Section I. On the Confection of the Most Holy Sacrament

I. The minister of confection. Only and every priest can confect the sacrament of the Eucharist; this proposition is of faith. The Fourth Lateran Council defines: "Certainly no one can confect this sacrament except a priest who has been duly ordained."¹ And the Council of Trent says: "If anyone says that by those words, Do this in commemoration of me, Christ did not institute the Apostles priests, or did not ordain that they and other priests should offer His body and blood, let him be anathema."² For the rest, note:

1. It is not permitted for several priests to concelebrate, except in the Mass of ordination of priests and in the Mass of consecration of bishops according to the Roman Pontifical (canon 803).

2. Even if several concelebrate, there is only one sacrament in number (n. 20).

3. In the case in which several concelebrate, according to some, each one confects the sacrament only when they pronounce the words at the same time. Hence if someone intended to consecrate independently of the others, and pronounced the words before the others, he alone would confect the sacrament. To guard against this, the concelebrating priests should intend to consecrate only then when they pronounce the words at the same time with the principal celebrant. According to others, the concelebrants form a college in solidum, which as such confects the sacrament, and therefore through the utterance of the words by each one constitutes, as it were, one form, which is completed only when all have pronounced the words. Hence all should intend a collegial consecration.³

In practice it suffices, and is better, to consecrate according to the mind of the Church.

¹ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 430.

² Session 22, canon 2.

³ Cf. de la Taille, Myst. fidei, Elucidation 28, Appendix D.

II. The mode of confection. 1. As regards valid confection, it suffices to add to, or emphasize in, those things which we have said about valid confection of the sacraments in general (n. 13), the following points: For the valid consecration of some matter it is required: 1. that the matter be present to the one consecrating; 2. that the intention of the one consecrating not be directed toward indeterminate matter; 3. that it truly be directed toward the present matter. But as regards validity it does not matter whether the quantity is great or small, provided it is perceptible by sense. It is said:

a) That the matter be present, namely in such a way that, according to the prudent judgment of men, it can be demonstrated by the pronouns this and here. But in order that it may be demonstrated in that way, "it is not required that the matter be seen, or touched, or struck by the sound of the words; whence the practice of those who bring their mouth very near so as to breathe their breath into the chalice and onto the bread is commonly not approved" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 212). It is required, however, that the matter: 1. not be too distant; 2. not be morally separated from the one consecrating by an intervening body. It is said not be too distant, "for example a hundred paces, even if it can be seen... But how much nearness suffices is doubtful, and depends on the judgment of prudent men" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 213). A distance of thirty or even twenty paces would render the consecration doubtfully valid (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.). It is said not be morally separated from the one consecrating by an intervening body. Now an intervening body does not morally separate the matter from the one consecrating if it is interposed only by way of containing, or only by way of covering; otherwise, if it is interposed by way of dividing (St. Alphonsus, VI, 213, 1).

Corollary I. Wine can be validly consecrated in a covered chalice, hosts in a closed ciborium, or in an open tabernacle.

Corollary II. "Matter placed behind a wall or behind the back, or enclosed in a tabernacle, is invalidly consecrated" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 213); yet it seems otherwise if the matter is held by the hand behind the back or is seen with the face turned.

Corollary III. A host hidden immediately under the corporal can doubtfully be consecrated; but it seems this must be denied of a host hidden under the altar cloth, in the missal, or under a cushion (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 212).

b) That the intention of the one consecrating not be directed toward indeterminate matter; "both because the pronouns This and Here require this, and because actions concern singular things, which must be certain and determinate" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 214).

Corollary. "If someone has eleven hosts before him, and intends to consecrate only ten, not determining which ten he intends, in this case he does not consecrate."¹

c) That the intention be truly directed toward the present matter; this condition is clear, but it is often not so clear whether it has been fulfilled, as will become evident from what is to be said.

Corollary I. If someone "thinks that one or two or six hosts to be consecrated are present, when there are more, whether placed by himself or by another, all are consecrated; because a speculative and private error does not obstruct the practical and absolute intention of consecrating all that are present; and each one is judged to have this intention as conforming to the custom of the Church" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 216). Likewise, "if after the consecration the priest notices that there are two joined together, he will take both as consecrated" (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.), because he is judged to have had the intention which he ought to have, namely of consecrating whatever he holds in his hands.² But if before the consecration, after he has offered, he notices the other, he will set it aside, and after Mass he himself or another will consume it as blessed bread.³

Corollary II. If someone has brought several hosts to the altar, or in a reasonable way has noticed that they were brought by another for him to consecrate, or before the sacrifice has been warned about hosts to be consecrated, all are consecrated, even if while he consecrates he does not remember them so expressly, or even if he does not uncover them at the oblation, at least if they are on the corporal; for this "opinion is safe in practice, because the preceding intention virtually perseveres with respect to them" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 216, compared with 217).

But what if a pyx has been placed outside the corporal, either by the celebrant himself, namely through error, or by another who nevertheless warned the celebrant that these hosts were to be consecrated?

Response 1. If the celebrant thought of it at the time of consecration or within the Mass, most affirm. Nevertheless, even in this hypothesis there remains a reason for doubting whether the mentioned thought involves, or at least practically carries with it, the intention of consecrating the hosts thought of absolutely, that is, even though they are placed outside the corporal. This will become clearer from what will be said presently.

Response 2. If the celebrant did not think of it at the time of consecration or within the Mass, the matter is more doubtful. Several authors, especially more recent ones, judge that the pyx is morally certainly consecrated. But with St. Alphonsus (VI, 217) we hold the matter as doubtful. That is, the whole matter depends on the intention of the celebrant, or on whether his intention regarding the said pyx is to be interpreted in this way: "I will to consecrate those hosts absolutely or in any case, that is, whether they are placed on the corporal or outside it"; or in this way: "I will to consecrate them, provided they are placed on the corporal." Now if we attend to the fact that a priest habitually knows that the consecration of matter placed outside the corporal is prohibited under grave sin, it is neither clear, nor, as we shall see, proved by any argument of the adversaries, that the intention of the celebrant must be interpreted in the former way. Add that very many authors, and very grave ones, hold the consecration of the said hosts as doubtful. Thus, for example, besides St. Alphonsus (loc. cit.), Benedict XIV,⁴ Suarez,⁵ the Salmanticenses,⁶ Billuart,⁷ Roncaglia,⁸ Patuzzi,⁹ Concina,¹⁰ Ferraris,¹¹ Tamburini,¹² Sporer,¹³ Dens,¹⁴ Voit,¹⁵ Marc,¹⁶ Lehmkuhl,¹⁷ Aertnys-Damen,¹⁸ Tanquerey,¹⁹ Rath,²⁰ etc.

Objection 1. In the case as it is posed, all things required for consecration are present, namely matter, form, and intention.

Response. As is clear from what has been said, the question is precisely whether the required intention is present, in other words, whether the intention of the celebrant must be interpreted in the sense of the adversaries.

Objection 2. If hosts placed outside the corporal are not consecrated, because it is in itself prohibited under grave sin to consecrate them, likewise wine to which a small amount of water has not been mixed is not consecrated; for such a consecration is in itself prohibited under grave sin.

Response. I deny the parity. Namely, the priest principally intends to consecrate; from this it follows that in the case opposed to us he wills the consecration of the wine, notwithstanding the defect unknown to him. But it does not follow that he wills the consecration of hosts placed outside the corporal, because a consecration can occur without their consecration.

Hosts consecrated in this doubtful way, if they are few, should be consumed after the consuming of the Blood, or at least after the ablution, that is, before the purification; if they are many, they should be consecrated again conditionally in another Mass.

Response 3. If someone once and for all elicited the intention of not consecrating hosts which remained outside the corporal, he seems never to consecrate the aforesaid hosts, because the subsequent intention, and the specifically contrary one, seems to be interpreted in conformity with, or to respond to, the prior intention.

Corollary III. Hosts placed on the corporal but outside the altar stone are consecrated; this is not prohibited even under venial sin if the altar is fixed. The same must be said of hosts in a pyx which has been left closed, since the light rubric which prohibits that does not prevent the priest from being able, I will not say obliged, and therefore presumed, to have the intention of consecrating the pyx in any case, that is, even if through forgetfulness it was not uncovered.

Corollary IV. Hosts placed on the altar wholly without the priest's knowledge, and separated from the heap to be consecrated, are not judged consecrated, because the priest is presumed not to have the intention of consecrating them (St. Alphonsus, VI, 215).

Corollary V. Little drops of wine adhering externally to the chalice are not consecrated, because the priest is not presumed to comprehend them. But little drops adhering to the inside of the chalice, yet separated, about which the minister expressly intends nothing, are, according to some, consecrated; according to others, they are not consecrated. Others distinguish between drops near the bottom and remote ones. Others doubt. It is better to have the intention only of consecrating the wine which exists as one thing in the chalice. Similarly it is expedient to consecrate crumbs adhering to hosts, but not separated crumbs on the paten or corporal; nor is it an obstacle that, by consuming them, the fast is violated, for irreverence toward the sacrament is to be guarded against more than violation of the fast. But if the crumbs are in the ciborium, he should intend to consecrate them, since the danger of losing them is absent (St. Alphonsus, VI, 215).

Corollary VI. If it happens that consecrated and unconsecrated hosts are mixed together and cannot be distinguished, the heap, insofar as it is not consecrated, should be consecrated. Others say that it should be consecrated with the limited intention of consecrating the hosts not yet consecrated; but because some doubt whether the latter mode is sufficiently safe,²¹ the former should be chosen.

d) As regards validity, it does not matter whether the quantity is great or small, provided it is perceptible by sense. Matter seems invalid if it is "so small that it cannot be perceived by sense; both because it cannot be demonstrated, and because a sacrament must be a sensible sign... Understand this if it is not within the whole, but outside it; because within the whole even its smallest particles are consecrated, as is clear from Trent" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 213, 3).²²

¹ Roman Missal, On Defects, title VII, n. 1.

² Roman Missal, On Defects, title VII, n. 2.

³ Roman Missal, loc. cit.

⁴ De Sacrificio Missae, book 3, chapter 18, n. 6; in the same place he speaks of a pyx which is outside the sacred stone, but the reason is equal.

⁵ De Eucharistia, disputation 43, section 6; in the same place he likewise speaks of hosts which are not placed upon the altar, but, as we have said, the reason is equal.

⁶ Cursus Theologiae Moralis, tract 4, chapter 4, n. 125.

⁷ De Eucharistia, dissertation 3, article 6.

⁸ Universa Theologia Moralis, tract 18, chapter 2, question 8.

⁹ Theologia Moralis, tract 10, dissertation 1, chapter 4, n. 9.

¹⁰ Book 3, De Eucharistia, dissertation 1, chapter 2, n. 8.

¹¹ Word "Missa," article 8, n. 34.

¹² De Sacrificio Missae, book 2, chapter 1, section 3, case 4, nn. 11-20.

¹³ Theologia Sacramentalis, part 2, section 2, n. 169.

¹⁴ De Eucharistia, n. 11, question 4, ad 3.

¹⁵ De Eucharistia, nn. 286 and 287.

¹⁶ Institutiones Alphonsianae, n. 1527.

¹⁷ Theologia moralis, vol. II, n. 168. Lehmkuhl (loc. cit.) doubts about the consecration, because it is doubtful whether in the proposed hypothesis the priest had the intention of consecrating the aforesaid hosts, or only the purpose of afterward taking them for the sacrifice, that is, of afterward eliciting the intention of consecrating them. But I think that there is ordinarily no place for this doubt; in other words, generally in the proposed hypothesis the intention of consecrating the hosts is already elicited beforehand. The doubt is, as we have said, in what sense the said intention is to be interpreted.

¹⁸ Theologia moralis, vol. II, n. 117.

¹⁹ Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae, 4th ed., vol. II, n. 94.

²⁰ De Eucharistia, n. 183.

²¹ They doubt because in this case the matter to be consecrated seems not sufficiently determined to them.

²² Session 13, canons 2 and 3.

2. For licit consecration it is required:

a) That the consecration of one matter not be made without the consecration of the other (canon 817). The consecration of only one matter is indeed valid, but is prohibited under grave sin. I said:

First, the consecration of only one matter is valid; this is clear: 1. from the fact that the Church adores the sacred Host before the wine has been consecrated; 2. from the fact that the form by which one matter is consecrated has a complete signification, so that it must be judged to effect what it signifies. Some, though few, except the case in which the minister would consecrate one matter with the intention of not consecrating the other, in other words, of not confecting the sacrifice. They judge, namely, that the power of consecrating in this way is lacking, because the said power has been granted in order to the sacrifice, for whose essence the consecration of both matters is more probably required (St. Alphonsus, VI, 196, doubt 3).

Second, the consecration of only one matter is prohibited under grave sin; namely, it is certainly prohibited under grave sin by ecclesiastical law (canon 817), and more probably also by divine law. This is deduced from the fact that, according to the will of Christ, consecration must at the same time be the oblation of the sacrifice, for which the consecration of both matters is more probably required. There is added the fact that Christ, after both consecrations, imposed the command of doing what He Himself had done. Hence it is commonly admitted that the consecration of only one matter is not licit even for the sake of Viaticum (St. Alphonsus, VI, 195).

b) That the consecration be made within the celebration of Mass, not outside it (canon 817).

c) That the consecration of bread precede the consecration of wine; this Christ both did, and it is commanded at least by ecclesiastical law under grave sin, except in the case in which the minister after the consecration of wine notices that he has not consecrated the bread.¹

d) That it be consecrated: 1. on a fixed or portable altar; 2. upon a corporal. Therefore if the altar is fixed, it suffices that the matter be on the altar and upon the corporal. If the altar is portable, it is required that the matter be upon the corporal and on the consecrated stone. Moreover, it suffices that the foot of the ciborium exist for the greater part in the assigned place; for the rest, the aforesaid things are prescribed under grave sin (St. Alphonsus, VI, 217, 219).

e) That the pyx be opened at the time of the offertory and of the consecration.² This rubric obliges only under venial sin.

f) That the hosts to be consecrated together with the host of the Mass be present at least by the offertory. If after the offertory, but before the Preface has begun, they are offered, they are licitly consecrated, the oblation being supplied mentally. If they are offered after the Preface has begun, but before the Canon has begun, a moderate cause is required, because the rite of consecration, which is already begun by the Preface, must be observed. A reason would be present if otherwise one or another person would have to wait a long time for Communion; nevertheless in such a case it is also permitted to give him a particle of the large host. If they are offered after the Canon has begun, a grave cause is required, for example lest a multitude have to wait a long time, or lest a sick person die without Viaticum. Nevertheless the oblation of the hosts should always be supplied mentally (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 217).

¹ Roman Missal, On Defects, title III, nn. 4, 5, 6.

² Roman Missal, Order and Rite of Mass, title VII, n. 3; title VIII, n. 5.