Chapter II. The Matter and Form of the Eucharist

THE remote matter of the Eucharist is twofold—wheaten bread and wine of the grape. Barley bread, or bread made from oats or rye, or any other kind of grain or vegetables or fruits, is invalid matter. The wheaten bread must be baked with water, not boiled, or mere dough. If baked with oil or milk or butter, it will be doubtful matter. The wine must be genuine juice of the grape, not made artificially; wine made from any other kind of fruit will be invalid matter. If the wine has become vinegar, it is changed: substantially, and will not serve for Mass; if it has only begun to get sour, it will be consecrated validly, but the priest who uses it sins grievously. There is some controversy as to whether frozen wine could be consecrated. The rubrics prescribe that if the precious blood is frozen after the consecration it should be liquefied again by putting warm cloths about the chalice and then consumed. It is clear, then, that freezing does not change the species substantially so as to render our Lord no longer present under them; it follows from this that freezing does not prevent the wine being consecrated.

Unfermented bread is used for the Eucharist in the Western Church, and fermented in the Oriental rites. Members of the two Churches are bound under grave precept to follow their respective rites, even if a Western priest were for a time in the East (Can. 816).

Because water came forth from the opened side of our Redeemer with his blood, the Church has commanded that in saying Mass a little water, not more than a fifth or at most a third part of the wine, should be mixed with the wine in the chalice. If the wine of a country is of a poor quality and difficult to keep, a little alcohol may be added to it to preserve it, but not so as to make more than 12 or 18 per cent. of the whole. No other matter may be added either to the flour or to the wine which are used for the Blessed Eucharist, and the greatest care should be taken both by bishops and priests to insure the use of only genuine matter in the confection of this sacrament.

The form of consecration for the bread is, “‘ For this is my body,” and for the chalice, “‘ For this is the chalice of my blood of the New Testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.” Any change in these forms which would make the sense different would also make them invalid.

There is a controversy among theologians as to whether the whole of the above form for the consecration of the chalice is essential, or whether it would be sufficient for the validity of the consecration to say only, “‘ This is the chalice of my blood.” It is very probable that these words alone constitute the essential form for the consecration of the chalice, though, of course, the fuller form must always be used. For these words alone signify the real presence of our Lord; the rest are merely a further declaration or explanation of them. Besides, “ ‘This is my body ”’ constitutes the valid form for the consecration of the bread, and so, by analogy, ‘‘ This is the chalice of my blood ” should constitute the valid form for the consecration of the wine.

For the valid consecration of the Eucharist the priest must not only use the proper matter according to the institution of Christ, but that matter must be physically present, not fat distant from him, when he pronounces the form of consecration. This essential condition is required by the sense of the form, “This is my body,” which indicates that the matter to be consecrated is near the priest, so that it can be indicated by the demonstrative pronoun. Hence a priest in one room could not consecrate bread and wine in another, or behind his back, or, as it would seem, locked up in the tabernacle. Moreover, the matter must be determined by the intention of the priest; he would not consecrate a host which had been left on the altar for him to consecrate, but about which he knew nothing, and which he had no intention to consecrate. A difficulty sometimes arises when a priest has been asked to consecrate the ciborium which is placed on the altar by the sacristan, but which the priest afterward forgets to take and place on the corporal for consecration. What is intended for consecration should be placed on the corporal and on the altar-stone of sacrifice. Inasmuch as this was not done, and it would be wrong to intend to consecrate a ciborium which had not been placed on the corporal, it would seem at first sight that such a ciborium is not consecrated. It is, however, better to make a distinction. If the priest had intended to consecrate the ciborium and during Mass had noticed its presence, though he did not advert to its being off the corporal, it would certainly be consecrated. If, on the contrary, after being notified in the sacristy about consecrating the ciborium, he forgot all about it, and never adverted to its presence on the altar, the consecration will be doubtful; and hosts thus doubtfully consecrated should on no account be given as Communion to the faithful, but should be consecrated conditionally in another Mass, or if they are few in number they might be consumed by the priest before taking the ablutions.

Furthermore, for the lawful consecration of the matter, the hosts must be whole, clean, and of the usual size and shape; the chalice and ciborium must be uncovered, and the consecration must be in Mass as it is prescribed to be said and under both kinds. If the ciborium or chalice are by mistake left covered, the consecration will be valid, for all the conditions required for validity are fulfilled. Hosts to be consecrated should be on the corporal at the offertory when the victim is set aside for the sacrifice, but if this has not been done, they may be received up to the canon, or for grave reason even up to the consecration, but the oblation should be mentally supplied.