The Matter of Bread

105. Valid matter. The remote matter of this sacrament is that from which the Eucharist is effected. The valid remote matter of the Eucharist is only wheaten bread and wine of the vine. For from the institution of this sacrament it is established that Christ at the Last Supper first consecrated bread;¹ but only wheaten bread, both from the common usage of the Hebrews and from that of others, is called bread simply. Then at the same supper he consecrated wine;² but only wine of the vine is properly and simply called wine. Therefore the Council of Florence explicitly teaches that the matter of this sacrament is wheaten bread and wine of the vine.

¹ Matt. 26, 26; Cn. 815, 1.

² Matt. 26, 29; Cn. 815, 2.

106. Wheaten bread. Therefore, in order validly to effect the sacrament of the Eucharist, there is required bread made from wheaten flour and natural water only and baked by fire. For bread is food made from flour and water only and baked by fire.

1. Different species of grain which physically differ from wheat supply invalid matter, but the different species, or rather varieties, of wheat supply valid matter for this sacrament, provided that by the common judgment of men they are held for true wheat.

There are different species of grain concerning whose valid or licit use in effecting this sacrament there can be question, namely: wheat, spelt, rye, barley, and siligo. Moreover, rye (Roggen, Korn) and barley (Gerste) are species of grain different from wheat; therefore barley indeed constitutes matter certainly invalid, while rye constitutes doubtful matter. For there are those who think that from this grain usual bread is made, and that usual bread is matter suitable for the Eucharist.¹ Siligo does not signify the same thing among all: for according to some, siligo is the same as rye; according to others, it denotes a species of wheat and indeed the best one. Therefore, according to the diverse signification of siligo, siliginous bread will be valid or doubtful matter. The same must be said of spelt, for there are regions in which a species of true wheat is designated by the name of spelt.

But different species of wheat are numbered, or, if you prefer, varieties (Abarten): common wheat (Weizen), hard wheat (Bartweizen), tr. turgidum (englischer Weizen), Polish wheat (polnischer Weizen), spelt or far (Spelz oder Dinkel), emmer (Emmer), einkorn (Einkorn). All these different species of wheat are held by the common judgment and estimation of men for true wheat, and bread made from them is called wheaten by all. Therefore it cannot be doubted that they all constitute valid and licit matter. Generally it must be said: that grain which in a determined region, by the common judgment of men, is and is called wheat constitutes valid matter of the Eucharist. But Turkish wheat (zea mais = turkischer Weizen, Mais) has the name of wheat, while in reality it is an entirely different substance; and therefore bread made from this wheat is invalid matter, just as bread made from the flour of potatoes (solani tuberosi, Kartoffel), beans (Bohnen), oats (Hafer), rice (Reis), millet (Hirse), peas (Erbsen), chestnuts (Kastanien), etc.²

2. Flour cooked in another liquid, e.g., milk, wine, etc., is not called bread. But if artificial water, milk, butter, wine, or another liquid is mixed with the flour in a small quantity, so that the quantity of water is far greater than that of the other liquid, the matter is indeed illicit, but nevertheless valid, because by the common estimation of men it is still held to be true bread. In the same way one must judge if a small amount of flour of another species, e.g., barley or beans, is mixed with wheaten flour. If all these are mixed in a greater quantity, they constitute matter certainly invalid. Salt likewise is not to be added to bread to be consecrated; nevertheless, if it had been mixed in by mistake, that bread could be used to this extent: insofar as, with another host lacking, the celebration would not have to be omitted.

Therefore those red hosts or hosts of another color by which letters are sealed, provided that they have been made from wheaten flour, are valid matter though illicit, if a very small quantity of cinnabar or of another substance has been mixed in. But they are doubtful or even invalid matter if a greater quantity of foreign substance is mixed in.

3. Dough made from flour and water, not yet baked but still raw, is invalid matter, because it is not yet bread. For the same reason, flour cooked in water in the manner of porridge is invalid matter, because it is not bread.

¹ Gobat, Theol. exper., tr. 3, n. 29.

² Cf. Olfers, Pastoralmedizin^3, p. 217.

107. Licit matter. In order licitly to effect the Eucharist, for Latins it is required that the bread be unleavened; for Greeks, that it be leavened;¹ moreover the host to be consecrated must be fresh, clean, whole, incorrupt, and of a larger circular form.

1. Although consecration can validly take place both in unleavened and in leavened bread, because each is true bread made from wheaten flour and natural water, nevertheless Latins are bound under grave obligation to consecrate in unleavened bread and Greeks in leavened bread. From this precept not even the necessity of Viaticum for a dying person excuses, but only the necessity of completing the sacrifice.

a. The Latin Church, in the use of unleavened bread, follows the example of Christ, who instituted the most holy sacrament on the days of unleavened bread. The Greeks, from ancient custom, use leavened bread; the Church in the Council of Florence permitted this use to be preserved by the Greeks, because there does not exist an express precept of Christ to consecrate in unleavened bread. Indeed, in the same council the precept is added of preserving in each Church its proper rite and proper custom. This precept Pius V confirmed and renewed,² and afterward Benedict XIV,³ and recently Cn. 816.

b. A Latin must use unleavened bread and a Greek leavened bread everywhere; for each one is bound everywhere to preserve his own rite, both in Greek regions and in regions of Latins, unless he has obtained a special indult of changing rite (which is sometimes conceded by way of habit, never by way of act). Hence a Greek (the same is to be said of a Latin) who perpetually or for a time dwells in some Latin region where there is no church of his own rite must ask from the Latin bishop permission to celebrate in a Latin church according to the Greek rite. Likewise a priest who is on a journey must go, if one is present, to a church of his own rite; if none is present, he is bound to celebrate in a Latin church according to his own rite.⁴

c. Formerly the faithful of the Latin rite ordinarily had to communicate in unleavened bread, the faithful of the Greek rite in leavened bread. From recent apostolic decrees, and especially from the Constitution Tradita of Pope Pius X, these things now hold: alpha. any Catholic can receive communion at will in any Catholic church of any rite; beta. but, excepting the case of necessity, paschal communion is advised, Viaticum is prescribed, that each one receive according to his own rite (Cn. 866, 2, 3); gamma. any priest can distribute holy communion even in a church of another rite, provided that a priest of the respective rite is not present; nevertheless he is to preserve his customary order in distributing, i.e., a Latin priest administering holy communion in a Greek church (in leavened bread) proceeds according to the Roman Ritual, and a Greek priest distributing communion in a Latin church (in unleavened bread) proceeds according to the Greek custom.⁵

d. A priest who, in order to complete the sacrifice, must consecrate again and cannot have another host, can and must receive a fragment of usual wheaten bread, provided that it is matter certainly valid.

2. Fresh. Since thin hosts are easily corrupted, especially if they are preserved in a humid place or if the season is winter or rainy, there is danger of consecrating invalid matter unless the hosts are fresh. Therefore rectors of churches must take care that hosts to be consecrated, if they are not entirely fresh, have at least been made within two weeks or at most within a month.

The Sacred Congregation calls the custom of consecrating hosts made three or four months earlier an enormous abuse, entirely to be removed, and adds that priests cannot with a safe conscience use hosts made three months earlier in wintertime or six months earlier in summer. But in order to avoid the danger of irreverence, hosts ought to have been made about two weeks earlier or at most a month earlier, provided that the place and time are not humid; for between the making of the hosts and their reception there ought to intervene only four or at most six weeks.

3. The figure of the host to be consecrated in the Latin Church must be circular, but in the Greek Church it is square. To consecrate a stained or moderately broken host, scandal being excluded, is a venial sin. Nevertheless, if a break or stain in the host is discovered only after the oblation, it can licitly be consecrated, scandal being excluded, because through the oblation it is already in some way dedicated to God. Finally, when the larger host is lacking, it is permitted, even only for the sake of devotion, to celebrate with a small host, not only privately, but, scandal being excluded by a suitable admonition of the people, also publicly,⁶ since there is no grave obligation of consecrating a larger host.

As far as small hosts for the communion of laypersons are concerned, care must be taken that they not be too small and too thin (their diameter should be at least three centimeters). For if the hosts are very small and thin, there is danger both that they slip away between the fingers of the priest distributing and that the communicants be deprived of holy communion, because they are entirely dissolved before swallowing.

4. The consecration is not invalid, although because of irreverence it is gravely illicit, if the bread is not yet substantially corrupted but only shows some beginning of corruption. From this principle authors infer that moldy bread remains valid matter, but is gravely illicit. This indeed can be admitted when the bread from mold begins to be corrupted, but not when it is already moldy; for bread plainly moldy is already wholly corrupted.⁷

Note. Hosts, which in antiquity were baked by priests or at least by clerics, according to present practice are usually prepared by laypersons. But in a matter of such importance a grave obligation lies upon priests of watching that the matter of the sacrifice be certainly valid. Therefore they must take care that those who prepare hosts take only wheaten flour, and that pure and fresh, but never artificial flour (Kunstmehl), concerning whose quality there must always be doubt. Moreover let them take care that the bakers of hosts be commended by diligence, fidelity, and piety.⁸

¹ Council of Florence, in the decree of union.

² Constitution Providentia romani pontificis (1566).

³ Constitution Etsi pastoralis (1742).

⁴ Cf. Benedict XIV, De ritib., c. 2, n. 15; Gasparri II, 804 s.; Cn. 816.

⁵ S. C. de Prop. Fide, 18 Aug. 1893; Constitution Orientalium dignitas, 30 Nov. 1894; S. C. R., 16 Dec. 1826, n. 2650; Constitution Tradita, 14 Sept. 1912; Cn. 851, 2.

⁶ St. Alphonsus, n. 205.

⁷ Olfers, Pastoralmedicin^3, p. 219 f.

⁸ Olfers, Pastoralmedicin^3, p. 218 f.

I. The matter required for validity is bread, composed of wheaten flour and water, and uncorrupted with respect to substance. It does not matter for validity whether it is unleavened or leavened. I said:

1. Bread. Therefore invalid matter is: a) a raw or uncooked mass of flour; b) a mass which was not baked by fire but boiled after the manner of porridge or cake; c) a fried mass. The reason is that all these things do not come under the name of bread. Nevertheless it does not matter whether the bread has been baked by electric fire or by another fire.

2. Composed of wheaten flour and water. That wheaten bread is required is clear: 1. from the Council of Florence¹ and from various liturgies;² 2. from the fact that Christ used wheaten bread, and this bread alone is and was usual in Palestine.³ Therefore invalid matter is:

a) Food confected from matter which is not grain, for example from flour of beans, potatoes, etc.

b) Bread confected from grain which is not wheat, for example from millet, barley, oats, maize, rice, or rye; the grain which in Dutch is called emer is doubtful matter.

By the name spelt there is sometimes designated a kind of wheat, sometimes grain which in no way or doubtfully belongs to the genus of wheat. Therefore in practice attention should be paid to the quality and to the judgment of experts. For the rest, it does not matter whether the wheat is summer or winter wheat.

3. Composed of wheaten flour and water. This is clear from the fact that bread thus composed was used by Christ, and was usual in Palestine.⁴ Therefore invalid matter would be flour kneaded only with oil, honey, wine, butter, or milk; flour kneaded with artificial or at least non-usual water, such as rose water, is doubtful matter⁵ (St. Alphonsus, VI, 199).

Admixture made with wheat certainly does not obstruct validity if the quantity of wheat notably prevails; it certainly obstructs if the quantity of wheat is notably smaller; otherwise, that is, if the suitable and unsuitable quantity is equal or differs little, the species has at least probably been changed, and therefore the matter is at least doubtfully valid (cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 74, a. 3, ad 3; St. Alphonsus, VI, 201).⁶ Thus, with regard to the quantity of the admixed matter; with regard to its quality, a smaller quantity can sometimes suffice to change the wheat to which it is admixed.

4. Uncorrupted with respect to substance. Bread notably corrupted is in practice doubtful matter; but moldy bread, or bread only tending toward corruption, is valid matter.

5. For validity it does not matter whether the bread is unleavened or leavened. This is clear from the Council of Florence⁷ (cf. canon 816).

¹ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 692.

² Cf. Roman Missal, On Defects, title 3, n. 4.

³ Vigouroux, Dictionnaire de la Bible, word pain, p. 1951.

⁴ Vigouroux, loc. cit.

⁵ Roman Missal, On Defects, title 3, n. 2.

⁶ Cf. Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments, 16 March 1929 (A.A.S. 1929, p. 632).

⁷ Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 692.

II. The matter required for liceity is bread:

1. Merely wheaten (canon 815, § 1), indeed altogether pure, to which, namely, matter diverse from wheat or water has not been admixed; indeed it is better that the flour have been purified by a sieve.

2. Entirely uncorrupted; hence not at all moldy. But for how much time after their baking hosts remain entirely uncorrupted depends on the circumstances of weather, place, manner of preserving them, etc.

3. Recently confected, so that there is no danger of corruption. Thus canon 815, § 1. And the Roman Ritual:¹ "But the hosts or particles to be consecrated should be fresh." Now the Sacred Congregation of Rites, in the case of Ghent,² reprobated the custom of consecrating hosts confected three months previously in wintertime or six months previously in summer; and the Sacred Congregation for the Discipline of the Sacraments³ rejected the practice of procuring for oneself so many hosts as would suffice for two or three months. Now, although in the judgment of chemists the danger of corruption is commonly exaggerated, nevertheless, considering the mind of the Church, it should be urged that hosts to be consecrated not have been baked more than two weeks or a month previously.⁴

4. Of circular and thin shape in the Latin Church; square in the Greek Church. Thus from ancient practice. Besides, the host should be:

5. Whole, clean, and, according to use, larger for the priest. If the fracture or spot is enormous, or if the host begins to grow moldy, its use is prohibited under grave obligation. Hence it is not permitted to use this kind of host except for a grave cause, for example if the defect is detected after the oblation has been made, provided, however, that scandal does not arise from its use, and that the host is not so broken that the grave rites cannot be carried out⁵ (St. Alphonsus, VI, 204). The use of a host simply broken or spotted, or smaller, is prohibited only under light obligation. Therefore a just cause excuses, for example if otherwise a sick person would lack Viaticum or the people would lack Mass; indeed, quite probably the devotion of the priest alone suffices (St. Alphonsus, VI, 205).

6. Unleavened in the Latin Church, leavened in the Greek;⁶ for canon 816 establishes: In the celebration of Mass, a priest, according to his own rite, must use unleavened or leavened bread wherever he offers the sacred sacrifice.

Considering the cited canon, the opinion no longer seems to hold which conceded that a priest, as a traveler living in a region of another rite, might consecrate the bread of that rite if bread of his own rite was not available. For the rest, the obligation of using bread of one's own rite is considered so great that not even for ministering Viaticum to a sick person is it permitted to consecrate bread of another rite. The reason is that the common good, because of which the law was passed, that is, the necessity of preserving for each Church its own rite, in the mind of the Church prevails over the divine precept of receiving Viaticum; this necessity of the common good, of course, was once more evident than today. Nevertheless the use of bread of another rite is licit for completing the sacrifice; as if after the wine has been consecrated the bread used should be detected as corrupted, and only bread of another rite should be available (St. Alphonsus, VI, 203).

The distribution and reception of the Holy Eucharist confected in another rite will be discussed later.

¹ Title IV, chapter 1, n. 7.

² 16 December 1826 (Collectanea, n. 2650).

³ 7 December 1918.

⁴ Concerning consecrated Hosts, see n. 132.

⁵ Roman Missal, On Defects, title X, n. 9.

⁶ Certain Orientals, however, such as Armenians and Maronites, use unleavened bread; cf. Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide, 20 May 1838.

“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.

1. 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?

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.

2. "It was set forth by a Bishop of France that, since the wine of that place has an acid taste, due 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 a potassium bitartrate that precipitates to the bottom of the cask. Meanwhile it was asked whether this wine so treated was lawful for Mass.

R. "It is not expedient." S. O. 9 May 1892. M. E. v. 7. p. 2. p. 204.

3. Paul, a missionary among Easterners, asks whether he can give communion to Easterners in his own Church of the Latin rite, and whether he can give them communion in unleavened bread.

4. Peter, likewise a missionary among Easterners, asks whether Latins can receive communion in the Churches of the Easterners, and whether they can receive communion in leavened bread.

Quaer. What answer is to be given to each missionary?

R. In the Letter of S. C. de P. F., 30 Apr. 1862, to the Apostolic Delegate of Egypt, these things are contained as regards the proposed questions: "The second doubt concerns the reception of the sacraments which the Easterners make in the Latin Churches, namely of penance and of the Eucharist... Regarding the sacrament of the Eucharist, it is fitting to distinguish the Easterners who, according to their own rite, use unleavened bread, from those who use leavened. For the former there is no prohibition, nor can the Eastern bishops forbid their own subjects to receive the Eucharist from Latin missionaries in their churches, it being well understood in cases in which parochial right does not enter. But for the others, that is, for those who, in Eucharistic matter, use leavened bread, it must first be noted that they also can receive holy communion in Latin churches, provided they receive it according to their own rite, and from national priests, as Benedict XIV teaches in the Encyclical Allatae sunt, at numbers 33, 35, 36. Indeed, sometimes this is a necessity for those places where the Easterners do not have churches of their own rite. But it is another thing if the users of leavened bread wished to receive communion from the Latins in unleavened bread. Two rules have been established for the users of leavened bread: the first is that they cannot at their own choice communicate in unleavened bread when they have the opportunity of doing so in their own rite; the second is that when there occurs the difficulty of communicating in leavened bread, they can do so also in unleavened bread, not only in the article of death and to fulfill the Easter precept, but also in other cases, as is established in the pastoral instruction of Benedict XIV, Eo quamvis tempore § Neque etiam.

"In the third doubt the Latins are treated, that is, the users of unleavened bread. These can communicate in the Eastern churches in their own rite from priests who use unleavened bread, but they cannot without pontifical dispensation communicate in leavened bread, even though there should occur the difficulty of communicating in unleavened bread. The maxim is found established in the Constitution Etsi pastoralis of Benedict XIV, n. 12 of § VI, where it is said absolutely that Latin laypeople are altogether prohibited and forbidden to receive communion from Greek presbyters under the species of leavened bread. Consistently, the Holy Office and the Sacred Congregation of Propaganda have always prohibited the users of unleavened bread from communicating in leavened bread; and only in the cases in which there occurred the total lack of priests of their own rite, and of those of another rite in which consecration is made in unleavened bread, have they implored for them the pontifical dispensation, which, however, has not been granted except for the two cases of true necessity, namely of Viaticum and of the Easter precept." Collectan. S. C. de P. F. n. 735. I. M. 505.

But very recently, by the Decree of the same S. C. de P. F., 18 Aug. 1893, Monitore Ecclesiastico Conversano v. 8. p. 2., p. 79., "to all the faithful of whatever rite, whether Latin or Eastern, dwelling in places in which there is no church and priest of their own rite, the faculty is granted in the future by the Holy See of receiving Most Holy Communion, not only in the article of death and for fulfilling the Easter precept, but also at any time for the sake of devotion, according to the rite of the church existing in the aforesaid places, provided it is Catholic."

And in Blessed Leo XIII, Orientalium dignitas, the day before the Kalends of December 1894, these things are contained: "Where there is lacking a priest of their own rite to whom the Eastern Patriarch may entrust the spiritual administration of his own people, there let a parish priest of another rite undertake their care, one who uses the same species as they themselves, unleavened or leavened, for consecrating; those are to be preferred who use them in the Eastern rite. - But let the faithful have the faculty of communicating in either rite, not only in those places where no church nor priest of their own proper rite is available, as was decreed by the Sacred Council for propagating the Christian name on 18 Aug. 1893, but also where, because of the distance of their own church, they cannot approach it except with grave inconvenience; concerning this let the judgment belong to the Ordinaries. And let this remain fixed: that one who has communicated by another rite or on another day is not therefore to be judged to have changed rite, but in all other duties continues to remain attached to his own parish priest...

"For a woman of the Latin rite who has married a man of the Eastern rite, as also for an Eastern woman who has married a Latin, it will be intact that, on entering or during the marriage, she may pass over to the rite of the husband; but when the marriage has been dissolved, there will be free power of resuming her own rite."

From these Documents the solution to be given to each missionary is clearly evident.

5. A Latin priest, in consecrating the bread, omitted the words which precede the consecration, who on the day before, etc. But a Greek priest, in consecrating the bread, omitted the words, which shall be given for you.

Quaer. Whether each consecration was valid?

R. Affirmatively. There are not lacking those who hold that those words who on the day before, etc., although they are not part of the form, nevertheless are necessarily required for the validity of the form. But this opinion, as Lugo says, d. 11. n. 39., is rejected by all. The altogether convincing reason is that the Fathers and Councils say that this sacrament is confected by the words of Christ, and not by others. But those words who on the day before, etc., are not the words of Christ, but of the Evangelist. Cf. Conc. Flor. Decr. pro Iacob. E. M. 521.

But although the Greeks add to the form of consecration of the bread those words, which shall be given for you, nevertheless these do not belong to the essence of the form. For, as the Roman Catechism says, n. 19., "we are taught by the holy Evangelists Matthew and Luke, and likewise by the Apostle, that this is the form: This is my Body. For it is written: While they were dining, Jesus took bread and blessed and broke it, and gave it to his disciples, and said: Take and eat, This is my Body. Since this form of consecration was indeed observed by Christ the Lord, the Catholic Church has perpetually used it." - Lugo d. 11. s. 3., D'Annib. 241. 387., I. M. 521. 524.

6. Laelius the sacristan warned Narcissus the priest, who was soon to celebrate, that he should wish to consecrate the small host already placed upon the altar. But at the time of the oblation, since he had not found the small host upon the altar, he made the oblation in the usual manner of the larger host, and consecrated it. But then, folding the Corporal, he found the small host, which had been placed under the Corporal.

Quaer. Whether the aforesaid small host was consecrated?

R. It seems that that small host was not consecrated. The reason is that, since Narcissus sought it upon the altar and did not find it, he seems already not to have had the intention of consecrating another host than the larger host. Wherefore he implicitly retracted the intention he had previously had. Moreover, those words, this and here, signify matter that is certain, present, and placed nearby. Wherefore, just as the consecration would be invalid if the matter were placed far away, for example, if it were more than 50 paces away, so also it would be invalid if the matter were not placed in sight, for example, if it were placed in a pyx kept in the tabernacle. Hence the consecration is also not valid if the host is placed under the corporal. - I. M. 510.

"For consecration it is required," says Castropal. punct. 6. num. 5., "that the matter to be consecrated be present to you, so that you can point it out by the pronoun this or here, and perceive it by sense; otherwise it will not be present to you in a moral and human manner. It does not stand in the way of this presence that it is contained in some vessel or linen cloth; for by reason of the container the content is present to you. It would be otherwise if bread or wine were placed behind a wall or a linen cloth, because then by no sense can you point out that matter. And it is the same if the bread exists under a cloth, or in the tabernacle, because it does not exist there as in a container which can be perceived by sense. Thus Suar., Vazq., Bonac., Aegid. de Coninch., Paul. Laymann." La-Croix l. 6. p. 1. n. 443. 444., D'Annib. p. 3. n. 388.

7. Aloysius, lying ill with a grave disease, after sacramental confession had been completed, received Viaticum. As soon as the sacred host had descended into the stomach, Aloysius is seized by a sudden and unexpected vomiting, and casts out the sacred host, which appears intact. The physician is consulted, who declares the matter altogether accidental, and says that Aloysius can receive Viaticum again without any new danger of vomiting. Wherefore Aloysius and his parents ask the parish priest to be willing to minister the Most Holy Viaticum again after lunch.

Quaer. Whether the parish priest can minister the sacred Viaticum again in the Case?

R. Negatively. For it is contrary to the practice of the Church to minister sacred Viaticum twice in a day, and while the same danger of death remains, to the sick person. For Aloysius, notwithstanding the vomiting, truly received Viaticum. For it was altogether verified that he ate the Body of Christ. Wherefore he also received sacramental grace. I. M. 496. For the use of this sacrament is had in the eating of the Body of Christ; when this eating has been verified, the fruit of the sacrament is received, according to Christ's clear promise of grace to be given: He who eats the bread shall live forever. But eating in this sacrament must certainly be understood as in other foods, which certainly, in a human manner, are said to have been eaten not when they are only in the mouth or in the throat, but when they have already descended into the stomach, and are already judged to have been irrevocably swallowed. Cf. Lugo d. 12. s. 2.

170. 1. Valid matter of bread. For validly confecting the sacrament, it is required that the bread a) be made from wheaten flour and b) natural water, and that c) it be baked by fire.

Therefore it is required:

a) That the flour be wheaten; therefore matter of another species is invalid, for example, that which is made from barley,²² rye,²³ maize,²⁴ oats,²⁵ rice,²⁶ millet,²⁷ peas,²⁸ beans,²⁹ potatoes, and so forth. Valid matter, however, is flour taken from diverse accidental varieties of wheat, for example, common wheat, durum wheat, turgid wheat, spelt wheat, and so forth. Therefore, true wheat of any region and any variety suffices.

b) It is necessary that the wheaten flour be mixed with natural water. Therefore, if another liquid, for example, milk, wine, or oil, is mixed in a notable quantity, such as one third, the matter is invalid; but if such a mixture is made in a small quantity, the matter is indeed illicit but not invalid. Likewise, salt, sugar, or another seasoning is not to be added to the flour to be baked, since absolutely every mixture is illicit. On the other hand, it is not lawful, for the purpose of obtaining very white and beautiful hosts, to extract all the gluten from the flour so that something like starch is obtained. For gluten appears to pertain to bread, just as alcohol pertains to wine. It is lawful, however, to extract only a part of the gluten (cf. Holy Office, June 25, 1852, Collectan. de Prop. Fide, n. 1076).

c) The dough kneaded from wheaten flour and natural water is to be baked in such a way that it becomes true bread. Hence, if the dough is raw or is merely cooked in the manner of porridge, pastry, or cake, it is not true bread nor valid matter capable of being consecrated.

²² German: Gerste; French: orge.

²³ German: Roggen; French: seigle.

²⁴ German and French: Mais.

²⁵ German: Hafer; French: avoine.

²⁶ German: Reis.

²⁷ German: Hirse; French: millet.

²⁸ German: Erbsen; French: pois.

²⁹ German: Bohnen; French: fèves.

171. 2. Licit matter of bread. For licitly confecting the Eucharist, it is required:

a) That unleavened bread be employed in the Latin rite, but leavened bread in the Eastern rite.³⁰

The Latin Church uses unleavened bread because Christ Himself, instituting the Eucharist during the days of unleavened bread, appears to have employed unleavened bread. The obligation of consecrating unleavened bread is so grave for Latin priests that in only one case is the consecration of leavened bread certainly lawful for them, namely, to complete the sacrifice of a Mass already begun if unleavened bread is altogether lacking.³¹ Hence, according to the opinion which St. Alphonsus³² calls common and more probable, not even for giving Viaticum to a sick person could a Latin priest in a case of necessity consecrate leavened bread. But the opposite opinion appears probable and safe, since the precept of receiving Viaticum is derived from divine law, as will be said below. Now, a precept of divine law prevails over a precept of ecclesiastical law prohibiting consecration with leavened bread.³³

Note. Although both Latin and Eastern priests are bound under grave obligation to consecrate unleavened or leavened bread according to the rite proper to each, and indeed "wherever they celebrate Mass," nevertheless, "where necessity urges and no priest of a different rite is present, it will be lawful for an Eastern priest who uses leavened bread to administer the Eucharist consecrated with unleavened bread, and conversely for a Latin priest, or an Eastern priest who uses unleavened bread, to administer it with leavened bread; but each is to observe his own rite of administering." Thus Pius X.³⁴ Indeed, to all the faithful of any rite the faculty is given, for the sake of devotion, to receive the Eucharistic sacrament confected in any rite. Thus again Pius X,³⁵ who thereby further increased the liberty in this matter already granted by Leo XIII in the Constitution Orientalium dignitas of November 30, 1894. The Code of Canon Law, c. 866, § 1, establishes the same. Each person, however, is to receive Easter Communion and, a fortiori, Viaticum in his own rite and from his own pastor or the latter's delegate, insofar as this is morally possible.³⁶

b) The host to be consecrated must be fresh, clean, intact, and circular in form.

The host must be fresh, and therefore it is not lawful to consecrate hosts already made a month before. The Sacred Congregation of Rites on December 16, 1826,³⁷ says that the custom of consecrating species made three months earlier in winter and six months earlier in summer is to be eliminated. The same Sacred Congregation of Rites on September 12, 1884,³⁸ in response to doubt 2, "Can the custom of renewing the most holy Eucharist once or twice a month be retained, although according to the Ceremonial of Bishops the same most holy Eucharist ought to be renewed every week?" replied: "Let the prescription of the Ceremonial of Bishops, l. 1, c. 6, § 2, be observed." Now, the Ceremonial of Bishops, loc. cit., establishes that the most holy Eucharist "be changed and renewed at least once a week." Nevertheless, this statute does not always appear to bind under grave obligation; accordingly, when a just cause exists and danger of corruption is absent, it suffices to renew the Eucharistic species every fortnight.³⁹ If, however, the climate is very humid or hot, the Eucharistic species must be changed more frequently, lest they become moldy.

The hosts to be consecrated must be not only fresh but also clean and intact. Hence it would be a grave irreverence if a priest, without urgent necessity, were to consecrate a host notably broken or stained. But if the stain or fracture is not so notable and no scandal arises, a priest who consecrates such a host does not sin gravely. St. Alphonsus notes:⁴⁰ "If, however, the fracture [or stain] is discovered after the offertory, such a host will licitly be consecrated, unless scandal of the people is feared."

The shape of the host to be consecrated must be circular in the Latin Church, but square in the Greek Church, or triangular for small hosts. The host employed in Mass or in the monstrance must be larger. Its diameter is to be 6-9 centimeters. St. Alphonsus teaches that, when a larger host is lacking, a priest can celebrate Mass with a smaller host even for devotion alone, provided, however, that he forestalls scandal of the people.⁴¹ Small hosts intended for the Communion of the laity are not to be excessively small and thin; their diameter is to be about 3 centimeters. For if these hosts are excessively small and thin, the distribution of Communion becomes very difficult and can scarcely be performed without inconveniences. Rubricists are accustomed to express the qualities of the host to be consecrated in these verses:

White, wheaten and thin, not large, and round, May Christ's host be unleavened and not broken.

Note. Let the priest diligently take care that those who bake hosts be persons excelling in diligence, piety, and fidelity, and that they employ pure wheat and pure water.

³⁰ There are, however, certain Eastern Christians, such as the Armenians and Maronites, who use unleavened bread. Cf. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, May 20, 1838.

³¹ St. Alphonsus (Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 203) thinks that a Latin priest traveling through Greece can celebrate either with leavened or with unleavened bread. This opinion can scarcely be maintained now, since the Code of Canon Law, c. 816, establishes: "In the celebration of Mass a priest must employ unleavened or leavened bread according to his own rite, wherever he celebrates Mass."

³² Loc. cit.

³³ Thus also Cappello, De sacram., n. 281.

³⁴ Constitution Tradita, September 14, 1912; cf. Code of Canon Law, c. 851.

³⁵ Loc. cit.

³⁶ Cf. Sacred Congregation for the Propagation of the Faith, March 27, 1916, nn. 11 and 12 (Acta Apostolicae Sedis VIII, 106); Code of Canon Law, c. 866.

³⁷ Decr. auth., n. 2650.

³⁸ Ibid., n. 3621.

³⁹ Cf. Benedict XIV, Constitution Etsi pastoralis, May 26, 1742, § 6, n. 4.

⁴⁰ Theol. mor., l. 6, n. 204.

⁴¹ Ibid., n. 205.

S. Th. III, q. 74, a. 3 and 4.

216. Principle I. For the validity of the sacrament there is required usual wheat bread. - It is proved:

1. From the practice of the Church, which is already indicated in the Didache IX, 3-4; St. Justin, Apol. I, 65-66; Dial. 41 and 117; St. Irenaeus, Adv. haer. IV, 17-18; Tertullian, Ad ux. II, 5; Adv. Marc. I, 14; Cyprian, De laps. 25; ep. 63; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. I, 9; Paed. 11; Origen, hom. 19 on Jer., 4, 18; C. Cels. VIII, 33.

2. From the declaration of the Council of Florence, of the Missal, and of can. 815.

3. By reason of fittingness.

Thus it is fitting, both a) because wheat bread is more commonly in use among men, for other breads seem to have been introduced in defect of this, and b) because it strengthens more, and thus more fittingly signifies the effect of this sacrament.

217. Principle II. For wheat bread four things are required: 1. that it be from the grain of wheat, 2. made with natural water, 3. baked by fire, and 4. substantially uncorrupted. - It must be:

1. From the grain of wheat, which is not any grain whatever, but the noblest.

Hence: a) Insufficient matter is bread made from barley, oats, panic-grain, maize or Turkish wheat, rice, millet, or from beans, peas, chestnuts, almonds, potatoes, or other legumes and fruits of trees: for by common estimation they are distinguished from wheat, nor do men use them for making usual bread except on account of a defect of wheat. - b) Doubtfully sufficient is bread from far, spelt,¹ rye or siligo,² starch (which is made from corrupted wheat), gluten. - c) But if other grains are mixed with wheat in small quantity, although this of itself is gravely illicit, sufficient matter would remain and the whole would pass into the body of Christ, because the whole by moral estimation is wheat bread; but if the mixture were great, for example equally or almost equally, it would be insufficient matter; whence wafers dyed with various colors, with which letters are usually sealed, are unsuitable matter or at least doubtful, because through the mixture they are notably altered and are not usual bread.

¹ Spelt among some seems to signify a species of wheat, namely Suevian; in which case it would be valid matter.

² Siligo in its classical signification is the most excellent species of true wheat; but in St. Thomas and others it seems to be the same as rye, or a certain imperfect species of wheat, in which case it is doubtful matter.

2. Made with natural water: namely, the grain reduced into flour, or at least crushed and compressed,³ must be prepared with natural water, because generally by common use usual bread is made thus.

³ According to the decree of the Holy Office, June 23, 1852, for validity it is not required that the bread be made from milled flour; but from grains crushed and compressed down to the white matter it is valid, and sometimes licit. But care must be taken, if it can be done, "that the wheat not merely be crushed, but by a suitable instrument be reduced into flour, which is carefully purified by a sieve."

Whence: a) Bread kneaded with milk, eggs, oil, butter, is not apt matter, even if somewhere it is customary to be made thus, unless the quantity of these is slight and water is the principal part in the mass to be formed. - b) Bread made with rose-water or water of another distillation, or even with sea water, is doubtful, because perhaps it is not usual bread.

3. Baked by fire: namely, the mass must be toasted by fire, whether in an oven or on a hot iron.

Hence raw flour does not suffice, even when kneaded with water, or boiled after the manner of a cake or loaf, or dried by the sun.

4. Substantially uncorrupted (can. 815): for if the corruption is so great that the species of bread is dissolved, as if the taste and color and other accidents are changed, from such matter the body of Christ cannot be confected.

Sometimes, however, the corruption is not so great that it dissolves the species, but there is some disposition toward corruption, which some change of taste declares; and from such bread the body of Christ can validly be confected; but the one confecting sins because of irreverence toward the sacrament, unless necessity urges. This sin is mortal from its genus.

218. Principle III. For liceity it is required that the host be 1. recently made, 2. clean, whole, and pure, and 3. of a determined figure and quality according to the rite and custom of the Churches. - The host-bread must be:

1. Recently made, so that there be no danger of corruption (can. 815 and 1272).

To use bread somewhat moldy of itself is a grave sin; yet if true necessity were present, it would not be illicit.

2. Clean, whole, and altogether pure: so that the bread be merely wheat (can. 813).

Scandal always being excluded, it seems only venial without a reasonable cause to consecrate a broken or stained host, and there is no sin if it is discovered after the oblation.

3. In the Latin Church it must be of a round figure, and for the celebrant larger, in which the image of the Crucified is expressed according to the constant custom which is to be observed (S.C.R., April 26, 1834); and made from unleavened bread.

If a larger host is lacking, the priest can, even for the sake of devotion alone, celebrate with a smaller host, provided scandal is absent; this generally can be forestalled by warning the people about the lack of a larger host.

The Greeks employ a square host, and for the particles to be distributed, triangular ones, and they use leavened bread, which many Orientals also do.

219. The diverse custom of using unleavened or leavened bread for the diverse Churches is most ancient⁴ and was confirmed by the Council of Florence.

⁴ From the sixth century the use of leavened bread is historically established; for the Latin Church testimonies concerning unleavened bread rise to the eighth century.

The custom of the Latin Church is more reasonable: 1. because Christ instituted this sacrament when nothing leavened had to be in the houses of the Jews; 2. because bread is properly the sacrament of the body of Christ, which was conceived without corruption; 3. because it signifies more the purity and integrity of heart with which it must be received (I Cor. V, 7, 8); 4. because the species are more easily kept uncorrupted. - Yet the custom of the Greeks has some reason: 1. on account of signification: a) because the Word was clothed with flesh as leaven is mixed with bread; b) because Christ assumed our sins as bread assumes the corruption of wheat; c) because leaven has a penetrating force and makes bread more savory, and therefore suitably designates the fervor of charity and the sweetness given by this sacrament; 2. in detestation of the heresy of the Nazarenes, who mixed the rites of the Jews with the Gospel.

It was defined in the Council of Florence, decree of union, that it makes no difference for the value of the sacrament whether leavened or unleavened bread is consecrated: for each is usual wheat bread, nor did Christ determine the matter in the individual but only as to substance. Nevertheless every priest is bound in the celebration of Mass to observe the rite of his own Church, and indeed "wherever he offers the Sacred Sacrifice," as is now altogether certain from can. 816. This precept, because of reverence toward the sacrament in observing this most ancient rite, which is most useful for the whole Church, is urged by ecclesiastical custom to such a degree that neither for communicating the sick nor that the people on a feast day may hear Mass is it lawful to change this rite, but only in the case of making the sacrifice whole, namely if the priest after the second consecration discovers that the bread is defective and cannot have what is prescribed.

According to the new discipline of the Code, from can. 851: "The priest shall distribute holy communion with unleavened or leavened bread, according to his own rite. But where necessity urges and a priest of a different rite is not present, it is lawful for an oriental priest who uses leavened bread to minister the Eucharist in unleavened bread, and conversely for a Latin or an oriental who uses unleavened bread to minister in leavened bread; but each must observe his own rite of ministering" (cf. can. 733, § 2).

The faithful of themselves also are bound in communion to observe the rite of their own church; but from a more recent concession (S.C.P.F., August 18, 1893; November 30, 1894), if they cannot conveniently communicate in their own rite, the faculty is now given to them that, for the sake of piety, they may receive the sacrament in any rite. This is now consecrated by can. 866; but the Code advises that each satisfy the precept of paschal communion in his own rite; but it commands this for viaticum: "Holy Viaticum is to be received by the dying in their own rite, but, when necessity urges, it is lawful to receive it in any rite."