The matter and form of the Eucharist

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Diss. II, Pt. I, Section I. On the Existence of the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Diss. II, Pt. I, Section II. On the Essence of the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Diss. II, Pt. I, Sect. II, Chapter II. On the Form

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.

n. 2.

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.

n. 3.

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.

Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology

Ludovicus Wouters, C.SS.R. — 7 passages

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Diss. II, Pt. I, Section I. On the Existence of the Sacrament of the Eucharist

n. 136.

I. The Most Holy Eucharist is a true sacrament; this proposition is of faith from the Council of Trent: "If anyone says... that the Eucharist... is not truly and properly a sacrament, let him be anathema."¹

Note. The sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted at the Last Supper. "For thus," says the Council of Trent, "all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ who have discussed the Most Holy Sacrament, most openly professed that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable sacrament at the Last Supper."²

¹ Session 7, canon 1, On the Sacraments in general.

² Council of Trent, Session 13, chapter 1.

n. 137.

II. The sacrament of the Eucharist is one sacrament in species, and indeed in the lowest species, even though it exists under the double species, namely of bread and wine. For otherwise the dogma concerning the sevenfold number of the sacraments would not stand. Now the reason is that "although each species is materially different, nevertheless morally each constitutes one sacrament, since each signifies one banquet consisting of food and drink" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 191).

"A thing is called one," says St. Thomas, "not only because it is indivisible, or because it is continuous, but also because it is perfect, as one house and one man are said to be one. Now that is one by perfection to whose integrity all things concur which are required for its end; as man is integrated from all the members necessary for the operation of the soul, and a house is integrated from all the parts which are necessary for dwelling. And thus this sacrament is called one: for it is ordered to spiritual refreshment, which is conformed to bodily refreshment. But for bodily refreshment two things are required, namely food, which is dry nourishment, and drink, which is liquid nourishment; and therefore for the integrity of this sacrament two things also concur, namely spiritual food and spiritual drink, according to that passage of John 6: My flesh is truly food, and my blood is truly drink" (III, q. 73, a. 2).

n. 138.

III. The sacrament of the Eucharist is numerically multiple. Thus the much more common and much more probable opinion. The reason is that the species, which constitute the sacrament in the direct order (n. 139), are numerically multiple.

But authors differ in assigning the principle of numerical distinction; in this matter three principal opinions are defended. Some seek the number from the physical unity or plurality of the species, because, they say, number follows the unity or plurality of quantity.¹ Others derive the number from the unity or plurality of refreshment, or of the proposition of the sacrament for the sake of adoration.² The third opinion, recognizing part of the truth in each preceding opinion, teaches that a distinction must be made between numerical unity taken physically and taken morally. For numerical unity is derived from unity of quantity. But this quantity is either physical, or of continuous parts, or moral, or of contiguous parts joined because of some end or in some order. Therefore there is likewise a twofold numerical unity, physical and moral. Hence the physical unity of this sacrament is taken from the physical continuity of the species; moral unity from moral continuation, insofar as they are proposed or received by way of one thing. St. Alphonsus follows this opinion as the more probable. "Several consecrated species," he says, "although discontinuous, even if physically they are several sacraments, nevertheless morally they are one sacrament from the moral conjunction which they have while they are proposed or received by way of one thing" (VI, 191). "Whence," the same holy Doctor says:

If one species or one host is distributed to several persons or to the same person at morally distinct times, they are different sacraments numerically.
Conversely, if both species or several parts of the same species, or even of species consecrated at different times, are ministered to someone at the same time, there is one sacrament.
Thus likewise, if different consecrated species are proposed at the same time and on the same altar, there will be one sacrament; but if they are divided and proposed on different altars, they are different sacraments (VI, 191, question 2).

¹ Thus, for example, the Salmanticenses, disputation 2, doubt 4, n. 58 and following.

² Thus, for example, John of St. Thomas, disputation 26, article 3.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Diss. II, Pt. I, Section II. On the Essence of the Sacrament of the Eucharist

n. 139.

The Most Holy Eucharist, like the other sacraments, consists of proximate matter and form. But for the sake of completeness, a discussion must also be made about remote matter. Now the remote matter, that is, that from which the sacrament is confected, is bread and wine; the proximate matter is the species together with the body and blood of Christ; but the form is the words of consecration, insofar as they virtually persevere. Namely, the aforesaid words, insofar as they were sensibly uttered, effected or confected the sacrament; but insofar as they virtually persevere, they constitute the sacrament as confected and remaining. Hence the words of consecration, insofar as they are sensibly uttered, are called the form of the sacrament in fieri; insofar as they virtually endure, they are the form of the sacrament in facto esse. Thus commonly the Thomists and others, while others teach that the form is not the words of consecration, since these have passed away, but the sacramental signification, that is, the refreshment of the soul through the increase of grace.

With respect to the proximate matter it is disputed in what way each element concurs in constituting the proximate matter, that is, whether the proximate matter is the body and blood connoting the species, or the species connoting the body and blood, or whether each element equally must be called the proximate matter. According to St. Thomas (III, q. 77, a. 7), the proximate matter is the species alone in the direct order, connoting the body and blood in the oblique order. The principal reason for this doctrine is taken from the fact that the sacraments are in the direct order sensible signs. But in the Most Holy Sacrament the sensible sign is had only in the species, connoting the body and blood of the Lord. Thus also teaches the Catechism of Trent.¹

With these things noted about the essence of the sacrament in general, we shall speak specifically about the remote matter and form.

¹ Part 2, chapter 4, question 8.

Vol. II, Bk. III, Tr. IV, Diss. II, Pt. I, Sect. II, Chapter II. On the Form

n. 148.

I. The legitimate and usual form is:

For the Latin Church: For this is my body. For this is the chalice of my blood, of the New and Eternal Testament, the mystery of faith, which for you and for many shall be poured out unto the remission of sins. "The words of consecration," says the Roman Missal,¹ "which are the form of this sacrament, are these: For this is my body, and: For this is, etc."
For the Greek Church: Take and eat: this is my body, which is broken for you unto the remission of sins. Drink ye all of this: for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is poured out for you and for many unto the remission of sins.

Now the form is to be uttered not merely recitatively or historically, that is, as uttered by Christ Himself, but also assertively or significatively, that is, with the mind of asserting that this is the body and blood of Christ (St. Alphonsus, VI, 220).

Note. The epiclesis, as it is called, does not pertain to the form. Now the epiclesis is an invocation of the Holy Spirit by which the Church prays that the bread and wine may become for us the body and blood of Christ. It occurs in the Roman Liturgy before the consecration, in the Eastern liturgies after the consecration. Now that this epiclesis is either the sole or at least the principal form of the Most Holy Sacrament, as having the sole or principal force of effecting transubstantiation, several Greek schismatics have admitted from the fourteenth century, and a few Catholics agreed with them. But this opinion is to be rejected, as is clear from the Decree for the Armenians to be cited under II; likewise from the letter of Pius VII, Adorabile Eucharistiae, 8 May 1822, to the Antiochian Patriarch and the bishops of the Greek Melchites. The epiclesis, as the Greeks confessed with Bessarion² in the Council of Florence,³ on the one hand is a ceremony by which that which the words of consecration effect is explained, and on the other hand is a prayer by which the Church asks that the body and blood of Christ may not only simply be such, but may also become fruitfully for the faithful, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, the body and blood of Christ (cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 83, a. 4, ad 7).

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

² De Sacr. Euch. (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 161, col. 514 and following).

³ Session 25 (Hardouin, vol. 18, col. 512 D-536 inclusive).

n. 149.

II. The essentials of the form are determined in these things:

These are certainly essential: This is my body; and: This is my blood, or: This is the chalice of my blood. This is a certain opinion. "The form of this sacrament," says Eugene IV in the Decree for the Armenians, "is the words of the Savior, by which He confected this sacrament. For the priest, speaking in the person of Christ, confects this sacrament."
These are certainly not essential:

a) The word for, both in the consecration of the bread and in the consecration of the wine.

b) The words preceding the form, namely Who the day before, etc., and In like manner, etc., almost certainly do not pertain to the essence, since in the instruction of Eugene they are not reckoned among those things which pertain to the form (St. Alphonsus, VI, 222).

There is dispute about the words New through of sins. Some judge that they pertain to the essence, because it must be expressed that the consecration is sacrificial, or that the presence of Christ is an immolative presence. Nevertheless the contrary opinion is more common and more probable, both because St. Paul has only these words: This chalice is the new Testament in my blood; and because in different liturgies different words from the cited words are omitted; and because the analogy of the consecration of bread is added. Nevertheless in practice the first opinion must be followed, as is clear (St. Alphonsus, VI, 223).

Corollary I. The forms are invalid: 1. This body is mine; this blood is mine; for then before the consecration the body and blood are asserted to be present, though they are constituted present through the consecration. It is otherwise if someone only transposed the words, so that the sense would be: "This, it is my body." 2. If someone deliberately used the word this adverbially; otherwise if by error. 3. If someone omitted is, because the circumstances do not sufficiently indicate that that word is understood, or at least do not sufficiently signify that it is understood in the sense which imports production.

Corollary II. The forms are doubtful: 1. That is my body; that is the chalice, etc., because although the pronoun that is rather often used for this, nevertheless it does not certainly signify a thing present to the speaker. The forms are still more doubtful: That over there is my body; that over there is the chalice, etc. 2. This is my flesh, because flesh, strictly speaking, does not signify the whole body.

Corollary III. The form is valid: This thing, this substance, is my body. It is otherwise: This bread is my body (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 221-223).

n. 150.

III. With respect to liceity, observe that an omission, addition, or change knowingly made, even if it does not obstruct validity, easily constitutes grave sin. Nevertheless there can be only venial sin, for example if someone omitted only the word for. For the rest, the words should be uttered distinctly, reverently, and, as the Missal admonishes, secretly, not in a loud voice or with vehement expulsion of words from the mouth. In order that every danger of erring may be avoided, it is better to read the form from the altar card.

IV. With respect to errors to be corrected, note that if the form must be repeated, one must always begin from the words Who the day before, or In like manner.¹ For the rest, receive these things from the Missal: "If the celebrant does not remember that he said those things which are commonly said in the consecration, he ought not for that reason be troubled. If, however, it is certain to him that he omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, that is, the form of consecration, or part of it, let him resume the form itself and continue the rest in order. But if he very probably doubts that he omitted something essential, let him repeat the form at least under a tacit condition. But if the things are not of the necessity of the sacrament, let him not resume them, but proceed further."²

¹ Roman Missal, On Defects, title III, nn. 5, 6, 7; title IV, nn. 3, 4; title X, nn. 3, 13.

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

McHugh–Callan, Moral Theology

John A. McHugh, O.P., and Charles J. Callan, O.P. — 1 passage

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, Matter and Form of the Eucharist

n. 2700.

The Matter and Form of the Eucharist

The Matter and Form of the Eucharist.—Since the essence of a Sacrament is found in the outward sign, it is commonly held that the Sacrament of the Eucharist consists in the species of bread and wine as signifying the body and blood of the Saviour, which is really, truly and substantially contained under them.

(a) The matter of the first consecration is that which Christ used, namely, bread. The bread must be true bread in the strict and usual Scriptural sense of the word. Hence, for validity it is necessary that it be made from wheat flour (bread made from beans, peas or other legumes, bread made from non-wheaten cereals such as corn, oats, and probably also rye and barley, is not valid matter); that the flour be mixed with water (bread made from a notable quantity, i.e., about one-third of other liquid, such as milk, oil, wine, is invalid matter); further, that the mixture be sufficiently baked (dough or half-baked cakes are invalid matter). The bread must be entire and not substantially adulterated or changed; hence, bread from which all the gluten has been abstracted, bread to which a notable amount of foreign substance (such as sugar or non-wheaten flour) has been added, bread so old that it has corrupted, cannot be consecrated. Accidental qualities do not affect validity, and hence any kind of wheat may be used (hard, soft, red, or white). But the church law strictly requires that a priest observe the tradition of his own Church (i.e., among Latins the bread must be unleavened and the host round), and that all consecrated matter be new (i.e., not baked more than fourteen days, or, according to others, twenty or forty days), clean, and unbroken. The small particles for the laity should be about one inch in diameter, the large hosts about two or three inches; and all altar breads should be of moderate thickness.

(b) The matter of the second consecration is likewise that appointed by Christ at the Last Supper, namely, wine. Only wine strictly so called according to Scriptural and common usage is valid matter. Hence, the Eucharistic wine must be made from grapes, and consequently cherry wine, currant wine, peach wine, blackberry wine, cider, wild grape wine, artificial wine, etc., are insufficient; the grapes must be ripe, and verjuice is therefore invalid matter. The wine must also be entire, unadulterated, and uncorrupted; and hence wine from which all the alcohol has been removed, brandy or cognac (i.e., spirits distilled from wine), wine to which a notable quantity of water, tartaric acid, sugar, alcohol or other substance has been added, and wine which has become vinegar, are not fit matter for the Sacrament. Accidental qualities are of no importance to validity, and hence the wine may be red or white, dry or sweet; it may be made either from ripe or dry grapes (raisin wine); and the Church permits the fortification of weak wine by a process of heating that does not prevent fermentation, or by the addition when fermentation has begun to subside of grape or wine alcohol on condition that the final alcoholic strength does not exceed 12%, or in some cases, if the wine possessed so much, 17% or 18%. But the church law strictly requires for licit matter that wine be fermented, though must or new wine is permissible in case of necessity, if it have about 5% alcohol; that it be neither souring nor frozen, nor mixed with substances added for the sake of aroma, color or sweetness, nor with water poured in before Mass. The tradition and law of the Church, based on the example of Christ, make it a grave obligation that a few drops of water be added to the wine at the altar, but, if the water equals a third part of the wine, the matter becomes of doubtful sufficiency.

(c) The form is contained essentially in the words of consecration used by Christ at the institution of the Eucharist, namely, “Hoc est corpus meum” over the bread, and “Hic est calix sanguinis mei” over the wine. But a grave precept of the Church requires that all the other principal words of the consecration be pronounced (i.e., the “novi et aeterni testamenti, etc.,” the “Haec quotiescumque, etc.,” the “Qui pridie,” the “Simili modo”). The omission of the particle “enim” would be only venially sinful.

Bucceroni, Institutions of Moral Theology

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 25 passages

Vol. III, On the Eucharist, II. On the Matter and Form of the Eucharist

What is the remote matter of the Eucharist? - Bread and wine are the remote matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist. This is clear 1. from the institution itself of this sacrament; for Christ in the Last Supper took bread and wine, and consecrated them into his Body and Blood. 2. From the definition of the Church in the Lateran Council, cap. Firmiter, in Florence, Decree of Union, and in Trent sess. 13 in almost all chapters. 3. To all these is added the unanimous tradition of each Church, Latin and Greek. - Only wheaten bread and only wine from the vine are valid matter of the sacrament of the Eucharist. This is clear from the cited Decree of Florence, where it is said: "The third is the sacrament of the Eucharist, whose matter is wheaten bread and wine from the vine." The perpetual tradition and practice of each Church, Latin and Greek, also agrees.

Only wheaten bread, namely that which from wheaten flour and natural water, even sea water, mixed and toasted or baked by fire, and uncorrupted in its species, is valid matter. But wheat is not any kind of grain whatever, but is the noblest kind of grain. But as there are various species of wine, so also there are various species of wheat. Matter altogether unsuitable is bread from barley, oats, starch. - Valid matter is bread made from crushed grains, and infused in water for some hours, but not however to the point of corruption, which grains are then pressed by hand and breads are made from the white matter coming forth, by hot iron, in the usual manner. Holy Office, June 25, 1852.

Wine from the vine, not another; natural wine from the vine, not made by chemical art. But the matter will be valid if the wine is frozen, or if must has then been pressed from grapes; but invalid if pressed from sour or unripe grapes. Rubr. Miss. De defect. t. 4, n. 1, 2. Likewise valid matter will be wine pressed from dried or desiccated grapes, unless they were cooked, or too much water is mixed in. Nothing prevents some quantity of spirit of wine, alcohol, extracted from the offspring of the vine, from being added for preserving weak wine, provided that this, with that which the wine already naturally contains, does not exceed the due proportion, namely 12 percent, or even 17-18 percent if the wines are generous, and the admixture is made when the so-called tumultuous fermentation has begun to subside. Likewise an admixture of sugar, unless it is excessive, does not take away the nature of wine. Wine, even from the vine, from which by art every spirit of wine, alcohol, is removed, is not valid and licit matter of consecration. Holy Office, June 1, 1910. - E. M. "Since the matter of this sacrament is determined by comparison to the use of the faithful absolutely; but the number of the faithful is indeterminate... it cannot be said that the quantity of the matter of this sacrament is determined." St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 2.

A very little water is to be mixed with the wine; and this is not by necessity of sacrament, but of ecclesiastical precept. The reason for the first is drawn from the perpetual practice of the Church and the universal tradition of the Fathers; and from the Declaration of the Councils, especially of Florence, which declares the matter of the chalice "to be wine from the vine, with which a very little water must be mixed," and Trent sess. 22, c. 7. The reason for the second is drawn from the fact that Christ, in the institution of this sacrament, designated wine alone, and the Councils, in making mention of this mixture, speak only of precept, as Trent l.c. The doctrine of the Roman Catechism is added, which, after teaching that this mixture cannot be omitted without mortal sin, adds: "Yet if it [water] is lacking, the sacrament can stand." This precept is grave; and "if this mixture has been omitted, and this is noticed before consecration, it is still to be done, otherwise not if after." L. 208. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74; L. 198; S. C. de P. F., Jan. 30, 1635; Collectanea n. 797; E. M.

n. 502.

Is bread made from rye or siligo valid matter? - Rye (segala) is a kind of grain, and is black, heavy, bitter. Wherefore it certainly seems invalid matter. Siligo (grano bianco) is a kind of very light and very white wheat, from which very excellent bread is made. Wherefore it certainly seems valid matter. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 3 ad 2; Lugo d. 4, n. 3; La Croix 421; L. 200.

n. 503.

Is bread made from spelt or far valid matter? - In various regions there are given diverse species of true grain which come under the name of spelt. Whence it seems that attention must be paid to the common estimation of men. For every bread made from grain which is truly established to be wheat, although named otherwise, is certainly valid matter. But spelt has not the same signification in various regions and among various doctors. Spelt, from Forcellini, h.v., is a kind of grain which is thought the same as zea, which from the same Forcellini, h.v., is called a kind of grain similar to far. But far is called a kind of grain hardest of all, and now is distinguished from spelt, now is confused with it. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 3 ad 2; 4 d. 11, q. 2, a. 2, q. 4.

n. 504.

Is both unleavened and leavened bread valid and licit matter of the Eucharist? - As regards validity, in the affirmative. The reason is that each is true bread, and is also simply so called in Scripture; and each is made from wheaten flour and natural water. This is also clear from the definition of the Church. For thus Florence, Decree of Union: "We define that the Body of Christ is confected in unleavened or leavened wheaten bread." - As regards liceity, Latins are bound under grave obligation to consecrate in unleavened bread, and Greeks in leavened, each according to the rite of his Church. This is clear from the practice of each Church, and from Florence in the cited Decree, where it is added: "And priests must confect the Body itself of the Lord in either one, each one namely according to the custom of his own Church, whether Western or Eastern." St. Pius V, Const. Providentia Romani Pontificis, a. 1565; Benedict XIV, Const. on the rites of the Greeks § 6; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 4; E. M.

n. 505.

Can a Latin in places of the Greeks celebrate in leavened bread, and a Greek in places of Latins in unleavened? - The doctors agree that if among Greeks there is found a Church of Latins in which the Latin rite is observed, a Latin priest must consecrate in unleavened bread, and so conversely. - If a Latin passes through Greece, or the contrary, and no Church of his own rite exists in that place, the doctors commonly and most probably teach that each can celebrate either in leavened or in unleavened bread.

The reason is that each indeed can follow the custom of the region where he is found, yet is not bound to this. - Simple faithful also, as regards communion, must observe their own rite. But it is permitted to communicate in another rite when they cannot do so in their own rite without grave inconvenience, because of the distance of their church. - L. 203; Benedict XIV, Const. Etsi pastoralis n. 10 ff.; Enc. Allatae sunt § 23; Const. Eo quamvis tempore § Neque etiam; Leo XIII, Bull Orientalium dignitas, Pr. Kal. Dec. 1894; Collectanea of S. C. de P. F. n. 2000, 2004, 2005, 2007, 2017; E. M. "Ruthenian faithful in the Canadian region, in those places in which neither a church nor a priest of their own rite is had, will be able to conform themselves to the Latin rite, and the same faculty is granted to them also where, because of the distance of their own church, they cannot approach it except with grave inconvenience. - To all faithful of whatever rite, whether Latin or Ruthenian, in the Canadian region, the faculty is given that, for the sake of piety, they may receive the Eucharistic sacrament confected in any rite; and moreover, where necessity presses and no priest of a different rite is present, it will be licit for a Ruthenian priest to minister the Eucharist in unleavened bread, and conversely for a Latin priest to minister in leavened bread; but each will observe his own rite in ministering. - Each of the faithful will satisfy the precept of Paschal Communion if he receives it in his own rite, and indeed from his own pastor. - Holy viaticum is to be received by the dying in their own rite from the hands of their own pastor; but, when necessity presses, let it be lawful to receive it from any priest whatever, who however will minister according to his own rite." S. C. de P. F., Aug. 8, 1913, art. 24, 29, 30, 31.

The first article of the aforesaid Decree is also had in the Constitution of Pius X Ea semper, XVIII Kal. Jul. 1907, for Ruthenians in the United States of North America, art. 21; but the others are not found. But in the Decree of S. C. de Prop. Fide, Aug. 17, 1914, for Greco-Ruthenians in the United States of North America, the first article of the same aforesaid Decree is not found; but the following articles of the same aforesaid Decree are found in art. 23, 24, 25.

But the general Apostolic Constitution of Pius X Tradita ab antiquis, Sept. 14, 1912, is had concerning the Most Holy Eucharist to be received in a mixed rite, in which the following things are established.

I. On The Celebration of Mass. "It is not licit for priests to perform sacred things in a mixed rite; therefore let each one confect and minister the Sacrament of the Body of the Lord according to the rite of his own Church."

II. On Ministering the Eucharist. "Where necessity presses, and no priest of a different rite is present, it will be licit for an Eastern priest who uses leavened bread to minister the Eucharist consecrated in unleavened bread, and conversely for a Latin or Eastern priest who uses unleavened bread to minister in leavened bread; but each one will observe his own rite of ministering."

III. On Receiving the Eucharist. - "To all faithful of whatever rite the faculty is given that, for the sake of piety, they may receive the Eucharistic Sacrament confected in any rite."

IV. On Paschal Communion. - "Each of the faithful will satisfy the precept of Paschal Communion if he receives it in his own rite and indeed from his own pastor, to whom certainly he will remain attached in performing the other duties of religion."

V. On Viaticum. - "Holy Viaticum is to be received by the dying in their own rite from the hands of their own pastor; but, when necessity presses, let it be lawful to receive it from any priest whatever, who however will minister according to his own rite."

VI. On Not Changing One's Native Rite. - "Each one will remain in his native rite, even if he has long held the custom of communicating in another rite; nor is the faculty of changing rite to be given to anyone unless just and legitimate causes support him, concerning which the Sacred Council for the Propagation of the Faith for affairs of Orientals will judge. But among these causes there will not be numbered the custom, however long-standing, of communicating in another rite."

n. 506.

In a case of necessity for providing viaticum to a sick person, can a Latin priest consecrate in leavened bread? - Some affirm, but the common and more probable opinion denies it. The reason is that the Church most gravely urges observation of the prescribed rite, which consequently in this case is to be preferred to the private utility of one's neighbor, to whom such a sacrament is not simply necessary, because of the common good, lest there be confusion of rites and so that their distinction be preserved. L. 203. Yet it would be licit and obligatory to consecrate in leavened bread in order to complete the sacrifice, if it could not be completed otherwise, e.g., if the priest noticed that he had consecrated corrupted matter and could not have another licit host.

n. 507.

Does a priest consecrating in wine becoming sour sin gravely? - Resp. In the affirmative, although that wine is still valid matter of the sacrament. Indeed mortal sin is admitted not only if the wine is close to vinegar, but also if it certainly begins to become sour and corrupted, because then grave irreverence seems to be inflicted upon the sacrament. This is clear from the Rubrics, tit. 4, n. 2: "If the wine has begun to become sour or corrupted, or has been somewhat sharp, or is must then pressed from grapes, or water has not been mixed, or rose water or water of another distillation has been mixed, the sacrament is confected, but the one confecting sins gravely." "Yet probably, when other wine is lacking, it is licit without scruple, as upright men are accustomed, to use wine becoming a little sour, or not notably acid." L. 207. Hence the rubric does not seem to be taken with such rigor that it comprehends all even the first degrees of sharpness, but only those which proximately begin to constitute wine becoming sour. "But when grave necessity presses, it would be licit to use wine still notably becoming sour, provided it is certainly wine." L. 207. The same consequently must be said of bread growing moldy. Rubr. de Defect. tit. 3, n. 1, 3. L. 206, 207; H. A., App. 3, Exam. ordinand. 98; Benedict XIV, Notification 77; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 3, 5.

n. 508.

Is frozen wine valid matter? - Resp. More probably in the affirmative. The reason is, 1. because it remains substantially wine, since it retains the same color, taste, and odor; 2. because from the Rubrics of the Missal, the species of frozen wine after consecration must be liquefied by applying heated cloths, and then consumed, since it is a true sacrament. Rubr. de Defect. tit. 10, n. 11. Therefore it supposes that the species of frozen wine retain the Blood of Christ. Therefore the sacred species are not changed substantially by freezing after consecration. Therefore neither before. Thus St. Liguori 207, where he says it is the truer opinion because of the reason drawn from the cited Rubric. But concerning the denying opinion he says ibid.: "I think it has no solid probability." - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 4; Lugo d. 4, n. 14.

n. 509.

What quantity of water is to be mixed in the chalice? - A very small quantity of water suffices, as Florence says. Probably water can be poured in up to the eighth part of the wine, indeed up to the fifth part according to Lugo d. 4, n. 38. Busembaum adds that it suffices that the water not exceed a third part. But in practice this last opinion is not to be admitted, although a third part does not corrupt the wine if it is generous. Generally it is to be advised that the priest not exceed eight or ten little drops. But if by chance he has poured in too great a quantity of water, some quantity of wine can again be added. But one drop of water suffices, provided it is sensible. - L. 210; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 74, a. 8; q. 77, a. 8; E. M.

n. 510.

What about the proximate matter, or the use of the matter required in the consecration itself? - For valid consecration besides suitable matter there is required:

That the matter to be consecrated be physically present; because the demonstrative pronouns of the form, this, here, necessarily require this; otherwise the form would be false, because that which would not be present would be demonstrated as present. 2. That through the intention of the minister it be determined in the individual; because just as the minister does not consecrate unless he intends to consecrate, so neither does he consecrate this matter unless he determinately intends to consecrate it. Yet actual determination is not required, but virtual suffices. L. 211-214. - For licit consecration there is required that the priest in no way depart from the use of the Church, especially as determined by the Rubrics of the Roman Missal. Hence it is necessary: 1. That the matter to be consecrated be decent and clean because of the reverence due to so great a sacrament. 2. That it be placed on the altar and on the corporal, indeed also on the sacred stone, according to Benedict XIV, de Sacr. miss. sect. 2, n. 139. 3. That the ciborium or chalice to be consecrated be uncovered. 4. That it be done at the time of the Canon prescribed by the Rubric. Trent sess. 22, c. 4, 5, 8; L. 218, 219; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 1 ad 4; q. 83, a. 3, 4, 5. 5. It is certain that it is necessary by necessity of precept to consecrate the Eucharist under each species. Likewise it is certain and common among all that it is not licit even at the point of death to consecrate one species for giving viaticum to the sick person. For the consecration of the Eucharist has the nature of sacrifice, and Christ instituted the sacrifice to be offered under each species. L. 195, 196. 6. From precept in the Latin Church the bread to be consecrated must be round in shape and whole. It is also licit to celebrate privately with a smaller host, such as is given to laymen, when no other can be had and scandal is absent; indeed, if a cause presses, even publicly on a feast day, because there is no precept nor is there certainty of a custom obliging under precept, and even from a cause of devotion, if scandal is absent. But it is not licit to take the small one and leave the larger, unless the priest in the same Mass also consecrated that one, because he must communicate from his own sacrifice. Wherefore a pastor acts badly who, about to renew the Eucharist, himself consumes a host consecrated by another and places in the tabernacle, or pyx, one consecrated by himself. L. 205; Diana tr. 1, de Celebrat. missar., r. 234.

n. 511.

You will resolve: Hosts placed upon the corporal at the beginning of Mass are validly consecrated, although the celebrant actually no longer attends to them; likewise hosts hidden under others, or otherwise covered. For all are consecrated after the manner of one. Likewise wine in a chalice covered with a veil, pall, or in any way whatever is validly consecrated; because for true presence of the matter it suffices that it can be demonstrated by the pronouns this or here.

The consecration is valid if the priest thinks that only one or two hosts to be consecrated are present, when there are several placed either by himself or by another; the reason is that the priest certainly intends to consecrate whatever is present and decently consecrable. Whence if the celebrant notices after consecration that two hosts are joined together, let him consume each as consecrated. But if before consecration, after he has offered, he notices this, let him put one back, and after Mass let him himself or another consume it as blessed bread. - The same must be said if someone has brought several hosts to be consecrated to the altar, or before the sacrifice has been warned about hosts to be consecrated already placed upon the altar, or in a reasonable manner has noticed that they are brought by another so that they may be consecrated, even if while he consecrates he does not expressly remember them in that way, or even has not uncovered them at the oblation, provided they are present on the corporal; because the preceding intention virtually perseveres.

Hosts would not be consecrated if, unknown to the priest, they had been placed even on the corporal, because the priest, being wholly unaware, did not have a general intention of consecrating them, and therefore neither can an intention virtually persevere which did not exist. If small hosts for communicating the people are brought to the priest a little after the oblation has been made, he will be able licitly to consecrate them, the oblation being supplied mentally. Rubr. de Defect. t. 7, n. 1, 2, 4; L. 212, 215, 216, 217; Elbel 35, 36, 48.

n. 512.

Can hosts to be consecrated be brought once the Canon has begun? - Theologians and skilled rubricists commonly deny it. Yet several doctors of great weight permit it from a very grave cause. Thus Benedict XIV, de Sacrif. missae l. 3, c. 18, n. 5: "The common opinion is, and one confirmed by the consent of very many, that particles cannot be consecrated when the canon has begun to be recited, even if it were a question of consecrating a particle which would have to be brought for viaticum to a sick person.

For in that case, some small particle could be taken from the host of the Mass and reserved for the sick person... Anyone easily understands that the order of Mass is perverted if particles to be consecrated are received after the preface has begun. Moreover, if this is to be done, it must not be done without a legitimate cause, of which kind it would be if a great multitude prepared to receive the Eucharist would lack the sacrament." St. Liguori seems to subscribe to this doctrine: "If small hosts for communicating the people are brought to the priest a little after the oblation has been made, Aversa adds before the preface has begun, Diana, etc., teach that they are licitly consecrated, the oblation being supplied mentally. And this even if the canon has begun, as Tamburini, etc. At least when many would remain without communion," Busembaum and St. Alphonsus l.c. But it is certain that they can never be admitted after the consecration of the bread.

n. 513.

What kind of sin is it to consecrate a broken or stained host? - Scandal and reasonable cause being excluded, it is only venial, unless the stain or fracture is enormous. Yet if some fracture or stain is detected in the host after the oblation, such a host will licitly be consecrated, unless scandal of the people is feared, because already by the oblation it has in some way been dedicated and sanctified to God. The same must be said proportionately of turbid wine. L. 204; La Croix 422.

n. 514.

Can doubtful matter ever be consecrated? - Never altogether, not even for avoiding death, is it licit to consecrate doubtful matter, namely because of the danger of material idolatry; and besides, if only one species is doubtful, because of the integrity of the sacrifice. But when this has been consecrated, to despise it or expose it to adoration, each is grave; but after the consummation, before purification, it will have to be consumed. And the same must be said if you doubt whether you have consecrated matter otherwise suitable; but this, if it can again be rightly consecrated conditionally, is to be consecrated again. St. Thomas q. 74, a. 3 ad 3; Rubr. de Defect. t. 3.

n. 515.

What must be done if unconsecrated particles are mixed with consecrated? - "If unconsecrated particles are mixed with consecrated, the whole heap is to be brought to the altar, so that the priest may intend to consecrate the unconsecrated; or rather let him consecrate the whole heap conditionally, if they are not consecrated. And this rather must be done, because in consecrating unconsecrated hosts, true determination of the matter is lacking, nor can the word this be verified; whence all the hosts must be consecrated conditionally, so that they may be validly consecrated." L. 216. - Lugo d. 4, n. 136; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 77, a. 8.

n. 516.

Is a ciborium left outside the corporal through forgetfulness to be judged consecrated? - It is controverted. The first probable opinion affirms. The reason is that there was already a positive will of consecrating that ciborium at the beginning of Mass, nor was that will retracted. Therefore it persevered virtually at the time of consecration. The second opinion denies. The reason is that that intention of consecrating outside the corporal would have been a grave sin, and therefore the priest is not presumed to have had it. - The second opinion is called by St. Alphonsus 217 common and more probable, namely because it could not have been consecrated without mortal sin, from the presumed intention of the celebrant. Thus indeed, if this was at some time certain for him, that he did not wish to do anything in celebrating Mass which could not be done without mortal sin. Otherwise one would have to say that he also does not consecrate who ignorantly celebrates with a chalice not consecrated or a corporal not blessed.

And indeed, excluding this preceding general will of not consecrating in such a case, that presumed will is nothing, since in reality it is not present because of ignorance of the thing, but on the contrary the will of consecrating the present matter is truly present. Since the matter is not without doubt, especially because of the extrinsic authority of the doctors, "in practice those particles are to be consumed after the Blood." L. ib. Rubr. de Defect. t. 3, n. 4, 5, speaking of a priest who consecrated a host either corrupted or not wheaten, prescribes that "if he has not consumed it, let him consume it after the reception of the Body and Blood." "But particles found outside the corporal, in doubt whether they are consecrated, are to be consumed even after the ablution." L. 251. - But there can be no doubt about the consecration if someone, not attending to the ciborium outside the corporal, had an actual intention of consecrating it together with the larger host. And the same consequently must be said of virtual intention, if, seeing the ciborium, he had the positive will of consecrating it.

n. 517.

Is a ciborium judged consecrated if it was indeed placed on the corporal, but through forgetfulness remained closed at the time of consecration? - Resp. In the affirmative. The reason is 1. because hosts certainly can be validly consecrated in a closed ciborium. Cf. 511. 2. because the priest has the absolute intention of consecrating whatever, with his knowledge, is upon the corporal, and is honorably consecrable, and is had after the manner of a continuum.

n. 518.

Are drops of wine externally adhering to the chalice judged consecrated? - Drops externally adhering are never judged consecrated. The reason is that the intention of the priest is of consecrating that one thing which is consecrable within the chalice itself. L. 215.

n. 519.

Are drops of wine consecrated which are in the chalice separated, when the priest intended nothing concerning them? - Some deny, others affirm, and finally others affirm concerning near drops and deny concerning remote ones. More probably drops altogether separated from the greater quantity are in no way judged consecrated. The reason is that it does not seem to be the intention of the Church, and therefore neither of the priest, to consecrate anything except wine which after the manner of one drinkable thing is found gathered in the chalice. - "La Croix says it is expedient that the priest intend to consecrate them, lest there be wine in the chalice which is not consecrated. But it seems better to me," says St. Alphonsus, "to intend this concerning drops near the bottom, but not concerning remote ones." L. H. A. Ex. ordin. 99. "Gavantus orders them to be wiped away, which custom approves. Yet Tamburini teaches that one who omits this does not sin, indeed that it is not expedient if you notice them when, the chalice having been uncovered, you are now about to consecrate, and the people await the elevation. But after consecration they are in no way to be wiped away." L. 219. If the separated drops are near the whole mass, they can easily be united to it by tilting the chalice a little. L. 215.

n. 520.

Is consecration of one species without the other valid? - No one doubts that it is valid if this happens by chance and contrary to intention. But whether a priest consecrates validly who has a positive intention of consecrating only one species without the other, the doctors commonly affirm. The reason is that in every sacrament, whenever the minister pronounces the form over the matter with the intention of doing what the Church does, the sacrament is perfected. L. 196; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 6; Lugo d. 19, n. 102, 104; Suarez d. 43, s. 2; Florence, Decree for the Greeks and Armenians.

n. 521.

What is the form of the Eucharist; what is its power? - The form in the consecration of the Body is: For this is my Body; but of the Blood: 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. For the priest, speaking in the person of Christ, confects this sacrament. - But by the power of the words themselves the whole substance of the bread is converted into the Body of Christ, and the whole substance of the wine into the Blood: yet in such a way that the whole Christ is contained under the species of bread, and the whole under the species of wine. "Also under any part whatever of the consecrated host and of the consecrated wine, after separation has been made, the whole Christ is present." Florence, Decree for the Armenians. - Wherefore the words must signify the transubstantiation of the present thing in an instant. In an instant, that is, not in successive becoming, but in completed being; namely the form signifies not what is being done, but what has been done: This is, Here is. - Florence, Decree for the Greeks and Armenians; Trent sess. 13, c. 1, 3, 4; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78; q. 75, a. 7; E. M.

n. 522.

You will resolve: The consecration is valid, but illicit, if the one consecrating says: This food is my Body; This chalice, This drink is my Blood; Here is my Blood; for it is the same thing, since those words, This is the chalice, etc., are said by metonymy; or if he says: This chalice is the New Testament in my blood, Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25; or if the particle enim is omitted. Likewise if he pronounces Colpus for Corpus; meus for meum, es for est, calis for calix; Sanguis for Sanguinis, etc. - But he cannot be excused from sin who does not use due diligence for rightly pronouncing the words of consecration.

The consecration will be invalid if you say: Hic adverbially is my Body; This Body is mine; This Blood is mine, where Body and Blood stand on the part of the subject, not of the predicate; That is my Body; Behold my Body; This my Body; This bread is my Body; Let this become, This becomes, Let this be my Body. - The consecration is doubtful if you say: That is my Body; This is my Flesh; for although flesh in Sacred Letters also signifies body, nevertheless commonly and from its own proper signification it imports only a part of the body. - The words of the form must be pronounced in the person of Christ formally and assertively, or recitatively and significatively at the same time, but not only historically; namely the words of Christ are to be pronounced by applying their signification to the present matter, so that this may be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ. Hence the form is invalid if someone says: This is the Body of Christ. Yet a scruple is not to be had whether the words are pronounced in the due sense; for any priest is presumed to have the intention of doing what Christ did and instituted, and thus he sufficiently intends to pronounce the consecratory words in each aforesaid sense. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 1, 2; L. 220, 221.

n. 523.

Is omission of the word enim in the form of consecration grave? - The first opinion probably denies it, because that word is not found in the words pronounced by Christ, and from another side, as regards the precept of the Church, it does not seem to constitute grave matter. - The second opinion affirms. The reason is that in so grave a matter there does not seem to be light matter in any deliberate change whatever. L. 220; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 2 ad 5.

n. 524.

Are those preceding words required as essential in the consecration: Who the day before he suffered, etc.; In like manner, etc.? - Resp. In the negative with the common opinion, which St. Liguori 222, Lugo d. 11, s. 3, etc. hold. The reason is that these words are pronounced only historically, and seem to have no sacramental efficacy, nor are they necessary so that the priest pronounce the words of consecration in the person of Christ, which depends only on the intention of the priest. Nor indeed are they counted in the Florentine Decree for the Greeks and Armenians, where the form of the Eucharist is explicitly handed down. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 2, 3.

n. 525.

In the consecration of the chalice, are only these words, This is the chalice of my Blood, of the essence of the form? - The first opinion affirms. The reason is 1. because the words of consecration of the bread are these: This is my Body. Nor indeed are the other words, which shall be given up for you, essential.

Therefore, by parity, the words of consecration of the wine are only these other words: This is my Blood, or other equivalent words; 2. because those words alone of themselves express the presence of the Blood of Christ under the species of wine. Thus more commonly and more probably. The second opinion denies it, because the later words, which for you, etc., designate the power of the Blood poured out in the Passion, which operates in this Sacrament. Moreover, by these words it is explicitly signified that the Eucharistic sacrifice is representative of the sacrifice of the Cross. This is confirmed from Florence, Decree for the Greeks and Armenians, where those words are counted in the form of words in the consecration of the Eucharist. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 78, a. 3; Rubr. Missal. de Defect. tit. 5, n. 1.

St. Alphonsus 223 says that the opinion of the Angelic Doctor is very doubtful. Cf. Luke 22:20; 1 Cor. 11:25, and he adds: "For the rest, each opinion is speculatively probable; but in practice it is certain that the priest would sin gravely if he did not pronounce all the words which are had in the consecration of the chalice, and if perhaps he had said only the first words, he would certainly have to repeat the form integrally under condition." Thus indeed in the Rubrics de Defect. t. 10, n. 3 it is prescribed, where it is said: "If he [the priest] has died, the form of the Blood having been half-pronounced, then another is to continue the Mass, and over the same chalice let him repeat the entire form (understand conditionally, if perhaps he has already said the words: This is the Chalice of my Blood) from that place: In like manner, etc.; or he could pronounce the entire form over another prepared chalice, and consume the Host of the first priest and the Blood consecrated by himself, and then the chalice left half-consecrated."

Bucceroni, Cases of Conscience

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 3 passages

116. On the Matter and Form of the Eucharist

Donatus, a new priest, celebrating his first Mass, confected the Eucharist from bread indeed of wheat, baked by pure fire, but kneaded with rose-water; and from wine expressed from sour grapes, or not mature grapes, to which nevertheless sugar had been mixed, so that it altogether had the flavor of sweet wine.

Quaer. Whether Donatus consecrated validly?

Vol. II, Treatise On the Eucharist, First Part. On the Euchari…, Chapter II. On the Matter and Form of the Eucharist · Vol. II, Treatise On the Eucharist, First Part. On the Euchari…, Ch. II, Article II. On the Form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist

R. As regards the bread kneaded with rose-water, the matter is doubtful, and therefore this species was doubtfully consecrated. In Rubr. de Defect. § 3. n. 2 it is said: "If it is made (the bread) from rose-water, or from another distillation, it is doubtful whether it is confected." But as regards the wine expressed from sour grapes or not mature grapes, from Rubr. de Defect. § 4. n. 1., the matter is altogether invalid, and therefore the sacrament was not confected. But the sugar mixed in could indeed have simulated the taste of wine, but could not make true wine.

Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)

Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J.; notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. — 19 passages

Vol. II, Treatise On the Eucharist, First Part. On the Euchari…, Chapter II. On the Matter and Form of the Eucharist

We must treat: 1. of the matter; 2. of the form of the Eucharist.

Vol. II, Treatise On the Eucharist, First Part. On the Euchari…, Ch. II, Article II. On the Form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist

Just as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist the matter is twofold and distinct, so also the form of consecration is twofold, one of bread and the other of wine.

Principles. - I. The form for the consecration of bread consists in these words: Hoc est enim Corpus meum. But these words, or equivalent ones, are altogether essential to the form, if you except the word enim.

This is clear: 1. from the universal practice of the Church and from its precept in the Roman Missal; 2. from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union, and from Trent, sess. 13, ch. 1; 3. from the divine institution itself, for Christ transubstantiated bread into his Body by pronouncing the aforesaid words.

II. The form for the consecration of wine is this: Hic est enim Calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium Fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum.

This likewise is clear: 1. from the practice and prescription of the Church; 2. from the various Evangelists, who, although they do not report altogether the same words, nevertheless agree perfectly as to this sense.

Resolves. - 1. The consecration is valid but illicit if the one consecrating says: Hic cibus est Corpus meum, hic calix est Sanguis meus. Likewise if you pronounce Colpus for Corpus ¹, meus for meum, es for est, calis for calix, Sanguis for Sanguinis, etc. Hence it is deduced that he cannot be excused from venial sin who does not use due diligence for rightly pronouncing the words of consecration. - St. Ligorius, n. 221.

¹ Except unless the imperfect manner of pronouncing arises from a natural defect of the priest, to whom the pronunciation of some letter is difficult or impossible.

The consecration will be invalid if you say: Hic (adverbially) est Corpus meum, hoc Corpus est meum, or hic Sanguis est meus, because these words do not have the sense by which they signify that which they must operate. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

The consecration is doubtful if you say: Haec est Caro mea; illud est Corpus meum; ille est Sanguis meus. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

The words of the form must be pronounced in the person of Christ formally and assertively, or recitatively and at the same time significatively, but not historically only; namely, the words of Christ must be pronounced by applying their signification to the present matter, so that this may be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ. Nevertheless, a scruple is not to be had whether the words are pronounced in the due sense; for any Priest is presumed to have the intention of doing that which Christ did and instituted, and thus he sufficiently intends to pronounce the consecratory words in each aforesaid sense. - Elbel, n. 34. - St. Ligorius, on the Eucharist, n. 220..., etc.

Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether the omission of the word ENIM in the form of consecration is grave?

Resp. It is controverted. The first opinion probably denies, because that word is not found in the words uttered by Christ, and otherwise, as to the precept of the Church, it does not seem to constitute grave matter. - Thus St. Ligorius, n. 220.

The second opinion affirms, and St. Ligorius says that this is not improbable. The reason is that in so grave a matter there does not seem to be light matter in any deliberate change. But this opinion seems to be of little account ².

² When it is a question of imposing an obligation, or even of asserting the gravity of guilt, it is altogether useless to bring forward probabilities for that end. For no one is bound to use these probabilities as the norm of his own conscience, nor can a Confessor licitly use this norm with others. But this holds much more when those probabilities are besides uncertain, and because of defect of solid foundation appear limping or wavering. As to how cautiously one must proceed concerning the gravity of fault, compare the unanimous sense of the Doctors in the note to n. 152, vol. 1.

QUESTION 2. Whether in consecration those preceding words are required as essential: QUI PRIDIE QUAM PATERETUR, etc... SIMILI MODO, etc...?

Resp. No, with the common opinion, which St. Ligorius, n. 222, holds. - Lugo, etc. The reason is that these words are pronounced only historically, nor do they seem to have any sacramental efficacy. Nevertheless, if at some time, because of doubtful consecration, the form must be repeated, according to the Rubrics one will have to begin from the words: qui pridie, and simili modo ³. - See St. Ligorius, n. 222.

³ No one in reality asserted that those words, Qui pridie, etc., are required as pertaining to the essential form of consecration; Scotus, however, contended that they are necessary, because otherwise the essential words, Hoc est corpus meum, seem to be referred to the priest himself rather than to Christ.

Now the VV. (p. 931, n. 92), at this place of Father Gury, judged that readers should be warned that St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 222) wrote concerning the opinion of Scotus: I do not dare to call it improbable.

Resp. But it seemed otherwise to others. For concerning it Vasquez (In 3 Part., disp. 198, chap. 1, n. 3) says: Nevertheless this opinion of Scotus is deservedly rejected by all as improbable. And Suarez (In 3 Part., tom. 3, disp. 59, sect. 1): But this opinion is certainly improbable. And Coninck (q. 78, n. 25): It is repugnant to the common sense of the other Doctors, nor is there any reason for asserting this. And Lugo (De Eucharistia, disp. 4, n. 39): This opinion is rejected by all. But Escobar (lib. 20, sect. 2, probl. 33, n. 220): Deservedly almost all authors rise up against Scotus, whose foundation labors under manifest weakness. And these things, lest more be heaped up uselessly, can suffice.

QUESTION 3. Whether in the consecration of the chalice these words alone: HIC EST CALIX SANGUINIS MEI... are of the essence of the form?

Resp. The answer is affirmative. The reason is: 1. because the words of consecration of bread are these: Hoc est Corpus meum. Therefore by parity the words of consecration of wine are only these others: Hic est sanguis meus, or other equivalent ones. 2. Because those words alone of themselves express the presence of the blood of Christ under the species of wine. - Thus commonly against some. - See St. Ligorius, n. 223 ⁴.

⁴ Here the VV. (p. 931, n. 92) report this judgment of St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 223): Each opinion is speculatively probable. But in practice it is certain that the priest would sin gravely if he did not pronounce all the words which are had in the consecration of the chalice; and if perhaps he had said only the first words, he certainly should repeat the whole form under condition... according to the rubric, tit. 16, n. 3.

To these things others perhaps will observe that there is certainly no ambiguity about those things which pertain to practice. But as to the statement that speculatively each opinion must be called probable, whoever greatly doubts this certainly cannot be reprehended. Compare Lugo (De Eucharistia, disp. 11, n. 61), where he deservedly says that the negative opinion of certain persons has most valid arguments against it. Compare also Suarez (disp. 60, sect. 1), saying that that opinion has against itself a most urgent argument.

QUESTION 4. Whether the form is valid if it is said: HOC ENIM CORPUS MEUM, with EST understood, as is frequently customary in the Latin language?

Resp. No. For although in continuous speech the substantive verb can easily be understood, nevertheless in the present case it cannot be done; both because there is not continuous speech, and especially because in the matter of which we are treating, the form has not only an assertory sense, as in common speech, but also a force effecting transubstantiation. - St. Ligorius, n. 223, and others very commonly.

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905)

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 17 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion (4th ed., 1905), On the Eucharist

On Bread with Regard to the Sacrifice of the Mass

“In this region ... a custom has arisen ... of making bread from grains that have been bruised and soaked in water for some hours, though not to the point of corruption. They press these grains with their hands and, from the white matter that comes forth, make breads with a hot iron in the manner customary in Europe.... Is the aforesaid manner of making bread lawful for the Mass?—Response. Affirmative; nevertheless, if it can be done, let the Apostolic Vicar take care that the wheat from which the Eucharistic bread is made not merely be crushed, but be reduced to flour by a suitable instrument, which is then to be thoroughly purified by a sieve, and that the bread be made from it in the manner employed in Europe. Our Most Holy Lord Pope Pius IX approved the resolution of the Most Eminent Fathers.” Holy Office, 25 June 1852, Apostolic Vicariate of Coimbatore.

“In this my Diocese of N. and in the neighboring dioceses, genuine fine flours have for many years been sold in large measure, which have often been used even in the formation of hosts for the Holy Mass. And many priests, in good faith or doubtful faith concerning the validity of the matter, celebrated the Divine Sacrifice with hosts made from such flours....

“Therefore I pray Your Most Reverend Eminence to be pleased to obtain for me from the Holy See a benign sanation for these my priests (also for Masses celebrated outside the diocese), and, subordinately, to obtain for them that they may discharge every burden of conscience by the celebration of a small number of Masses, which would be determined in a very mild proportion by the Ordinary in the individual cases.

“Response. The Most Holy One is to be supplicated that, insofar as there is need, he supply from the Treasury of the Church, with account taken, concerning the Masses to be celebrated, of those who celebrated in good faith and of those who celebrated in doubtful faith. The Most Holy One confirmed the resolution of the Most Eminent Fathers and benignly granted the requested favor.” Holy Office, 27 January 1897.

On Wine with Regard to the Sacrifice of the Mass

“Whether wine made from dried grapes (commonly called zibibbo) can be employed in the Sacrifice of the Mass.—Response. Let the decree of Friday, 22 July 1706, be given, namely: ‘It is lawful, provided that the liquid to be extracted from zibibbo, or dried grapes, is recognized from color, odor, and taste to be true wine.’” Holy Office, 7 May 1879.

“It was set forth by a Bishop of France that, since the wine of that place has an acidic taste owing to an excess of tartaric acid, it is customarily sweetened with potassium tartrate, a salt which is extracted from the lees of wine and which forms, with the excess tartaric acid, potassium bitartrate, which precipitates to the bottom of the cask. It was therefore asked whether this wine, thus treated, was lawful for the Mass.—Response. It is not expedient.” Holy Office, 9 May 1892.

“To guard against the danger of the corruption of wine, two remedies are proposed: 1. Let a small quantity of brandy be added to natural wine. 2. Let the wine be heated to sixty-five degrees. Are these remedies lawful in wine for the Sacrifice of the Mass, and which is to be preferred?—Response. The wine as set forth in the second place is to be preferred.” Holy Office, 8 May 1887.

“In several parts of Gaul, ... the white wine which serves for the unbloody Sacrifice of the Mass is so weak and feeble that it cannot be preserved for long unless a certain quantity of spirit of wine (spirito, alcohol) is mixed with it.—1. Is a mixture of this kind lawful? 2. And, if affirmative, what quantity of foreign matter of this kind is permitted to be added to the wine? 3. In the affirmative case, is it required that the spirit of wine be extracted from pure wine, or from the fruit of the vine?—Response. Provided that the spirit (alcohol) was extracted from the fruit of the vine, that the added alcoholic quantity, together with that which the wine in question naturally contains, does not exceed the proportion of twelve percent, and that the mixture is made when the wine is very new, there is nothing to prevent the same wine from being employed in the Sacrifice of the Mass.” Holy Office, 30 July 1890.

“The sweet wine which is customarily employed for the Sacrifice of the Mass in Spain naturally contains spirit beyond the proportion of twelve percent. It is asked: 1. Whether the mixture of ten parts of spirit per hundred, which, as experience establishes, is altogether necessary for the preservation of the sweet wine, can be continued. 2. Whether wine thus made can be employed in the Sacrifice of the Mass.—Response. Negative in relation to the Sacrifice of the Mass.” Holy Office, 15 April 1891.

“Since it is difficult to buy unmixed wine in Europe, ... already for many years it has seemed safer and easier to the missionaries of this Vicariate to make wine for the Sacrifice of the Mass in this very region. The grapes, however, which are found in the northern parts of the Chinese Empire contain an exceedingly small quantity of sugar; from this it comes about that the wine pressed from them for the Sacrifice of the Mass has only the smallest portion of alcohol and therefore can scarcely be preserved incorrupt, especially in view of the prolonged and intense heats of summer, which are most favorable to corruption. The inconvenience is removed and wine is obtained which can be safely preserved and is not disagreeable to sight, taste, or smell, if ten pounds of cane sugar (that is, from the grass-like plant botanically called Saccharum officinarum and commonly called in French canne à sucre) are added to one hundred pounds of grapes immediately after they have been crushed, and this mass is then fermented in the customary manner. When it has ceased to boil, from one hundred pounds of the mass (containing nine pounds of sugar according to what has been set forth), sixty-seven pounds of wine are obtained, which, as it is lawful to conjecture from chemical calculation, contain in practice at most four and a half pounds (that is, about one-fifteenth part of the total weight) of alcohol generated from the sugar. In other words, by the aforesaid operation true wine from the vine is obtained, one hundred parts of which have six or seven parts of heterogeneous alcohol—that is, alcohol not produced from the vine—mixed with them. We have retained this practice the more willingly as it becomes more impossible for us from day to day to obtain spirit of wine (alcohol) generated from the vine. But now, since a certain doubt has arisen, it is humbly asked: 1. Whether this practice is safe for obtaining wine for the Sacrifice of the Mass. If negative: 2. Whether it is valid. 3. What if wine of this kind was employed in Masses owed in justice?

“Response. Spirit or alcohol which was extracted from the fruit of the vine is rather to be added to wine for the Most Holy Sacrifice of the Mass, and its quantity, together with that which the wine in question naturally contains, is not to exceed the proportion of twelve percent. A mixture of this kind is to be made when the so-called tumultuous fermentation has begun to subside; and according to the mind: The mind is that, if the missionaries are unable to procure spirit of wine, they should obtain it themselves by distilling the wine of the country, or they should mix dried grapes with the grapes of the country, causing them to ferment together.” Holy Office, 25 June 1891.

“In Brazil it is exceedingly difficult to make true wine for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass ... unless it be made in that very region. Now, the grape in these places is so weak and watery that, in order to obtain tolerable wine, some sugar from the plant which we commonly call canna de assugar must be mixed with the must; and wine is also made in this manner, which priests commonly use in the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass. But now, the response of the Sacred Roman and Universal Inquisition issued on 25 June 1891 having become known, doubts and anxieties of conscience have arisen.... Whether wine thus made can or cannot safely be employed for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass.

“Response. In place of sugar extracted from the sugarcane, commonly called canna de assugar, spirit of alcohol is rather to be added, provided that it was extracted from the fruit of the vine, and that its quantity, added to that which the wine in question naturally contains, does not exceed the proportion of twelve percent; a mixture of this kind is to be made when the tumultuous fermentation, as they say, has begun to subside.” Holy Office, 5 August 1896.

“The Archbishop of Tarragona in Spain sets forth that the sweet wines which are made in this region and are greatly desired by priests for the celebration of Mass already exceed twelve degrees of alcoholic strength after the first fermentation, which the wines of Marseilles do not reach even with the permitted addition of alcoholic liquid.—Nevertheless, in order that these generous and sweet wines, although endowed with greater strength than the wines of Marseilles, may safely be exported to foreign nations, they must possess eighteen degrees of alcoholic strength; otherwise, because of their very sweetness, they are liable to new fermentations and, during transport by sea, for the most part become sour. For this reason our wine merchants implore a favor similar to that which was granted to the petitions of the Bishop of Marseilles praised above, namely, the faculty of fortifying with spirit or alcohol extracted indeed from the fruit of the vine the wines, especially the sweet ones, so that those which naturally reach more or less fifteen degrees of alcoholic strength may rise to eighteen. For thus the corruption which they are accustomed to undergo from repeated fermentations is prevented, and they can be conveyed more safely to foreign nations which lack wine suitable for offering sacrifice becomingly.—Furthermore, as they say, in some regions of Spain there prevails a most ancient custom by which many priests make wine for themselves for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass, either by first evaporating the must by fire or by drying the grapes in the rays of the sun; this custom seems to be warranted by the declaration of the Holy Office on 22 July 1706 concerning wine made from dried grapes. 1. Whether so much spirit or alcohol extracted from grapes may be added to the aforesaid wines, especially the sweet ones, for their preservation that they rise to about seventeen or eighteen degrees of alcoholic strength, without thereby ceasing to be suitable matter for the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass. 2. Whether it is lawful, for the celebration of the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass, to use wine obtained from must which before vinous fermentation was condensed by evaporation with fire.

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. IV, Sect. I, Chapter II. On The Matter And Form Of The Eucharist · Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. IV, Sect. I, Ch. II, Article II. The Proximate Matter of the Eucharist · Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. IV, Sect. I, Ch. II, Article III. The Form of the Eucharist

“Response. To the first: In view of the newly adduced matters, provided that in the proposed case the spirit was extracted from the fruit of the vine, and that the alcoholic quantity to be added, together with that which the wine in question naturally contains, does not exceed the proportion of seventeen or eighteen percent, and that the mixture is made when the tumultuous fermentation, as they say, has begun to subside, there is nothing to prevent the same wine from being employed in the Sacrifice of the Mass.—To the second: It is lawful, provided that a boiling of this kind does not exclude alcoholic fermentation, and that the fermentation itself can be obtained naturally and is in fact obtained.” Holy Office, 5 August 1896.

n. 509.

Water to Be Mixed with Wine

“A pernicious abuse has grown up in your parts, namely, that a greater quantity of water than of wine is placed in the Sacrifice, whereas according to the reasonable custom of the universal Church more wine than water is to be placed in it. Therefore We command your Fraternity that you neither do this nor permit it to be done in your province.” Honorius III, chapter 13, On the Celebration of Masses.

n. 509.

“The Armenians coming into union with the Holy Roman Church are not to be permitted to perform the Sacrifice of the Mass with wine alone, for several reasons: 1. Because, although a mixture of this kind of water with wine is not of the necessity of the Sacrament but only from a precept of the Church, concerning which the Pope can dispense, nevertheless, because water is mixed with the wine to be consecrated from Apostolic tradition, and because Christ is believed from the testimonies of the Holy Fathers to have done this, in no way ought a rite of sacrificing of this kind to be tolerated or permitted to the Armenians. 2. Because a rite of this kind of the Armenians either involves the heresy of the Monophysites or at least is most suspect of it; for Nicephorus, in book 18 of his history, chapter 53, clearly said that the Armenians consecrate wine alone in order by this to show that there is only one nature in Christ the Lord. 3. Because the Holy Council of Florence, in the Instruction to the Armenians, by the word We decree, commands the united Armenians to mix a little water with the wine in the Sacrifice. 4. Because the Armenians always petitioned the Apostolic See that a rite of this kind be permitted to them, and nevertheless it was always denied to them; for Gregory VII, as in his first epistle of book 8, Alexander III, Callistus III, Eugene III, Eugene IV in the said Council of Florence, John XXII, Benedict XI, and finally Paul V, in his Apostolic Letters to Melchizedek, styled Catholicos, who consecrated this Archbishop of Lviv, expressly refused to permit a rite of this kind. 5. Because, finally, Luther approved a rite of this kind, and the Calvinists observe the same in their Supper; and if the aforesaid rite were permitted to the Armenians in the Kingdom of Poland, the Calvinists, who are found there in no small number, would calumniate the Roman Church, namely, that she had changed her judgment and agreed with them. And canon 24 of the Third Council of Carthage under Pope Siricius, and chapters 1, 2, and 3, On Consecration, distinction 2, agree with this resolution.” Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, 30 January 1635; C. 797.

Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J. — 18 passages

Vol. III, Bk. II, Tr. IV, Chapter I: On the Essence of the Most Holy Eucharist

n. 367.

— 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.

n. 368.

— 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.

n. 369.

— 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.

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).

n. 370.

— 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."

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.

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).
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.

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).
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.

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.

n. 371.

— 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.

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).

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.

n. 372.

— 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.

n. 373.

— 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).

n. 374.

— 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.

n. 375.

— 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.

n. 376.

— 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.

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.
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.
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.

n. 377.

— 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.

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.

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.

n. 378.

— 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.

n. 379.

— 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.

n. 380.

— 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.

n. 381.

— 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.

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.

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.
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.

n. 382.

— 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.

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.
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.
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.
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.
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.

n. 383.

— 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.

n. 384.

Summary

— 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.

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. — 7 passages

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. IV, Sect. I, Chapter II. On The Matter And Form Of The Eucharist

n. ¶28.

Since the subject matter of this chapter is exceedingly extensive, we divide it into three articles: 1. on the remote matter; 2. on the proximate matter; 3. on the form of the Eucharist.

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. IV, Sect. I, Ch. II, Article II. The Proximate Matter of the Eucharist

n. 174.

174. The proximate matter of every sacrament is the application of the remote matter, as has already often been said. Therefore, since the remote matter of the Eucharist is bread and wine, its proximate matter is the application of the bread and wine, which is made in the consecration. By some authors, however, the species of the Eucharist, insofar as they contain the Body and Blood of Christ, are called the proximate matter of the Eucharist. Here proximate matter is taken in the first sense.

n. 175.

175. 1. For valid consecration it is required: a) that the matter to be consecrated be physically present; b) that it be determined.

a) The physical presence of the matter is had whenever, according to the common estimation of men, the words "here" and "this" can rightly be applied. Hence all the hosts contained in a ciborium are validly consecrated, although they cannot all be seen; likewise, the consecration of hosts in a covered ciborium placed before the priest is valid; all newly ordained priests validly consecrate with the bishop, even if they stand rather far from the altar and see neither the bread nor the chalice. Whether the consecration of a host hidden beneath the corporal or at a corner of the altar, or of a ciborium placed upon the bench of the candlesticks, is valid must be determined not from its physical presence alone, but from the prior intention of the celebrating priest. For such hosts are more present to the celebrating priest than the host to be consecrated is present to newly ordained priests in their first Mass. Since these cases occur not rarely, it is preferable that every priest once and for all form a clear intention of consecrating according to the manner to be explained below in n. 177.

b) The determination of the matter to be consecrated by the actual or virtual intention of the consecrating priest is required for the validity of the sacrament. The reason is that every action must have a determinate terminus, and moreover the particles "here" and "this" require a special determination. In practice it is to be counseled that this determination not be exaggerated too much with regard to number; for example, let the priest not determine the number of hosts by saying or thinking: I wish to consecrate twenty hosts, or one host. For if there were then in fact not twenty but twenty-two hosts, or if there were not one but two, it is doubtful whether and which ones would be consecrated. Therefore, let the priest simply propose to himself to consecrate the consecrable matter placed before him.

Theologians dispute whether droplets of wine adhering to the sides of the chalice, within or without, are consecrated. Droplets adhering to the outside of the chalice are not considered consecrated, because no priest is presumed to have such an intention and to act so irreverently against the Most Holy Sacrament. There is not, however, sufficient reason for doubting the consecration of the droplets adhering within. For they are certainly present and can licitly be consecrated. It seems better if the priest forms the intention of consecrating whatever is consecrable in the chalice, nor is there any reason why he should restrict his intention to the continuous quantity of wine. For it easily happens that, because of the movement of the chalice, droplets adhere to its inner side. But if he did not wish to consecrate these droplets, he would have to wipe them away carefully immediately before the consecration, which would be quite burdensome.

It likewise does not appear why small crumbs which, having been separated from the hosts during the consecration, are found in the ciborium should not be consecrated, unless the priest has formed a special intention concerning them. Some theologians counsel excluding such crumbs from the consecration in order to avoid irreverence; but other authors counsel rather that whatever consecrable matter is found in the ciborium be consecrated, because otherwise unconsecrated crumbs are mixed with consecrated crumbs, namely, with those which later fall from the consecrated hosts through friction. The second opinion pleases us more, because according to the first manner of acting that irreverent mingling of unconsecrated and consecrated crumbs is always present; but in the second manner no irreverence occurs if the priest diligently gathers and consumes all the crumbs in the purification of the ciborium.

n. 176.

176. 2. For licit consecration it is required that the consecrable matter be: a) upon an altar, whether consecrated or portable; b) upon the corporal;⁵³ c) held in the hands of the priest or contained in an open vessel; d) that the consecration take place in Mass and that the thing to be consecrated be upon the altar at least before the offertory.⁵⁴

a) If the altar is consecrated, let the priest take care that all the consecrable matter be upon the corporal; but if it is a portable altar, it is not enough that the matter to be consecrated be found upon the corporal, but it is also required that it be upon the sacred stone. Nevertheless, if because of the narrowness of this stone the chalice and ciborium cannot stand upon it at the same time, it seems sufficient that at least some part of the base be upon the stone during the consecration. Yet stones so narrow are to be rejected insofar as this is possible.

b) To celebrate Mass without a corporal (or upon a corporal not blessed) cannot be excused from grave sin unless a grave necessity of celebrating urges.⁵⁵

c) Both at the offertory and at the consecration, the lid of the ciborium is to be removed. This binds under venial sin. The host which pertains to the essence of the Mass, as likewise the chalice in which the wine to be consecrated is contained, must be held by the priest in his hands during the consecration.

d) Consecration can never be licitly performed outside Mass. Likewise, it is absolutely never lawful to consecrate one species alone. Thus all teach, and expressly the Code of Canon Law, c. 817, which calls such a manner of acting nefas. Indeed, a consecration performed outside Mass is probably invalid. For "the priest, speaking in the person of Christ, confects this sacrament."⁵⁶ But a priest acts neither in the person of Christ nor according to the intention of the Church when he wishes to consecrate outside Mass. For the power of consecrating is nothing other than the power of celebrating Mass. Hence, in the ordination of a priest it is said: "Receive the power to offer sacrifice." Since this is so, the consecration would probably be invalid if, for example, a wicked priest pronounced the words of consecration over loaves kept in a baker's shop,⁵⁷ unless, however, he wished such a most criminal consecration to be called a Mass.

Hosts to be consecrated (in a ciborium) are to be placed upon the corporal at the beginning of Mass or at least before the offertory. For a reasonable cause, hosts brought in a ciborium after the offertory can licitly be consecrated, provided that their oblation is then supplied mentally. A greater cause is required in order that hosts brought after the preface but before the Canon may be consecrated. But a grave cause is required (for example, if otherwise a great multitude of the faithful would have to depart without the Communion requested, or would have to wait too long) in order that it be lawful to consecrate hosts brought after the Canon has already begun. The reason for this precept is deduced from the order of the Mass, in which the liturgical act of oblation, which begins at the offertory and ends with the secret prayers, is distinguished from the act of consecration, which begins with the preface. Hence this order is inverted if particles to be consecrated are brought after the offertory has already been made; but a greater inversion is present if the liturgical act of consecration has already begun in the preface.⁵⁸ Yet if only one person is to communicate, a particle from the priest's host can be given to him. It is never lawful to consecrate particles after the consecration of the Mass has already been completed, for this would be sacrilegiously to repeat an essential part of the Mass.

Consecrated hosts must remain upon the altar until after the Communion of the celebrating priest.⁵⁹

⁵³ Cf. Roman Missal, De defect. Miss., tit. 10.

⁵⁴ Cf. Roman Missal, Ritus celebrandi Missam, tit. 7, n. 3.

⁵⁵ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 386.

⁵⁶ Eugene IV, Decree for the Armenians (Denz., n. 698).

⁵⁷ St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 196, dub. 3. St. Thomas cannot be alleged as certainly contrary to this opinion, because he does not speak of the valid consecration of one species except in Mass.

⁵⁸ Cf. St. Alphonsus, ibid., n. 217; Noldin, De sacr., n. 115.

⁵⁹ Cf. below, n. 230.

n. 177.

177. Scholion. Whether the consecration is valid if, through forgetfulness or inadvertence, the consecrating priest has not observed some grave liturgical precept. This case occurs quite frequently; for example, the consecrable matter is not upon the corporal, the chalice has not been duly consecrated, water was not mixed with the wine, etc. Some authors think such a consecration invalid, because the priest is not considered to have the intention of consecrating if the consecration, considered objectively, would be a grave sin. Thus, for example, St. Alphonsus⁶⁰ calls common and more probable the opinion which holds that a ciborium left outside the corporal through forgetfulness is not consecrated. The solution to this controversy depends upon the intention of the priest. For it seems beyond solid doubt that matter validly consecrable is present in these cases sufficiently physically and determinately. Every difficulty indeed vanishes if the priest once and for all forms a determinate intention, for example, of consecrating nothing except the consecrable matter found upon the corporal or in the chalice; or, what seems better, of consecrating all the consecrable matter which is found upon the altar and which at the beginning of Mass he wished to consecrate. In practice, it is to be counseled that every priest form one or the other intention. But if such an intention has not been formed, then a distinction must be made. Either the consecration pertains to completing the sacrifice itself, and then it is valid, notwithstanding any defect whatsoever introduced by ecclesiastical law. For the intention not to leave the sacrifice mutilated must prevail. Hence, for example, a consecration made in a chalice not consecrated, upon a corporal not blessed, in leavened bread, etc., is valid. Or the consecration of such matter does not pertain to completing the sacrifice, since it is accidental matter, for example, a ciborium left outside the corporal through forgetfulness; and then nevertheless it seems to be truly consecrated, insofar as it is consecrable matter and physically present, provided that at the beginning of Mass or at least immediately before Mass the priest had the intention of consecrating this determinate matter. The reason is that all things required for valid consecration seem to be present, namely, consecrable matter physically present and determined, and the intention of the minister, which is by no means considered revoked because some rubric (although in itself gravely binding) was not observed through inculpable inadvertence.⁶¹

Note. Hosts doubtfully consecrated can never be proposed for adoration or distributed to the people for Communion because of the danger of material idolatry; rather, they are either to be consumed before the ablution, or conditionally consecrated again in another Mass (not in the same Mass).

⁶⁰ Ibid., n. 217.

⁶¹ Thus also Göpfert, *Moraltheol.*⁷ III, 54; Ballerini in notes to Gury, Comp. theol. mor. II, n. 283; and American Ecclesiastical Review (1912), 660-674, where this question is treated with a lively pen.

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. IV, Sect. I, Ch. II, Article III. The Form of the Eucharist

n. 178.

178. The form of consecration consists in the words which the priest pronounces in the name of Christ (assertively and not merely historically); for Eugene IV says:⁶² "The form of this sacrament is the words of the Savior by which He effected this sacrament; for the priest, speaking in the person of Christ, effects this sacrament."

The form in the consecration of the bread is: "For this is My Body." All these words are essential except the word "for," the omission of which would constitute a venial sin. This form is taken from the Gospel of St. Matthew.⁶³

The form in the consecration of the wine is: "For this is the chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins."⁶⁴ These words indeed are taken from diverse places of Sacred Scripture, except the words "eternal" and "the mystery of faith," which must be said to have come from Christ to the Church. In this form the essential words are: "This is the chalice of My Blood," or, "This is My Blood." Concerning the word "for," the same holds as was said above concerning the consecration of the bread. The remaining words must indeed be added under grave obligation, but they do not seem to pertain to the essence. Thus the common opinion, which is not opposed by the precept of the Church that, if a priest fails after pronouncing the words, "For this is the chalice of My Blood," another priest must repeat the whole form. For if the celebrating priest suddenly fails, it is morally impossible to know which words of the form he duly pronounced. Therefore the Church, lest the sacrifice of the Mass remain incomplete, chooses the safer course. Nor does St. Thomas in fact contradict this opinion, because his words⁶⁵ can and should be understood in a correct sense.⁶⁶

If anyone through negligence or bad usage were to pronounce "oc, ic, es, copus, calis, meus, sanguis," he would indeed sin, but he would consecrate validly, because such mutations are accidental, at least if the intention of the priest was right. In practice, the words of consecration are to be pronounced with the greatest diligence (yet in a human manner), without the least mutation. For the dignity of so great a sacrament requires this.

⁶² Decree for the Armenians (Denz., n. 698).

⁶³ Chapter 26, verse 26.

⁶⁴ The form according to the Greek rite is: "Take and eat: this is My Body, which is broken for you unto the remission of sins"; and: "Drink of this, all of you: for this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins." Thus it is given in the First Provincial Council of Alba Iulia and Făgăraș, p. 78.

⁶⁵ In IV, dist. 8, q. 2, a. 2, and S. theol. 3, q. 78, a. 3.

⁶⁶ Cf. Billuart, De euchar., diss. 5, a. 3, § 2, and Cajetan, Commentary on S. theol., q. 78, a. 1.

n. 179.

179. Scholion. On errors concerning the form of the Eucharist. Concerning the form of the Eucharist, the Protestants taught falsely, saying that the words are not so necessary, or that the words ought to be pronounced only for arousing faith. The schismatic Greeks say that the Eucharist is confected through the so-called "epiclesis," or in the prayers which, after the words "This is My Body," etc., have been pronounced, they pour forth according to their liturgies in this manner: "We beseech You, Father, that You send Your Spirit upon us and upon these gifts set before You, and make this bread the precious Body of Your Son and that which is in the chalice the precious Blood of Your Son." The united Greeks, however, have a form not essentially diverse from the form of the Latin rite. Innocent III⁶⁷ (as a private author) judged that Christ consecrated without words and by a blessing alone.⁶⁸ Ambrose Catharinus and a few others defended the same opinion. Scotus⁶⁹ thought that from the necessity of the sacrament the form must begin with the words "Who, the day before," etc., so that the consecration would be doubtful if these words were omitted. This opinion, as also the practice of the schismatic Greeks, was proscribed by Pius VII on May 8, 1822, who in letters to the Melkite Greek Patriarch of Antioch forbids all persons in every way to hold and defend that "opinion promoted by schismatic men, that the consecration does not consist solely in the words of Christ, which both the Western and Eastern Church use, but that for the perfect and consummated consecration it is necessary to add the formula of prayer which in the Western liturgy precedes and in the Eastern follows." Hence it is false what certain moderns teach; for example, Schell,⁷⁰ that the valid form of the Eucharist in the Greek Church is the epiclesis. Rauschen also erred in this matter, saying: "The moment of consecration depends upon the intention of the priest ... the consecration is completed in the epiclesis."⁷¹ For how does something pertain to the essence of the sacrament which can be present or absent? Yet Rauschen himself teaches that the epiclesis can be present or absent in the consecration.⁷² Finally, the heretics of the first centuries (Ebionites, Marcionites, Apostolics, etc.), who taught that pure water was to be consecrated in place of wine and therefore were called "Aquarians," also erred concerning the form of the Eucharist.⁷³

⁶⁷ De myst. Missae, l. 4, c. 6.

⁶⁸ Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 78, a. 1 ad 1.

⁶⁹ In IV, dist. 8, q. 2.

⁷⁰ Dogmatik III (1893), 539.

⁷¹ Euchar. und Bußsakram., § 6, p. 100.

⁷² Cf. J. Höller, Die Epiklese der griech.-orient. Liturgien (Vienna, 1912), 74-134.

⁷³ Cf. St. Cyprian, Epistle 63 to Caecilius (Migne, Patr. lat. 4, 384 sqq.).

Marc, Institutiones Morales

Clement Marc, C.SS.R. — 22 passages

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. I, Ch. I, Art. II, § 1. On the Matter of the Eucharist · Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. I, Ch. I, Art. II, § 2. On the Form of the Eucharist

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. I, Ch. I, Art. II, § 1. On the Matter of the Eucharist

n. ¶1515.

"Just as in the other Sacraments there is a twofold matter, namely proximate and remote, so also here, but in an inverted order: for in the others, the remote matter is a permanent thing; but the proximate is its use, which passes away; here, however, the remote passes away, and the proximate remains, namely the species of bread and wine."¹² And since, for practice, one must treat only of the remote, that is, of that which, through consecration, passes into the body and blood of Christ, we shall treat: 1. of the remote matter in general; 2. of the matter of bread; 3. of the matter of wine; 4. of the conditions required for consecration on the part of the matter.

I. On the Remote Matter in General

n. ¶1516.

Principles. I. The matter of the Eucharist is BREAD and WINE. It is of faith, from the definitions of the Council of Florence,¹³ Lateran IV,¹⁴ and Trent.¹⁵ The reason is that Christ, in instituting this Sacrament, employed bread and wine, and commanded His Apostles to do the same.¹⁶

n. ¶1517.

II. Each matter, namely bread and wine, is REQUIRED for making the Sacrament LICITLY. "It is certain that it is necessary by necessity of precept to consecrate the Eucharist under each species, as St. Thomas teaches¹⁷ with others commonly... Whence it is common and certain among all that it is not licit, even in the article of death, to consecrate one species in order to offer Viaticum to the sick person."¹⁸

But that this precept is not only ecclesiastical, but also divine, "is clear from Trent, sess. 22, cap. 1, where it is said that Christ commanded priests to offer His body in no other way than under each species. Behold the words of the Council: 'Christ offered His body and blood under the species of bread and wine to God the Father, and under the symbols of the same things, note, handed them to the Apostles that they might receive them, and to the same and their successors in the priesthood commanded that they offer, by these words: Do this in commemoration of Me; as the Catholic Church has always understood and taught.'"¹⁹

But whether the Supreme Pontiff can DISPENSE so that it is licit to consecrate in only one species is controverted. Commonly, however, authors deny, both because the Church cannot change the divine institution in the manner of making the Sacraments and offering Sacrifice to God, and because it is not improbable that outside sacrifice a Sacrament is not made; whence the affirming opinion cannot be brought down into practice, and "the Church never dispensed in this precept, nor ever will dispense."²⁰

n. ¶1518.

It is asked: Whether the consecration of one species without the other is VALID?

Resp. 1. No one doubts that it is valid if this happens by accident, for example if someone through error had consecrated water for wine. 2. But if a priest should have the positive intention of consecrating only one species without the other, it is disputed. "Lugo denies, because, as he says, the notion of Sacrament cannot be divided from the notion of sacrifice... But others commonly affirm, because in every Sacrament, whenever the minister pronounces the form over the matter, with due intention, he perfects the Sacrament. This opinion is indeed very probable; but the opposite does not seem improbable."²¹

II. On the Matter of Bread

n. ¶1519.

Principles. I. The VALID matter of the Eucharist for the first consecration is only WHEATEN and USUAL BREAD; such namely as, in the moral judgment of men, is judged to be only that which is mixed from wheat flour and natural water, and cooked or baked by fire, and incorrupt in its species: because this alone is simply called BREAD. It is established from the Decree of Eugene IV, where it is said concerning the Eucharist: "whose matter is wheaten bread and wine from the vine"; and from the Rubrics of the Missal, where one reads: "If the bread is not wheaten, the Sacrament is not made."²²

It is the same for the value of the Sacrament whether the bread is unleavened or leavened. Yet from the precept of the Church, which obliges under grave obligation, Latins are held to use unleavened bread, Greeks leavened.²³

Hence: 1. By defect of wheat flour, INVALID matter is bread from rice, oats, millet, and similar grains: for these differ in species from wheat, according to common estimation. DOUBTFUL matter would be bread from spelt; likewise from rye. The admixture of a foreign substance in notable quantity, for example in equal or almost equal quantity, renders the matter invalid.

By defect of natural water, INVALID matter is bread kneaded from oil, butter, milk, eggs, sugar, or another liquid; because it would not be usual bread. The admixture of artificial water renders the matter at least doubtful.
By defect of preparation, INVALID would be raw wheaten dough, hardened by the heat of the sun, or not cooked after the manner of bread, but fried or boiled after the manner of a cake.²⁴

n. ¶1520.

II. Matter, although valid, is ILLICIT if it is not fitting and made according to the prescription of the Church. Now:

Bread would not be fitting if, for example, some grains or drops of another species were mixed with the wheat and water, even if the wheat and water greatly predominated. Likewise, moldy bread, which already tends toward corruption, would be unfitting or illicit. "This would be," says St. Alphonsus,²⁵ "if the taste were changed in some way, and then it would be mortal to use it." Therefore one must watch carefully that hosts and particles be fresh, made within one month at the most. For the Sacred Congregation of Rites condemns, as an enormous abuse, the custom of consecrating hosts which had been made three or four months before.²⁶ Nor must they only be fresh, but also whole and clean. Yet "scandal being excluded, it is only venial, without a reasonable cause, to consecrate a broken or stained host; unless the fracture or stain were enormous; for then it would be mortal. Yet if the fracture is discovered after the oblation, such a host will licitly be consecrated, unless scandal of the people is feared."²⁷
With respect to the FIGURE of the bread, among Latins a round host is required, larger for the celebrant, on which the sign of the cross is expressed, as is the constant custom of the Church.²⁸ If a larger host is lacking, the priest can probably, even for the sake of devotion, consecrate a smaller one, provided scandal is avoided: which can be avoided if, for example, the people are admonished concerning the lack of a larger host. Indeed, authors are not lacking who teach that a priest is HELD to consecrate in a smaller host if, from precept, the people would have to attend Mass, or if Viaticum had to be given to a sick person. But it is never licit for a priest, the larger host being set aside, for example for exposing in the monstrance, to take a smaller one, unless he has also consecrated this in the same Mass; because he must communicate from his own Sacrifice.²⁹

n. ¶1521.

It is asked: Whether a Latin can ever celebrate in LEAVENED bread, or a Greek in UNLEAVENED.

Resp. 1. In places where a church of one's own rite is had, this is absolutely prohibited, and indeed under penalty of perpetual suspension from Divinis;¹ even if Viaticum had to be given to a dying person: because in this case reverence toward so great a Sacrament is to be preferred to the utility of neighbor, for whom such a Sacrament is not simply necessary.²

Resp. 2. But in places where a church of one's own rite is not had, for example if a Greek passes through places of Latins, or a Latin through the territories of Greeks, it is licit to celebrate either in leavened or in unleavened bread.³

III. On the Matter of Wine

n. ¶1522.

Principles. I. Valid matter of the second consecration is only WINE FROM THE VINE, and indeed USUAL wine. This is established from Matthew 26:29: "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until the day, etc."; and from the Florentine Decree already cited, which the constant practice of the Church confirms.

Hence, the following is not apt matter for valid consecration:

"Strong drink, and any liquid from mulberries, pomegranates, apples, etc., whether it is called wine or not. 2. Verjuice, or omphacium, that is, juice expressed from immature grapes; because it is not wine, but on the way to wine, whose nature it has not yet put on. 3. Vinegar, which is wine substantially corrupted; whence, if the priest after consecration prudently doubts whether it was vinegar or wine, the consecration is to be repeated, but under condition, on account of the doubt. 4. Grapes, or wine contained within grapes, or imbibed in a morsel of bread; because it is not so much drink as food. 5. Sapa, or boiled-down must, that is, must cooked down to a half or third part; because it is no longer wine, nor drink, but food. 6. Lora, that is, water poured over pressed grapes. 7. Spirit of wine, since it is not properly wine."⁴

n. ¶1523.

II. Valid but ILLICIT matter is true wine, VITIATED in some way, or MIXED. The reason is that it is against the reverence owed to the Sacrament. Whence exotic wine must be employed cautiously, because it is very often mixed with foreign substances and therefore illicit; indeed, not rarely one finds that which is altogether artificial, and consequently invalid.

Hence, consecration is indeed valid, but illicit: 1. in must, and indeed under mortal sin, according to Suarez, at least outside necessity; for although it is substantially wine, nevertheless it is not perfect wine, nor pure, as being not yet ripened nor separated from the lees. 2. In wine so moderately mixed with other liquids or aromatics that it indeed retains the nature of wine. But if the mixing is immoderate, the matter will be doubtful. 3. In wine becoming sour: as is established from the Rubric, where it is said: "If the wine has begun to become sour or to be corrupted, or has been somewhat sharp..., the Sacrament is made, but the one making it sins gravely." Yet when other wine is lacking, it is licit to use wine only slightly becoming sour; for the Rubric does not seem to be accepted with so great rigor that it includes even the very first degrees of sharpness. 4. In frozen wine; whence it is gravely prohibited to consecrate it unless it has been liquefied. But in the case in which the priest had illicitly consecrated frozen wine, it must be held as truly consecrated, nor could he licitly consecrate another wine; for from the Rubric it is clearly evident that the consecration is valid; and the reason is that, although frozen wine is not actually drinkable, nevertheless it is drinkable from its nature.⁵

To the QUESTION: "Whether it is licit to celebrate with wine made from dried grapes?" the S. C. DE PROPAG. FIDE, July 23, 1706, responded: "It is licit, provided the liquid is recognized from color and taste to be true wine."⁶

n. ¶1524.

III. WATER is to be mixed ceremonially with the wine to be consecrated; not indeed from necessity of the Sacrament, but by force of a precept gravely obliging. Let Trent be heard:⁷ "Then the Holy Synod admonishes that it has been prescribed by the Church to priests that they mix water with the wine to be offered in the chalice: both because Christ the Lord is believed to have done thus, and also because from His side water came forth together with blood: which sacrament is recalled by this mixing; and since in the Apocalypse of Blessed John waters are called peoples, the union of the faithful people themselves with Christ the Head is represented."

But the water ought to be natural: "but he who would mix rose water or another artificial water, even in necessity, although he would validly consecrate, nevertheless would sin mortally."⁸ With respect to quantity, one drop suffices, provided it is sensible; but it is required, even if the wine is very strong, that it never exceed its third part. Indeed, if the wine is not very strong, this quantity is already held by many as excessive; wherefore it is advised that the priest not exceed eight or ten drops.⁹ Hence, if he pours in too much water, some wine must again be added.

But the mixing is to be done in the chalice itself and within the Sacred itself; for otherwise it would not suffice for the signification of the sacrament, and it would be a grave omission of the Rubrics. Hence, in the case in which it had been omitted, it must be supplied, if the omission is discovered before the consecration of the chalice; otherwise, if it is discovered after consecration.¹⁰

It is certain, although it is not of faith, that that mixed water is converted into the Blood of Christ. Thus St. Thomas,¹¹ who denies that the opposite opinion can be defended. But how this conversion is made, whether immediately or mediately, namely through a prior conversion of the water into wine, is affirmed on each side probably.¹²

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, CHAPTER II: ON THE MATTER AND FORM OF THE EUCHARIST · Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, Ch. II, ARTICLE I: ON THE MATTER OF THE EUCHARIST · Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, Ch. II, ARTICLE II: ON THE FORM OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

IV. On the Conditions Required for Consecration on the Part of the Matter

n. ¶1525.

Principles. I. For VALID consecration, besides apt matter, it is required that this matter be PRESENT and DETERMINATE.

It is required 1. that the matter be morally and sensibly PRESENT to the consecrating priest. The reason is taken from the institution of Christ and from the demonstrative words of the form; likewise from the notion of Sacrifice, which requires a present victim. But for moral presence it suffices that the thing can be seen or touched, whether in itself or in another.

Hence: 1. Matter so small that it cannot be perceived by sense, or very remote, for example at a hundred paces, or placed behind the back, or enclosed in the tabernacle, is invalidly consecrated; because it is not judged morally present to the priest. 2. A blind man, or one existing in darkness, validly consecrates if he is otherwise morally certain concerning the presence of the matter. Likewise, the wine in a covered chalice, hosts in a closed ciborium, or lying hidden in a heap under others, or under a pall, veil, etc., are validly consecrated. Moreover, here it must be noted that the practice of those is commonly disapproved who move their mouth close, that they may breathe their breath into the chalice and bread.¹³

It is required 2. that the matter be CERTAIN and DETERMINATE in the individual through the intention of the one consecrating. And this opinion indeed is common, both because the pronouns This and This require this, and because actions are concerning singulars, which must be certain and determinate.¹⁴ But a virtual intention suffices, as was said above (n. 1413).

Hence: 1. "He would invalidly consecrate who wished only to consecrate a third or half part of a host, or, from many, for example twenty present, only four or five, designating none; because there is no reason why one should be consecrated more than another. Likewise, a host is not consecrated which, the priest being unaware, is placed either on the corporal, yet separated from the heap, or beneath it. The reason is that it is not determined in the mind of the priest, whose will is not borne toward the unknown."¹⁵

But consecration is valid if the priest consecrates several hosts in a heap, although he is in error concerning their number: the reason is that he is always presumed to wish to consecrate whatever is decently consecrable. Whence, if after consecration he notices two hosts joined together at once, let him take each as consecrated, according to the Rubric of the Missal. But if before consecration, after he has offered, he notices it, let him set one aside and after Mass either he himself or another take it as blessed bread. Likewise, consecration is valid if he himself has brought several particles to the altar to be consecrated, or in a reasonable manner has noticed that they are brought by another to be consecrated by him, or before the Sacrifice has been admonished concerning those to be consecrated already placed on the altar; for then, even if within the act of consecration he does not remember them so expressly, or even does not uncover them at the oblation, nevertheless he consecrates all, provided they are present on the corporal; because the intention had with respect to them virtually perseveres.¹⁶

n. ¶1526.

II. "For LICIT consecration of matter there is required: 1. That there not be a greater quantity than can be consumed at a suitable time, because there would be danger lest the species rot. 2. That the celebrant not depart from the usage of the Church, especially prescribed in the Missal."¹⁷ Concerning this, these things especially are to be held:

The matter to be consecrated is to be placed upon the corporal and sacred stone: this obligation presses under grave obligation.¹⁸
The hosts which are to be consecrated in Mass for the Communion of the faithful are to be placed upon the corporal or upon the paten, or in some chalice or in a pyx. This pyx is then to be opened at the first oblation and at the consecration, so that the celebrant may direct his intention also to offering and consecrating those.¹⁹ Yet to consecrate in a closed pyx does not seem gravely unbecoming.²⁰
"If a little after the oblation has been made, small hosts are brought for communicating the people, these are licitly consecrated, the oblation being supplied mentally." If, the Canon already having been begun, they are brought, one must distinguish: in the case in which several would remain without Communion, it is licit to consecrate; but in the case in which only one would remain, it is not licit; to him, however, for a just cause, a part of the large host should be offered. Moreover, a cause would be sufficiently just if the one about to communicate would have to wait a long time, or if Viaticum had to be given to a sick person.²¹

n. ¶1527.

Questions. Q. 1. Whether a ciborium is to be judged consecrated which, from forgetfulness, has been left outside the CORPORAL or SACRED STONE?

Resp. 1. If the celebrant intends with actual intention to consecrate, not noticing that the ciborium is located outside the corporal, it is certainly consecrated, since it is really present, and the intention of the priest is borne absolutely toward it, although, if the defect were known, this would not be done.²²

Resp. 2. Likewise, the consecration is certain if the ciborium is placed indeed outside the stone, but ON THE CORPORAL extended over the stone, even if thought does not recur concerning the ciborium to be consecrated. For in this case it is already morally found on the stone; whence the consecration is valid from the virtual intention of consecrating whatever apt matter is placed on the corporal.²³

Resp. 3. If the ciborium remains OUTSIDE THE CORPORAL, without the priest thinking of consecrating it, it is controverted: "The first opinion, which various authors hold as probable, affirms; because, as they say, the will of consecrating was already present and was not retracted. Yet the second opinion, common and more probable, denies. The reason is that, since the intention of consecrating outside the corporal would have been a grave sin, you are not presumed to have had that intention. But because the first opinion does not seem improbable, the matter remains doubtful." Therefore those particles thus doubtfully consecrated are either to be consumed after the precious Blood and ablution, but before the purification, since the remains of the Blood are certainly the Sacrament, while concerning those hosts it is doubted whether they are the Sacrament; or, if a just cause is had, they are to be consecrated in another Mass, under condition. Moreover, the cause would be just if those particles were in too great a quantity, so that they could not easily be consumed, or if, at a suitable time, other particles could not be had.²⁴

Q. 2. Whether hosts are judged consecrated if the ciborium indeed was placed on the corporal, but at the time of consecration, from forgetfulness, remained CLOSED?

Resp. Affirmatively; for: 1. the matter was sufficiently present in the closed pyx; 2. intention was not lacking, since the one previously had was not retracted by the aforesaid forgetfulness.²⁵ But the intention which any good priest has, of violating no precept of the Church, in no way includes the intention of not consecrating whenever, while he does not notice, some defect occurs.

Q. 3. What is to be done by the priest if, by some accident, unconsecrated hosts are MIXED with consecrated ones?

Resp. The whole heap is to be brought to the altar, so that the priest either intends to consecrate the unconsecrated ones, or, according to others, consecrates the whole heap under condition, if they are not consecrated. "And this rather must be done, because in consecrating unconsecrated hosts,

true determination of the matter is lacking, nor can the word This be verified; whence all the hosts ought to be consecrated under condition, that they may be validly consecrated."¹

Q. 4. Whether DROPS OF WINE adhering to the chalice are judged consecrated, if the priest has intended nothing concerning them?

Resp. 1. Drops adhering exteriorly to the chalice are not consecrated, because the intention of consecrating them cannot be presumed, since it would be gravely illicit. 2. More probably neither are drops adhering interiorly consecrated, because the intention of the Church seems to be, and therefore that of the priest ought to be, to consecrate that which is in the chalice by way of one continuous thing. Whence, for guarding against every anxiety, the priest will do well if, once for all, he determines the intention. But it is expedient that he intend to consecrate separated drops, but only those which are nearest the bottom, not those remote. Similarly, "the priest ought to consecrate crumbs adhering to hosts, but not those separated on the paten or corporal. Nor does it obstruct that, by taking them, the fast would be injured; for then the irreverence of the Sacrament seems more to be guarded against than injury of the fast. But if crumbs are in the ciborium, let him also intend to consecrate them, since danger of losing them is absent."²

n. ¶1528.

Q. 5. What is to be done by the celebrant if he has noticed some DEFECT concerning the matter, whether of bread or of wine?

Resp. From the Rubric of the Missal these things are to be held:

I. With respect to a defect of BREAD: 1. "If the celebrant before consecration has noticed that the host is corrupted, or is not wheaten: that host having been removed, let him place another, and the oblation having been made, at least conceived in the mind, let him proceed from that place where he ceased."

"If he has noticed this after consecration, even after the reception of that host, another having been placed, let him make the oblation as above, and begin from the consecration, namely from those words: Who the day before He suffered; and the former, if he has not received it, let him receive after the reception of the Body and Blood, or let him give it to be received by others, or let him reverently preserve it somewhere. But if he has received it, nevertheless let him receive that which he consecrated: because the precept concerning the perfection of the Sacrament is of greater moment than that it be received by those fasting."
"But if this happens after the reception of the blood, new bread, and wine with water, must again be put; and the oblation having first been made as above, the priest should consecrate, beginning from those words: Who the day before: and immediately receive each, and proceed with the Mass, lest the Sacrament remain imperfect, and so that due order may be preserved."
"If the consecrated host disappears, or by some accident, as by wind, or by miracle, or having been taken by some animal, and cannot be found; then another is to be consecrated, beginning from that place: Who the day before He suffered, its oblation having first been made, as above."³

II. With respect to a defect of WINE: 1. "If the celebrant BEFORE the consecration of the blood, although after the consecration of the Body, notices that either wine, or water, or each is not in the chalice, or that the wine is corrupted, he ought immediately to put wine with water; and the oblation having been made as above, to consecrate, beginning from those words: In like manner, etc."

"If after the words of consecration he notices that wine had not been put, but water: the water having been placed in some vessel, let him again put wine with water in the chalice, and consecrate, resuming from the aforesaid words: In like manner, etc."
"If he notices this after reception of the Body or of water of this kind, let him put another host again to be consecrated, and wine with water in the chalice, offer each, and consecrate and receive, although he is not fasting. Or if Mass is celebrated in a public place, where several are present, to avoid scandal, he will be able to put wine with water, and the oblation having been made as above, consecrate, and immediately receive, and proceed with the rest."⁴

The same is to be done if after reception, with foundation, it is doubted whether the liquid drunk was pure or corrupted wine; but among the doctors it is not agreed whether the words of consecration are to be pronounced absolutely or conditionally. "I think," says St. Alphonsus, "that another certain wine is not to be consecrated again absolutely, because then the same danger would press of making a second mutilated Sacrifice, if perhaps the prior matter was truly apt; I say therefore that this second consecration ought to be made under condition, namely if the prior matter was not consecrated; for the danger of not leaving the Sacrifice mutilated will be a just cause of repeating the consecration under the aforesaid condition."⁵

"If it happens that all the Blood is spilled after consecration, if indeed something, or a little, remained, let that be received, and concerning the rest of the spilled Blood let it be done as was said in the preceding Rubric" of the Missal. "But if absolutely nothing remained, let him again put wine and water, and consecrate from that place, In like manner, yet the oblation of the chalice having first been made, as above."⁶

It must be noted: "If the matter which would have to be put, by reason of the defect either of bread or of wine, could in no way be had; if this is before the consecration of the body, one must not proceed further: if after the consecration of the body, or even of the wine, the defect of the other species is discovered, the other already consecrated; then if it can in no way be had, one must proceed and the Mass must be completed, yet in such a way that the words and signs are omitted which pertain to the lacking species. But if by waiting for some time, for example for an hour, it can be had, one must wait, lest the Sacrifice remain imperfect."⁷

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. I, Ch. I, Art. II, § 2. On the Form of the Eucharist

n. ¶1529.

The FORM of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the very words by which Christ the Lord made this Sacrament. For in the name and in the person of Christ the priest speaks and operates in making the Sacred.

Principles. I. The form prescribed for the consecration of BREAD is taken from St. Matthew the Evangelist, and consists in these words: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. The word for is placed according to the custom of the Roman Church derived from Blessed Peter; but it is inserted that the form may cohere with the preceding words.

In this form, the essential words are: "This is My body"; for they signify completely and import the conversion of bread into the Body of Christ. Hence, the word for does not pertain to the essence, and therefore its omission is judged to be only venial. "But not improbably Concina and Roncaglia condemn this as mortal; and in truth, in a matter of so great moment, any change deliberately placed does not seem light."⁸ And the same must be said concerning the same word in the following form.

n. ¶1530.

II. For the consecration of the CHALICE the following form is assigned: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. All these words are taken either from diverse places of Sacred Scripture, or from Apostolic tradition, as St. Thomas teaches.⁹

The essential words are more probably these alone: "This is the chalice of My Blood," since they perfectly express the presence of the Blood of Christ under the species of wine. Nor, however, does the other opinion lack probability, which teaches that the other words also, as expressing the power of the passion of Christ, are essential, excepting only these: eternal and mystery of faith, which are included virtually in the others. Hence a priest would certainly sin gravely if he did not pronounce all the words which are contained in the consecration of the chalice; and if perhaps he had said only the first words, he ought indeed to repeat, under condition, the whole form.¹⁰

n. ¶1531.

III. "The form of the Eucharist ought to be pronounced RECITATIVELY AND SIGNIFICATIVELY, that is, by referring the words of Christ and applying them to the present matter, so that it may be transmuted into the Body and Blood of Christ."¹¹ Thus all with St. Thomas.

IV. A change of words which imports no change of sense does not render the consecration invalid. This is established from the rubric of the Missal: "But if someone should diminish or change something from the form of consecration, and the words would not signify the same, he would not make the Sacrament. But if he added something which would not change the signification, he would indeed make it, but would sin most gravely."¹² Nor similarly does faulty pronunciation impede the consecration from being valid. "The reason is that words have been so constituted that, if sometimes they are pronounced with a fault, they signify the same thing; for it suffices that the words of the form convey the sense intended by Christ; otherwise, if they conveyed another sense."¹³

From these things you resolve: 1. Consecration is valid but GRAVELY ILLICIT if it is said: This food is my body, this chalice is my blood; colpus for corpus, meus for meum, es for est, calis for calix, sanguis for sanguinis, etc. Whence, he cannot be excused from venial sin who does not employ due diligence for pronouncing the words of consecration rightly.¹⁴

Consecration is invalid if it is said: This for my body, omitting is.¹⁵ Likewise, if it is said: Here, adverbially, is my body; this body is mine; or this blood is mine; because these words do not have the sense by which that is signified which they ought to effect. Likewise, if it is said: That is my body; that is my blood; for the sense of the form is changed, as is clear of itself.¹⁶
Consecration is doubtful if it is said: This is my flesh; this thing is my body; this is my blood.¹⁷

n. ¶1532.

Questions. Q. 1. Whether in consecration these words are to be held as essential: WHO THE DAY BEFORE, etc.; IN LIKE MANNER, etc.?

Resp. The common and most probable opinion denies, and it is proved: 1. from the Decree of Eugene IV to the Armenians, where it is said that consecration is made by no other than the words of Christ, which are only these: This is the body, etc., This is the chalice, etc.; 2. from the rubric of the Missal, which teaches that the words required by necessity of the Sacrament are the words of the form, namely This is My body, etc., This is the chalice, etc.¹⁸

Q. 2. What is to be done by the celebrant if he DOES NOT REMEMBER that he has pronounced all the words of consecration?

Resp. From the rubric of the Missal these things are to be held: "If the celebrant does not remember that he has said those things which are commonly said in the consecration, he ought not therefore to be troubled. Yet if it is certain to him that he has omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the Sacrament, let him resume the form. But if he very probably doubts that he has omitted something essential, let him repeat the form, at least under a tacit condition."¹⁹

Konings, Theologia Moralis

Anthony Konings, C.SS.R. — 12 passages

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, CHAPTER II: ON THE MATTER AND FORM OF THE EUCHARIST

We must treat: 1° of the matter; 2° of the form of the Eucharist.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, Ch. II, ARTICLE I: ON THE MATTER OF THE EUCHARIST

I. On The Remote Matter.

n. ¶1279.

1279. Principles. - I. Bread and wine are the remote matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It is established: 1° from the institution itself of this Sacrament; for Christ in the Last Supper took bread and wine, and consecrated them into his Body and Blood; 2° from the definition of the Church in the Lateran Council, chapter Firmiter;⁵ in the Council of Florence, in the Decree of union; and in Trent, Session 13, in almost all the chapters. - To all these is added the unanimous tradition of both Churches, Latin and Greek.

II. Only wheaten bread, and only wine from the vine, whether foreign or native, white or red,¹ are valid matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It is established from the Council of Florence in the Decree cited above, where it is said: The third is the Sacrament of the Eucharist, whose matter is WHEATEN BREAD AND WINE FROM THE VINE. - The perpetual tradition and practice of each Church, Latin and Greek, also agree.

Bread must be made with water; hence bread kneaded with another liquid, for example with milk, butter, etc., is not apt matter, or at least is very doubtful.²

Must may be employed in general only when necessity makes it lawful; but juice from grapes altogether unripe is unfit matter.³

Generally, however, a slight admixture of unfit matter does not dissolve the species.⁴

III. A very small quantity of water must be mixed with the wine, and this not by necessity of the Sacrament, but by ecclesiastical precept.

The first proposition is drawn: 1° from the perpetual practice of the Church and the universal tradition of the Fathers; 2° from the Declaration of the Councils, and especially of Florence - which declares that the matter of the chalice is wine from the vine, with which a very small quantity of water must be mixed - and of Trent.⁵

The second proposition is drawn from this, that Christ, in the institution of this Sacrament, designated only wine, and the Councils, in making mention of this mixture, speak of precept alone, as Trent does in the cited place; there is added the doctrine of the Catechism of the same Council, which, after it taught that this mixture cannot be omitted without mortal sin, adds: Yet if this (water) is lacking, the Sacrament can stand.

n. ¶1280.

1280. Questions. - Query 1° Is bread made from rye or secale valid matter?

Resp. It is controverted. Some affirm, because rye, they say, seems to be of the same species as wheat, although it is of different quality. - But others, much more commonly and more probably, deny; because rye bread is of a different species. Therefore in practice this matter is prohibited under grave obligation.⁶ (5) p. 417.

Query 2° Is bread made from far or spelt (in English: spelt) valid matter?

Resp. It is likewise controverted as concerning rye. Hence that matter also is to be held as doubtful, and therefore as gravely illicit.¹ - Nevertheless one must note that in various regions there are given different species of true wheat, which come under the name of spelt. Hence it seems that attention must be paid to the common estimation of men.

Query 3° Is bread, both unleavened and leavened, valid and lawful matter of the Eucharist?

Resp. 1° As regards validity, affirmatively. The reason is because each is true bread, and is also called simply bread in Scripture; and each is made from wheaten flour and natural water. It is also established from the definition of the Church. For thus the Council of Florence in the Decree of union: We define that the Body of Christ is confected in unleavened or in leavened wheaten bread.

Resp. 2° As regards lawfulness, Latins are held under grave obligation to consecrate in unleavened bread, and Greeks in leavened bread, each according to the rite of his own Church. It is established: 1° from the practice of each Church; 2° from the Council of Florence in the cited Decree, where it is added: And priests must confect the very Body of the Lord in either one, each one namely according to the custom of his Church, whether Western or Eastern. - But a Latin priest, passing through the regions of the Greeks, in which no church of his own rite is present, can consecrate in leavened bread; likewise conversely.²

Query 4° Does a priest consecrating in wine turning sour sin gravely?

Resp. Affirmatively, although that wine is still valid matter of the Sacrament. Indeed mortal sin is committed, not only if the wine is near to vinegar, but also if it certainly begins to turn sour and be corrupted, because even so grave irreverence seems to be brought upon the Sacrament. - It is established from the Rubric, tit. 4, n. 2, where it is said thus: If the wine has begun to turn sour, or to be corrupted, or has become somewhat sharp, ... the Sacrament is confected, but the one confecting sins gravely.

Nevertheless Gobat, Sporer, and Lacroix probably say that, if other wine is lacking, it is lawful without scruple, as upright men are accustomed, to employ wine turning a little sour, or not notably acid; and Sporer and Mazzotta add that, in urgent necessity, it is lawful to use wine even notably turning sour, provided that it is certainly wine. - Hence the Rubric does not seem to be accepted with such rigor that it comprehends even all the first degrees of sharpness, but only those which proximately begin to constitute wine turning sour.¹

Query 5° Is frozen wine valid matter?

Resp. It is controverted. More probably affirmatively, although it is illicit. The reason is: 1° because it remains substantially wine, since it retains the same color, taste, and odor; 2° because from the Rubric of the Missal the species of frozen wine after Consecration must be liquefied by applying heated cloths, and then taken, inasmuch as it is a true Sacrament (Rubr. de defect. § 10, n. 11). Therefore it supposes that the species of frozen wine retains the Blood of Christ; therefore the sacred species are not changed substantially through freezing after Consecration; therefore neither before it. - Thus St. Alphonsus,² where he says that it is the truer sentence because of the reason drawn from the cited Rubric.

Query 6° What quantity of water is to be mixed in the chalice?

Resp. A very small quantity of water suffices, as the Council of Florence says above, n. 1279. Probably water can be poured in up to an eighth part of the wine, indeed up to a fifth part according to Lugo.³ Busembaum adds that it suffices that the water not exceed a third part. But in practice this last sentence is not to be admitted, although a third part does not corrupt the wine, if it is generous. Generally one must counsel that the priest not exceed eight or ten little drops. But if by chance he has poured in too great a quantity of water, some quantity of wine can again be added.⁴

II. On The Proximate Matter, Or On The Use Of The Matter Required In The Consecration.

n. ¶1281.

1281. Principles. - I. For valid Consecration, besides apt matter, it is required: 1° that the matter to be consecrated be physically present; because the demonstrative pronouns of the form, this, here, necessarily require this; otherwise the form would be false, because that which was not present would be demonstrated as present; 2° that it be determined in the individual by the intention of the Minister; because just as the Minister does not consecrate unless he intends to consecrate, so neither does he consecrate this matter unless he determinately intends to consecrate it. Nevertheless actual determination is not required, but virtual suffices.¹

II. For lawful Consecration it is required: 1° that the priest in no way depart from the use of the Church, especially that determined by the Rubrics of the Roman Missal: hence first of all it is necessary that the matter to be consecrated be decent and clean, on account of the reverence due to so great a Sacrament; likewise, from the prescription or use of the Latin Church, that the host be of round, thin, whole, and fresh form. Cf. St. Alphonsus;² 2° that it be placed on the altar and on the corporal, indeed also on the sacred stone; 3° that the ciborium or chalice to be consecrated be uncovered; 4° that it be done at the time prescribed by the Rubric of the Canon.³

n. ¶1282.

1282. Resolves. - 1° Hosts hidden under others, or otherwise covered, are validly consecrated. Likewise wine is validly consecrated in a chalice covered with a veil, pall, or in any way whatever; because it suffices for the true presence of the matter that it can be demonstrated by the pronouns this or here.⁴

2° The Consecration is valid if the priest thinks that only one or two hosts to be consecrated are present, although there are several placed either by him or by another; the reason is because the priest is always presumed to wish to consecrate whatever is decently consecrable. Hence if the celebrant notices after Consecration that two Hosts are joined together, let him take each as consecrated according to the Rubric of the Missal. But if before Consecration, after he has offered, he notices this, let him set one aside, and after Mass let him or another consume it as blessed bread. But if in some case unconsecrated hosts are mixed with consecrated ones, the whole mass is to be consecrated under condition, if they are not consecrated.⁵

3° The same must be said if someone has brought several hosts to the altar to be consecrated, or before the Sacrifice he has been warned concerning hosts to be consecrated already placed upon the altar, or he has noticed that they are brought by another that they may be consecrated, even if, while he consecrates, he does not so expressly remember them, or even has not uncovered them at the oblation, provided that they are present on the corporal; because the preceding intention virtually perseveres.¹

4° Hosts would not be consecrated, if the priest did not know of them, even placed on the corporal, but separated from the heap, because the wholly unaware priest did not have the intention of consecrating them.²

5° If small hosts for communicating the people are brought to the priest a little after the oblation has been made, he will be able lawfully to consecrate them, the oblation being supplied mentally. "And this, even if the Canon has been begun, ... when several would remain without Communion." ... But if only one remained, rather a part of the large Host is to be given to him, "or a smaller Host is to be divided. And it suffices for a cause if the one about to communicate would have to wait a long time," or if he is a grave or noble person, or, among us, a person of principal standing.³

6° It is never lawful to consecrate only one species. Nevertheless such a Consecration is more probably valid, even if the priest had a positive intention of not consecrating the other species.⁴

n. ¶1283.

1283. Questions. - Query 1° Is a ciborium left outside the corporal or the stone through forgetfulness to be judged consecrated?

Resp. There is no difficulty if there is question of a ciborium placed indeed outside the stone, but nevertheless on the corporal, and with this extended over the stone; for in this case it is morally found on the stone. Otherwise it is controverted. The first sentence, probable, affirms, because the will of consecrating had at the beginning of Mass was not retracted.

The second sentence, common and more probable according to St. Alphonsus, denies. The reason is because that intention of consecrating outside the corporal would have been a grave sin, and was not necessary for the Sacrifice, and therefore the priest is not presumed to have had it.

But since it is illicit to administer Sacraments with doubtful matter, in practice that ciborium will have to be consecrated again under condition in another Mass, if the particles cannot easily be consumed. Otherwise they must be consumed after each Communion and ablution - because the remains of the Blood are certainly a Sacrament, but those hosts in the ciborium are only doubtful - and before purification. I said: must; because while they can be consumed, a sufficient cause is lacking for consecrating them under condition.¹

Query 2° Is a ciborium placed indeed on the corporal, but which through forgetfulness remained closed at the time of Consecration, judged consecrated?

Resp. Affirmatively. The reason is: 1° because certainly hosts can be validly consecrated in a closed ciborium, as was said above; 2° because the priest is always judged to have the absolute intention of consecrating whatever, with his knowledge, is above the corporal, is honestly consecrable, and is held by way of one continuous whole.

Query 3° Are drops of wine adhering to the chalice, whether exteriorly or interiorly, judged consecrated?

Resp. 1° Drops adhering exteriorly are never judged consecrated. The reason is because the intention of the priest is deservedly presumed to be to consecrate that one thing which is lawfully consecrable; but those little drops would be consecrated illicitly and irreverently, and without any utility. Therefore ... Thus all.

Resp. 2° More probably, neither are drops adhering interiorly judged consecrated, when they are altogether separated from the greater quantity, or are not next to the bottom. The reason is because it seems to be the intention of the Church, and therefore of the priest, not to consecrate except wine which is drinkable by way of one whole, and is found gathered together in the chalice.³

Query 4° What kind of sin is it to consecrate a broken or stained host?

Resp. Scandal being excluded, and without a reasonable cause, it is venial, unless the stain or fracture is enormous. But if some fracture or even notable stain is discovered in the host after the oblation, outside the case in which scandal of the people is feared, such a host will lawfully be consecrated, because through the oblation it has already been in some way dedicated and sanctified to God.⁴

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, Ch. II, ARTICLE II: ON THE FORM OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST

Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On the Most Holy…, Section A: On the Sacramen…, First Part: On the Externa…, Question One: On the Sacra…, Article II: On the Essence of the Sacrament of the Eucharist · Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On the Most Holy…, Section A: On the Sacramen…, First Part: On the Externa…, Question Two: On the Matte…, Article I: On Matter in General

Just as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is a twofold distinct matter, so also there is a twofold form of Consecration, one of bread and the other of wine.

n. ¶1284.

1284. Principles. - I. The form for the Consecration of bread consists in these words: For this is my Body. But these words, or equivalent ones, are altogether essential to the form, if you except the word for.

It is established: 1° from the universal practice of the Church, and from her precept in the Roman Missal; 2° from the Council of Florence in the Decree of union, and from Trent;¹ 3° from the divine institution itself; for Christ transubstantiated bread into his Body by pronouncing the aforesaid words.

II. The form for the Consecration of wine is this: 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.

It is established likewise: 1° from the practice and prescription of the Church; 2° from the various Evangelists, who, although they do not report altogether the same words, nevertheless agree perfectly as regards this sense.

n. ¶1285.

1285. Resolves. - 1° Valid, but illicit, is the Consecration if the one consecrating says: This food is my Body; this chalice is my Blood. - Likewise if you pronounce: Colpui for Corpus; meus for meum; es for est; calis for calix; Sanguis for Sanguinis, etc.²

2° The Consecration will be invalid if you say: Here (adverbially) is my Body; This Body is mine; or Here is my Blood: because these words do not have a sense by which they signify that which they ought to effect.³

3° The Consecration is doubtful if you say: This is my Flesh: which, nevertheless, Laymann thinks to be valid.⁴

4° The words of the form must be pronounced in the person of Christ formally and assertively, or recitatively and at the same time significatively, but not merely historically: namely, the words of Christ are to be pronounced by applying their signification to the present matter, so that this may be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ. Nevertheless no scruple is to be had whether the words are pronounced in the due sense; for any priest is presumed to have the intention of doing what Christ did and instituted, and thus he sufficiently intends to pronounce the consecratory words in each aforesaid sense. - Elbel,¹ St. Alphonsus.²

n. ¶1286.

1286. Questions. - Query 1° Is the omission of the word for in the form of Consecration grave?

Resp. It is controverted. The first sentence denies, because that word is not found in the words pronounced by Christ in the Consecration of the bread, and from another side, as regards the precept of the Church, it does not seem to constitute grave matter. - Thus Busembaum.³

The second sentence affirms, and St. Alphonsus⁴ says that this is not improbable. The reason is because in so grave a matter there does not seem to be light matter in any deliberate change whatever.

Query 2° In Consecration are required, as essential, those antecedent words: Who the day before he suffered, etc. ... In like manner, etc.?

Resp. Negatively, with the common sentence, which St. Alphonsus holds as most probable. The reason is because these words are pronounced only historically, and do not seem to have any sacramental efficacy. Nevertheless he does not dare to say that the opposite sentence is improbable, all the more because, if because of a doubtful Consecration the form must be repeated, according to the Rubrics one must begin from the words: Who the day before, and In like manner.⁵ (v) p. 401.

Query 3° In the Consecration of the chalice are these words alone: THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD ... of the essence of the form?

Resp. The affirmative sentence is more common than the negative, but each is speculatively probable on account of the reasons which are to be seen among the Dogmaticians or at St. Alphonsus.⁶ But in practice it is certain that it would be grave sin if all the words which are had in the Consecration of the chalice were not pronounced, and, if perhaps only the first words were said, the whole form must be repeated.

Query 4° Is the form valid if it is said: HOC ENIM CORPUS MEUM, by understanding EST, as in the Latin language this frequently is customarily done?

Resp. Negatively. For although in continuous speech the substantive verb is can easily be understood, nevertheless in the present case this cannot be done; both because continuous speech is not had, and especially because in the matter of which we are treating, the form has not only an assertory sense, as in common speech, but also a force effecting transubstantiation.¹

Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis

Benedict Henry Merkelbach, O.P. — 103 passages

Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On the Most Holy…, Section A: On the Sacramen…, First Part: On the Externa…, Question One: On the Sacra…, Article II: On the Essence of the Sacrament of the Eucharist

S. Th. III, q. 73, a. 1, ad 3, and a. 2.

n. 204.

204. Thesis. The Eucharist contains the body and blood of the Lord not only in use, while it is received, but from the moment of consecration; whence the sacrament consists in a permanent thing, and not in a transitory reception. - Thus teach the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 1, and Florence, for the Armenians; Trent defines it, sess. 13, c. 3 and 6, and can. 4, against Protestants, namely against Luther.

n. 204.

It is proved: 1. From the perpetual faith and most ancient practice of the Church, which preserves the Eucharist, whether at home or in churches, adores it, and carries it to the sick and other absent persons.

n. 204.

By reason: For the essence of a sacrament it is not required that grace in fact be conferred here and now, but that the effect which it immediately signifies be had, namely, reality and sacrament (n. 46). But in the Eucharist the immediate effect is obtained before reception, as soon as the words of consecration are uttered. Therefore the sacrament of the Eucharist is had from the moment of consecration, and not only in use, while it is received. The minor is proved: the words of consecration here and now, independently of use, signify the presence of Christ; therefore while they are pronounced, Christ becomes present; otherwise His words would be false.

205. Of what things is the permanent sacrament of the Eucharist essentially composed?

Certain theologians assert that, by difference from the other sacraments, which are not permanent but transitory, in the Eucharist the becoming is one thing and the being or having-become is another: in becoming it is composed of matter and form, namely, the substance of bread and wine and the words of consecration; in having-become, in place of matter and form there are had the species and the body or blood of Christ.

Yet undeservedly. For a) if by the name becoming they understand the successive placing of the matter and pronunciation of the form, and by the name being the matter totally placed and the form totally pronounced, then also in the other sacraments becoming and being are distinguished; - but when there is question of matter and form, it is not asked from what things the sacrament is effected, or what things produce it when it is not yet, but from what things it is constituted, or what things compose it when it truly is a sacrament; but the sacrament is not except at the moment when all the words have been pronounced and the whole sign has been placed. - b) But if by the name becoming they understand the first moment in which the whole sacrament exists, it ought not to be distinguished from being, because in the first moment when the whole comes to be, the sign is composed of the same things as in the subsequent moments when the whole has already been made.

Therefore it must be said:

The words of consecration are an essential and intrinsically constitutive part of the sacrament, because the species without the words do not signify Christ: for we cannot know the body of Christ through those species except insofar as we know that they have been consecrated by the words; whence the words give their signification to the species, and thus they are a part composing the sacramental sign. And so it is true to say of all sacraments, with the Council of Florence, that they are perfected by things as by matter and by words as by form.¹

¹ Very well Mannens, Th. Dogm. III, on the Eucharist: "The words of consecration sensibly uttered virtually persevere and determine the species to signify and contain the body of Christ, which they do not signify and contain except insofar as they are consecrated, or insofar as they are apprehended together with the words; therefore the words concur by way of form to constitute intrinsically the sacramental sign."

Hence the permanent matter of the Eucharist is the species of bread and wine; the permanent form is the words of consecration insofar as they affect and determine the species in a permanent way for signifying Christ, and thus they persevere morally and in the power of signifying. For a sacrament is not a physical composite whose form must be physically preserved, but is a moral composite, for which it suffices that the form remain in power: one sign whose form, once uttered, remains as though affixed to the species and perceptible by the intellect. In the same way a passing blessing remains in blessed water.

206. Corollaries. - From the foregoing it follows:

A. That the Eucharist and the other sacraments differ: 1. For it contains something absolutely sacred, namely, Christ, but the others contain something sacred in order to something else, namely, the power of sanctifying. Whence 2. the Eucharist is perfected in the consecration of the matter, but the others in application to the man to be sanctified. Hence 3. in the Eucharist reality and sacrament is in the matter itself, and the reality of the sacrament or grace is in the recipient; in the other sacraments each is in the recipient.

B. That the appellation "sacrament of the Eucharist" can be taken in various ways: 1. properly, for the external sign alone, which is sacrament only, and then it is only the species of bread and wine and the words of consecration, which, namely, together signify the body and blood of Christ; thus it is said: the sacrament of the Eucharist contains Christ; - 2. less properly, for that which is reality and sacrament, and then it is the body and blood of Christ; in which sense it is said: the sacrament of the Eucharist is under the species, is adored, or is offered; - 3. completely, for the practical external sign together with its immediate effect without which it would not be valid, and thus it is the consecrated species insofar as they contain Christ; in this sense it is said: the sacrament of the Eucharist consists of two things, or sanctifies.

C. That those things which merely pass do not constitute the essence of the Eucharist as a permanent sacrament. Thus 1. the consecration, which is only the action confecting it; 2. the substance of bread and wine, which is not the intrinsic and proximate matter from which it is constituted, but only the extrinsic and remote matter from which the sacrament is made and about which the sacramental action is concerned; 3. the reception, which is only the necessary condition that the sacrament already perfect in itself may operate grace: for distribution need not be done by a minister with the intention of acting in the name of Christ and of doing what the Church does, but would validly be done by a child or insane person, and therefore it is not a strictly sacramental action.

n. 207.

207. The Eucharist is a sacrament formally one, although materially integrated from two parts. - Although the species of bread and wine are physically and materially diverse, nevertheless the Eucharist is formally and morally one in species.

n. 207.

It is proved: One is said not only of that which is indivisible or continuous, but also of something perfect which consists of diverse parts which come together in one thing: thus the parts of a house constitute a perfect house; in this way also a sacrament is one insofar as several things, namely matter and form, are united for signifying one thing. But it can happen that perfect signification is not had except by several matters and forms, as, for example, in Extreme Unction: then all those constitute only one sacrament. But a) the body and blood of the Lord, which precisely as separated in death are the cause of our salvation, are not distinctly and perfectly signified except through the two species separately consecrated; - likewise b) bodily refreshment does not happen through food alone but also through drink, and therefore spiritual refreshment is not sufficiently expressly and perfectly signified by food alone. Whence the species of bread and wine mutually complete each other in order to signify something one. But where there is one signification, there is a sacrament formally one.² - But if there were two, there would be eight sacraments in the Church, which is against the Lateran Council, Florence, and Trent.

² Hence it must be said with the Thomists that it is one sacrament from unity of end and signification.

n. 207.

Yet from what has been said it would undeservedly be concluded: 1. that each species is not a sacrament, just as each anointing perhaps is not the sacrament of the sick; for in each species there is contained reality and sacrament, namely, Christ (Council of Trent, sess. 21, c. 3 and can. 3); - 2. that the Eucharist received under one species does not confer the whole grace of the sacrament: for one species bespeaks order to the other, and is received as a part of the whole sacrifice and banquet, and thus participates in the power of signifying of the whole, indeed contains the whole Christ; whence he who receives one species receives the whole effect of the sacrament.³

³ Thus also in the Old Law the smallest eating was a participation of the whole sacrifice.

n. 208.

208. Observation. - Since a sacrament is a moral being, there are not as many numerically distinct sacraments as there are physically distinct species, but there are as many as there are morally separated species, i.e. those which do not bespeak order to something one, e.g. to one celebration, refreshment, or distribution. Whence if ten men receive the species, there are as many sacraments; or if they are placed on different altars; - on the contrary, the two species of bread and wine in the same Mass, or the species contained in one ciborium, are only one sacrament, and he who receives several particles at once, or even after a brief interval, receives one sacrament ordered to one refreshment in one banquet.

Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On the Most Holy…, Section A: On the Sacramen…, First Part: On the Externa…, Question Two: On the Matte…, Article I: On Matter in General

S. Th. III, q. 74, a. 1 and 2; q. 78, a. 6.

211. Principle I. The remote matter of the Eucharist is bread and wine (can. 814). - It is of faith. For although in the first times certain old heretics erred concerning this, nevertheless Catholics through the centuries agree in this, and thus the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 1, Florence, and Trent, sess. 13, in various chapters, hand it down.

It is proved: a) From the unanimous Tradition of the Greek and Latin Church, which always condemned the contrary use.

b) From the Scriptures: Matt. XXVI, 26, 27, 29, and Luke XXII, 19.

c) By reason: for it is fitting 1. as to the use of the sacrament, which is eating: just as water is rightly assumed in Baptism because bodily washing is commonly done in water, so in the Eucharist bread and wine, by which men are more commonly refreshed: for complete refreshment consists of food and drink; 2. as to the Passion of Christ, in which the blood is separated from the body, and therefore in this sacrament which is the memorial of the Passion, bread is taken separately as the sacrament of the body, and wine as the sacrament of the blood; 3. as to the effect... which is the union of the faithful with Christ and among themselves into one mystical body: for this is constituted from diverse faithful, just as bread is made from diverse grains and wine flows from diverse grapes. Thus St. Thomas, q. 74, a. 1 and ad 1. - The Catechism of the Council of Trent adds that this is fitting as to our faith: "when we observe that bread and wine are daily changed by force of nature into human flesh and blood, by this likeness we can more easily be led to believe that the substance of bread and wine is converted by heavenly blessing into the true flesh of Christ and His true blood."

212. Principle II. For the validity of the sacrament it is required that the matter be present to the minister and demonstrable, and determined in the individual by his intention.

It must be present physically and morally, so that by the pronouns this and here, according to the manner of speaking of men, it can be sensibly designated; otherwise the demonstrative words would not be verified: this, here.

Hence there would be consecration invalidly: a) of matter placed behind the altar, behind a wall, behind the back of the priest, unless perhaps it is held by the hand (in which case the consecration would be doubtful); b) of matter far distant, even if it can be seen: for it would not have to be demonstrated by the word: this, but by the word: that; how much nearness is required for moral presence must be left to the judgment of prudent persons, with attention given to the use of men, the practice of the Church, the position of the matter, its magnitude, smallness, etc.; c) of matter so slight that it cannot be perceived by sense: for this can neither be designated nor be a sensible sign.

It must be demonstrable matter; nor is it necessary that it actually be perceived, or that it be seen or touched or, as it were, struck by the sound of the words (whence the unbecoming practice of those who move their mouth very near so as to breathe their breath into the chalice and bread is to be disapproved); but it suffices that by the pronouns this and here it be demonstrable either in itself, or in another as in its whole, or container, or vessel destined to contain it.

Thus consecration is validly made: a) in darkness or by a blind priest; b) in a ciborium, pyx, chalice, cask, covered vessel; c) of a host hidden under others: for a great quantity does not stand in the way of validity, provided the whole is present to the minister. - On the contrary, hosts placed under an altar cloth, corporal, cushion, foot of the chalice, in the pages of the missal, or closed in the tabernacle are doubtfully consecrated, because it can be disputed whether they can be sufficiently demonstrated.

It must be determined in the individual by the intention of the minister, because the pronouns this and here designate determinate matter, and because actions are concerned with singulars and determinate things. For just as the minister does not consecrate unless he intends to consecrate, so neither does he consecrate this matter unless he determinately intends to consecrate it.

Whence someone would invalidly wish to consecrate a part of several hosts or of one host without designating which one, or the hosts which God has chosen or another has designated, if he does not know the designation: for then the matter remains indeterminate for the minister. On the contrary, someone would validly wish to consecrate all hosts except the lowest and highest; or all the even ones if they are placed in order and the beginning is determined from which they are to be numbered, although this play would be gravely illicit. It is also sufficient to determine the matter in a group, with the intention, for example, of consecrating all the hosts present, although the number is unknown or there is error concerning it; this intention is commended by the Roman Missal.

On account of this intention, when it is present:

a) If the priest unknowingly has two larger hosts in his hands, both are consecrated, and according to the Missal both are to be consumed: for he wishes to consecrate all that he holds in his hands.

b) On the contrary, hosts placed on the altar without the priest knowing are not consecrated: for the will is not borne toward the unknown. Nor does it stand in the way that formerly he formed an intention, once for all, of consecrating all the matter which is on the corporal; for that merely habitual intention does not suffice for confecting the sacrament, because here and now it does not virtually influence:¹ for to confect a sacrament there is required a human act which demands an actual or virtual intention (n. 81; I, n. 55).

¹ Such a general intention once for all elicited is affirmed to suffice by a few more recent authors. Thus Cappello, o.c., n. 302, and P. Castillon in N.R.Th., 1920; yet this latter speaks with some doubt in note 4; Noldin-Schmitt, n. 115 note, and Genicot-Salsmans, n. 174, seem to approve, but this opinion has no antiquity for itself. It is not found expressly stated in St. Alphonsus or before him; nor have I found it in Lehmkuhl, D'Annibale, Marc, Aertnijs-Damen, or Tanquerey. Ballerini, n. 56, only poses the question concerning hosts unknowingly brought: why would they not be consecrated if the priest wished to consecrate all present? But he does not resolve the question, and speaks of an intention elicited in the present. Nor does Vermeersch, n. 348, dare to call the intention secure unless it is repeated more often; but then it is already virtual. And even then it can be doubted whether it influences matter whose presence the priest does not even suspect.

c) But otherwise if the priest himself, or another with his command or with his knowledge, previously brought them to the altar to be consecrated, although at the time of consecration he does not attend to them, provided they are placed on the corporal: they are certainly consecrated, because the intention of consecrating them virtually endures.

d) But if they were not placed on the corporal, they are probably consecrated, because the intention seems to endure; yet several authors with St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, n. 217, hold the contrary, because no one is judged to will to consecrate outside the corporal, since this objectively is a mortal sin; or also because, before they have been placed upon the corporal, it can be said that in him there was only the purpose of placing them there for consecration, not yet of consecrating them. Whence in practice, since it is a matter of the validity of the sacrament, the safer course must be taken; and therefore the hosts should be consumed (if they are few) after the blood, or be consecrated under condition in another Mass.

Nor does it suffice to say that the whole thing depends on the intention of the priest. Certainly, if the priest explicitly said that he wished to consecrate even outside the corporal (which would be gravely evil), without doubt the hosts would be consecrated, just as certainly they would not be if he explicitly intended not to consecrate outside the corporal; but the question is whether the intention of consecrating can be presumed to be implicitly present if the priest has explicitly intended nothing. But this can seem doubtful for those hosts whose consecration is not necessary to the very essence of the sacrifice.

e) When the chalice has been consecrated, drops adhering on the outside are not consecrated, unless this were expressly intended, which would be gravely illicit.

Vol. II, Tr. XIV, Pt. I, Ch. II, Article II. On the Proximate Matter or on the Use of Remote Matter · Vol. II, Tr. XIV, Pt. I, Chapter III. On the Form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist

f) Concerning drops adhering inside the chalice, if a special intention is lacking, it is disputed whether they are consecrated: it is probable that those nearer to the bottom are consecrated, just as it is also very likely for crumbs adhering to the host.

n. 213.

213. Principle III. For the liceity of consecration it is required, besides this, that the use of the Church and the rites prescribed by ecclesiastical law be observed, that both matter, namely bread and wine, be consecrated at the same time, and indeed by divine law.

n. 213.

It is proved: a) The sacrament was instituted by Christ in the manner of a spiritual banquet; but food and drink are required for a banquet; therefore.

…and 63 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium of Moral Theology

Aloysius Sabetti, S.J., and Timothy Barrett, S.J. — 11 passages

Vol. II, Tr. XIV, Pt. I, Ch. II, Article II. On the Proximate Matter or on the Use of Remote Matter

n. 680.

I say 1st. For valid consecration, besides suitable matter, it is required 1st. that the matter to be consecrated be so physically present that it can be designated by the pronouns this, here; for otherwise the words of the form would not be true; 2nd. that through the intention of the Minister it be determined in the individual, for otherwise the intention would have no force, because it would be applied to no thing. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 211 and 214. - Scavini, lib. 3, n. 148.

I say 2nd. For licit consecration it is required 1st. that the priest in no way recede from the use of the Church, especially as determined by the Rubrics of the Roman Missal: hence first of all it is necessary that the matter to be consecrated be decent and clean on account of the reverence owed to so great a sacrament; 2nd. that it be placed on the altar and on the corporal, indeed also on the sacred stone, according to Benedict XIV, de Sacrificio Missae, sect. 2, n. 139; 3rd. that the ciborium or chalice to be consecrated be uncovered; 4th. that it be done at the time of the Canon prescribed by the Rubric. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 218 and 219. 5th. But if it happens that the priest lacks the larger host and it cannot be obtained, he licitly celebrates with a smaller one, even if he celebrates only from devotion. - Sebastiani, n. 440.

n. 681.

You Will Resolve. 1st. Hosts lying hidden under others or otherwise covered are validly consecrated. Likewise wine in a chalice covered with a veil, pall, or for any reason is validly consecrated; because for the true presence of the matter it suffices that it can be demonstrated by the pronouns this or here. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 212.

2nd. The consecration is valid if a priest, indeed wishing to consecrate the matter which he holds in his hands or which he sees or knows to have been placed upon the corporal, thinks that there is only one host or two hosts to be consecrated, when there are several, whether placed by himself or by another; the reason is that a priest is always presumed to wish to consecrate whatever is decently consecrable; and therefore, by the general will of consecrating all things which are present, he has a virtual will also of consecrating those things which he thought were not present. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 216.

3rd. The same must be said if someone has brought to the altar several hosts to be consecrated, or before the Sacrifice has been warned concerning hosts already placed on the altar to be consecrated, or notices that they are brought by another so that they may be consecrated, even if, while he consecrates, he does not so expressly remember them or even has not uncovered them at the oblation, provided that they are present on the corporal; because the preceding intention virtually perseveres. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 216.

4th. A priest sins by consecrating a broken or stained host; but, scandal being set aside, only venially, unless the stain or fracture is enormous. Yet if he notices some fracture or stain, even a notable one, after he has offered the host, he will be able entirely licitly to consecrate it, because already through the oblation it was in some way dedicated and sanctified to God. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 204.

n. 682.

Questions

Question 1. Must a ciborium left outside the corporal through forgetfulness be judged consecrated?

Resp. Many affirm from the fact that there was already present a positive will of consecrating that ciborium at the beginning of Mass, nor was that will retracted; therefore it persevered virtually at the time of consecration. But others deny, and St. Alphonsus calls their opinion common and more probable. The reason is that the priest is not presumed to have wished to consecrate that matter placed outside the corporal, since this is mortal sin, especially because it does not pertain to the integrity of the sacrifice. - Whatever may be the intrinsic value of each opinion, in practice that ciborium will have to be consecrated again under condition in another Mass; and if there is question of a small number of particles which can easily be consumed, they certainly should be consumed, but after the ablution and before the purification. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 217; and Hom. Ap. Exam. Ordinand., n. 99.

n. 682, Q. 2.

Question 2. Is a ciborium judged consecrated which indeed is placed on the corporal, but which through forgetfulness remained closed at the time of consecration?

Resp. Affirmatively, and the reason is both because thus bears the practice of priests and the almost common consensus of theologians, and because any priest is always judged to have the absolute intention of consecrating whatever, with his knowledge, is upon the corporal and is honorably consecrable. Nor should you object from parity sought from the preceding question, for it is answered that although the Church wills the ciborium to be opened for greater reverence, nevertheless, since this irreverence does not seem notable, and can happen more frequently, this precept does not press so much as the precept of not consecrating outside the corporal.

n. 682, Q. 3.

Question 3. Are drops of wine adhering to the chalice, either outside or inside, judged consecrated?

Resp. Negatively as to both; because the priest is not presumed to wish to consecrate anything except the wine which is in the chalice and which is drinkable after the manner of one. But because some think, not improbably, that drops adhering inside are consecrated, these are to be diligently collected. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 215.

Vol. II, Tr. XIV, Pt. I, Chapter III. On the Form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist

n. 683.

I say. Just as the matter is twofold and distinct, so also the form of consecration is twofold, one of bread and the other of wine. The first consists in these words: "For this is My body." But the other is this: "For this is the chalice of My blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which will be poured out for you and for many unto the remission of sins." This is established from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union, from Trent, sess. 13, chap. 1, and from the divine institution itself of the Eucharist.

n. 684.

Questions

Question 1. How must the words of the form be uttered?

Resp. They must be uttered in the person of Christ, both recitatively and significatively, but not historically only: namely, the words of Christ are to be uttered by applying their signification to the present matter, so that this may be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ. Yet a scruple is not to be had as to whether the words are uttered in the due sense; for any priest is presumed to have the intention of doing that which Christ did and instituted, and so he sufficiently intends to utter the consecratory words in both of the aforesaid senses. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 220 and following.

n. 684, Q. 2.

Question 2. Is the word FOR in the form of consecration altogether necessary?

Resp. Certainly that word is not required for validity, but only for liceity by force of a precept, concerning the gravity of which theologians dispute; but the opinion denying that it is grave is probable, because that word is not found in the words uttered by Christ. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 220.

n. 684, Q. 3.

Question 3. In the consecration, are those antecedent words required as essential: WHO ON THE DAY BEFORE HE SUFFERED, etc., IN LIKE MANNER, etc.?

Resp. Negatively, with the common opinion, which St. Alphonsus holds. The reason is that these words are uttered only historically, and do not seem to have any sacramental efficacy. Nevertheless, if at any time, on account of a doubtful consecration, the form must be repeated, one must begin altogether from the words: who on the day before and in like manner, not only because the Rubric so prescribes, but also on account of whatever probability there may be of the contrary opinion. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 222. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 189.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1127, n. 86.

n. 684, Q. 4.

Question 4. In the consecration of the chalice, are only these words: THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD ... of the essence of the form?

Resp. Affirmatively; and the reason is both because the words of the consecration of bread are these: This is My body, and therefore, by parity, the words of the consecration of wine are only these other words: This is My blood, or other equivalent words; and because those words alone by themselves express the presence of the Blood of Christ under the species of wine. But in practice the priest would sin gravely if he did not utter all the words which are contained in the consecration of the chalice, both on account of the precept, and perhaps on account of the not-to-be-despised probability of the opposite opinion. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 223. - Ballerini, note (b), p. 189.

n. 684, Q. 5.

Question 5. Is the form valid if it is said: FOR THIS MY BODY, with IS understood, as often happens in the Latin language?

Resp. Negatively; for although in continuous speech the substantive verb can easily be understood, nevertheless in the present case this cannot be done: both because there is not continuous speech, and especially because, in the matter of which we are treating, the form has not only an assertive sense as in common speech, but also the force effecting transubstantiation. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 223.

Concina, Compendium

Daniele Concina, O.P. — 10 passages

Diss. III, Chapter I — The notion of the Eucharist, and its matter and form

n. I.

I. QUESTION I. What is the Eucharist? ANSWER. Various acceptations being omitted, it is the sacrament of the body and blood of Christ really contained under the species of bread and wine, for the spiritual nourishment of the faithful, instituted by Christ himself. The body and blood are at once the thing and the sacrament, which are signified by the consecrated species; and moreover they signify the spiritual nourishment of the soul. Whence it is plain that the Eucharist is a sacrament, since to it belongs the character of a sensible sign divinely instituted, and it has annexed the promise of grace and the divine mandate of observing that sign: which three things are proved from divine Scripture to belong to the Eucharist. Bread and wine are the sensible sign: Matthew 26, Jesus took bread, and so forth. To those observing this sign grace is promised: John 6, He that eateth this bread shall live for ever. There is the mandate of using that sign: Do this for a commemoration of me. Luke 22.

n. II.

II. QUESTION II. Are wheaten bread alone and wine of the vine the matter of the Eucharist? ANSWER. All affirm it, because this is the matter instituted by Christ. Jesus took bread, and so forth, Matthew 26. And of the matter of the chalice he adds there: I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine, and so forth. There is added the universal and perpetual tradition of the Church. Any quantity of the matter is apt for consecration. That quantity nevertheless the priest ought to consecrate which he shall prudently have recognized as suited to the use of the faithful.

n. III.

III. This matter must be present to the consecrating priest. This presence is moral, not physical. Wherefore the practice of certain priests is to be disapproved who are wont to move their mouth and lips to the bread and the chalice, and to breathe into the chalice itself. Such a presence is required as that it can be demonstrated by saying This is, or Here is. Some raise innumerable questions upon this presence, all of which as useless and arbitrary I pass over. They dispute also whether bread confected of almonds, chestnuts, beans, lentils, spelt, or barley be matter of consecration. And the common opinion denies it. Concerning siligo they dispute on either side. But a distinction must be made. If siligo be taken with Pliny for a kind of white grain, or for selected wheat, then it is a matter apt for consecration; but if it be taken for rye, commonly segala, it is an inept matter, and cannot be consecrated.

n. IV.

IV. QUESTION III. Ought the bread to be consecrated to be unleavened or leavened? ANSWER. The Council of Florence in the Decree of Union laid down these things: We define that in unleavened or in leavened wheaten bread the body of Christ is truly effected. That the Eucharist is validly confected in unleavened bread is established by the example of Christ the Lord, to which is added the perpetual tradition of the Church. That it is validly confected also in leavened bread is plain, because the Latin Church has never protested against the rite of the Greek Church consecrating in leavened bread. Neither ought the Latins to consecrate in leavened nor the Greeks in unleavened bread; but both Greek and Latin priests are bound to observe the rite of their own Church, as so many decrees enjoin, and most recently Benedict XIV, happily reigning, in the Constitution upon the Rites of the Greeks published in the year 1742, confirmed.

n. V.

V. QUESTION IV. Is wine of the vine the matter of the Eucharist? ANSWER. All affirm it, as is plain from the evangelical text already adduced and from the perennial tradition of the Church. So great a quantity of wine ought the priest of the Latin Church to consecrate as he can take according to the custom of his own Church. Wine of the vine alone therefore — whether white or black, whether sweet or harsh — is the matter of the consecration of the chalice. It is fitting nevertheless that the wine be white, for the avoiding of the stains which black or red wine leaves in the purificator, which present an unseemliness. Frozen wine is not an apt matter, because it cannot be drunk. Wherefore it ought to be liquefied, if it should become frozen in the chalice.

n. VI.

VI. QUESTION V. Is water to be mingled with the wine in the consecration of the chalice? ANSWER. Luther reputed this mixture a human figment; but by the perpetual tradition of the Church it is established that water was always mingled with the wine. The Third Council of Carthage in the year 397, canon 24, and the Quinisext or Trullan Synod in the year 692, testify that this rite descended from the Apostles. There are added the testimonies of all the Fathers, and at last Trent, session 22, chapter 4, canon 9, confirmed all the earlier decrees. This admixture is necessary with the necessity of ecclesiastical precept, not of the sacrament. The water to be mingled must be natural. A small quantity also is to be mingled. That this water is by force of the consecration converted into the blood of Christ all Catholics hold. But theologians dispute whether this small quantity of water be first converted into wine and afterwards into blood. Some maintain that it is immediately converted into blood. The more common opinion defends that it is first converted into wine. And this second opinion the Tridentine Catechism adopted, part 2, On the Eucharist, § 17. Reason also favours it, because water is in no way matter, even partial, of the chalice. And therefore, that the conversion may be easier, a little water is enjoined to be mingled. Neither opinion nevertheless pertains to faith.

n. VII.

VII. Theologians dispute whether one species can be consecrated without the other, urgent necessity pressing, by dispensation of the Supreme Pontiff. Diana with some others affirms it. It is certain that one species can validly be consecrated without the other. But it is disputed whether it be sometimes lawful, urgent necessity pressing, to do this. St. Thomas denies it, III, q. 74, art. 1, to whom the graver theologians subscribe. And this doctrine Trent seems to confirm, session 22, chapter 1. For the sacrament of the Eucharist was instituted after the manner of a spiritual banquet, and as a sacrifice. Further, this sacrifice cannot be immolated under one species alone, since it is the commemoration of the bloody Sacrifice, in which the blood was separated from the body.

n. VIII.

VIII. QUESTION VI. Are these dominical words alone — "This is my body" — essential to the consecration of the eucharistic bread? ANSWER. The affirmative opinion is certain, and defined in the Council of Florence in the Decree for the Instruction of the Armenians, and in Trent, session 13, chapter 3, where it is laid down that the consecration is made by the words of Christ. But Christ uttered these words: This is my body. Hence it follows that the words who the day before he suffered, and so forth, do not pertain to the essence of the consecration, because the aforesaid words are not dominical, that is, Christ did not utter them, but they are the Evangelists'.

n. IX.

IX. QUESTION VII. Are these words alone — "This is the chalice of my blood," or "This is my blood" — of the essence of the consecration of the chalice? Or do the others also which follow — "of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins" — pertain to the essence of the consecration? ANSWER. Theologians dispute on either side, even Thomists. The more probable opinion to me is that these words alone — This is my blood, or, what comes back to the same, This is the chalice of my blood — constitute the essential form of the consecration of the chalice. For as these words alone — This is my body — constitute the essential form of the bread, so the other aforesaid words effect the essential form of the chalice. Since indeed these words alone express and effect the conversion of the wine into blood, just as the former signify the transubstantiation of the bread into the body of Christ. But these words are not uttered by the priest historically, as the Protestants contend, but assertively and significatively.

n. X.

X. The particle for Christ did not use, as some contend; but it was added by the Church. Authors dispute whether he would sin mortally who voluntarily should omit this particle. The more probable opinion teaches that he sins mortally who voluntarily should omit this particle. Since although in itself it be something slight, nevertheless in the sacramental form it is of great moment. More gravely would he sin who should omit that particle out of contempt, whether formal or interpretative.

Slater, Cases II

Thomas Slater, S.J. — 9 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Slater, Cases II, The Holy Eucharist, Case 1. Adulterated Matter

Sylvius, a priest, hears that the adulteration of foods has gone so far as to corrupt the wheat and wine that serve the altar. For in order that the flour from which the hosts are made may be as white as possible, the genuine wheat having been removed, alum is mixed in; and from a small quantity of genuine wine, by means of water and chemical art, a fourfold quantity is made. With such matter Sylvius celebrated Mass for almost a year, and often for a stipend. Having taken suitable means so that henceforth at least he may have the due matter, he asks what he must do with regard to the past. Hence it is asked:

What is the matter of the Most Holy Eucharist?

Is consecration under one species valid, or ever lawful?

Vol. I, Case XXIII: The Words of Consecration · Vol. I, Case LXVI: Two Consecration Cases · Vol. II, Case LIX: Consecration Outside of Holy Mass · Vol. II, Case LXI: Whether a Ciborium Left Outside the Corporal Through Forgetfulness Has Been Consecrated

What is to be said of the case?

n. ¶5.

Solution

What is the matter of the Holy Eucharist?

n. ¶6.

The remote matter of the Eucharist is twofold, wheaten bread and wine of the grape.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. ii, p. 82.

n. ¶7.

Is consecration under one species valid, and is it lawful?

n. ¶8.

It is certainly never lawful. Consecration of one species is certainly valid when there is the intention of consecrating both species, but the consecration does not take effect, because, for example, the host is not wheaten bread or what is in the chalice is not wine of the grape. Even if a priest pronounces the words of consecration over one species with the intention of consecrating it alone, the consecration will be valid, but it does not constitute the Sacrifice of the Mass, since Mass consists essentially of the consecration under both species.

n. ¶9.

The case. The taking away of the germ from the grains of wheat and the addition of a little alum for the sake of greater whiteness would not change the wheat substantially, and so hosts made of such wheat would still be valid matter for the Eucharist, but it should not be employed. The sophisticated wine, however, was not wine of the grape, and it was not valid matter for Mass. The consecration under one species was nevertheless valid, and perhaps sufficient for the application of the fruits of Mass to the intentions of those who gave the stipends. Ballerini says that in such cases priests have recourse to the Holy See to know what should be done, but he admits that probably all obligations resting on the priest by reason of accepting the stipends have been fulfilled by the consecrations under one kind.¹

1 Ballerini, Opus Morale, tract, x, sec. iv, n. 230.

The Casuist

Various; ed. S. Woywod, O.F.M., and J. A. McHugh, O.P. — 56 passages

Vol. I, Case XXIII: The Words of Consecration

Titius, a priest, somewhat scrupulous by nature, repeats the words of consecration very often in the Mass.^* Once he repeated the words of consecration over the chalice, because he had said "Hoc est enim calix sanguinis mei" instead of "Hie est." Another time he omitted the words "mysterium fidei," and therefore repeated the whole form. Another time he repeated the form of consecration over the chalice because in his haste to get through the Mass he said "sanguis" for "sanguinis." And again another time he paused in the middle of the form of consecration for the chalice until he made an act of contrition, because he feared that he might be in mortal sin. Titius's confessor is at a loss as to what judgment he shall pass on Titius.

^* See the interesting chapter on this mania in Sanford's Pastoral Medicine.

Titius did wrong in all four instances, where he repeated the words of consecration, and he merits reproof.

In the first instance Titius should not have repeated the words of consecration over the chalice in order to correct a grammatical mistake. "Hoc est" has identically the same meaning as the rubrical form "Hie est." It is less correct Latinity, but it is synonymous with "Hie est." "Hoc est enim calix" is not a substantial change of the form of consecration, and does not invalidate the form.

The omission of the words "mysterium fidei" does not invalidate the form. If all the words beginning with "novi et aeterni" and continuing to the end "peccatorum" were omitted, the form would have to be repeated, because, owing to the opinion of weighty theologians, the form would probably be invalid. But the same can not be said of the omission of one or two words, and some theologians think that the repetition of the words of consecration would be illicit, when only one or two words, like "mysterium fidei" have been omitted (cf. Lehmk., II. 129; Genicot, II. 110).

n. ¶5.

3- Pronouncing "sanguis" for sanguinis" does not give any new sense to the words of consecration. It is evident that it is only a slip of the tongue, a slight accidental error of pronunciation, and that Titius intended just what the correct grammatical form says.

n. ¶6.

Titius did wrong by repeating the whole form because he had interrupted it momentarily in order to make an act of contrition. Slight interruptions which scrupulous priests make in pronouncing the words of consecration do not constitute a moral interruption.

n. ¶7.

We would add that in Titius's case it is very probable that the consecration of the chalice was already accomplished when he interrupted the form to make an act of contrition (cf. Genicot n. 176,

Vol. I, Case LXVI: Two Consecration Cases

[Ciborium extra corporale—super corporali.] I. A certain priest met with the following embarrassing accident. Before Mass this priest directed the sexton to place the ciborium, well-filled with hosts, upon the altar, so that he might consecrate them during the Mass. The sexton places the ciborium upon the altar, where the priest at the beginning of the holy service notices it, standing beside the chalice and outside the corporal. At the offertory the priest forgets to offer up also the small particles, and he likewise forgets at the consecration to place the ciborium upon the corporal and to uncover it. Hardly is the consecration over when he, to his utter consternation, catches sight of the ciborium, outside the corporal. What is to be done? Are the small hosts consecrated or not? Must he repeat the words of consecration absolutely, or only conditionally? Only a few hosts are left in the Communion-cup, there is a considerable number of communicants, and this is the last Mass; this thought is deciding; in his dilemma the priest repeats the formula conditionally, and then administers Holy Communion from this ciborium. To solve this case, we will in the first place answer the question, What conditions are necessary for the validity of the consecration?

For the validity of the consecration there is required, in the first place, as in the case of every Sacrament, the intention on the part of the dispenser to do as the Church does, and here a mere virtual intention suffices. Furthermore it is required that the proper matter be physically present; this is conditioned by the words hoc and hie; furthermore, that the matter be meant in individuo, where again the mere virtual intention suffices. The physical presence is naturally to be understood morally, corresponding to the meaning of the words and the nature of the function; so, for example, a host concealed under the corporal, or enclosed in the tabernacle, can not be considered physically present; on the other hand, it is not essential that the materia be actually held by the hands, or that it must be seen, for the hosts in the ciborium may be covered, “for the contents are reckoned together with the container and are morally made present.” (Laymann, L. V. Tr. IV. c. II.)

In our case both conditions for the validity of the consecration, namely the physica praesentia materiae and the intentio ministri are, though only virtualiter, present; the first condition, because the ciborium, filled with particles, was standing on the altar beside the corporal; the second, because the priest, before Mass, and while vesting in the sacristy, had the actual intention to consecrate the small hosts, for he directed, for that purpose, the sexton to put the ciborium upon the altar, and when ascending to the altar he actually noticed it there. This intention formed directly before Holy Mass, continued virtually, as the celebrant in proof of the actual intention performed the ceremonies of Holy Mass. As the actual intention, formed before Holy Mass, virtually takes effect in the act of offering, and as the liturgical act of offering relates to the actual materia of the offering, as well as to the particles, it can hardly be said that the intention continues virtually in regard to the materia primaria but not also in regard to the present materia superaddita, seu secundaria.

Since therefore the conditions for validity are present, the ciborium appears to have been validly consecrated. Hence St. Alphonsus (n. 25) teaches, quite generally, without excepting our case; “He who brought the smaller hosts to the altar, about which he did not explicitly think when consecrating the larger host and which he did not uncover, ought not repeat the consecration.” Laymann also (L. V. Tr. IV. cp. II. n. 12) considers in this case the consecration valid, because both conditions praesentia physica and intentio virtualis are attendant. “If a priest, before going out to offer the sacrifice, is reminded of hosts placed on the altar that are to be consecrated (therefore not necessarily upon the corporal, because put there before Holy Mass)... and intends to consecrate them, but afterward forgets them entirely, they ought to be regarded as none the less entirely consecrated, since in such a case neither the presence of the hosts nor the priest’s virtual intention is lacking.”

n. ¶5.

The Salmanticenses hold (de Euch. cp. 4, n. 125), that the consecration is valid, if the priest has the hosts brought upon the altar but at the time of consecration forgot about them, and in proof they go on to say "quia intentio virtualiter perseverat;" without making any distinction as to whether the ciborium stood upon the corporal or beside it.

n. ¶6.

It is an instance of irregularity only that the ciborium was standing outside the corporal, there can be no question of sin, because knowledge and intention were lacking. And yet it is just this circumstance, which is claimed by some authorities to cancel the intentio virtualis otherwise present. These authorities admit under the circumstances of our case that the physical materia is present and also that the priest has virtually the intention, though the materia superaddita be forgotten at the consecration, and that consequently the consecration is valid, but only then, if the ciborium at the consecration stands upon the corporal; this they regard a conditio sine qua non. So Bucceroni (II. n. 511, 3): “The consecration is valid if someone before the sacrifice was reminded of hosts already placed on the altar that were to be consecrated, even though while consecrating he did not remember them or did not even uncover them at the offertory, provided they are present on the corporal, because the preceding intention virtually perseveres.” These authors therefore make exception of the case, when the ciborium stands outside the corporal. But according to the Salmanticenses (de Euch. p. 4, n. 125), it is only "nonnulli" who make the exception: " provided they are upon the corporal," and their reason for making the exception is because a priest is not to be presumed to have willed to consecrate improperly and unlawfully. (Salm. l. c.)

n. ¶7.

So also Aversa (de Euch. g. z. Sect. 2) a priest is not presumed to wish to commit a grave sin, such as it would be to consecrate in that manner. Likewise Holzmann (II. tr. 3, cp. 2, art. 2) in his case holds that all six hosts present are consecrated even when the celebrant erroneously supposes that there are only five upon the following general principle:... “according to the rite of the Church, a priest is judged—in the particular case as he regularly is accustomed and ought—to have the intention of consecrating all the matter which he has before him, or which either he himself or another with his consent brought to the altar, if it can be lawfully consecrated.”

n. ¶8.

The argument advanced is therefore: one can not presume the intentio consecrandi in the priest if a circumstance exists, unknown to the celebrant, which, if known to him, would prevent him from consecrating, so as not to consecrate unlawfully.

n. ¶9.

But this argument does not seem able to stand the test, because in its application and in its consequences it leads too far.

n. ¶10.

It would certainly be grievously sinful to offer up the holy sacrifice in an unconsecrated chalice, or with a badly broken host, or in wine not mixed with water at the offertory, or in wine which has soured though still valid material. If now one of these unlawful conditions were present without the priest being aware of it, it would have to be assumed according to the general principle above mentioned that the consecration was invalid, “because it could not be lawfully consecrated, because a priest is not presumed to will to commit a grave sin.” The advocates of the above-mentioned principle, however, admit the validity of the consecration in the cases named. Why, then, should the principle apply in a case when the ciborium is extra corporale, and not to the other forbidden conditions? That is not easy to understand. Such restriction would seem purely arbitrary.

n. ¶11.

Nevertheless Roncaglia (de Euch. p. 2, q. 8) seeks to solve the difficulty by discriminating between the actual sacrificial materia as materia primaria, and the particles to be consecrated as materia secundaria seu superaddita; the priest intends at any rate the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass, notwithstanding a present but unknown defect; has, however, the intention only to consecrate modo licito the particles present in the ciborium, as materia secundaria, which is well reconcilable, as the essence of the Mass exists in its integrity without the consecration of the particles added thereto. Hence, according to this opinion, the sacrifice of the Mass would be valid with a fermented or badly broken host, with an unconsecrated chalice, with sour wine, with wine unmixed with water; the consecration of the particles, on the contrary, would be invalid if the ciborium stood outside the corporal, if the extra hosts were of fermented bread, etc.

n. ¶12.

Even in this restriction to the secondary materia it does not appear as if the principle could be defended.

n. ¶13.

Not to uncover the ciborium at the consecration would, if it happened knowingly, be a grievous sin according to a few theologians, and this is a condition which concerns the particles, therefore, in this case, according to Roncaglia, the consecration would be invalid, at least in the opinion of those authors who regard the non-uncovering as grievously sinful. Yet in reality would even they doubt the validity of such a consecration? Furthermore, let us suppose that the hosts contained in the ciborium are fermented, which is forbidden sub gravi; the priest, however, has placed the ciborium upon the corporal; in this case the validity of the consecration will generally be admitted, whether the priest forgets about the particles at the consecration and therefore has only virtual intention, or whether by the uncovering of the ciborium he manifests his actual intention; and yet it is here a question of the secondary material

n. ¶14.

Or let us presume the following cases, so as to return to the case positio extra corporale, the pyxis stands outside the corporal, which the priest does not notice, and at the consecration he removes the cover; or, the priest uncovering the pyxis moves it nearer, whereby its base slips under the edge of the corporal, so that the pyxis still remains outside the corporal; in these cases no one will doubt the validity of the consecration, though we have here the forbidden case "extra corporale," and though it is here a question of secondary material

n. ¶15.

Both these last-mentioned cases are distinct from our case only by the fact that the priest in the former has actual intention, and in our case merely virtual intention.

n. ¶16.

This accidental distinction, however, does not actually matter, as both the actual and the virtual intention suffice for the validity; in the opinion of those authorities there would have to be added to both kinds of intentions: sub intelligitur conditio, si sit licite consecrabile.

n. ¶17.

If we sum up all these suppositions, we come to the following conclusion; either the principle mentioned must be allowed to apply in its full extent or not at all, a middle course does not seem possible; as however even the advocates of the principle do not let it govern universally, it seems as if this principle would have to be dropped as not tenable.

n. ¶18.

Hitherto we have viewed this principle "non est praesumendus sacerdos illicite consecrationem facere velle," from the outside as it were, namely, in its application and in its consequences; if we now consider the same according to its nature and essence, it proves itself equally untenable.^*

^* In our argument we have pointed out that in regard to the transubstantiation of the Eucharistic species the discussed principle in its logical application leads too far, and left aside the fact that this principle would also be made to apply to the other Sacraments, of which it would likewise have to be held "non praesumitur sacerdos velle committere grave peccatum." It is easily seen of what grave consequences it might be if the priest, in administering the Sacraments, Holy Baptism, for instance, had always the intention to administer the Sacrament only if no condition be present which is forbidden sub gravi.

n. ¶19.

According to this principle the proof of the invalidity of the consecration in the case before us is taken "ex praesumpta intentione celebrantis," meaning: one can not suppose that the celebrant has simply the intention to consecrate under all circumstances, whether forbidden conditions exist or not, but it is rather to be supposed that he has the intention not to do anything at Holy Mass that might be a grievous sin, therefore only to consecrate (at least the materia secundaria) when the permissibility is endangered by no weighty qualifications. It is presumed accordingly that the priest has in a manner an intentio conditionata, in so far as he either in every single consecration of the particles makes this condition, or that he once and for all resolves upon this general intention: I shall never intend to consecrate, if a condition exists which if realized would make the consecration gravely unlawful. If a priest really has this intention the consecration is, of course, invalid if such condition be present, because the original intentio conditionata by the entering of the contemplated condition becomes an intentio absoluta. Where however such intention is lacking, then it must be held praesumpta ilia voluntas nulla est.

n. ¶20.

The question is, have priests really, as a general thing, the conditional intention only to consecrate, si sit licite consecrabile? It would appear that hardly any priests make this general condition beforehand nor regularly in each single case, as otherwise the hesitation and the doubt about validity or invalidity of the consecration, as soon as after the consecration an impeding condition is discovered, would be utterly inexplicable, for of course if they had really had this conditional intention, they would be aware of it, and there could be no doubt that the consecration was invalid.

n. ¶21.

The reason why hardly any one has this conditional intention, is, because under these circumstances the non-observance of a prescribed form will be no sin, as in all these cases ignorantia is presupposed. Besides, one might be placed in considerable embarrassment by this conditional intention, if, for instance, no consecrated particles are at hand, when needed for the Communion of the faithful. It seems, however, that a distinction must be made as to whether it is a question of consecrating a few particles upon the paten, or whether the priest intends to consecrate a larger quantity in the ciborium. In the first case, the priest has the tacit intention only to consecrate what there is contained upon the corporal, and for that reason the celebrant may properly consider as not consecrated, any particles found outside the corporal after the consecration. In the second case the priest has not the intention to consecrate only that which is lying on the corporal, when perhaps inadvertently he has let the ciborium stand outside the corporal. This distinction is evident by the nature of the proceeding, because the single particles are placed, from the beginning, upon the paten and therefore upon the corporal, while, on the contrary, the ciborium stands in the beginning outside the corporal, and only during the Holy Mass is placed upon it.

n. ¶22.

It may be gathered from the above that the principle referred to is hardly admissible and that much rather the following general tenet may be adhered to: It can not be held that a priest has not the intention to consecrate, when, without his knowledge, a condition, not interfering with the essence of the Sacrament, is present, which if knowingly tolerated would be a grievous sin. The universal practice of the Church supports this tenet, because whenever the valid administration of a Sacrament is questioned, inquiry is always made whether the substantial elements are present, but not whether also the accidental elements were observed, even if sub gravi prescribed.

n. ¶23.

This terminates our speculative discussion, and the result is that the validity of the consecration under the conditions mentioned is far more probable than its invalidity.^*

^* Lehmkuhl considers as more probable in our case the Invalidity of the consecration because he holds that the priest's intention before the sacrifice of the Mass had probably been only "PROPOSITUM particulas assumendi et in consecratione includendi." This verdict was not touched upon in the above discussion, for the reason that our purpose was chiefly to refute the argument ex praesumpta intentione celebrantis.

n. ¶24.

The important question now demands our attention: What principle is to guide us in practice? Although the authorities differ in the theoretical explanation, yet they agree in their view of the actual instance, that the particles are to be again consecrated conditionally, as the validity of the consecration is not quite certain; it does not, however, follow that our speculative discussion is superfluous, for it brings about a more profound understanding of the matter, and sheds a bright light upon obscure points. While St. Alphonsus designates the verdict of the invalidity of the consecration as communis, the Salmenticenses as we have seen above declare that it is only nonnulli who argue the invalidity. Since, therefore, the matter is not decided we may be guided in practice by P. Lehmkuhl who writes: “Therefore, if the consecration remains doubtful, the particles must either be consecrated again conditionally in the following Mass, or—what seems preferable for the sake of greater reverence unless some inconvenience arises from another source—must be consumed by the celebrating priest after receiving from the sacred chalice and before the ablution.” The latter, of course, is possible only when there are very few particles. St. Alphonsus also advises that since the matter in the practice remains always res dubia, it is reasonable to agree with what Pope Benedict XIV teaches, namely, that this ciborium should again be consecrated.

n. ¶25.

From the above we may now review the priest's action in the present case. He did not do well in repeating the consecration conditionally during THE SAME MASS, for as the actual matter of sacrifice has already been consecrated this repetition of the consecration was equal to a consecratio sub una specie, which is never permitted, not even if the Viaticum were called for by a dying person. The celebrant should therefore have reserved the ciborium for another Mass, and the faithful should have been directed tocome to Holy Communion upon the following day.

n. ¶26.

II. On account of its similarity we will quote briefly a second case which, no doubt, has happened to many a priest: A priest orders the sexton, before Mass, to put the ciborium containing the hosts upon the altar, in order to be consecrated. At the commencement of Holy Mass the celebrant places the ciborium upon the corporal, beside the chalice, but during Mass he entirely forgets about it; he does not uncover it at the consecration, hence at the end of Mass he takes it for granted that the ciborium has not been consecrated; he has it carried back into the sacristy, in order to consecrate it the following day.

n. ¶27.

The solution of this case is plain from our argument in the first case. According to St. Alphonsus (n. 217) it is sententia communis, that the consecration is valid if the ciborium stands upon the corporal even if at the consecration it is entirely overlooked. In reality all the requisites for its validity are present, namely the praesentia physica, and, moreover, the intentio virtualis, which the priest manifests sufficiently by having the ciborium brought to the altar, and by his placing it upon the corporal. There was, of course, an omission of a circumstance prescribed by the rubrics, namely, the ciborium was not uncovered, still the non-observance of this accidental circumstance does not interfere at all with the validity of the consecration; in the first place, moralists admit almost universally that it is not decreed sub gravi to uncover the ciborium and, secondly, even supposed it be an obligatio gravis, its wilful omission therefore a grievous sin, yet this would not prejudice the validity, because the principle non praesumitur sacerdos velle committere grave peccatum, has according to our examination no weight. Hence it follows that in this second case the priest could have distributed these particles to the faithful in Holy Communion, without any doubt or hesitation.

Vol. II, Case LIX: Consecration Outside of Holy Mass

A priest is required to take the Viaticum to a dying person. For want of a consecrated Host, he takes an unconsecrated one, pronounces over it the words of consecration, with the intention of consecrating the Host, and gives it to the dying person. Is such consecration, in case of necessity, outside of Holy Mass, valid?

Yes, it is valid. To this question St. ALPHONSUS replies as follows: Lugo denies it because, as he says, the nature of the sacrament cannot be separated from the nature of the sacrifice...; but others commonly affirm it, because in every sacrament, whenever the minister pronounces the form over the matter with the due intention, he effects the sacrament. This opinion is indeed very probable, but the opposite does not seem improbable (Th. Mor., L. VI., n. 196, Dub. 3).

Such procedure, however, is always grievously sinful. LEHMKUHL, in his Theol. Mor., II, n. 131, teaches: He sins gravely who consecrates outside the celebration of Mass; and Dr. Müller, in his Moral Theology, states (L. III, par. 92, n. 3): Not even in a necessity however grave—for example, that Viaticum may be furnished to a dying person—is it lawful to consecrate only one of the two matters.

ADOLPH. SCHMUCKENSCHLAGER,

Vol. II, Case LXI: Whether a Ciborium Left Outside the Corporal Through Forgetfulness Has Been Consecrated

This question has been discussed before ^* without arriving at a positive answer. It is important enough to deserve closer attention.

^* See THE CASUIST, vol. I, p. 279.