Article First. On the Nature of the Eucharist

99. Definition. 1. The Eucharist can be defined: the sacrament by which the body and blood of Christ are contained under the species of bread and wine for the spiritual refreshment of the soul.

By this definition the Eucharist is set forth insofar as it is a permanent sacrament; for its essence is constituted by the species of bread and wine insofar as they contain the body and blood of Christ. Therefore it is a sacrament for as long as the body and blood of Christ remain under the species. Moreover, this sacrament has been instituted by way of a banquet for spiritually refreshing the soul, since Christ says: My flesh is truly food and my blood is truly drink.¹

2. There must be distinguished the sacrament in becoming, which consists in the consecration, and the sacrament in accomplished being, which consists in the sacrament remaining after consecration. But from the sacrament in becoming and in accomplished being there must be distinguished the use of the sacrament, or the sacrament in use, which consists in reception or eating. Reception, however, is a condition so that the sacrament can produce its effect in the soul. Therefore it is proper to this sacrament that before use it is already a perfect sacrament, and that it does not produce its effect, as the other sacraments do, when it is effected, but when, already effected, it is received.

3. There are three dogmas which have been defined concerning the sacrament of the most holy Eucharist: a. that in the sacrament the whole Christ is truly, really, and substantially present; b. that the whole Christ is present under each species and under any part of the species; c. that Christ becomes present through transubstantiation, by which bread and wine are wonderfully converted into the body and blood of Christ. Dogmatic theologians set forth the explanation and proof of these dogmas.²

¹ John 6, 56.

² Cf. Pesch, Prael. dogm., VI, 576 ff.; Hurter, Comp. theol. dogm., III.

100. On the grace conferred through reception of both species. The body of Christ under the species of bread and the blood of Christ under the species of wine are indeed materially two physically distinct signs, one of which signifies refreshment by way of food, the other by way of drink. Nevertheless each constitutes a true sacrament, and each signifies the same reality, namely full spiritual refreshment to be conferred by way of a banquet. Therefore he who receives the Eucharist under the species of bread alone receives the same grace or full refreshment of the soul as he who communicates under both species, because under either species a true and integral sacrament is received, and under either species there is the whole and entire Christ with body and blood; therefore in the food is also contained spiritual drink, and conversely in the drink also spiritual food.

Whether those communicating under one species perceive, ex opere operato, the same effect as if they communicated under both species is disputed among theologians. For some think that he who communicates under both species perceives a greater grace, and indeed secondarily and accidentally, but nevertheless qualitatively diverse: for some effect, although only secondary, corresponds to the chalice, which in no way corresponds to the host.¹ Others think that he who communicates under both species receives, of itself and ex opere operato, a grace extensively greater, just as one who communicates twice or three times receives a grace specifically the same indeed, but extensively greater, than one who communicates once. Finally others are of this opinion: that the priest in receiving the blood perceives a greater effect only accidentally and ex opere operantis, namely if in receiving the second species he is better disposed.² - But he who receives several consecrated hosts certainly does not receive a greater grace than he who receives one; for there is one communion and one refreshment, whether one or several particles are received. Bellarmine judges this opinion certain: namely, that he who communicates under both species perceives in no way (neither extensively nor quantitatively) a greater grace than he who communicates only under one species.³

¹ Cf. Lugo, De euch., disp. 12, s. 3, n. 68, who calls this opinion of Vasquez more probable.

² Cf. Suarez, disp. 63, s. 6, n. 9, who follows St. Thomas and St. Bonaventure.

³ De euchar., l. 4, c. 23.

101. When grace is conferred on the recipient. The Eucharist confers grace in the very eating, or when the sacramental species are passed from the mouth into the stomach. For in order that the Eucharist produce its effect, from the will of Christ the reception of the sacrament is required as a condition, and indeed the reception which consists in eating, since Christ says: He who eats me, he also shall live because of me; he who eats this bread shall live forever;¹ therefore grace is promised and conferred on those who eat. But one is not said to eat who merely takes food into the mouth, but only he who sends food down from the mouth through the throat into the stomach; therefore the grace of the sacrament is not conferred when the sacred species are in the mouth, but when they are received in the stomach.

a. Therefore he who indeed receives the species but then spits them out again without swallowing them; he who holds the species so long in the mouth until they are dissolved; the sick person who dies before the host descends into the stomach: does not receive the effect and grace of the sacrament, because he does not truly and completely eat Christ. But he who swallows the sacramental species, even if afterward he vomits them, perceives the grace of the sacrament, because he truly eats Christ.²

b. It is not certain whether the sacrament after reception, for as long as Christ is present in the communicant, confers grace of itself and ex opere operato. For although the sacrament confers grace when it is applied, and the Eucharist is applied by reception, nevertheless by many it is affirmed that this sacrament increases grace ex opere operato for as long as Christ is present in the one receiving, if meanwhile he disposes himself to receiving greater graces. Therefore they judge: alpha. that he who communicated while indisposed, but disposes himself by contrition while the sacred species are incorrupt, perceives the effect of the sacrament; beta. that in him who, during the time in which Christ is present under the sacred species in the stomach, is better disposed, the grace of the sacrament is also increased.³

¹ John 6, 58-59.

² Mazzotta, De sacram., tr. 5, disp. 4, q. 1, c. 1. Although those things which Olfers has (Pastoralmedizin^3, p. 47) must be conceded, namely that digestion already begins in the mouth, nevertheless one is not said to eat who receives food into the mouth for beginning digestion, but he who sends food down into the stomach for continuing digestion. For the nature of this action in sacramental matter is determined not from physiological and chemical facts, but from the common judgment of men; but in common speech one is said to eat not who takes food into the mouth, but who swallows the food taken. - When the question was proposed whether holy Viaticum could be administered by introducing the sacred species directly into the stomach of a sick person, for whom a way beneath the breast had been opened by a physician for receiving food and drink, the Holy Office on 27 Jan. 1886 responded: "As it is set forth, it is not expedient." Although from this decision nothing can be gathered for solving the question concerning the condition required so that the effect of the sacrament be perceived, nevertheless it is rightly inferred that holy communion must never be administered in an artificial manner, since the Holy Office did not permit even Viaticum to be administered in this way.

³ Cf. Suarez, disp. 63, sect. 7; Lugo, disp. 10, sect. 2, n. 46 s.

102. On the sacramental presence. 1. Since, when separation has been made, Christ remains present under each part of each species,¹ all particles, even the smallest, which are perceived by the senses, are to be treated as consecrated.

It is certain that even the smallest particles remain consecrated if they can be perceived by the senses in themselves; but it is not certain that those also remain consecrated which are not sensible and nevertheless retain the substance of bread. But if they are consecrated, nevertheless it must be said that Christ the Lord does not require that ministers be solicitous even about these non-sensible particles.

2. Christ remains really present in the Eucharist for as long as the sacred species remain whole, and ceases to be present as soon as the species are corrupted. But how long the sacred species remain whole after reception cannot be determined by a general rule.

It is manifest that this depends on the digestive power of the stomach, which is different in different persons. Therefore it can happen that in a sick person after half an hour the species are not yet corrupted. But even concerning the healthy, who are supposed to have nearly the same digestive power, experts are of diverse opinion: for some think that after a minute the species are already corrupted;² others judge that after half an hour they are still whole.³ It seems that a middle way must be entered upon, and that it must be said that after eight or ten minutes the species ordinarily, even in a priest who receives the larger host and both species, are corrupted.

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 13, can. 3.

² Olfers, Pastoralmedizin^3, p. 48.

³ Capellmann, Medicina pastoral., p. 124.

103. On the consecration of one species without the other. For the sake of explanation these things must be premised. From the will and institution of Christ the sacrament of the Eucharist cannot be effected except in the eucharistic sacrifice; for Christ willed that consecration should then only take place when the sacrifice is offered, and conversely that the sacrifice should be offered as often as consecration takes place. Therefore the nature of sacrament in the Eucharist, from the will of Christ, cannot be separated from the nature of sacrifice, in precisely the same way in which, from the will of the same Christ the Lord, the nature of sacrament for the faithful cannot be separated from the nature of the matrimonial contract. But whenever the sacrifice is offered, from the will and institution of Christ the consecration of both species is required. For Christ, consecrating both species at the Last Supper, commanded: Do this in commemoration of me;¹ therefore he commanded the apostles and their successors in the priestly order to consecrate under both species. Indeed it is hardly not certain that the consecration of both species is required for the very essence of the eucharistic sacrifice, as will be said below, n. 164.

Therefore the very nature of sacrifice, not only the precept of Christ, requires the consecration of both species. But the nature of sacrament in the Eucharist does not of itself demand the consecration of both species; for a sacrament is not a sign which commemorates and represents the sacrifice of the cross, but is a sign which represents and effects the nourishment of the soul. But this is obtained even in one species, as the Lord says: he who eats this bread shall live forever. Besides, the form by which one species is consecrated, independently of the other, signifies and causes its effect; therefore bread is validly consecrated before wine is consecrated. Therefore one species without the other can without doubt be validly consecrated. But if only one species is consecrated, a sacrifice is indeed offered, but one begun and imperfect, to be completed and perfected through the consecration of the second species. Therefore:

1. The consecration of one species without the other is valid, whether the priest through error or deliberately consecrates only one species, provided that he has the due intention. Therefore if someone consecrates either species without the other, he indeed perfects the sacrament, but he does not offer a complete sacrifice.²

There are some to whom it does not seem altogether certain that the consecration of one species without the other is valid when the priest intends to consecrate only one species. But the value of this consecration cannot be doubted, whether it is said that for valid consecration it suffices that the minister pronounce the form over the matter with the intention of consecrating, or whether it is said that for valid consecration there is required the intention of offering sacrifice; for he who intends to consecrate as he has consecrated at other times, or as Christ instituted, has the intention of sacrificing as much as he can, i.e., at least of beginning the sacrifice.

2. But by divine and ecclesiastical law³ it is never licit to consecrate only one species, not even from the gravest cause, e.g., in order to communicate a sick person who otherwise would die without Viaticum. Indeed this divine precept of consecrating both species seems so grave to theologians that they say the Church never dispenses in this matter nor can dispense, because it cannot change the nature of the sacrifice instituted by Christ.

If, after the consecration has been performed, a doubt arises concerning the valid consecration of either species by reason of the matter, other matter is to be taken, which can be consecrated absolutely. Absolutely indeed, so that the priest may know which host he must receive before the sacred blood. Nor should it be said that, if the first species, concerning whose valid consecration doubt exists, was validly consecrated, by this new and absolute consecration a new sacrifice is begun, which contrary to the divine precept remains incomplete. For the new consecration, which coheres by a necessary bond with the prior one, is not to be considered as the beginning of a new sacrifice, but as the complement of the sacrifice already performed.⁴

3. Nevertheless accidentally it sometimes happens that in fact one species is consecrated without the other: a. if danger of death, e.g., from fire or from the sudden ruin of the church, is suddenly imminent; b. if the priest discovers that in the consecration wine was not used, and no other wine is present; c. if the priest had consecrated water in place of wine, and did not notice the defect until after he had already withdrawn from the altar, and could not complete the sacrifice without scandal or without irreverence; d. if, when the host has already been consecrated, the priest fails, and no other is present who may complete the sacrifice.

¹ 1 Cor. 11, 24-25. Cf. Cn. 817.

² Cf. Missale rom., De defectibus, IV, 5, 8.

³ Cn. 817 has these words: "It is a sacrilege, even when extreme necessity urges, to consecrate one matter without the other, or even both outside the celebration of Mass."

⁴ Cf. Missale rom., De defect., tit. 3, n. 6, 7; tit. 4, n. 5.