Chapter I: On the Essence of the Most Holy Eucharist

— I. Notion of the Sacrament. The Eucharist is the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, in which, under the species of bread and wine, Christ gives himself for the spiritual refreshment of our soul.

Taken adequately, this sacrament designates at once the species and the body or blood of Christ; when it is considered especially as a sign, the species are placed in recto, since they alone are sensible; but when it is assumed as the cause of grace, then the body of Christ is placed in recto. Or, in other words, the sacrament immediately signifies the body and blood of Christ present under the species, and through the body and blood of Christ proposed for eating and drinking, the reality of the sacrament, that is, grace or the spiritual refreshment of our soul. Hence are explained the locutions by which the sacrament, inadequately, supposes either for the species or for the body of Christ, as when it is said: "Christ is under the sacrament"; or "Let us adore forever the most holy and most divine sacrament." Therefore the body and blood of Christ are the reality and sacrament.

The use or reception of the Eucharist is not properly the sacrament, but only its application, or the condition that the sacrament operate.

— The Specific and Numerical Unity of the Sacrament. 1. Although each species, taken separately, indeed any part of it, is an integral and essentially perfect sacrament, and both species differ physically and materially from one another, nevertheless morally and in the ratio of sacrament, the Eucharist is one sacrament in the lowest species: both because it is one sign of a sacred thing, and because it has an order to one end in the lowest species (cf. St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 73, art. 2).

When the body of Christ is considered in recto, there is never more than one sacrament numerically. But the species, considered in recto, strictly and physically speaking, are numerically as many sacraments as there are species or even parts of species; morally, however, that is one sacrament numerically which is proposed and received in the manner of one thing, as being referred to one spiritual refreshment (cf. Lugo, De SS. Euch., d. 2, s. 2). Wherefore hosts on different altars are rightly conceived to be different sacraments; on the contrary, the priest receives one sacrament numerically when he communicates himself under both species, or receives several parts of a divided host or several hosts morally together.

— II. Remote and Proximate Matter. 1. In this sacrament remote matter and proximate matter stand in an inverse order: for in the other sacraments remote matter is a permanent thing, but proximate matter, or its use, is transient; while here the remote matter, that is, bread and wine, passes away, but the proximate matter, that is, the species of bread and wine, remains.

2. Moreover the remote matter is bread and wine. This is to be held by faith, and is proved from the institution itself of Christ (cf. Matt. 26; Luke 22). And each matter is so necessary that not only can there never licitly be an intention of consecrating only one of the two matters (c. 817), but one can also deservedly doubt the value of the one consecration performed by him who, with a positive and prevailing will, would not wish in this way at least inchoatively to sacrifice (cf. St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 78, art. 6; Lugo, Euch., d. 19, n. 102).

— Concerning Bread. From the constant sense of the Church, only usual and wheaten bread is the remote matter of the Eucharist. But by the moral judgment of men, only that is judged to be such which has been mixed from wheaten flour and natural water, and toasted or baked by fire, and is incorrupt in its species: only this is called bread without addition. Wherefore in canon 815, §1 it is thus prescribed: "The bread must be purely wheaten and recently made, so that there is no danger of corruption."

1. Therefore unsuitable matter is raw wheaten dough, or dough not cooked in the manner of bread but fried or boiled, such as pastry and cake; bread kneaded with artificial waters (distinguish these well from natural water made chemically), or mixed with oil, milk, butter, eggs, sugar, or some other liquid, because it is not usual bread. Thus Laymann, 5, 4, 9, and Cajetan; but better, with Lugo 4, 4 and more recent authors, we hold this matter as doubtful, just as in the Missal, De defectibus, III, 2, it is expressly said about bread kneaded with rosewater or another distillation. Likewise unsuitable matter is bread made from rice, oats, millet, peas, beans, almonds, and other legumes and fruits of trees, or even made from barley, because all these, by common use and opinion, are judged to be distinguished in species from wheat; and bread substantially corrupted.

"A slight admixture, however, does not dissolve the species" (St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 74, art. 13, ad 3). Therefore wheat mixed with a small quantity of another grain, or bread containing a small part of oil, butter, milk, or eggs, so that morally it is judged to have been kneaded with water, is valid but in itself illicit matter, and, if it is used, the whole is consecrated.

2. Matter is doubtful which, nevertheless, because of the danger of idolatry, "unless perhaps for completing the sacrifice, and more certain matter cannot be had" (Lehmkuhl, II, 163), it is never lawful to use: a) red hosts or hosts of another color, by which letters are sealed, because by the cinnabar mixed in, the matter is notably adulterated; b) bread made from starch (amido): indeed, since it was falsely thought that the fat of flour was held in starch, today it is rather to be held as invalid matter; c) bread made from gluten alone, as is customarily prepared for diabetics, because it is not usual (Cappello, I, n. 270).

3. Some controversies are solved by attending to the varied use of the word. Thus siligo is properly winter wheat of the best quality; but there is one who has understood by this name rye (secale, segale), which is almost certainly unsuitable matter. Far, taken for spelt or alica (spelta, epeautre), seems so suitable that in several places bread from spelt is used without scruple; but if it is taken for bran (semola, crusca, gruau), it will be doubtful matter.

By analysis of the elements themselves, today it can be defined whether some grain belongs to the genus of wheat or not.

The Sacred Congregation admitted bread made in a mission from a white material which is obtained by pressure of the hands, after the crushed grains have been infused for some hours in water, though not to the point of corruption. Yet it recommended that, if it could be done, the grain should not only be crushed but reduced to flour (Response of July 23, 1852, Coll. P. F., n. 1076).

Bread made from the residual material of flour which has been infused in water through the night also seems to be valid. Certain Sisters use this method so that they may obtain truly snow-white matter. Yet there is a danger lest such hosts be made almost from starch alone. Wherefore, until analysis has taught us with certainty concerning the elements of this matter, this manner of acting seems to be disapproved.

4. Valid matter is bread either leavened or unleavened. The reason is that, contrary to what will be said about wine, the action of leaven in bread is minimal, and in customary bread it is used rather for expanding the matter than for changing it. Wherefore today several bakers already make our common bread by another method, without any leaven. The matter, moreover, is established by tradition. But Latin priests must perform sacred things in unleavened bread, and many Orientals in leavened bread (c. 816).

5. Moldy bread, since it is not yet corrupted but is disposed toward corruption, is valid but illicit matter.

Therefore hosts must be recently made. The Sacred Congregation of Rites in the Gandavensis case (Decr. auth., n. 2650 ad I, 1 and 2), disapproved the use of consecrating species made three months before in winter, six months before in summer.

Yet because every danger of corruption can certainly be absent, a grave reason will allow that such matter be used (Lehmkuhl, II, 163).

In itself, however, it is required that they not be more than six weeks old. Cf. below, n. 380.

6. Bread to be consecrated must, in the Latin Church, be of circular and whole form. The Greeks use square bread, and in particles triangular. This precept does not seem grave.

If a larger host is lacking, a smaller one can be used, scandal or public wonder and offense being avoided, and therefore, if it is necessary, the people being warned.

It would be grave irreverence to consecrate a host enormously broken or stained, unless you discover this after the oblation; for then there will be no sin, scandal however being excluded. Ballerini-Palmieri, IV, 830, doubts concerning mortal sin.

— Concerning Wine. 1. For validity itself there is required wine from the vine, and therefore wine made chemically does not suffice. This, after the Council of Florence, is taught by c. 815, §2: "The wine must be natural, from the fruit of the vine, and not corrupt." But it does not matter of what color it is. Chemistry, moreover, has not yet been able to compose complete wine. But we shall embrace the necessary essence of wine by describing wine as "a liquid expressed from grapes, not wholly unripe, in such a way that the customary fermentation has at least begun to take place." Complete fermentation is not required. And when the grapes are broken, morally at once a certain fermentation has its beginning.

2. Therefore unsuitable matter is cider and liquid expressed from mulberries or pomegranates, whether it is called wine or not; agresta or omphacium, that is, juice expressed from wholly unripe grapes (verjus), because it is not yet wine; grapes, or the juice contained among grapes, because, fermentation lacking, it is not yet wine; nor wine absorbed in bread, because it is less drink than food; nor sapa, that is, must cooked down to half or a third part, because it now has the ratio of food rather than of drink. Sapa is sometimes named defrutum, which also signifies sweet wine. Likewise unsuitable is lora (vinello, piquette), that is, water poured over pressed grapes. Yet if the grapes have not been fully pressed, the matter could turn out to be doubtful or certain; and vinegar, because it results from another fermentation. A doubt which occurs after consecration, whether it had been vinegar or wine, can be solved by presumption in favor of wine. Yet if there has been a prudent doubt, St. Alphonsus, 6, 207, q. 1, wishes that certain wine be placed there, which is to be consecrated under condition, so that the integrity of the sacrifice may be established.

Concerning wild grapes, since from the description given it was not established that they were true grapes giving true wine, the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide prudently responded that it was not lawful to use that liquid in the sacrifice of the Mass until it should have been judged otherwise (Response, 1819, Coll. P. F., I, n. 732).

3. Validly but illicitly there is consecrated: must, because it is impure wine containing mixed-in lees which are not consecrable. According to the degree of impurity, the matter will be gravely or lightly illicit; and not a few, against Suarez who answers more severely, excuse the usage of certain places, of expressing the first fruits of grapes in the chalice. Likewise valid but illicit is wine so moderately mixed with other liquids or aromatics that it retains the nature of wine; souring wine, because it remains wine. But if it becomes notably sour, from the rubric it would be mortal. Yet you will be excused if, because you are celebrating in another's church or are a subject, you do not have the ability to change the wine: thus Ballerini-Palmieri, IV, 841, arguing from Benedict XIV himself; frozen wine, because it retains the substance and denomination of wine, and by its nature is drinkable; and if before freezing it had been consecrated, there is no cause why Christ should cease to be under such a species. This is confirmed by the rubric, which merely commands that warm cloths be applied. Some, however, deny this. Nor is it an obstacle that frozen water is unsuitable matter for baptism: for baptism is essentially a certain washing, while the Eucharist can consist without reception. That the wine is not proximately drinkable is accidental, and the impediment can easily be removed. Yet he would sin who consecrated in frozen wine.

— 4. Concerning the Nature and Confection of Wine Which Can Be Consecrated. It will greatly help to read the study of R. P. Pauwels, Doctor of Chemistry, in Periodica de religiosis et missionariis, VI, Suppl. XVIII, pp. (57)-(71). From it we borrow these few things:

a) Principles to be Attended To. Wine is not something one per se (let the same be said about bread), but a mixture, and indeed a liquid one. This mixture is different in different wine, and it varies according to the varied age of the same wine. Yet we know the elements of which every wine naturally consists, and in what maximum and minimum proportion they can be present. Moreover those elements are some strictly so called, others broadly so called. Strictly so called are whatever are dissolved in fermented must and have been vitally elaborated by the vine: thus alcohol, sugar, the coloring substance. Elements broadly so called serve either fermentation or dissolution. These either come from without, thus ferments; or at least are elaborated by no vital action of the vine, thus water. Moreover ferments, since they are not dissolved and are found in the lees, are not even a part of wine, while water is so necessary to wine that it must be called a part of wine. In pure and sincere wine, all the elements strictly so called must be taken from the vine; nevertheless a very slight quantity taken from elsewhere permits you to say: "a little is counted as nothing." But the extrinsic elements or those broadly so called can have any origin, provided you keep yourself within the maximum and minimum quantity which is present in wine naturally obtained. Nor can you safely artificially mix into wine, even if you take them from the vine, elements strictly so called, such as alcohol, in such a quantity as is found in no wine naturally. Because of the provident assistance of God and the very authority which many attribute to the Church of determining more closely the matter and form of the sacraments, the decrees of the Holy See must be held in the greatest respect, nor can you safely use in consecration wine which the Church through the Holy Office has not first approved, even though scientific reason has demonstrated to you that it is true wine. For it pertains to the Holy Office to decide these questions, with the approval of the Supreme Pontiff.

b) Applications. To preserve wine, attending also to the responses of the Holy See, it is permitted that you infuse alcohol into wine, provided however these laws are observed:

That the alcohol be extracted from the fruit of the vine, lest anything from the elements strictly so called be added in a sensible quantity which does not take its origin from the vine;

That, after the alcohol has been added, the total alcoholic strength of that wine not exceed 12%, or, if it concerns sweet wine which naturally contains a proportion greater than 12%, and yet cannot be preserved or transported without danger of corruption, 18%; for natural wines do not contain a greater quantity of alcohol, indeed generally they do not exceed the proportion of 12%;

That the alcohol be added when the tumultuous fermentation begins to subside, that is, before fermentation has ceased, lest something seem to be mixed with wine already completely elaborated.

Since sugar is not taken from the vine, its addition makes matter which is not wholly licit. Wherefore the Holy Office has several times, for example June 25, 1891 and August 5, 1896 (Coll. P. F., nn. 1757 and 1949), disapproved this addition. Yet unless the added quantity has been comparatively grave, or unless other adulterations intervene at the same time, the matter remains valid, and for a proportionate cause can become licit. Wherefore the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda Fide, November 11, 1892, permitted a certain Canadian bishop to use in the celebration of Mass wine expressed from must to which, for about 100 liters, 5 kilograms of sugar had been added.

Therefore the better manner of obtaining sweeter wine will be the condensation of must, or diminution of the quantity of water which is found in the must. This can be done either by partial freezing of the must, or by a cautiously made boiling down of the must. And it will be licit, provided the must thus thickened is subjected to fermentation in the ordinary manner, or by means of the same elements by which ferments convert sugar into alcohol.

A licit manner also will be that of mixing fresh grape with raisin, that is, a grape so dried that almost nothing of water remains in the juice (cf. response of the Holy Office, June 25, 1891, Coll. P. F., n. 1757, by which this method is commended in certain circumstances).

It is also lawful to make wine from raisin to which a quantity of water has been infused which equals the weight of the raisin, indeed exceeds it twofold, since in fresh grape the proportion of water rises to 70%, sometimes to 80%. Thus must is obtained, whose fermentation can be excited or accelerated either by adding pure ferments or by mixing in some fresh grape. The Holy Office, May 4, 1887 (Coll. P. F., n. 1762), also approved this method, preferring to the addition of alcohol the condensation of the wine itself in an appropriate vessel.

That certain antiseptic substances useful for preserving wine be mixed with it can be tolerated if they have an origin from the vine, or if the rule can be applied: "a little is counted as nothing," and provided that the organoleptic properties of the wine are not adulterated.

Therefore in mission places, where grapes do not ripen, the better method will be to make wine from raisins alone. But if grapes give weak wine, the must can be thickened by adding raisins.

— Infusion of Water. The infusion of water into wine is not from necessity of the sacrament, but it is of grave precept, binding under mortal sin: "A very little water must be mixed with the wine to be consecrated" (c. 814).

We say: with the wine to be consecrated, because after the consecration has been performed, the mixing omitted would not be supplied. Before the consecration, however, this precept, although ceremonial, is imposed by the Church itself for the sacrifice (cf. Trent, sess. XXII, cc. 7 and 9), and therefore is so grave that if water is lacking, one must abstain from consecration, even for the Viaticum of the dying, or break off the Mass, if this can be done without scandal (d'Annibale, III, 386).

But the water must be natural. One or another sensible drop suffices, but it is expedient that several be poured in. Nor must there be scrupulosity in the matter: even a mixture of a fifth part does not obstruct the sincerity of the wine. Moreover, to prevent scruples, the quantity of wine should not be taken too small, or a spoon should be used. If by accident too much water has been poured in, more wine is to be added. The mixing must be made in the chalice, at the time and by the rite prescribed, and by a competent minister: in a private Mass, by the priest; in a public one, by the subdeacon.

N. B. The drops, together with the water naturally contained in the wine, are converted into the blood of Christ in the consecration (cf. the dogmatic theologians, or Cappello, I, 296, 297).

— How Christ Ceases to Be Under the Species of Wine. The real presence is taken away in two ways: 1. by any cause which corrupts wine: namely by a different fermentation, or by the infusion of a notable quantity of substance which wine does not contain, or which it does not contain in that proportion. And so the infusion of water adulterates the mixture; 2. by the notable infusion of wine itself. For since wine is not a chemical compound of its own molecules, but an aggregate of diverse molecules, whatever disturbs the mixture so that unconsecrated molecules are gathered with the others adulterates it. It is enough to see whether the diffusion is total. Thus, by a simpler and, in our judgment, sufficiently secure way, we return to the doctrine of St. Thomas, 3 p., q. 77, art. 8, too much abandoned by more recent authors. Cf. N. R. Th., p. 29.

— Conditions Required for the Consecration of Matter. These conditions are reduced to two: 1. that the matter be morally and sensibly present to the priest; 2. that the matter be certain and individually determined in the intention of the consecrator. The first condition follows from the institution itself, and is indicated by the words hoc and hic, and is commended by tradition. And the reason of sacrifice itself demands a victim morally present. The second follows from the nature of the action to be placed by a human agent.

— Required Presence. 1. It is not necessary that the matter be seen, touched, or struck by the sound of the words, provided it can be seen either in itself or in another, for example, in its whole, in the container, in the vessel. Wherefore the consecration is valid which is done in darkness, or by a blind man. Vain, and not approved, is the custom by which some bring the mouth so near to the matter to be consecrated that they breathe into the chalice or onto the hosts.

2. Wine in a covered chalice or in a closed vessel is present. Hosts present in a basket, in a ciborium, or in a heap are present, although hidden beneath others or covered with the pall, corporal, or another cloth. But concerning hosts inside the Missal there is some doubt.

3. Matter placed behind a wall, or behind the priest, or enclosed in the tabernacle, is morally absent: it cannot be demonstrated by the pronouns hoc and hic. The consecration of such matter is certainly very doubtful. The same must be said of matter too distant: for example, about a distance of 100 paces, no one doubts this. d'Annibale, III, 388, defines, dubiously, as too much what is between 20 and 50 paces. A smaller quantity of matter requires greater closeness.

4. Matter so tiny that it is imperceptible to the senses cannot be consecrated separately, since it cannot be demonstrated and the sacrament is a sensible sign.

— Required Determination of Intention. 1. The consecration is invalid: of a third part of a host, unless the part is determined; of an indeterminate four or five hosts out of twenty; of many hosts, those which God has chosen, or which an absent Titius has designated, or those parts which after the species have been broken will remain united; for here and now the matter is not defined.

2. A host placed, unknown to the priest, apart from the heap and even upon the corporal, is not consecrated; for the priest's will does not extend to what is unknown. It is otherwise if the priest had a sufficiently present intention of consecrating whatever is on the corporal. But if, without knowing it, he holds two large hosts, he consecrates both; for he is reasonably thought to intend to consecrate what he holds in his hands; especially since otherwise he would be uncertain which was consecrated. Drops externally adhering to the chalice are not consecrated, since they are not under the intention of the consecrator; and it would be a grave sin to intend to consecrate them.

Concerning small drops internally adhering to the chalice, and small fragments which, before the consecration, are detached in the pyx, there are three opinions, with a special intention excluded: 1. they are consecrated; 2. they are not consecrated; 3. only the drops nearer the bottom of the chalice and the particles nearest to the mass of the breads are consecrated, because only these are morally one with the principal mass. To the extent this depends on the interpretation of the priest's reasonable intention, it is expedient to elicit explicitly what one wishes to do. The first opinion avoids the danger lest unconsecrated drops remain in the chalice; and Lehmkuhl, II, 166, teaches that this should be procured if a priest is binating or trinating, lest before the last Mass he consume something unconsecrated. But he who excludes the drops from consecration avoids the danger lest, by wiping, he handle consecrated matter irreverently. St. Alphonsus, Examen ordinand., n. 99, is for circumscribing the intention to the drops nearer the bottom of the chalice. But unless something further defines what drops are to be consecrated, he seems to leave ambiguity. Nor does it much help to say: let the intention be made according to the mind of the Church, since it is uncertain whether and what the Church has defined.

In conclusion: the custom, which however is not shown to bind under sin, is to be imitated, of wiping away drops before consecration; except that, if perhaps a binating priest intends to consecrate all, the intention should be elicited of consecrating only drops near the mass, including those which are doubtfully near.

3. Hosts consecrated in a greater number than the priest thought are validly consecrated: for a speculative error does not take away the practical and absolute intention of consecrating the matter present. Therefore two or three small hosts added by the server without the priest's knowledge to the heap placed on the corporal are consecrated. Hosts which the priest brought to be consecrated, or noticed had been brought, or knew before the celebration had been brought, are consecrated, even if during the consecration, no longer remembering them, he did not uncover the pyx. For the prior intention extends the actual intention, or remains actual as determined. Cf. Palmieri, IV, 859.

— What if the hosts have remained outside the corporal? The more recent authors theoretically do not think validity affected by forgetfulness of this circumstance; and deservedly so: for from the institution or the necessity of sacrifice, there is no reason why matter outside the corporal, provided it is determinate and present, could not be consecrated. Nor does the Church seem to have made such matter invalid by any law, since even the rubric warns only that the intention of consecrating certain hosts outside the corporal must not be had. The rule, moreover, is that an intention is not revoked by the inadvertent omission or lack of some non-substantial but prescribed condition; the Church, however, reproves a consecration which would knowingly be done with some undue circumstance.

Nevertheless, moved by St. Alphonsus, 6, n. 217, most concede that the consecration is practically doubtful. But the holy Doctor is very brief, and he thought he was following the common opinion; while today it is clear that Suarez, Benedict XIV, and the common opinion treated a different hypothesis, namely of a pyx remaining outside the altar or sacred stone.

But if, as happens today, the sacred stone does not contain the whole table of the altar, one would have to make the same response about a consecration performed outside the altar and one performed only outside the corporal. And an absolute assertion, disregarding the inculpable forgetfulness of the priest, conflicts with the opinion of many, even if perhaps it is more rightly founded.

Lehmkuhl, II, 168, reconciles the opinions in this way: that if a priest, who thought of the hosts before Mass, did not think of them during Mass, he is to be thought to have had this intention: I wish, in due manner, to take up these hosts for consecration; that is, I wish to place them on the corporal, to examine them, and to join them to the principal matter of the sacrifice. Therefore, the first action being omitted by forgetfulness, the intention concerning the second is doubtful. This seems to be the case of Suarez, De Euch., d. 43, s. 6.

But if the priest, during Mass, at the consecration, or at least at the offertory, noticing the hosts, simply comprehended them in the intention of consecrating, although he erroneously thought they were on the corporal, there seems to be no doubt about the validity of the consecration.

This opinion seems safe to us. And one who wishes to remove for himself a cause of scruple can once for all adapt his intention to it.

— You will ask whether it is useful or not to have the counsel, which many give, of making once and for all an intention which will evacuate doubts about consecration: for example, of not consecrating whatever is outside the corporal, but of consecrating whatever is placed on the corporal (cf. Noldin, De Sacramentis, n. 115, note).

But this kind of counsel can harm as much as profit. First observe that this intention is not, according to general principles, of perpetual efficacy, but is valid as long as, in the priestly action, from at least confused memory, it effects something, or is in some way virtual. Hence the very permanence or force of the intention can easily be doubted. Then, after some time, many easily begin to doubt what intention they formed. But even supposing its efficacy, it can be very inconvenient that because of it hosts not be consecrated which were to be distributed to many; and again someone might grieve that there had been consecrated, because by chance they were placed on the corporal, for example both hosts which had been reserved for the second and third Mass on the Nativity of the Lord.

Wherefore, if it pleases one to make intentions of this kind, let them be very few; let them be such as can easily be held in mind, and as agree with the nature of things; and finally let a means be used of renewing the memory of the intention made, for example by a writing inserted in the catalog of Masses to be celebrated, so that it is reread often enough. The intention could be to consecrate whatever is brought, or has been brought, to the altar for the purpose of consecration.

— Hosts doubtfully consecrated can never be proposed for adoration or distributed to the people, because of the danger of material idolatry; that is, to explain this reason, which they are accustomed to borrow one from another without declaration, because it is wrong simply to propose as to be adored or received as the body of Christ that which you positively suspect to be nothing but bread.

Nor can they be consecrated again separately: for that would be to begin a new sacrifice conditionally and to leave it incomplete. But in another Mass they can be conditionally joined to the principal matter which is absolutely consecrated, or consumed after the blood has been consumed, before the purification. St. Alphonsus indeed would prefer that they be consumed after the purification before the ablution, because the little drops of blood which are consumed in the purification are certainly consecrated; but, as is now sufficiently established, by the mixing of wine they have been adulterated. Cf. n. 373.

Fr. Noldin, De sacramentis, n. 118, Notes, 1, alone, unless we are mistaken, permits that over particles doubtfully consecrated the words of consecration be repeated conditionally, "because," as he says, "in this way a new sacrifice is not begun," but the new consecration, even if it is efficacious, would make one sacrifice morally with the principal consecrated matter. He thinks this can be gathered from the rubric De defectibus missae, III, nn. 6, 7; and IV, n. 5. In the former place, if the consecrated host has disappeared, so that it is no longer found, we are commanded to consecrate another: which, unless between the consecration and communion you admit a moral union of each consecration, would be to begin another sacrifice and not to perfect it. But this rubric was written, as is said in n. 6, lest the sacrament remain imperfect, inasmuch as, as we think, some at that time were of the opinion either that communion under each species pertained to the essence of the sacrifice, or at least that it was prescribed by divine law for its consummation. Hence from the prescribed new consecration of the principal matter, it is by no means lawful to infer that the consecration of matter which will in no way be useful for the perfection of the sacrifice can be conditionally renewed. In title IV of the rubrics, n. 5, this one thing is also manifestly intended, namely that by the placing of one matter or both the true sacrifice be perfected. Wherefore, since so many doctors who wrote about this matter passed over in silence so easy a remedy for the inconveniences of a frustrated consecration, although they themselves were not ignorant of the rubric, this opinion of Fr. Noldin cannot be called probable. And deservedly Fr. Bock, S.J., in the periodical Bogoslovski Vesnik, Ljubljana (Laibach), 1922, wonders that this opinion is still preserved in the latest edition of Fr. Noldin.

— Conditions of Licit Consecration. 1. Let a greater quantity not be consecrated than can be consumed at an opportune time. Canon 1272 prescribes that consecrated hosts "be both fresh and frequently renewed, the old ones having been duly consumed, so that there be no danger of corruption, the instructions which the local Ordinary has given on this matter being carefully observed." From the Caeremoniale episcoporum, the species are said to be renewed every week; yet renewal after fifteen days seems to suffice. It would be grave to defer it so that there would be danger of corruption, or, even with this danger excluded, beyond two months, because from the very responses of the Holy See such a renewal can no longer be called frequent; but frequent renewal is imposed under grave precept.

But the prescriptions of the local Ordinary are to be observed by all, even exempt religious.

N. B. Writers, however, are accustomed to press the danger of corruption beyond what is likely to be true. We know a professor of chemistry who, for the sake of experiment, in an ordinary room, yet not a humid one, negligently left two hosts in paper, which after two years he found wholly intact.

2. Let there be no departure from the rite of the Church. The matter to be consecrated must, under grave obligation, be on the corporal; which corporal must also, under grave obligation, be placed on an altar or sacred stone, which nevertheless it usually exceeds. Besides, by moral diligence the priest must take care that the host of the sacrifice be entirely, and the chalice as to its greater part, upon the sacred stone. Yet we do not think this to be grave, because what is on the corporal extended over the stone is already judged morally to be upon the stone (cf. also Cappello, I, n. 307).

Moreover it belongs to the rector or prefect of the church so to place the stone in the middle of the altar that it suffices for the celebrant to arrange the matter to be consecrated on the corporal in the common manner. Most require that at the moment of consecration the small hosts themselves be above the sacred stone. Wherefore, where the stone is narrow, it will be better, by removing the chalice from the middle, to give place momentarily to the small hosts. Yet this does not seem to be strictly prescribed. Cf. Gennari, Consult. liturg., 42.

3. The pyx, by a light precept, must be covered, except when its oblation and consecration take place; but without a veil, at least after the oblation.

4. Let the celebrant take care that the hosts to be consecrated for the people be brought before the oblation. Yet this will be mentally supplied if they are present later. That they be admitted after the canon has begun, an absolutely grave cause is required, as if several would remain without Communion, or would be forced to wait long, which will have to be weighed relatively.

If one person must wait long, some counsel that rather a part of his larger host be handed over by the priest. St. Alphonsus, l. 6, n. 216, neither approves nor disapproves this; Ballerini-Palmieri, IV, 860, permit that even for this person one small host be admitted after the canon has begun, and Cappello, I, n. 307, 3, prefers this manner.

— V. Concerning the Form of the Eucharist. The form of the Eucharist is the words by which Christ instituted the Most Holy Sacrament, and which the priest celebrating repeats in the person of Christ.

The bread is consecrated by the words: "For this is my body," where all the words are essential, except "for," which it will be light to omit.

Moreover the wine is consecrated by the words: "For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal testament (the mystery of faith), which shall be poured out for you and for many unto the remission of sins." In this form, certainly not essential are the word "for," which it will be venial to omit, and the words "the mystery of faith," since these for a long time, as the probable conjecture has it, were not even pronounced by the priest, but were a warning made to the bystanders about the consecration which was being performed. Thomists think certain words by which the propitiatory end is indicated are essential, such as "which shall be poured out for you unto the remission of sins." This is probable; yet the more common opinion says that only these are essential: "This is the chalice of my blood," or "This is my blood," although the rest cannot be omitted without grave sin. According to the opinion of Scotus, even the words "Who the day before..." would be essential, so that "my body" would be referred clearly enough to Christ. This opinion is commonly rejected, because "the priest, the minister of Christ, pronouncing over suitable matter the words of Christ with due intention, already sufficiently assumes the person of Christ, so that Christ is understood to say through him: this is my body" (Palmieri, IV, 866). La Taille, Myst. Fid., pp. 455, 459, thinks otherwise.

Moreover each form must be pronounced formally and significatively, or assertively, that is, by intending to affirm what the words sound, and not to recite them merely historically as spoken by another. The little word hic cannot be taken as an adverb. But these things ought not make the anxious priest troubled. For the priest who wishes to act rightly intends to pronounce the words as is done by priests in the Church of God: which plainly suffices.

2. Valid but illicit forms: "This food, this drink, this thing, what is contained under these species is my body, or my blood"; "This chalice is the new testament in my blood," as St. Luke has it; "This is my body, taken from the Virgin," and other things which do not change the sense; the Latin forms Hoc est meum corpus, hic meus est sanguis, or hoc est sanguis meus.

3. Hic placed masculine for the neuter is valid. Nor is the consecration rendered doubtful because from negligent pronunciation you have corrupted est into es, corpus into copus, meum into meu, calix into calis, sanguinis into sanguis. Lehmkuhl, II, 170, from St. Alphonsus, 6, 224; and the carelessness is venial.

4. Invalid forms: "This body is mine; this blood is mine," if body and blood pertain to the subject, since then already before the consecration the presence of the body or blood is affirmed, which is false; but the same form is valid by punctuating thus: "this, is my body." "This bread is converted into my body": for the permanent term of conversion is not indicated; or "here my body is placed," for conversion is not signified; "This is the body of Christ": for the priest is not sufficiently proved to speak in the name of Christ.

5. Doubtful forms: "Behold my body," because what is my body appears less clearly, and conversion is not signified; "This may be my body," or "let this be my body," for it can be taken as a wish; "That is my body, that is my blood," since that refers to matter situated at a distance; "This is my body," with the demonstrative istud, because it is not established that it is referred to nearby matter. "This is my flesh," and the very form of St. Luke above, n. 2, are held as doubtful by some.

6. On account of an error committed in the words which follow "of my blood," the form ought not be repeated under condition; nevertheless it can be, on account of the opinion of the Thomists. But if the priest has died after the half-pronounced form of the blood, the priest who continues the Mass must repeat the whole form over the same chalice, from the rubric.

For what the dying priest said is not sufficiently established.

If the error is noticed during the consecration itself, the words "who the day before" are not to be repeated. But if the form is to be repeated after the celebrant has already progressed further, the rubric requires that it be resumed from the words: "Who the day before," so that the consecration may be better introduced.

Regularly, however, from the rubric itself, the mere fact that you do not remember that you recited the form, or that a doubt occurs in this matter, is not a reason for repeating anything: such a doubt is regularly to be despised as inept.

— The Permanence of Christ. Under the species, even divided, and under any smallest part of them, Christ remains until so great a change has been made that the substance of bread and wine, if it were present, would be corrupted. Some, however, think that Christ does not remain under a part so tiny that it would escape the natural keenness of the human eye, because it would not be sensible (cf. Palmieri, IV, 871 and 878, 2). And already for other causes, for example, because of the difficulty of distinguishing the smallest consecrated particles from other fragments, the Church does not wish the smallest fragments to be venerated with adoration and honor.

— I. Concerning the Sacrament. The Most Holy Eucharist is the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, in which, under the species of bread and wine, Christ gives himself for our spiritual refreshment.

Taken adequately, it designates the species and the body or blood of Christ; as sign, only the species in recto; as cause of grace, the body or blood of Christ.

It immediately signifies the body of Christ present under the species; and, through the body of Christ proposed for eating, grace or the spiritual refreshment of the soul. The use of the sacrament is its application, but not the sacrament.

It is one sacrament in the lowest species; one numerically, if you consider Christ in recto; the species considered in recto are physically as many sacraments as there are distinct parts, but morally one, if they are considered joined in the manner of one thing.

II. Concerning Matter. The remote matter is bread and wine, which pass away; the proximate matter is the species of bread and wine, which remain. Each matter must be present together, so that you deservedly doubt the value of the consecration of one who, by consecrating one matter, with a prevailing will, would not wish at least to inchoate the sacrifice. Bread is required that is usual and wheaten. But it is prescribed that it be purely wheaten and recently made. It is valid either leavened or unleavened; but the proper rite is to be observed. Wine must be from the vine, and can be described as "a liquid expressed from grapes, not wholly unripe, in such a way that the customary fermentation has at least begun to take place." Must is consecrated illicitly, since it contains lees not consecrable; likewise souring wine, unless the celebrant in another's church does not have the ability to change the wine; likewise frozen wine, which must be liquefied by applying warm cloths.

Both bread and wine are not something one per se, but are mixtures. Therefore, the elements of which they consist being preserved, and that proportion being preserved which is found in some true bread or true wine, the substance is to be judged to remain. But very great attention must be paid to the Roman responses.

A little water must be infused into the wine. One or another sensible drop suffices; and a mixture of a fifth part does not obstruct validity. Those drops are consecrated together with the wine.

When the bread is corrupted, or the wine is corrupted, either by a different fermentation or by an excessive quantity of water, indeed of unconsecrated wine, Christ ceases to be present.

The matter must be present, and therefore cannot be behind the priest, or distant beyond twenty paces, so that with certain truth it can be said: "This"; "this chalice."

The matter itself must be certain and determined in the intention of the consecrator. The priest consecrates whatever he holds before his hands, or what is morally one with the heap which he intends to consecrate; and efficacious would be, at least as long as it is preserved sufficiently present in the mind, his intention always to consecrate whatever is upon the corporal. Little drops externally adhering to the chalice are not consecrated; concerning others there are controversies. It seems better that you intend to consecrate only those near the mass, including those which are doubtfully near. That the pyx remained closed in no way impedes the consecration.

Hosts which within the Mass itself have been formally comprehended in the intention of the celebrant are validly consecrated, although by chance they have remained outside the corporal. On the contrary, he who merely thought of them before Mass had this intention: of placing the hosts on the corporal and then consecrating them. The prior action being omitted, the latter now becomes doubtful. Hosts doubtfully consecrated can never be distributed or consecrated separately; but either they are to be consumed after the blood has been consumed, before the purification, or they are to be conditionally joined to matter certainly to be consecrated.

Hosts should have been made at least within a month or six weeks; and the sacred species should be renewed at least within fifteen days. It would be grave to defer renewal with danger of corruption, or beyond two months.

The matter to be consecrated must, under grave obligation, be on the corporal; in itself it is to be placed before the oblation. That it be admitted after the canon has begun, the oblation being mentally supplied, an absolutely grave cause seems to be required, as if several would have to wait long for Communion.

Because of the perhaps doubtful presence of Christ, and the difficulty of discerning them, the Church does not wish the smallest fragments to be venerated with adoration and honor.

III. Concerning the Form. The bread is consecrated by the words: "For this is my body": all are essential, except "for," which it would be light to omit. The wine is consecrated by the words: "For this is the chalice of my blood, of the new and eternal Testament (the mystery of faith), which shall be poured out for you and for many unto the remission of sins." Certainly not essential are: "for" and "the mystery of faith"; other words cannot be omitted without grave sin, even if the more common opinion thinks these words alone are required for validity: "This is my blood" or "the chalice of my blood." Each form must be pronounced not merely historically but formally and significatively or assertively.