ciborium, or lying hidden in a heap under others, or under a pall, veil, etc., are validly consecrated. Moreover, here it must be noted that the practice of those is commonly disapproved who move their mouth close, that they may breathe their breath into the chalice and bread.¹³

It is required 2. that the matter be CERTAIN and DETERMINATE in the individual through the intention of the one consecrating. And this opinion indeed is common, both because the pronouns This and This require this, and because actions are concerning singulars, which must be certain and determinate.¹⁴ But a virtual intention suffices, as was said above (n. 1413).

Hence: 1. "He would invalidly consecrate who wished only to consecrate a third or half part of a host, or, from many, for example twenty present, only four or five, designating none; because there is no reason why one should be consecrated more than another. Likewise, a host is not consecrated which, the priest being unaware, is placed either on the corporal, yet separated from the heap, or beneath it. The reason is that it is not determined in the mind of the priest, whose will is not borne toward the unknown."¹⁵

2. But consecration is valid if the priest consecrates several hosts in a heap, although he is in error concerning their number: the reason is that he is always presumed to wish to consecrate whatever is decently consecrable. Whence, if after consecration he notices two hosts joined together at once, let him take each as consecrated, according to the Rubric of the Missal. But if before consecration, after he has offered, he notices it, let him set one aside and after Mass either he himself or another take it as blessed bread. Likewise, consecration is valid if he himself has brought several particles to the altar to be consecrated, or in a reasonable manner has noticed that they are brought by another to be consecrated by him, or before the Sacrifice has been admonished concerning those to be consecrated already placed on the altar; for then, even if within the act of consecration he does not remember them so expressly, or even does not uncover them at the oblation, nevertheless he consecrates all, provided they are present on the corporal; because the intention had with respect to them virtually perseveres.¹⁶

1526. II. "For LICIT consecration of matter there is required: 1. That there not be a greater quantity than can be consumed at a suitable time, because there would be danger lest the species rot. 2. That the celebrant not depart from the usage of the Church, especially prescribed in the Missal."¹⁷ Concerning this, these things especially are to be held:

1. The matter to be consecrated is to be placed upon the corporal and sacred stone: this obligation presses under grave obligation.¹⁸

2. The hosts which are to be consecrated in Mass for the Communion of the faithful are to be placed upon the corporal or upon the paten, or in some chalice or in a pyx. This pyx is then to be opened at the first oblation and at the consecration, so that the celebrant may direct his intention also to offering and consecrating those.¹⁹ Yet to consecrate in a closed pyx does not seem gravely unbecoming.²⁰

3. "If a little after the oblation has been made, small hosts are brought for communicating the people, these are licitly consecrated, the oblation being supplied mentally." If, the Canon already having been begun, they are brought, one must distinguish: in the case in which several would remain without Communion, it is licit to consecrate; but in the case in which only one would remain, it is not licit; to him, however, for a just cause, a part of the large host should be offered. Moreover, a cause would be sufficiently just if the one about to communicate would have to wait a long time, or if Viaticum had to be given to a sick person.²¹

1527. Questions. Q. 1. Whether a ciborium is to be judged consecrated which, from forgetfulness, has been left outside the CORPORAL or SACRED STONE?

Resp. 1. If the celebrant intends with actual intention to consecrate, not noticing that the ciborium is located outside the corporal, it is certainly consecrated, since it is really present, and the intention of the priest is borne absolutely toward it, although, if the defect were known, this would not be done.²²

Resp. 2. Likewise, the consecration is certain if the ciborium is placed indeed outside the stone, but ON THE CORPORAL extended over the stone, even if thought does not recur concerning the ciborium to be consecrated. For in this case it is already morally found on the stone; whence the consecration is valid from the virtual intention of consecrating whatever apt matter is placed on the corporal.²³

Resp. 3. If the ciborium remains OUTSIDE THE CORPORAL, without the priest thinking of consecrating it, it is controverted: "The first opinion, which various authors hold as probable, affirms; because, as they say, the will of consecrating was already present and was not retracted. Yet the second opinion, common and more probable, denies. The reason is that, since the intention of consecrating outside the corporal would have been a grave sin, you are not presumed to have had that intention. But because the first opinion does not seem improbable, the matter remains doubtful." Therefore those particles thus doubtfully consecrated are either to be consumed after the precious Blood and ablution, but before the purification, since the remains of the Blood are certainly the Sacrament, while concerning those hosts it is doubted whether they are the Sacrament; or, if a just cause is had, they are to be consecrated in another Mass, under condition. Moreover, the cause would be just if those particles were in too great a quantity, so that they could not easily be consumed, or if, at a suitable time, other particles could not be had.²⁴

Q. 2. Whether hosts are judged consecrated if the ciborium indeed was placed on the corporal, but at the time of consecration, from forgetfulness, remained CLOSED?

Resp. Affirmatively; for: 1. the matter was sufficiently present in the closed pyx; 2. intention was not lacking, since the one previously had was not retracted by the aforesaid forgetfulness.²⁵ But the intention which any good priest has, of violating no precept of the Church, in no way includes the intention of not consecrating whenever, while he does not notice, some defect occurs.

Q. 3. What is to be done by the priest if, by some accident, unconsecrated hosts are MIXED with consecrated ones?

Resp. The whole heap is to be brought to the altar, so that the priest either intends to consecrate the unconsecrated ones, or, according to others, consecrates the whole heap under condition, 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 ought to be consecrated under condition, that they may be validly consecrated."¹

Q. 4. Whether DROPS OF WINE adhering to the chalice are judged consecrated, if the priest has intended nothing concerning them?

Resp. 1. Drops adhering exteriorly to the chalice are not consecrated, because the intention of consecrating them cannot be presumed, since it would be gravely illicit. 2. More probably neither are drops adhering interiorly consecrated, because the intention of the Church seems to be, and therefore that of the priest ought to be, to consecrate that which is in the chalice by way of one continuous thing. Whence, for guarding against every anxiety, the priest will do well if, once for all, he determines the intention. But it is expedient that he intend to consecrate separated drops, but only those which are nearest the bottom, not those remote. Similarly, "the priest ought to consecrate crumbs adhering to hosts, but not those separated on the paten or corporal. Nor does it obstruct that, by taking them, the fast would be injured; for then the irreverence of the Sacrament seems more to be guarded against than injury of the fast. But if crumbs are in the ciborium, let him also intend to consecrate them, since danger of losing them is absent."²

1528. Q. 5. What is to be done by the celebrant if he has noticed some DEFECT concerning the matter, whether of bread or of wine?

Resp. From the Rubric of the Missal these things are to be held:

I. With respect to a defect of BREAD: 1. "If the celebrant before consecration has noticed that the host is corrupted, or is not wheaten: that host having been removed, let him place another, and the oblation having been made, at least conceived in the mind, let him proceed from that place where he ceased."

2. "If he has noticed this after consecration, even after the reception of that host, another having been placed, let him make the oblation as above, and begin from the consecration, namely from those words: Who the day before He suffered; and the former, if he has not received it, let him receive after the reception of the Body and Blood, or let him give it to be received by others, or let him reverently preserve it somewhere. But if he has received it, nevertheless let him receive that which he consecrated: because the precept concerning the perfection of the Sacrament is of greater moment than that it be received by those fasting."

3. "But if this happens after the reception of the blood, new bread, and wine with water, must again be put; and the oblation having first been made as above, the priest should consecrate, beginning from those words: Who the day before: and immediately receive each, and proceed with the Mass, lest the Sacrament remain imperfect, and so that due order may be preserved."

4. "If the consecrated host disappears, or by some accident, as by wind, or by miracle, or having been taken by some animal, and cannot be found; then another is to be consecrated, beginning from that place: Who the day before He suffered, its oblation having first been made, as above."³

II. With respect to a defect of WINE: 1. "If the celebrant BEFORE the consecration of the blood, although after the consecration of the Body, notices that either wine, or water, or each is not in the chalice, or that the wine is corrupted, he ought immediately to put wine with water; and the oblation having been made as above, to consecrate, beginning from those words: In like manner, etc."

2. "If after the words of consecration he notices that wine had not been put, but water: the water having been placed in some vessel, let him again put wine with water in the chalice, and consecrate, resuming from the aforesaid words: In like manner, etc."

3. "If he notices this after reception of the Body or of water of this kind, let him put another host again to be consecrated, and wine with water in the chalice, offer each, and consecrate and receive, although he is not fasting. Or if Mass is celebrated in a public place, where several are present, to avoid scandal, he will be able to put wine with water, and the oblation having been made as above, consecrate, and immediately receive, and proceed with the rest."⁴

The same is to be done if after reception, with foundation, it is doubted whether the liquid drunk was pure or corrupted wine; but among the doctors it is not agreed whether the words of consecration are to be pronounced absolutely or conditionally. "I think," says St. Alphonsus, "that another certain wine is not to be consecrated again absolutely, because then the same danger would press of making a second mutilated Sacrifice, if perhaps the prior matter was truly apt; I say therefore that this second consecration ought to be made under condition, namely if the prior matter was not consecrated; for the danger of not leaving the Sacrifice mutilated will be a just cause of repeating the consecration under the aforesaid condition."⁵

4. "If it happens that all the Blood is spilled after consecration, if indeed something, or a little, remained, let that be received, and concerning the rest of the spilled Blood let it be done as was said in the preceding Rubric" of the Missal. "But if absolutely nothing remained, let him again put wine and water, and consecrate from that place, In like manner, yet the oblation of the chalice having first been made, as above."⁶

It must be noted: "If the matter which would have to be put, by reason of the defect either of bread or of wine, could in no way be had; if this is before the consecration of the body, one must not proceed further: if after the consecration of the body, or even of the wine, the defect of the other species is discovered, the other already consecrated; then if it can in no way be had, one must proceed and the Mass must be completed, yet in such a way that the words and signs are omitted which pertain to the lacking species. But if by waiting for some time, for example for an hour, it can be had, one must wait, lest the Sacrifice remain imperfect."⁷