Article I: On Matter in General

S. Th. III, q. 74, a. 1 and 2; q. 78, a. 6.

211. Principle I. The remote matter of the Eucharist is bread and wine (can. 814). - It is of faith. For although in the first times certain old heretics erred concerning this, nevertheless Catholics through the centuries agree in this, and thus the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 1, Florence, and Trent, sess. 13, in various chapters, hand it down.

It is proved: a) From the unanimous Tradition of the Greek and Latin Church, which always condemned the contrary use.

b) From the Scriptures: Matt. XXVI, 26, 27, 29, and Luke XXII, 19.

c) By reason: for it is fitting 1. as to the use of the sacrament, which is eating: just as water is rightly assumed in Baptism because bodily washing is commonly done in water, so in the Eucharist bread and wine, by which men are more commonly refreshed: for complete refreshment consists of food and drink; 2. as to the Passion of Christ, in which the blood is separated from the body, and therefore in this sacrament which is the memorial of the Passion, bread is taken separately as the sacrament of the body, and wine as the sacrament of the blood; 3. as to the effect... which is the union of the faithful with Christ and among themselves into one mystical body: for this is constituted from diverse faithful, just as bread is made from diverse grains and wine flows from diverse grapes. Thus St. Thomas, q. 74, a. 1 and ad 1. - The Catechism of the Council of Trent adds that this is fitting as to our faith: "when we observe that bread and wine are daily changed by force of nature into human flesh and blood, by this likeness we can more easily be led to believe that the substance of bread and wine is converted by heavenly blessing into the true flesh of Christ and His true blood."

212. Principle II. For the validity of the sacrament it is required that the matter be present to the minister and demonstrable, and determined in the individual by his intention.

1. It must be present physically and morally, so that by the pronouns this and here, according to the manner of speaking of men, it can be sensibly designated; otherwise the demonstrative words would not be verified: this, here.

Hence there would be consecration invalidly: a) of matter placed behind the altar, behind a wall, behind the back of the priest, unless perhaps it is held by the hand (in which case the consecration would be doubtful); b) of matter far distant, even if it can be seen: for it would not have to be demonstrated by the word: this, but by the word: that; how much nearness is required for moral presence must be left to the judgment of prudent persons, with attention given to the use of men, the practice of the Church, the position of the matter, its magnitude, smallness, etc.; c) of matter so slight that it cannot be perceived by sense: for this can neither be designated nor be a sensible sign.

2. It must be demonstrable matter; nor is it necessary that it actually be perceived, or that it be seen or touched or, as it were, struck by the sound of the words (whence the unbecoming practice of those who move their mouth very near so as to breathe their breath into the chalice and bread is to be disapproved); but it suffices that by the pronouns this and here it be demonstrable either in itself, or in another as in its whole, or container, or vessel destined to contain it.

Thus consecration is validly made: a) in darkness or by a blind priest; b) in a ciborium, pyx, chalice, cask, covered vessel; c) of a host hidden under others: for a great quantity does not stand in the way of validity, provided the whole is present to the minister. - On the contrary, hosts placed under an altar cloth, corporal, cushion, foot of the chalice, in the pages of the missal, or closed in the tabernacle are doubtfully consecrated, because it can be disputed whether they can be sufficiently demonstrated.

3. It must be determined in the individual by the intention of the minister, because the pronouns this and here designate determinate matter, and because actions are concerned with singulars and determinate things. For 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.

Whence someone would invalidly wish to consecrate a part of several hosts or of one host without designating which one, or the hosts which God has chosen or another has designated, if he does not know the designation: for then the matter remains indeterminate for the minister. On the contrary, someone would validly wish to consecrate all hosts except the lowest and highest; or all the even ones if they are placed in order and the beginning is determined from which they are to be numbered, although this play would be gravely illicit. It is also sufficient to determine the matter in a group, with the intention, for example, of consecrating all the hosts present, although the number is unknown or there is error concerning it; this intention is commended by the Roman Missal.

On account of this intention, when it is present:

a) If the priest unknowingly has two larger hosts in his hands, both are consecrated, and according to the Missal both are to be consumed: for he wishes to consecrate all that he holds in his hands.

b) On the contrary, hosts placed on the altar without the priest knowing are not consecrated: for the will is not borne toward the unknown. Nor does it stand in the way that formerly he formed an intention, once for all, of consecrating all the matter which is on the corporal; for that merely habitual intention does not suffice for confecting the sacrament, because here and now it does not virtually influence:¹ for to confect a sacrament there is required a human act which demands an actual or virtual intention (n. 81; I, n. 55).

¹ Such a general intention once for all elicited is affirmed to suffice by a few more recent authors. Thus Cappello, o.c., n. 302, and P. Castillon in N.R.Th., 1920; yet this latter speaks with some doubt in note 4; Noldin-Schmitt, n. 115 note, and Genicot-Salsmans, n. 174, seem to approve, but this opinion has no antiquity for itself. It is not found expressly stated in St. Alphonsus or before him; nor have I found it in Lehmkuhl, D'Annibale, Marc, Aertnijs-Damen, or Tanquerey. Ballerini, n. 56, only poses the question concerning hosts unknowingly brought: why would they not be consecrated if the priest wished to consecrate all present? But he does not resolve the question, and speaks of an intention elicited in the present. Nor does Vermeersch, n. 348, dare to call the intention secure unless it is repeated more often; but then it is already virtual. And even then it can be doubted whether it influences matter whose presence the priest does not even suspect.

c) But otherwise if the priest himself, or another with his command or with his knowledge, previously brought them to the altar to be consecrated, although at the time of consecration he does not attend to them, provided they are placed on the corporal: they are certainly consecrated, because the intention of consecrating them virtually endures.

d) But if they were not placed on the corporal, they are probably consecrated, because the intention seems to endure; yet several authors with St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, n. 217, hold the contrary, because no one is judged to will to consecrate outside the corporal, since this objectively is a mortal sin; or also because, before they have been placed upon the corporal, it can be said that in him there was only the purpose of placing them there for consecration, not yet of consecrating them. Whence in practice, since it is a matter of the validity of the sacrament, the safer course must be taken; and therefore the hosts should be consumed (if they are few) after the blood, or be consecrated under condition in another Mass.

Nor does it suffice to say that the whole thing depends on the intention of the priest. Certainly, if the priest explicitly said that he wished to consecrate even outside the corporal (which would be gravely evil), without doubt the hosts would be consecrated, just as certainly they would not be if he explicitly intended not to consecrate outside the corporal; but the question is whether the intention of consecrating can be presumed to be implicitly present if the priest has explicitly intended nothing. But this can seem doubtful for those hosts whose consecration is not necessary to the very essence of the sacrifice.

e) When the chalice has been consecrated, drops adhering on the outside are not consecrated, unless this were expressly intended, which would be gravely illicit.

f) Concerning drops adhering inside the chalice, if a special intention is lacking, it is disputed whether they are consecrated: it is probable that those nearer to the bottom are consecrated, just as it is also very likely for crumbs adhering to the host.

213. Principle III. For the liceity of consecration it is required, besides this, that the use of the Church and the rites prescribed by ecclesiastical law be observed, that both matter, namely bread and wine, be consecrated at the same time, and indeed by divine law.

It is proved: a) The sacrament was instituted by Christ in the manner of a spiritual banquet; but food and drink are required for a banquet; therefore.

b) Christ commanded that this sacrament not be confected unless at the same time sacrifice is offered to God; indeed He did not give to priests the power of consecrating except by way of sacrifice, as is clear both from the Council of Trent, which thus explains the words: Do this in commemoration of Me (sess. 22, c. 1 and can. 2), and from the form of ordination: Receive the power of offering sacrifice. Whence the sacrament cannot be separated from the aspect of sacrifice. But sacrifice is not had except by the consecration of the twofold species; without this the separation of the blood from the body of Christ would not be mystically represented.² Therefore by divine law each consecration is required at the same time. - From this it follows that, if someone by a predominant will absolutely did not wish the sacrifice or excluded it, the consecration would be invalid.

² Let it not be said: in the consecration of the bread, by force of the words the body is placed without the blood; therefore in the consecration of bread alone, by force of the words, the separation of the body from the blood is signified. - Billuart responds, diss. 3, a. 5: "In the consecration of the bread alone there is placed by force of the words the body without the blood, precisely and formally by force of the words of the consecration of the bread alone, I deny; with the consecration of the chalice added, I concede. For if I say precisely: This is My body, it is not formally signified that My body is separated from the blood; but it is indeed signified when I add: This is My blood. For then it is openly signified by force of the words that My body is placed apart from the blood by force of the words."

Nevertheless, the consecration of one matter without the other is valid, not only if it happens by chance, but also if it is done from intention and deliberately, because in all sacraments when the words are pronounced over the matter, the effect is immediately had, and does not depend on a future event:³ for the words effect what they signify, and therefore, when the bread has been consecrated and not the chalice, the body of Christ is proposed to the faithful to be adored. - Nor does it stand in the way that the minister deliberately consecrating one matter does not have the intention of sacrificing: for although he does not intend to complete the sacrifice, nevertheless he can have the intention of beginning it, or of placing a part of it, and thus he does not altogether exclude the intention of sacrifice; but if he altogether excluded even this, the consecration would be invalid.

³ St. Thomas in IV Sent., d. 11, q. 2, a. 1, qc. 1, ad 4; d. 8, q. 2, a. 4; III, q. 78, a. 6. Lugo is sometimes cited for the opposite opinion; not rightly, however, as is clear from De Euch., disp. 19, sect. 8, n. 102 and 104.

214. Question: Whether for giving viaticum to a dying person, it is lawful intentionally to consecrate one matter? - According to the Rubrics of the Roman Missal and the Code of Law, can. 817, it is altogether illicit. The reason is a) because it is mockery in the name of Christ to begin a sacrifice which one knows cannot be completed; b) because on one side the sacrament is not necessary, and on the other side the precept of Christ is most strict (n. 213), nor has there ever been a dispensation in it or can there be a dispensation, since concerning the substance of the sacraments (which also embraces integrity) the Church has no power (Council of Trent, sess. 21, c. 2).

Yet per accidens and beyond intention one matter is consecrated without the other without sin, on account of physical or moral impossibility: a) if someone consecrated water or another liquid for wine, and did not understand the defect until long afterward; or after he had noticed it, wine could not be had, or he could not use it without grave scandal or irreverence (as if it were only in the sacristy) or without danger to life (as if the wine were poisoned); b) if, the host having been consecrated, danger of death were imminent, for example from fire, the ruin of the church, or the invasion of enemies; scandal and contempt of the faith being excluded, however, for example if it were demanded by an enemy; c) if the priest, the host having been consecrated, could not continue, as if he died, lost speech, fell into insanity, and there was no other who could complete the sacrifice; but if another can supply and the sick priest can receive communion, the host must be divided and a part given to him.

215. Observations. - 1. To avoid danger of corruption for the species, no greater quantity should be consecrated than can be consumed at the opportune time.

2. If unconsecrated hosts are mixed with consecrated ones, the whole heap is to be brought to the altar and the whole is to be consecrated under condition, insofar as is necessary: namely, this must be done in this way so that the unconsecrated part may thus certainly be sufficiently demonstrated. Thus St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, n. 216.

3. Little drops adhering externally to the chalice are not to be consecrated, nor are they presumed to be consecrated. It is fitting to wipe away with the purificator the little drops adhering internally before the oblation of the chalice (S.C.R., September 7, 1816), but not before the consecration. Moreover concerning them, as also concerning crumbs, one is not held to elicit an intention; but if he wishes, he will better elicit once for all the intention of not consecrating except that which has itself by way of one continuous thing: for irreverence toward the sacrament is more to be guarded against than violation of the fast. But crumbs which are in the ciborium are more fittingly consecrated, because the danger of losing them is absent.

4. On account of the danger of material idolatry and of the nullity of the sacrifice, it is never lawful to use matter (or form) probably invalid, neither so that the sick person may receive viaticum, nor so that the people on a feast day may hear Mass; but perhaps only for completing the sacrifice.

5. If smaller hosts for communicating the people are brought to the priest a little after the oblation, the oblation having been supplied mentally, it is lawful to consecrate them; indeed even if they are offered when the Canon has already begun, when otherwise several would remain without communion, or even one who otherwise would have to wait long for communion: in which case certain authors commend giving this one part of the larger host. But it is never lawful to consecrate them after the consecration has been completed, because it would be to begin another sacrifice and to make this incomplete, whence this would be sacrilege. Noldin had said this to be lawful, but in this he was generally disapproved.