The Confection of the Most Holy Sacrament

124. On the minister of consecration. Priests alone are the ministers of consecrating the Eucharist; for to priests alone was conceded the power of consecrating by these words: Do this in commemoration of me,¹ which words were spoken to the apostles and their successors in the priesthood. And the Fourth Lateran Council defines: "This sacrament indeed no one can effect except a priest who has been duly ordained."² But this power, as cohering with the priestly character, belongs to every priest, even a heretic, schismatic, excommunicated person, suspended person, or one bound by another canonical impediment.

If several consecrate the same matter at the same time, which happens in the ordination of new priests, they should take care to finish the form at the same time. For if one finishes the form before the others and has the intention of consecrating independently of the others, he alone consecrates. Therefore it is customary to say to those being ordained new priests that they must take care either to finish the form together with the bishop, or to have the intention of not consecrating if they finish the form before the bishop.³ But this warning is superfluous. For since they are concelebrants, from the nature of the thing they have the intention of consecrating with the bishop, i.e., indeed of consecrating, but only with the bishop. They have this intention by the very fact that they wish to receive the order according to the rite of the holy Roman Church, and they need no other intention; indeed, so that anxieties and scruples may be kept away, another intention ought not to be advised to them.

¹ Luke 22, 19. Cf. Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 1 and can. 2, De sacrif. miss.; Code of Canon Law, Cn. 802.

² C. Firmiter 1, De summa Trinitate (I, 1).

³ Cf. Lugo, De eucharist., disp. 11, sect. 8.

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 430.

² Session 22, canon 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

³ Roman Missal, loc. cit.

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

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

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

⁷ De Eucharistia, dissertation 3, article 6.

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

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

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

¹¹ Word "Missa," article 8, n. 34.

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

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

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

¹⁵ De Eucharistia, nn. 286 and 287.

¹⁶ Institutiones Alphonsianae, n. 1527.

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

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

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

²⁰ De Eucharistia, n. 183.

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

²² Session 13, canons 2 and 3.

2. For licit consecration it is required:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

II. Consecration and blessing of sacred places. 1. The consecration of a church, although it belongs to regulars, belongs to the Ordinary of the territory in which the place itself is found, provided the Ordinary is marked with the episcopal character, but not to the vicar general without a special mandate, with the right of Cardinals of the Holy Roman Church to consecrate the church and altars of their title remaining firm (canon 1155, § 1). Cardinals, even non-bishops, can consecrate churches everywhere with the consent of the Ordinary (canon 239, § 1, 20); abbots and prelates nullius can do the same (canon 323, § 2).

b) The right of blessing a sacred place, if it belongs to the secular clergy or to a non-exempt religious institute, or to a lay institute, belongs to the Ordinary of the territory in which the place is found; if it belongs to an exempt clerical religious institute, to the major superior. Each, however, can delegate another priest for this (canon 1156).

Note. Notwithstanding any privilege whatever, no one can consecrate or bless a sacred place without the consent of the Ordinary, whether territorial or religious, according as the circumstances bear (canon 1157); and this also holds for Cardinals, if there is question of a church other than the church of their own title.

I. An altar, and that consecrated (canon 822, § 1). Now either the whole altar must be consecrated, if there is question of an immovable altar, or only the portable altar-stone, if there is question of a movable altar (canon 1199, § 1). Moreover, per se Mass must be celebrated on an altar of the proper rite; but when such an altar is lacking, it is lawful for a priest to celebrate according to his own rite on an altar consecrated for another Catholic rite, but not upon the antimensions of the Greeks (canon 823, § 2).¹ Finally, on papal altars no one may celebrate without apostolic indult (canon 823, § 3). With these things summarily noted, several things about the altar must be noted.

1. Notion of an altar. In the liturgical sense it is understood: 1. by the name of an immovable or fixed altar, the upper table together with the supports consecrated with it as one thing; 2. by the name of a movable or portable altar, a stone, usually small, which alone is consecrated and which is also called a portable altar-stone or sacred stone; or the same stone together with a support which nevertheless was not consecrated together with it (canon 1197, § 1).

In a consecrated church at least one altar, especially the major altar, must be immovable; but in a blessed church all altars can be movable (canon 1197, § 2).

2. Construction of an altar. a) Both the immovable table and the sacred stone should consist of one natural stone, whole and not friable (canon 1198, § 1).

b) In an immovable altar the stone slab or table must extend to the whole altar and suitably cohere with the support; the support should be of stone, or at least the sides or little columns by which the table is supported should be of stone (canon 1198, § 2).

c) The sacred stone should be so large that it holds at least the host and the greater part of the chalice (canon 1198, § 3).

d) Both in an immovable altar and in a sacred stone there should be, according to the norm of liturgical laws, a sepulcher containing relics of Saints, closed with stone (canon 1198, § 4). Concerning this, observe that for due consecration it is required that relics from the bodies of at least two martyrs be deposited in the sepulcher, and that these be enclosed with a stone cover. Nevertheless, for the validity of consecration the relics of only one martyr suffice.² For the rest, relics of other Saints can be added.

3. Consecration of an altar. Portable altar-stones can be consecrated validly and licitly by Cardinals (canon 239, § 1, 20), all bishops (canon 1199, § 2), vicars and prefects apostolic within the limits of their territory and while their office endures (canon 294, § 2), and abbots and prelates nullius (canon 323, § 2). Immovable altars can be validly consecrated by the same persons who validly consecrate portable altar-stones, excepting, however, vicars and prefects apostolic who lack the episcopal character. In order that they act licitly, the Ordinary of the territory must grant permission, with the right of Cardinals to consecrate altars of their own title remaining firm (canons 1155; 1199, § 2). The consecration of an immovable altar, which is done without the dedication of a church, although it can be done on any day, is nevertheless more fittingly done on a Sunday or another feast of precept (canon 1199, § 3).

4. Execration of an altar. a) An immovable altar loses consecration if the slab or table is separated from the support even for a moment of time; in this case the Ordinary can permit a presbyter to perform the consecration of the altar again with the shorter rite and formula (canon 1200, § 1). It is not execrated if the table, not separated from the support, is transferred to another church or to another place of the same church.³

b) Both an immovable altar and a sacred stone lose consecration: 1. if they are broken enormously, whether by reason of the quantity of the fracture or by reason of the place of anointing (canon 1200, § 2, 1), but not if they are merely scraped; 2. if the relics are removed or the cover of the sepulcher is broken or removed, except in the case in which the bishop himself or his delegate removes the cover in order to secure, repair, or replace it, or to inspect the relics. But a slight fracture of the cover does not induce execration, and any priest can secure a little crack with cement (canon 1200, § 2, 2 and 3).

c) The execration of a church does not carry with it the execration of altars, whether immovable or movable; and conversely (canon 1200, § 4).

5. The title of an altar. a) Just as a church, so any altar of a church, at least an immovable one, should have its own title. The primary title of the major altar must be the same as the title of the church (canon 1201, §§ 1 and 2).

b) Altars cannot be dedicated to Blessed persons, even in churches and oratories to which their office and Mass have been granted, without an indult of the Apostolic See (canon 1201, § 4).

c) With the permission of the Ordinary, the title of a movable altar can indeed be changed, but not the title of an immovable altar (canon 1201, § 3).

6. Necessity of an altar. The precept of consecrating on a consecrated and not execrated altar is grave.⁴ Moreover, according to some it is never lawful to celebrate outside an altar; according to others this is lawful in a most grave necessity, for example for confecting Viaticum, because, they say, the precept of receiving Viaticum is divine, while the prohibition of celebrating outside an altar is ecclesiastical.

7. Things to be noted. a) The altar-stone, that is, the portable altar-stone or sacred stone, must be inserted in an altar made of wood or of another material.⁵

b) Both an immovable and a movable altar must be reserved only for divine offices and especially for the celebration of Mass, any profane use being altogether excluded (canon 1202, § 1).

c) No corpse should be hidden under the altar; but corpses which perhaps are buried near the altar should be distant from it by a space of at least one meter. Otherwise it is not lawful to celebrate Mass on the altar until the corpse is removed (canon 1202, § 2).

¹ An antimension is a consecrated cloth in which there are relics, and which, spread upon any table, can be used for saying Mass.

² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 16 February 1906, n. 4180, ad III.

³ The decree of the Sacred Congregation of Rites, 3 September 1879, n. 3504, ad I, which is opposed, seems to speak of the transfer of the table alone, separated from the support.

⁴ Roman Missal, General Rubrics, title XX; De defectibus, title X, n. 1.

⁵ Roman Missal, loc. cit.

The following are required:

I. Chalice and paten; both of which must be consecrated.¹

1. Matter. The chalice must be gold or silver, at least as regards the cup;² by reason of poverty one made of tin is permitted,³ and, under certain conditions, one made of aluminum mixed with other metals;⁴ but not one of bronze, glass, or wood. The cup, unless it is gold, must be gilded under grave obligation (canon 1305, § 2). As regards the form of the chalice, the Sacred Congregation of Rites⁵ prescribed: "let them not differ from the traditional forms, because of the danger of spilling the sacred species and of exciting astonishment."

The paten should be of the same material as the chalice,⁶ and unless it is gold, it must be gilded under grave obligation (canon 1305, § 2).

2. Consecration. Chalices and patens can be consecrated by: 1. Cardinals (canon 239, § 1, 20); 2. bishops (canon 1147, § 1); 3. vicars and prefects apostolic, but if they lack the episcopal character, only within the limits of their territory and while their office endures (canon 294, § 2); 4. abbots and prelates nullius, but if they are not adorned with the episcopal character, only for their churches (canon 323, § 2).

a) They lose consecration: 1. if they have undergone such injuries or changes that they have lost their former form and are no longer held suitable for their uses (canon 1305, § 1, 1), for example when a chalice is pierced in the bottom or near the bottom; when the cup is separated from the foot, unless the chalice is turnable; when it is broken or struck in such a way that it can no longer decently serve the sacrifice. They lose consecration, 2. if they have been used for indecorous uses or exposed to public sale (canon 1305, § 1, 2).

b) They do not lose consecration because of the wearing away or renewal of the gilding, with the grave obligation of gilding them again remaining safe, however, in the former case (canon 1305, § 2).

3. It is a grave sin to celebrate without a chalice or paten, likewise without consecrated ones, likewise with a chalice or paten made from prohibited material or not gilded (cf. canon 1305, § 2).

4. It is an abuse to execrate sacred vessels before they are handed over to an artisan to be repaired or recast.⁷

¹ Roman Missal, Rite to be observed, title I, n. 1.

² Roman Missal, loc. cit.

³ Roman Missal, De defectibus, title X, n. 1.

⁴ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 9 December 1866 (Acta Sanctae Sedis VI, p. 590).

⁵ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 30 June 1922 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis 1922, p. 437).

⁶ Roman Missal, Rite to be observed, title I, n. 1; De defectibus, title X, n. 1.

⁷ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 20 April 1822, n. 2620.

What is sacrilege? - Sacrilege is the violation of a sacred thing, insofar as sacred; that is, of a thing dedicated to divine worship, taken not materially but formally, namely insofar as it is ordered to this worship. That is to say, for some action to be sacrilege, the thing must be violated in that by which it is sacred. Whence if someone speaks badly about someone who has a vow of chastity, his detraction does not assume the nature of formal sacrilege, because that person is sacred to God only as to bodily purity, but not as to integrity of reputation. Moreover, only that thing is properly judged sacred which is not sacred in just any way, or dedicated to divine worship in just any way, but by public rite and divine or ecclesiastical institution, or by the power of the Church, has been deputed to the worship of God. Therefore it is not sufficient that a thing has been simply blessed, namely by a merely invocative blessing, by which we pray for the good of a thing or person; but a constitutive blessing is necessary, by which a thing from profane becomes sacred, as can be seen in holy water or blessed candles. Indeed, even more, a constitutive blessing is necessary by which a thing is consecrated uniquely and perpetually to divine worship; and this is properly consecration, as sacred vessels, churches, priests, clerics. And thus it is not illicit "to throw to dogs the bones of a lamb or eggs which are blessed... just as it is also licit to use holy water and candles for profane use." L. l. c., n. 94. By the blessing of these things only the special assistance of God is invoked concerning the use of those same things. La-Croix, l. c., n. 227; Struggl 9; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 76, a. 1; q. 99, aa. 1, 2; Cajetan on 2. 2, q. 88, a. 11; L. l. 6, n. 94.

Blessing is numbered among the sacramentals. It is an invocation of good: one merely invocative; another constitutive, by which a thing from profane becomes sacred; another constitutive and consecrative, by which a thing is destined uniquely and in perpetuity to divine worship. Blessings which are made without sacred oils are called verbal; those made with these employed are real, and are accustomed to be called consecrations. Real blessings, or consecrations, are of the episcopal order; of verbal blessings, some are of the episcopal order, others of the presbyteral. Some presbyteral blessings are parochial, such as the blessing of bridegroom and bride, the blessing of a ship, of houses on Holy Saturday. Which verbal presbyteral and episcopal blessings there are must be deduced from the Ritual, Pontifical, and Missal; but parochial blessings are those which bear before themselves some jurisdiction.

“29. The doctrine of the Synod, in that part in which, undertaking to hand down the doctrine of faith concerning the rite of consecration, with scholastic questions concerning the manner in which Christ is in the Eucharist set aside—from which it exhorts Pastors exercising the office of teaching to abstain—proposes only these two things: 1. that Christ after the consecration is truly, really, and substantially under the species; 2. that then the whole substance of the bread and wine ceases, only the species remaining; but entirely omits to make any mention of transubstantiation, or of the conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, which the Council of Trent defined as an article of faith and which is contained in the solemn profession of faith—insofar as, through an ill-advised and suspicious omission of this kind, knowledge is withdrawn both of an article pertaining to the faith and of the word consecrated by the Church for safeguarding its profession against heresies, and thus tends to induce forgetfulness of it, as though it concerned a merely scholastic question—is pernicious, derogatory to the exposition of Catholic truth concerning the dogma of transubstantiation, and favorable to heretics.” Proposition of the Synod of Pistoia condemned by Pius VI.

“...In this Church Jesus Christ Himself is both Priest and Sacrifice, whose Body and Blood are truly contained in the Sacrament of the altar under the species of bread and wine, the bread having been transubstantiated into the Body and the wine into the Blood by divine power, so that, for perfecting the mystery of unity, we ourselves may receive from what is His that which He Himself received from what is ours. And assuredly no one can confect this Sacrament except a priest who has been rightly ordained according to the keys of the Church which Jesus Christ Himself granted to the Apostles and their successors.” Fourth Lateran Council, year 1215, chapter 1, Definition against the Albigensians and other heretics.

“We firmly believe and confess that, however honorable, religious, holy, and prudent anyone may be, he cannot or ought not consecrate the Eucharist or confect the Sacrifice of the altar unless he is a priest regularly ordained by a visible and tangible Bishop. For this office three things, as we believe, are necessary: namely, a certain person, that is, a priest appointed by a Bishop, as we have said, properly to that office, and those solemn words which were expressed in the Canon by the Holy Fathers, and the faithful intention of the one pronouncing them. Therefore we firmly believe and confess that whoever, without a preceding episcopal ordination as we have said, believes and contends that he can offer the Sacrifice of the Eucharist is a heretic and a participant and associate in the perdition of Korah and his accomplices, and is to be separated from the whole Holy Roman Church.” Profession of faith prescribed to the Waldensians by Innocent III.

7. On the omitted consecration of the host - Marinus the priest, after the consecration of the chalice, notices that through distraction he omitted the consecration of the Host. Hence he remains uncertain, not knowing what he should do; for he fears to consecrate the Host after the wine. For thus the nature of the sacrifice seems to him no longer to be verified.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. There is no doubt that what Marinus must do in the Case is to consecrate the host. This is clearly had in the rubr. missal. de Defect. tit. 3, n. 4, 5, 6, where there is discussion of defect of the bread, and a fourfold case is distinguished: that someone notices the defect of the matter of bread before its consecration; after its consecration; after its consumption; after the consumption of the chalice. In the first Case, after a host has been supplied and a mental offering made, the priest is to continue from the place where he left off, and then the host is to be consecrated. In the second and third Case, after other matter likewise has been placed and a mental offering made, that matter also is to be consecrated, beginning from those words, Qui pridie quam pateretur, etc.; and the other corrupt or non-wheaten host, if he has not consumed it, he is to consume after the consumption of the Body and Blood; or he is to hand it over to others to be consumed, or preserve it reverently somewhere. In the fourth Case new bread and wine with water must again be supplied, and, after a mental offering has first been made, both matters are to be consecrated, beginning from those words, Qui pridie, and at once both are to be consumed, and the Mass continued. Hence it is clear that even after the consecration of the chalice and before its consumption, the host is to be consecrated, notwithstanding that inversion of order, that the wine was consecrated first, and afterward the host is consecrated. This is also clear from the same rubric, ib., in the following number, namely 7, where it is said: "If the consecrated host disappears, or by some accident, or by wind, or by miracle, or being taken by some animal, cannot be found, then another is to be consecrated, beginning from that place, Qui pridie quam pateretur, its offering having first been made, as above." And hence it is clear that the order of consecrating first the bread and then the wine does not pertain to the substance of the sacrifice. Hence also from the defect of a change of order in consecrating, a sufficient foundation cannot be taken for doubting about the validity of the sacrifice. Suarez, d. 75, s. 6; d. 86, s. 1; Casus Bonon. Dioeces., year 1792, month of Febr., Case 3.

8. On the consecration of small hosts - Euphrasius always has to consecrate these small hosts; indeed he places them on the corporal, but by no means sees to it that they also are upon the altar stone. For he says that it suffices that the larger host and the chalice are upon the altar stone.

It is asked: What is to be said to the Case?

R. Euphrasius does not act rightly. For first, in rubric tit. 20 it is said: "The altar on which the most holy sacrifice of the Mass is to be celebrated must be of stone and consecrated by a bishop, or at least a stone altar-slab similarly consecrated by a bishop inserted in it, which is so large that it can contain the host and the greater part of the chalice." Therefore, as the larger host must be upon the altar stone, so also upon the same must be placed the other small hosts, which constitute part of one and the same sacrifice which is celebrated. Yet, as it suffices, if the altar stone is small, that the greater part of the chalice be upon it, so also it suffices that the greater part of the aforesaid hosts, which are taken by way of one matter, be upon the same altar stone, if it is so small that it cannot contain them all. - Moreover, in rubr. tit. 2 it is said: "If the priest is going to consecrate several hosts for communion to be given, which on account of their quantity cannot remain on the paten, he places them on the corporal before the chalice, or puts them in some consecrated chalice or clean blessed vessel behind the chalice, and covers them with another paten or pall." Hence it is sufficiently understood that small hosts also are to be placed upon the altar stone, since they are to be placed near the chalice, and if on the altar stone there is space for the chalice and for the larger host, there consequently will also be space for the small hosts, unless that stone is very small, and the hosts are very many. Hence Merati in l. c. says: "When several particles are to be consecrated for the communion of the lay faithful and of others not celebrating, which on account of their quantity cannot remain on the paten (for when the particles are few, such as five or six, they must be placed upon the paten and beneath the host, so as to offer them together with the host at the same time, and after the offering they are placed upon the corporal separated from the host; yet in such a way that they remain upon the altar stone, and at the left side of the celebrant, according to common usage; but before the chalice according to the higher rubric), the priest, while he prepares the chalice at the beginning of Mass, places them on the corporal; so that, as we have just said, they remain upon the altar stone and before the chalice, according to the higher rubric, and as Quarti, Bissus, Hippolytus a Porto also teach, or according to the more common usage on the side of the Gospel or at the left of the celebrant, as the Caeremoniale missae privatae teaches, cap. 11, de consecrat. particular. et commun. fidelium § 1, and also Gervasi above § Se poi."

And here, as to communion to be distributed to the people outside Mass, the following things are to be noted:

In the administration of most holy communion outside Mass, after the Most Holy Sacrament has been put back in the tabernacle, the priest must bless the people before he folds the corporal, or does something similar. This is inferred from the word then placed in the rubric.

In the blessing after communion outside Mass the priest does not kiss the altar. S. R. C., Mar. 16, 1833, ad 6, n. 2704.

During the whole Paschal season after the administration of the most holy Eucharist outside Mass, to the antiphon O sacrum... and the versicle Panem de coelo..., Alleluia is added, and the Prayer is said: Pour into us, O Lord, the Spirit of thy charity: that those whom thou hast satisfied with the paschal Sacraments, thou mayest make by thy piety to be of one accord. Through Christ our Lord. - Amen. Roman Ritual.

216. Principle. Every priest, and only a priest, can validly consecrate the Eucharist.

The Albigensians and the Innovators of the sixteenth century taught the contrary. The Fourth Lateran Council (1215) had already defined: "Certainly no one can confect this sacrament except a priest who has been rightly ordained."²⁰¹ The reason is that Christ said only to priests: "Do this in commemoration of Me." The power of consecrating so inheres in the priestly character that it can never be taken away from him. Therefore even a heretical, schismatic, and apostate priest validly consecrates, provided that he employs the right matter, form, and intention. For licitly consecrating the Eucharist, very many conditions are required, which will be explained below in the treatise on the sacrifice of the Mass. If several priests consecrate the same matter at the same time (as happens in the ordination of new priests and in more solemn Masses according to the Greek rite), all must take care to pronounce the form of consecration at the same time; for if one pronounced the form before the others, then he alone consecrated and the form of the others is rendered ineffective. For the rest, one should not proceed here with excessive anxiety, since it suffices that all the concelebrants have the intention of consecrating together.

²⁰¹ Denz., n. 430.