Article First. On the Remote Matter

105. Valid matter. The remote matter of this sacrament is that from which the Eucharist is effected. The valid remote matter of the Eucharist is only wheaten bread and wine of the vine. For from the institution of this sacrament it is established that Christ at the Last Supper first consecrated bread;¹ but only wheaten bread, both from the common usage of the Hebrews and from that of others, is called bread simply. Then at the same supper he consecrated wine;² but only wine of the vine is properly and simply called wine. Therefore the Council of Florence explicitly teaches that the matter of this sacrament is wheaten bread and wine of the vine.

¹ Matt. 26, 26; Cn. 815, 1.

² Matt. 26, 29; Cn. 815, 2.

106. Wheaten bread. Therefore, in order validly to effect the sacrament of the Eucharist, there is required bread made from wheaten flour and natural water only and baked by fire. For bread is food made from flour and water only and baked by fire.

1. Different species of grain which physically differ from wheat supply invalid matter, but the different species, or rather varieties, of wheat supply valid matter for this sacrament, provided that by the common judgment of men they are held for true wheat.

There are different species of grain concerning whose valid or licit use in effecting this sacrament there can be question, namely: wheat, spelt, rye, barley, and siligo. Moreover, rye (Roggen, Korn) and barley (Gerste) are species of grain different from wheat; therefore barley indeed constitutes matter certainly invalid, while rye constitutes doubtful matter. For there are those who think that from this grain usual bread is made, and that usual bread is matter suitable for the Eucharist.¹ Siligo does not signify the same thing among all: for according to some, siligo is the same as rye; according to others, it denotes a species of wheat and indeed the best one. Therefore, according to the diverse signification of siligo, siliginous bread will be valid or doubtful matter. The same must be said of spelt, for there are regions in which a species of true wheat is designated by the name of spelt.

But different species of wheat are numbered, or, if you prefer, varieties (Abarten): common wheat (Weizen), hard wheat (Bartweizen), tr. turgidum (englischer Weizen), Polish wheat (polnischer Weizen), spelt or far (Spelz oder Dinkel), emmer (Emmer), einkorn (Einkorn). All these different species of wheat are held by the common judgment and estimation of men for true wheat, and bread made from them is called wheaten by all. Therefore it cannot be doubted that they all constitute valid and licit matter. Generally it must be said: that grain which in a determined region, by the common judgment of men, is and is called wheat constitutes valid matter of the Eucharist. But Turkish wheat (zea mais = turkischer Weizen, Mais) has the name of wheat, while in reality it is an entirely different substance; and therefore bread made from this wheat is invalid matter, just as bread made from the flour of potatoes (solani tuberosi, Kartoffel), beans (Bohnen), oats (Hafer), rice (Reis), millet (Hirse), peas (Erbsen), chestnuts (Kastanien), etc.²

2. Flour cooked in another liquid, e.g., milk, wine, etc., is not called bread. But if artificial water, milk, butter, wine, or another liquid is mixed with the flour in a small quantity, so that the quantity of water is far greater than that of the other liquid, the matter is indeed illicit, but nevertheless valid, because by the common estimation of men it is still held to be true bread. In the same way one must judge if a small amount of flour of another species, e.g., barley or beans, is mixed with wheaten flour. If all these are mixed in a greater quantity, they constitute matter certainly invalid. Salt likewise is not to be added to bread to be consecrated; nevertheless, if it had been mixed in by mistake, that bread could be used to this extent: insofar as, with another host lacking, the celebration would not have to be omitted.

Therefore those red hosts or hosts of another color by which letters are sealed, provided that they have been made from wheaten flour, are valid matter though illicit, if a very small quantity of cinnabar or of another substance has been mixed in. But they are doubtful or even invalid matter if a greater quantity of foreign substance is mixed in.

3. Dough made from flour and water, not yet baked but still raw, is invalid matter, because it is not yet bread. For the same reason, flour cooked in water in the manner of porridge is invalid matter, because it is not bread.

¹ Gobat, Theol. exper., tr. 3, n. 29.

² Cf. Olfers, Pastoralmedizin^3, p. 217.

107. Licit matter. In order licitly to effect the Eucharist, for Latins it is required that the bread be unleavened; for Greeks, that it be leavened;¹ moreover the host to be consecrated must be fresh, clean, whole, incorrupt, and of a larger circular form.

1. Although consecration can validly take place both in unleavened and in leavened bread, because each is true bread made from wheaten flour and natural water, nevertheless Latins are bound under grave obligation to consecrate in unleavened bread and Greeks in leavened bread. From this precept not even the necessity of Viaticum for a dying person excuses, but only the necessity of completing the sacrifice.

a. The Latin Church, in the use of unleavened bread, follows the example of Christ, who instituted the most holy sacrament on the days of unleavened bread. The Greeks, from ancient custom, use leavened bread; the Church in the Council of Florence permitted this use to be preserved by the Greeks, because there does not exist an express precept of Christ to consecrate in unleavened bread. Indeed, in the same council the precept is added of preserving in each Church its proper rite and proper custom. This precept Pius V confirmed and renewed,² and afterward Benedict XIV,³ and recently Cn. 816.

b. A Latin must use unleavened bread and a Greek leavened bread everywhere; for each one is bound everywhere to preserve his own rite, both in Greek regions and in regions of Latins, unless he has obtained a special indult of changing rite (which is sometimes conceded by way of habit, never by way of act). Hence a Greek (the same is to be said of a Latin) who perpetually or for a time dwells in some Latin region where there is no church of his own rite must ask from the Latin bishop permission to celebrate in a Latin church according to the Greek rite. Likewise a priest who is on a journey must go, if one is present, to a church of his own rite; if none is present, he is bound to celebrate in a Latin church according to his own rite.⁴

c. Formerly the faithful of the Latin rite ordinarily had to communicate in unleavened bread, the faithful of the Greek rite in leavened bread. From recent apostolic decrees, and especially from the Constitution Tradita of Pope Pius X, these things now hold: alpha. any Catholic can receive communion at will in any Catholic church of any rite; beta. but, excepting the case of necessity, paschal communion is advised, Viaticum is prescribed, that each one receive according to his own rite (Cn. 866, 2, 3); gamma. any priest can distribute holy communion even in a church of another rite, provided that a priest of the respective rite is not present; nevertheless he is to preserve his customary order in distributing, i.e., a Latin priest administering holy communion in a Greek church (in leavened bread) proceeds according to the Roman Ritual, and a Greek priest distributing communion in a Latin church (in unleavened bread) proceeds according to the Greek custom.⁵

d. A priest who, in order to complete the sacrifice, must consecrate again and cannot have another host, can and must receive a fragment of usual wheaten bread, provided that it is matter certainly valid.

2. Fresh. Since thin hosts are easily corrupted, especially if they are preserved in a humid place or if the season is winter or rainy, there is danger of consecrating invalid matter unless the hosts are fresh. Therefore rectors of churches must take care that hosts to be consecrated, if they are not entirely fresh, have at least been made within two weeks or at most within a month.

The Sacred Congregation calls the custom of consecrating hosts made three or four months earlier an enormous abuse, entirely to be removed, and adds that priests cannot with a safe conscience use hosts made three months earlier in wintertime or six months earlier in summer. But in order to avoid the danger of irreverence, hosts ought to have been made about two weeks earlier or at most a month earlier, provided that the place and time are not humid; for between the making of the hosts and their reception there ought to intervene only four or at most six weeks.

3. The figure of the host to be consecrated in the Latin Church must be circular, but in the Greek Church it is square. To consecrate a stained or moderately broken host, scandal being excluded, is a venial sin. Nevertheless, if a break or stain in the host is discovered only after the oblation, it can licitly be consecrated, scandal being excluded, because through the oblation it is already in some way dedicated to God. Finally, when the larger host is lacking, it is permitted, even only for the sake of devotion, to celebrate with a small host, not only privately, but, scandal being excluded by a suitable admonition of the people, also publicly,⁶ since there is no grave obligation of consecrating a larger host.

As far as small hosts for the communion of laypersons are concerned, care must be taken that they not be too small and too thin (their diameter should be at least three centimeters). For if the hosts are very small and thin, there is danger both that they slip away between the fingers of the priest distributing and that the communicants be deprived of holy communion, because they are entirely dissolved before swallowing.

4. The consecration is not invalid, although because of irreverence it is gravely illicit, if the bread is not yet substantially corrupted but only shows some beginning of corruption. From this principle authors infer that moldy bread remains valid matter, but is gravely illicit. This indeed can be admitted when the bread from mold begins to be corrupted, but not when it is already moldy; for bread plainly moldy is already wholly corrupted.⁷

Note. Hosts, which in antiquity were baked by priests or at least by clerics, according to present practice are usually prepared by laypersons. But in a matter of such importance a grave obligation lies upon priests of watching that the matter of the sacrifice be certainly valid. Therefore they must take care that those who prepare hosts take only wheaten flour, and that pure and fresh, but never artificial flour (Kunstmehl), concerning whose quality there must always be doubt. Moreover let them take care that the bakers of hosts be commended by diligence, fidelity, and piety.⁸

¹ Council of Florence, in the decree of union.

² Constitution Providentia romani pontificis (1566).

³ Constitution Etsi pastoralis (1742).

⁴ Cf. Benedict XIV, De ritib., c. 2, n. 15; Gasparri II, 804 s.; Cn. 816.

⁵ S. C. de Prop. Fide, 18 Aug. 1893; Constitution Orientalium dignitas, 30 Nov. 1894; S. C. R., 16 Dec. 1826, n. 2650; Constitution Tradita, 14 Sept. 1912; Cn. 851, 2.

⁶ St. Alphonsus, n. 205.

⁷ Olfers, Pastoralmedicin^3, p. 219 f.

⁸ Olfers, Pastoralmedicin^3, p. 218 f.

108. Wine of the vine. For valid consecration only and every wine of the vine can be used which is substantially incorrupt. But wine is understood as liquor pressed from ripe grapes of the vine.

a. Therefore invalid matter includes all other liquids which by their nature are not wine, such as beer, juice pressed from fruits (apples, pears, etc.); also juice pressed from unripe grapes (agresta), which does not yet have the nature of wine; then wine which they call second wine, i.e., pressed again from grapes already pressed, with water poured on them (Jora), of which the greater part is water; vinegar, which is corrupted wine; distilled wine, which is a substance other than wine; and finally wine made by art, which is not wine of the vine. For although by art it may be composed from the same elements which are found in natural wine, nevertheless it is not valid matter unless it has its origin from the vine.¹

b. Valid matter is juice pressed from dried grapes, provided that it is so prepared that from its odor, color, and taste it is recognized to be wine.²

c. Pressed: for liquor not yet pressed, but still existing in the grapes, cannot be consecrated, both because the matter to be consecrated must be present in the state of drink (Suarez), and because the words of consecration, this is my blood, would not designate the liquor, but the whole mass of the grape (Lugo).

d. Incorrupt: for corrupted wine is no longer wine. Therefore the rubric of the Missal has: "If the wine has become entirely vinegar, or has been pressed from sour or unripe grapes, or so much water has been mixed with it that the wine is corrupted, the sacrament is not effected."³

e. Wine in which alcohol is not contained (alkoholfreier Wein) is not valid matter, because it is not wine, since a greater or lesser quantity of alcohol is an essential element of wine. For wines which naturally contain only five percent alcohol contain the minimum quantity of alcohol, while those which contain twenty percent alcohol contain the maximum quantity; but all have some.⁴

Note. Every wine, whether white or red or mixed from both, whether strong or weak, of whatever region and origin, is valid matter of consecration, because in all there is the true nature of wine. And although stronger wine is more fitting to the dignity of so great a sacrament, nevertheless because today ordinary wine is more easily established to be genuine, it is to be preferred to better wine, unless it is certain that this latter is pure and unmixed.

¹ Missale rom., De defectibus, IV, 1.

² Holy Office, 22 July 1706; and to the question "whether it is licit to celebrate with wine made from dried grapes" (Rosinen) it responded on 10 Apr. 1889: "It is licit, provided that the liquor is recognized from color and taste to be true wine." The manner in which this wine is made can be found in Lehmkuhl, n. 162.

³ Missale rom., De defectibus, IV, 1.

⁴ The Holy Office on 1 June 1910 declared that wine from which all spirit of wine (alcohol) is removed by art is neither licit nor valid matter of consecration.

109. Licit matter. In order licitly to consecrate, there must be used wine which, after fermentation has been completed, is perfect, pure, and incorrupt.

a. Must, or juice recently pressed from ripe grapes, is valid matter, but gravely illicit matter of consecration: valid indeed, because the Church holds it as valid, since it is wine, although not yet perfect;¹ but illicit both because it has mixed with it parts which are not consecrable, and because it is not perfect wine.

b. If aromatics or other liquids are mixed with wine, and indeed in a small quantity, so that it retains the substance of wine and is simply held as wine, the matter will be illicit, but not yet invalid. Indeed it can even be licit matter if a small amount is added for preserving the wine.² But a notable quantity of aromatics or of another liquid added to wine constitutes this as invalid or at least doubtful matter.

Wine preserved in casks gradually diminishes somewhat by evaporation (durch Verdunstung). The empty space arising in the cask from this must be filled so that the wine may be preserved. It is indeed better that the cask in which wine for the sacrifice of the Mass is contained be filled up with natural wine; nevertheless, for this end water also can be used without the wine ceasing to be valid and licit matter of consecration. For a foreign substance can licitly be mixed with wine in a small quantity when it is necessary for preserving the wine.

c. Wine becoming sour, which is somewhat acid and begins to be corrupted, remains valid matter and, when other wine is lacking, can licitly be used, because it preserves the nature of wine and is not substantially changed. But wine notably becoming sour, which is not yet vinegar, although perhaps it is valid matter because it is not wholly corrupted, is certainly gravely illicit.

d. Whether frozen wine is valid matter is disputed; but all concede that it is not licit to consecrate frozen wine, because this is contrary to the usage received in the Church. Therefore it must be liquefied before consecration.

Those who affirm that it is valid matter bring forward the reason that wine is not corrupted by freezing but only accidentally changed, and that consecrated wine, if it is frozen, retains consecration. But those who deny that it is valid matter bring forward much stronger reasons: for they say that the matter is not in the state of drink; besides, the words of consecration designate a liquor, not a solid mass. Moreover, nothing follows from the fact that consecrated wine, if it is frozen, retains consecration; for if consecrated wine is absorbed by some solid substance, it remains consecrated, but wine absorbed by a solid substance cannot be consecrated, just as neither can wine from grapes not yet pressed.

¹ Missale rom., tit. 4, n. 2.

² On this matter the decree of the Holy Office of 31 July 1890 must be noted, which permits that, for preserving weak wine longer, there be mixed with it a certain quantity of spirit of wine (alcohol), provided that the spirit has been extracted from the fruit of the vine, and the alcoholic quantity added together with that which the wine in question naturally contains does not exceed the proportion of twelve percent, and that the mixture be made when the wine is very fresh. Indeed, for preserving strong and extraordinarily sweet wines the same Holy Office on 5 Aug. 1896, in a special case, permitted the addition of an alcoholic quantity which did not exceed the proportion of seventeen or eighteen percent, provided that the mixture was made when the tumultuous fermentation had begun to subside.

110. To the wine to be consecrated a small amount of water must be mixed, not from the necessity of the sacrament, but from the precept of the Church by reason of the end, obliging under grave sin.¹

a. The reasons on account of which water is to be mixed with the wine to be consecrated are: alpha. the example of Christ, who is believed to have consecrated in wine mixed with water; beta. that the water and blood which flowed from the side of Christ may be signified; gamma. that through the wine and water the twofold nature of Christ may be signified; delta. that through the mixture of water and wine the union of the Church with Christ the head and the union among the faithful may be signified, which union is the effect of this sacrament.

b. This precept seems so grave to theologians that they admit no case in which it is licit to celebrate if the lack of water is foreseen. And if someone had forgotten to pour in water at the proper time, he must supply the defect, if he notices it before the consecration of the chalice, even immediately before the consecration of the wine, but not afterward, because nothing may be mixed with consecrated wine which is not consecrated.

c. One or another little drop of water suffices, and the quantity of water added to the wine ought not to exceed eight or ten drops, although water can be poured in up to an eighth, indeed up to a fifth, part of the wine without the matter becoming doubtful. But the quantity of water added which exceeds a third part of the wine renders the matter doubtful, and, if the wine is not strong, even invalid. Therefore, if by chance too much water had been added, some wine must again be added.

d. It is permitted to use acid, gaseous, or alkaline water (Mineralwasser), provided that it is natural and drinkable.²

e. Finally, water must be mixed with the wine at the altar in the chalice itself. A mixture made before Mass in the cruet would not suffice, even if it had been made by the priest himself, because the mixture belongs to the sacred rite according to which, by the precept of the Church, the sacrifice of the Mass must be offered.

Article Second. On the Proximate Matter

Proximate matter is called by some the use of remote matter, or of bread and wine in consecration; by others, consecrated remote matter, or the species insofar as they contain the body and blood of Christ.

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 7, De sacrif. miss.; Cn. 814.

² Holy Office, 11 Aug. 1904.

111. For valid consecration two conditions are required: a. that the matter to be consecrated be physically present; b. that it be determined.

1. First, it is required that the matter be physically present to the priest consecrating. This is clear from the institution of Christ: for Christ gave the apostles the power of doing only that which he himself had done at the Last Supper; but Christ consecrated present matter. The obvious sense of the words of consecration demands the same thing, for the pronoun this and this do not demonstrate anything except present matter.

In order that this physical presence be had, it is indeed required that the matter in some way be before the priest and not be too far distant; nevertheless it is not required that it be perceived by the one consecrating by some sense, but it suffices that by the prudent judgment of men it can sufficiently be demonstrated by the pronouns this and this.

a. Hence all hosts which are found piled in the chalice are validly consecrated, although the lower ones cannot be seen. Likewise, as regards presence, particles in a closed ciborium or covered with a pall, wine in an uncovered chalice, indeed even wine in a vessel or bread in a closed basket, are consecrated. For by reason of the vessel in which the matter is contained and which is destined to contain it, it is physically sufficiently present so that it can be demonstrated by the words this and this. For common usage has this, that the container and the thing contained are demonstrated as one by the pronoun this, as when concerning money existing in a purse we say, this is gold, and concerning liquid in a closed cup, this is wine. And these indeed are certain; therefore the consecration is not to be repeated if, e.g., a pyx had remained closed during the consecration through forgetfulness.

b. But the consecration would not be valid if the matter, even with the priest knowing, were behind the altar or behind the tablet which is called the canon, or at the back of the one consecrating, because it is not so present that it can be demonstrated by the pronoun this and this. For the body which is interposed prevents it from being able to be so demonstrated. For the same reason, namely from defect of presence, matter which is more than ten (others say twenty) paces distant cannot be validly consecrated. If a host were hidden under the corporal or in the missal, or if it lay hidden under the altar cloth or under a cushion or under the foot of the chalice, the consecration would be doubtful, because the host lying hidden there can scarcely be sufficiently demonstrated by the pronoun this. And although a host existing in an open tabernacle is validly consecrated, the consecration would be at least doubtful if the tabernacle were closed.

112. 2. Next it is required that the matter to be consecrated be determined in the individual by the actual or virtual intention of the one consecrating. For any action must have a determinate term about which it is exercised; moreover, by the pronoun this and this nothing can be designated except determinate matter. Therefore, just as for consecrating there is required the intention of consecrating, so for consecrating determinate matter there is required the intention of consecrating that matter determinately.

a. Therefore what has in no way, either explicitly or implicitly, been determined by the intention of the priest as the object of consecration is not consecrated. But what in some way, at least implicitly (e.g., what I hold in my hands, what is on the corporal), has been determined by intention as the object of consecration is judged to be consecrated.

b. Hence if the priest after consecration notices that more hosts are present, whether placed by himself or by another, than he had thought, there is no doubt that all have been consecrated, because he had the actual or virtual intention of consecrating the present matter. But the error of the one consecrating concerning the quantity of matter does not impede a determinate intention.

c. But if from an entire pile of hosts he wished to consecrate only five or only half, none would be consecrated. Likewise, hosts which, without the priest's knowledge, have been placed on the altar or even on the corporal are not consecrated if he himself did not have the intention of consecrating whatever consecrable matter is on the corporal or altar.

113. For licit consecration it is required that the matter be: a. on the altar; b. upon the corporal; c. on the consecrated stone; d. either immediately on the corporal, or in the hands of the one consecrating, or in a sacred vessel and that open.

Therefore if, while the priest is celebrating on a portable altar, small hosts are not bare on the corporal but are in a ciborium, this during the consecration must be so placed that at least some part of the foot stands on the consecrated stone. Nevertheless scruples are not to be injected concerning this matter, provided that the ciborium is on the corporal. - Hence a priest would sin gravely who knowingly consecrated matter which is outside the altar or outside the corporal or in a non-sacred vessel; and he would sin venially who voluntarily did not open the sacred vessel.

114. Questions concerning consecration. 1. In order that a way may be prepared for solving several questions concerning this matter, let these things be noted. Given suitable presence of the matter to be consecrated, the whole matter essentially depends on the intention of the one consecrating, by which the matter to be consecrated is determined in the individual. Moreover, any priest about to celebrate first of all has the intention of celebrating, which by its nature is the intention of consecrating as Christ instituted and the Church intends. Now it is asked what the force and efficacy of this intention is.

a. This intention is, and must be, absolute, nor can it licitly be restricted by any condition unless there is doubt concerning the validity of the consecration.

There are some who think that the intention of the one consecrating, and universally of the one effecting a sacrament, is always conditioned, since it is to be presumed that the one consecrating and generally he who effects a sacrament does not wish to consecrate or effect the sacrament unless this can be done without (material) sin. But this principle cannot be admitted without many and grave inconveniences following in practice, which must altogether be avoided. For if we imagine a priest through inadvertence using a chalice not consecrated, or baptizing in notably turbid water, there is no consecration and likewise no baptism, although the priest or the faithful know nothing about the nullity of the sacrament. These are certainly gravely illicit inconveniences. And this is the reason on account of which the intention of consecrating must be absolute, unless there is doubt concerning the validity of the consecration.¹

b. By force of this intention only the host which is in the hands of the priest and the wine which is found in the chalice are consecrated. But by force of this intention there is not also consecrated a particle which, whether while the celebrant is unaware or while he notices but does not think about its consecration, has been placed on the corporal.

c. By force of this intention there probably is consecrated only matter which presents to the senses one continuous whole. For it cannot be supposed that this is the mind of the Church, that even that be consecrated which cannot be consecrated without manifest danger of dispersion and therefore of irreverence.

2. Besides this general intention of celebrating, the priest can expressly form the intention of consecrating, besides, other matter, e.g., particles which have been placed on the corporal or are contained in a ciborium. This intention also is, and must be, absolute, and not restricted by any condition unless there is doubt concerning the validity of the consecration. Moreover, by force of this intention, whether expressly elicited before Mass or during Mass, any matter to which that intention refers is validly consecrated, even if the priest in the act of consecration does not notice it, provided that it is physically present on the altar. For the twofold condition which is required for valid consecration is without doubt present in this case, since the matter to be consecrated, by supposition, is present, and the explicitly formed intention of consecrating it virtually continues in the act of consecration. But any priest is judged to elicit expressly the intention of consecrating who either himself carries particles to the altar so that he may afterward consecrate them, or who, during Mass, noticing that a ciborium to be consecrated is placed on the altar, proposes to consecrate it, or who before Mass is admonished about a ciborium to be consecrated in the Mass and assents, even if afterward he does not notice it. For by the very fact that, having been admonished about the consecration, he assents, he elicits the intention of consecrating the particles to be placed on the altar.

¹ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, IV, n. 856 ss.

115. Corollaries from the preceding declarations. 1. Little drops of wine adhering interiorly to the chalice, if the priest does not elicit a particular intention concerning them, do not seem to be consecrated. For the general intention of celebrating and therefore of consecrating is restricted to the matter which by way of one continuous whole is in the chalice at the time of consecration.

Little drops of wine adhering exteriorly to the chalice certainly are not consecrated, both from the same reason just brought forward, and because the intention of celebrating certainly does not extend to consecrating matter of this kind, which because of manifest danger of irreverence is not becomingly consecrable.

Since it is not plainly certain whether drops of wine adhering interiorly to the chalice are or are not consecrated, unless the priest had a particular intention concerning them, after consecration those little drops are in no way to be wiped away, but are to be received either with the most precious blood or with the purification. But if they are detected before consecration, they are either to be joined with the matter to be consecrated or wiped away, if this can be done conveniently.

2. Crumbs of bread which, having been torn from the host, adhere to the host at the time of consecration likewise do not seem to be consecrated, because the intention of the priest seems to be restricted to matter which presents one continuous whole. Crumbs which, separated from the host, exist either on the corporal or in the ciborium are not consecrated if the priest expressly intends nothing concerning them. For the intention of consecrating present matter is not extended to separated crumbs because of danger of irreverence.

3. A ciborium placed on the corporal, which through inadvertence remained closed during the time of consecration, is consecrated if in the one consecrating there was sufficient intention of consecrating it. But if concerning it he intended nothing either explicitly or implicitly, it is not judged to have been consecrated, because by the general intention of celebrating the ciborium is not determined as the object of consecration.

4. A ciborium which through forgetfulness remained outside the corporal at the time of consecration must be judged consecrated from the virtually continuing intention, provided that the priest previously had an explicit or implicit intention of consecrating it.

There are some who doubt whether a ciborium of this kind is consecrated. For they judge that in this case the one consecrating does not have the intention of consecrating, although previously he elicited it, because the consecration is objectively gravely illicit. This opinion is founded on this principle, that the intention of the celebrant is not absolute but conditioned, namely that it is presumed that the one consecrating does not wish to consecrate unless this can be done without sin; but this must not be admitted (n. 113).

Note. In order to forestall doubts concerning consecration, some authors rightly counsel new priests that they once for all elicit these intentions: a. of consecrating all hosts placed on the corporal; b. of consecrating drops of wine adhering interiorly to the chalice, lest non-consecrated drops be mixed with the sacred blood; c. of not consecrating crumbs adhering to the host; d. of not consecrating crumbs separated from the host, whether they are on the corporal or in the ciborium. Once these intentions have been elicited, it is certain that, by force of the intention of celebrating, nothing is consecrated besides the hosts placed on the corporal except that which exists by way of one continuous whole in the host or in the chalice, and drops adhering interiorly to the chalice.

116. On particles to be consecrated being placed on the altar. Hosts to be consecrated during Mass are to be placed on the altar at the beginning of Mass, or at least, unless a just cause excuses, they ought to be present at the offertory, so that together with the matter of the sacrifice, with which they are consecrated, they may also be offered at the same time. From a reasonable cause, hosts which are brought after the offertory can licitly be consecrated, provided that they are present before the preface and their mental oblation is made. From a grave cause (if, e.g., otherwise one or several would remain without communion or would have to wait too long), hosts brought after the preface but before the canon has been begun can also be consecrated. And from a most grave cause (e.g., to communicate a sick person, or if otherwise a great multitude of the faithful would not without offense be deprived of communion or would have to wait too long), hosts brought even after the canon has already been begun, before the consecration of the bread, can be licitly consecrated. Nevertheless, if otherwise only one person would have to be dismissed without communion, once the canon has already begun a host should no longer be consecrated for him, but rather a particle taken from the priest's host should be given to him.

The reason of this prescription is taken from the order of the Mass, which after the preparatory rites contains two parts, the oblation and the consecration with communion. Now the liturgical act of oblation begins from the offertory and ends with the secret prayers; but the liturgical act of consecration begins from the preface. Hence the order of the Mass is disturbed if, after the oblation has begun, matter to be consecrated and still to be offered is brought to the altar, and this disturbance of order is the greater the later the matter is brought. From this it is that before the preface the matter to be consecrated is still admitted from a reasonable cause, because the liturgical act of consecration has not yet begun. But after the preface has begun it is admitted only from a grave cause, because the liturgical act of consecration has indeed already begun, though only through the introductory preface into the very act of consecration. But once the canon has begun, some in no way admit other matter to be consecrated, others only from a most grave cause, because the canon already pertains to the very liturgical act of consecration.

117. The quantity to be consecrated. Just as any quantity of bread or wine, even very great, is validly consecrated, provided that it can sufficiently be demonstrated by the pronoun this, so also any quantity, however small (a crumb of bread or a little drop of wine), is validly consecrated, provided that it can be perceived by human sense. But matter so very minute that it is not perceived by human sense cannot be validly consecrated, both because such matter cannot be demonstrated by the pronoun this, and because a sacrament generally is a sensible sign, which therefore of its own nature demands sensible matter. But for licit consecration there is required that quantity of bread or wine which befits the end, use, and reverence of so great a sacrament.

118. Notes. 1. If particles are doubtfully consecrated, in another Mass they are again to be consecrated under condition, or to be received by the priest before purification, or finally, enclosed in a distinct vessel, to be placed in the tabernacle until they are corrupted. But they can in no way be distributed to those who have already received communion, because of the danger of material idolatry. It is also licit after the consecration either of the larger host or of the chalice to pronounce the words of consecration over them conditionally, because in this way a new sacrifice is not begun (n. 103, 2).

2. If non-consecrated particles are mixed with consecrated particles, the whole pile is to be carried to the altar and consecrated either with the intention of consecrating the non-consecrated particles or with the intention of consecrating the whole pile under condition, if they are not consecrated.¹ - Likewise, if non-consecrated wine is mixed with consecrated wine, the whole quantity which is contained in the chalice is to be consecrated with the intention of consecrating what in the chalice is not consecrated, or what in the chalice is consecrable.

De Lugo, however, judges that the former manner does not suffice, because the hosts to be consecrated are not sufficiently determined by the intention of the one consecrating so that they can be demonstrated by the pronoun this. But just as nothing prevents their being consecrated under condition together with the others, because all are present by way of one whole and can be demonstrated, so nothing prevents consecrating whatever is not consecrated in the ciborium, because this very thing can sufficiently be designated by the pronoun this. For although the man himself does not know this matter and therefore cannot designate it, nevertheless it is present in fact and can be designated objectively.

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 216; Lugo, De euchar., disp. 4, n. 133 ss.