The Real Presence and the effects of the Eucharist

104. What the effects are. The effects of the Eucharist, insofar as it is a sacrament, are numbered as several; of these, two (the nourishment of the soul and union with Christ) are essential, while the others are accidental.¹

1. The spiritual nourishment of the soul, which consists in an increase of sanctifying grace, of the virtues, and of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, with a right to special actual graces, which, in view of the Eucharist received, are granted for preserving, increasing, and perfecting the supernatural life through good works: he who eats me, he also shall live because of me.²

Since this sacrament has the nature of spiritual refreshment, it produces in the soul those effects which material food and drink produce in the body: it repairs, preserves, and increases the powers.

2. The intimate conjunction of the soul with Christ and with his mystical body through grace and charity; this union in this sacrament is intended of itself and by reason of itself, and therefore constitutes its essential effect: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood remains in me and I in him.³

This union is not only moral, such as consists among friends through love, but is more intimate and more perfect, and can be called natural. It is explained by the holy Fathers with various analogies: as leaven with flour, a branch with the vine, fire with heated iron, so the soul of the communicant is united to and made like Christ the Lord. Among created things there is not a union so perfect as between Christ and the soul of the communicant.

It produces a bond of union and charity not only between the soul and Christ, but also among individual men and among peoples and nations; it is a sign and means of the union of the faithful of the universal Church among themselves. In the sacramental species chosen by Christ, one thing is produced from many: bread from many grains, wine from many grapes, is reduced into one.

Besides the spiritual union of Christ with the soul of the recipient, in this sacrament there is also a physical conjunction of the body of Christ with our body, insofar as the flesh of Christ, through the eucharistic species, is joined by physical contact to our body and sanctifies it in a special way by the influence of his body. This sanctification, proceeding from real contact with the flesh of Christ, constitutes a twofold effect which this sacrament produces in the body of the recipient, as will be said below.

3. The diminution of the fomes of concupiscence, or the mitigation of lust; for from this banquet virgins spring forth.

It produces this effect not only because it confers grace for conquering temptations arising from concupiscence, nor only because it increases charity in a special way, which increase of charity, by directing the mind to heavenly things, indirectly diminishes the movements of concupiscence; but also because it directly diminishes and restrains concupiscence, and this both morally and physically. For the sanctification of our body proceeding from intimate union with the glorious flesh of Christ consists first of all in this: that Christ considers our flesh as his own and as joined to himself by a certain affinity, loves and protects it, makes it conformable to himself, and therefore by a special providence diminishes and represses the evil movements of the flesh. There are some, however, who further think that the influence of the body of Christ, by immediate and direct operation in our body, calms and gradually extinguishes the fomes itself, or the ardor of lust.⁴

4. The glorious resurrection of bodies; for the conjunction which the body of the communicant has with the vivifying flesh of Christ supplies a title of the future glorious resurrection: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up on the last day.⁵

The Eucharist produces this effect not only indirectly, because it supplies the means of preserving sanctifying grace until the end of life; for those who depart in the state of grace will come to the glorious resurrection. But it also produces it directly, because it inserts into the body the seed of the future glorious resurrection. For the glorious flesh of Christ, by sanctifying our body, makes it a participant of incorruptibility. Others, who in this life have not been refreshed by the body of Christ, will indeed also themselves be raised, but not by this special title.

5. The remission of venial sins, provided that they are retracted at least virtually.

a. The Council of Trent, distinguishing between mortal and venial sins, expressly teaches that this sacrament preserves us from mortal sins and frees us from venial sins.⁶ The internal reason is to be taken: alpha. from the nature of this sacrament, which has the nature of spiritual food. For just as natural food restores the powers lost by vital activity, so the Eucharist repairs the spiritual powers which are lost by the struggle against temptations and by venial sins. beta. From the principal effect of this sacrament, which consists in the union of charity and friendship with God; but venial sins impede the perfection of charity and friendship.

b. It is not settled whether the remission of venial sins proceeds immediately from the Eucharist, or mediately, because it itself excites in us acts of devotion and penitence, which acts are then followed by remission of sins. The opinion of those who, with Suarez and Lugo, think that the Eucharist produces this effect immediately is not improbable, provided that a sufficient disposition is present in the recipient.⁷

6. Spiritual sweetness and delight; for this sacrament contains the bread having in itself every delight and furnishing delights to kings.

As cheerfulness and pleasantness arise from a bodily banquet, so the spiritual banquet fills the soul with sweetness and delight. This delight consists especially in this: that holy communion confers on man the grace of tolerating the hardships and sorrows of this life not only with an even mind, but also with spiritual gladness. Then the soul is suffused by this sacrament with love toward Christ, whose intimate presence it enjoys; but where there is love, there is delight.

This effect is infallibly produced by the force of holy communion, unless it is impeded by the negligence of the communicant and by distractions and temporal cares; indeed sometimes by redundancy it is perceived in the very senses.

¹ M. Heimbucher, Die Wirkungen der hl. Kommunion (Regensburg: Manz, 1884). I. Behringer, Die hl. Kommunion in ihren Wirkungen und ihrer Heilsnotwendigkeit (Regensburg: Pustet, 1898). Nicolussi, Die Wirkungen der hl. Eucharistie (Bozen: Emmanuel, 1918).

² John 6, 58.

³ John 6, 57.

⁴ Cf. Suarez, disp. 64, sect. 1; Lugo, disp. 12, sect. 5.

⁵ John 6, 55.

⁶ Sess. 13, c. 2.

⁷ Cf. Lugo, De poenit., disp. 9, n. 45 ss.

THE Council of Trent teaches ‘“‘that in the august sacrament of the holy Eucharist after the consecration of the bread and wine our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually repugnant—that our Saviour himself always sitteth at the right. hand of the Father in heaven, according to the natural mode of existing, and that nevertheless he be in many other places sacramentally present to us, in his own substance, by a manner of existence which, though we can scarcely express it in words, yet can we by the understanding, illuminated by faith, conceive, and we ought most firmly to believe, to be possible unto God; for thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ, who have treated of this most holy sacrament, have most openly professed that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable a sacrament at the Last Supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, he testified in express and clear words that he gave them his own very body and his own blood. And this faith has ever been in the Church of God, that immediately after the consecration the veritable body of our Lord and his veritable blood together with his soul and divinity are under the species of bread and wine.”¹ It does not belong to the province of moral theology to prove or to defend this dogma of our Faith. We accept the teaching of the Church that the holy Eucharist is a sacrament in which under the species of bread and wine we receive Jesus Christ, the spiritual food of our souls. It is not merely a sacrament while it is received by the communicant, or while it is consecrated by the priest in Mass.

It is a permanent sacrament, under which our Lord remains present as long as the sacred species remain unchanged. It gives sacramental grace to the soul while it is being swallowed as food, and the divine presence remains in the communicant until the species of bread and wine are corrupted.

Although in the consecration there is a twofold matter and form, yet these constitute only one sacrament, for the species of bread and wine together signify a complete spiritual repast, just as food and drink go to make one meal for the body.

¹ Sess. xiii, c. 1, 3.

The effects which the holy Eucharist produces in the soul are set forth by the Council of Trent: ‘‘ Our Saviour wished that this sacrament should be received as the spiritual food of souls, whereby may be fed and strengthened those who live with his life who said, ‘ He that eateth me, the same also shall live by me’; and as an antidote, whereby we may be freed from daily faults, and be preserved from mortal sins. He would, furthermore, have it be a pledge of our glory to come, and everlasting happiness, and thus be a symbol of that one body whereof he is the head, and to which he would fain have us as members be united by the closest bond of faith, hope, and charity, that we might all speak the same things, and there might be no schisms amongst us.”¹ Besides being an antidote by which we are preserved from mortal sin, it is a very probable opinion that if the Eucharist is received by one in a state of mortal sin, of which he is not conscious and to which he is not attached, that sin will be forgiven. For the sacraments give grace to all who put no obstacle in their way, and such a communicant cannot be said to put an obstacle to the grace of the sacrament. But the entrance of grace expels all mortal sin from the soul. This is the teaching of St Thomas² and many other theologians.

¹ Sess. xiii, c. 2.

² Summa, 3, q. 79, a. 3.

(St. Thomas, III, qq. 75-77; Contra Gentiles, book 4, chapters 62-67.)

I. The truth of the real presence of Christ. In the Most Holy Eucharist Christ is truly, really, and substantially present. This is of faith from the Council of Trent solemnly declaring: "If anyone denies that in the sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist there are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, but says that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure, or power, let him be anathema."¹ "The Council," says St. Alphonsus, "says truly, so that it may exclude a figurative presence; for figure is opposed to truth; really, to repel an imaginary presence, apprehended by faith, which the Sacramentarians admitted; substantially, so that it may remove the opinion of Calvin, who asserted that the Eucharist does not contain the body, but only the power of Jesus Christ, who communicates Himself to us" (Opera dogmatica, vol. I, p. 555, ed. Walter).

¹ Session 13, canon 1.

II. The manner in which Christ is made present. Christ is made present in the Most Holy Eucharist through transubstantiation; concerning this I note:

1. The proposition stated is of faith from the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that in the most holy sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the body and blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and denies that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of bread into the body and of the whole substance of wine into the blood, the species of bread and wine alone remaining, which conversion indeed the Catholic Church most fittingly calls transubstantiation, let him be anathema."¹

2. Transubstantiation, according to the cited words of Trent, is: "The conversion of the whole substance of bread into the body and of the whole substance of wine into the blood of Christ, the species of bread and wine alone remaining." It is said:

a) Conversion; therefore consubstantiation is excluded, which admits a simple conjunction, and impanation, which admits the hypostatic union of the body and blood of Christ with bread and wine.

b) Conversion... of the substance of bread and wine. Therefore it is distinguished from accidental transformation, in which the same substance remains and only receives, for example, a new figure, as if a stone is transformed into a statue.

c) Conversion of the whole substance. Hence it is distinguished from substantial transformation, in which there is not a conversion of the whole substance, namely while the matter of the prior substance remains, as if daily foods pass into the substance of our body.

Transubstantiation regards a double term, namely the term from which and the term into which; or the term which passes away, namely bread and wine, and the term which succeeds, namely the body and blood of Christ. Now:

It is disputed first how the term from which, or the substance of bread and wine, passes away. Some judge that it is annihilated. Others, such as St. Thomas (III, q. 75, a. 3) and St. Alphonsus (Opera dogmatica, vol. I, p. 562, ed. Walter), teach that it ceases through a true and simple conversion, because in annihilation, which is reduction to nothing, the concept of conversion into another thing is not verified.

It is disputed besides how the term into which, or the body and blood of Christ, succeeds. Some, such as the Scotists, think that this is done by way of adduction, insofar, namely, as God in the consecration effects with respect to the body of Christ, without local motion, what local motion effects in the natural order; that is, God gives to the body of Christ non-distance from this space and from these accidents of bread and wine. Others, among whom are several Thomists, teach that this is done through production, or reproduction, of the body and blood of Christ, and this not simply, but by way of conversion from the substance of bread and wine; this opinion better corresponds to the concept of the conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ. Others² say that transubstantiation is a simple action by which God immediately changes whatever entity is in the substance of bread into that which is entity in the substance of the body of Christ; yet in such a way that the body of Christ is in no way changed, but the whole change takes place in the bread, whose substance passes away while the dimensions remain. According to this explanation, Christ suffers nothing in the consecration, receives nothing, but becomes present where He was not before, not locally but sacramentally, from this alone, that by force of the conversion He is now really contained under the dimensions of bread, under which the substance of bread was previously contained.³

d) The species of bread and wine alone remaining. Concerning the species, note:

1. The species of bread and wine have objective reality; this is "the perpetual and constant doctrine of the Catholic Church,"⁴ and therefore at least theologically certain.

2. The species inhere in no substance as a subject, but are sustained divinely.

I said, in no substance: neither in the substance of bread and wine, since it has passed away; nor in the body of Christ, which in the sacrament is entirely glorious and exists supernaturally.

I said, are sustained divinely: understand this so that God immediately sustains only the quantity, but accidents distinct from quantity inhere in the quantity as in a subject (St. Thomas, III, q. 77, a. 2).

Corollary. From the Eucharistic species a new substance is generated. This is explained in different ways by different authors. According to some, to set forth the principal opinion, in the last instant of corruption matter is produced by God, from which a new form is educed (St. Thomas, III, q. 77, a. 5). But it is disputed whether the said production is done by way of creation or by way of conversion of quantity into matter. And thus it is also explained how the species can nourish (St. Thomas, III, q. 77, a. 6).

¹ Session 13, canon 2.

² Thus Billot.

³ Tanquerey, n. 406.

⁴ Roman Catechism, part 2, On the Eucharist, n. 44.

III. The manner in which Christ is present is circumscribed in these terms:

1. The whole Christ is present under each Eucharistic species. This is of faith from the Council of Trent.¹

By force of the words, under the species of bread only the body becomes present, and under the species of wine only the blood. By force of natural connection and concomitance, under the species of bread the blood and soul exist, and under the species of wine the body and soul exist.

2. The whole Christ is contained under each part of the species both before and after division. That the whole Christ is contained under each part after division is of faith from the Council of Trent.² With respect to presence under each part before division, it is theologically certain.

¹ Session 13, canon 3.

² Session 13, canon 3.

IV. The time during which Christ is present. Christ is present in the manner which we have stated from the moment of consecration until the essential alteration of the species; and this is had when the species are so altered that, if the substance of bread and wine had persisted, this substance according to common estimation would have ceased to persist. Moreover:

1. Authors do not agree when the species are corrupted. Von Olfers judges that the species of bread is changed already in the mouth itself; yet Capellmann-Bergmann¹ rejects this entirely. Nevertheless even for the sake of security the species should not be kept long in the mouth, namely so that Christ is certainly eaten and the grace of the sacrament is certainly conferred (St. Alphonsus, VI, 226; n. 171). With respect to corruption in the stomach, some assign half an hour, others a much longer time, especially for the infirm; and it is certain that the matter depends on the condition of the stomach. With attention to all these things, I say:

a) Because of doubt about the presence of the species, it is illicit to provoke vomiting or to wash the stomach within two to three hours after the reception of the Eucharist, especially since these things are ordinarily not done except because of illness.

b) Whatever may be true about the duration of the presence, it is permitted to anyone to eat after he has spent a reasonable time in thanksgiving, because the sacraments must be ministered and received in a human manner (cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 80, a. 8, ad 6; St. Alphonsus, VI, 283).

2. If unconsecrated wine is mixed in a small quantity with consecrated wine, Christ remains present. If another liquid is mixed with consecrated wine, the matter depends both on the quantity and on the quality of the other liquid. If unconsecrated wine is mixed in a greater quantity with consecrated wine, it is disputed whether the presence of Christ endures. Some affirm this, because, as modern chemists teach, the molecules of the consecrated species retain their individuation. Others with St. Thomas (III, q. 77, a. 8) deny it, because the consecrated species, at least according to common estimation, do not remain the same numerically, but receive a new individuation from the greater quantity.

Note. When flesh or blood appears in the Most Holy Eucharist, it is not the flesh or blood of Christ. Apparitions of this kind are explained either from this, that species are formed by God in the eyes of those seeing, and thus it happens as if flesh or blood were truly seen; or from this, that a miraculous figure is formed which represents the flesh or blood of Christ. Hence to such figures, which are called relics of the Most Holy Blood, only relative worship is rendered (St. Thomas, III, q. 76, a. 8).

¹ Cf. Von Olfers, Pastoral-Medizin, p. 44 and following; Capellmann-Bergmann, op. cit., p. 270 and following; ibid., p. 271.

I. Necessity of worship of the Holy Eucharist. Christ in the Eucharist must be adored with the worship of latria, even external. This is of faith from the Council of Trent: "If anyone says that in the holy sacrament of the Eucharist Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of latria, even external, and therefore is not to be venerated with a special festive celebration, nor solemnly carried around in processions according to the praiseworthy and universal rite and custom of holy Church, or is not to be publicly proposed to the people that He may be adored, and that His adorers are idolaters, let him be anathema."¹ Now the sacramental species, since they pertain to the sacramental Christ, are to be adored together with the body and blood of Christ. But they constitute not the motive but the term of this adoration, and therefore the adoration, insofar as it regards the species themselves, must be called relative.

¹ Session 13, canon 6.

II. Zeal for the worship of the Holy Eucharist. Those who labor in the religious instruction of the faithful should omit nothing to excite piety toward the Most Holy Eucharist in their souls, and especially exhort them that, not only on Sundays and feasts of precept, but also on weekdays within the week, they frequently, so far as can be done, assist at the sacrifice of the Mass and visit the Most Holy Sacrament (canon 1273). Specifically, the following are noted in the Code:

1. Exposition of the Holy Eucharist. A twofold exposition is distinguished: private, which is made with the pyx, and public, which is made with the monstrance. Now private exposition can be made for any just cause without the permission of the Ordinary in churches or oratories to which it has been given to reserve the Most Holy Eucharist. But public exposition on the feast day of Corpus Christi and within the octave can be made in all churches during the solemnities of the Masses and at Vespers; but at other times only for a just and grave cause, especially a public one, and with the permission of the local Ordinary, even if the church belongs to an exempt religious institute (canon 1274, § 1), with the prescription of canon 1171 remaining firm, as the Sacred Congregation of the Council says,¹ that is, with parochial rights, privileges, and legitimate customs being saved, and with the right of the Ordinary of predefining, for a just cause, the hours of sacred rites in churches which do not belong to an exempt religious institute being saved.

Note 1. According to the rubrics, the pyx to be exposed cannot be taken out from the tabernacle, but can only be brought forward to its entrance.² But where a contrary custom is legitimately sustained, this kind of exposition of the pyx on a throne is, with respect to liceity, to be equated with public exposition. Finally, the custom of exposing the Holy Eucharist without the permission of the Bishop, where this is required by law, cannot be preserved.³

Note 2. The minister of exposition and reposition of the Most Holy Sacrament is a priest or deacon; but the minister of Eucharistic Benediction is the priest alone, nor can a deacon impart it except in the case in which, according to the norm of canon 845, § 2, he has carried Viaticum to the sick (canon 1274, § 2).

2. The supplication of the Forty Hours should be held every year in all parish churches and other churches in which the Most Holy Sacrament is habitually reserved, on days established with the consent of the local Ordinary, with the greatest solemnity possible; and if somewhere, because of particular circumstances of things, it cannot be done without grave inconvenience and with the reverence due to so great a sacrament, let the local Ordinary see to it that at least for some continuous hours, on fixed days, the Most Holy Sacrament be exposed in a more solemn rite (canon 1275).

¹ 14 July 1922 (A.A.S. 1922, p. 529).

² Sacred Congregation of Rites, 23 May 1835, n. 2725, reply to IV; 16 March 1876, n. 3394, reply to I; 28 April 1902, n. 4096, reply to VII; 16 February 1906, n. 4180, reply to II.

³ Sacred Congregation of Rites, 14 March 1861, n. 3104, reply to XIV.

The primary effect of the Most Holy Eucharist, to which the others are reduced, is perfect union with Christ in charity and with neighbor in Christ. Specifically, the following are enumerated:

I. With respect to the soul. 1. Sanctifying grace, per se second grace, per accidens more probably first grace (St. Thomas, III, q. 79, a. 7, ad 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 269; n. 6).

2. Sacramental grace; this consists in the fact that the sanctifying grace which the Holy Eucharist confers is both ordered to perfecting charity, or union with God and the faithful, and confers a right to actual graces to be received in order to that effect.

3. Fervor of charity, to which spiritual sweetness is attached. "But the love of God is not idle; for it does great things if it exists; and therefore through this sacrament, so far as concerns its power, not only is the habit of grace and virtue conferred, but it is also excited into act, according to that passage of 2 Corinthians 5: The charity of Christ urges us. And thence it is that by the power of this sacrament the soul is spiritually refreshed, by the fact that the soul is spiritually delighted and in a certain way intoxicated with the sweetness of the divine goodness, according to that passage of Canticles 5: Eat, friends, and drink, and be inebriated, dearly beloved" (St. Thomas, III, q. 79, a. 1, ad 2).

4. Remission of venial sins¹ (St. Thomas, III, q. 79, a. 4; St. Alphonsus, VI, 269). But it is disputed whether the Most Holy Eucharist remits venial sins both immediately, or ex opere operato, and mediately, or ex opere operantis, or only mediately, namely by exciting acts of charity by which venial sins are directly remitted; concerning this, compare what is to be said in the treatise on Penance.

5. Remission of temporal punishment (St. Thomas, III, q. 79, a. 5; St. Alphonsus, VI, 269). Again it is disputed whether both immediately, or ex opere operato, and mediately, ex opere operantis, or only mediately, by moving to acts of charity by which not only guilt but also punishment is remitted; concerning this, again compare what is to be said in the treatise on Penance.

¹ Council of Trent, Session 13, chapter 2.

II. With respect to the body, the Most Holy Eucharist especially diminishes concupiscence of the flesh (St. Alphonsus, VI, 269). But whether it effects this immediately and mediately, or only mediately, is doubtful (St. Alphonsus, VI, 269).

III. With respect to body and soul. 1. Spiritual sweetness, of itself overflowing into the body (St. Thomas, III, q. 79, a. 1, ad 2; St. Alphonsus, VI, 269).

2. The glorious resurrection of the body.¹

¹ John 6:55.

IV. With respect to others, it is useful to note specifically a certain social effect, namely mutual union among the faithful, to which effect attention is already given more today. "For we, being many, are one bread, one body, all who partake of one bread."¹

Question. At what time does the Eucharist confer grace?

Response 1. It certainly confers it at the time at which the species are eaten and drunk, that is, are carried into the stomach. Hence: 1. "The species are not to be retained in the mouth so long that they wholly perish, because then Christ would not be eaten, nor would the grace of the sacrament be conferred" (St. Alphonsus, VI, 227). 2. If someone had received the host indisposed, and then, disposed, received the blood, he would receive grace (St. Alphonsus, loc. cit.).

Response 2. It is disputed whether the Eucharist, with disposition increased, continues to confer grace for as long as the species remain uncorrupted. It seems it must be affirmed, because the Eucharist is rightly judged to operate after the manner of nourishing food.

¹ 1 Cor. 10:17.

“Chapter 1. On the Real Presence of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist.—In the first place, the holy Synod teaches and openly and simply professes that, in the august Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist, after the consecration of the bread and wine, Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of those sensible things. For neither are these things mutually opposed: that our Savior Himself always sits at the right hand of the Father in heaven according to His natural manner of existing, and that, nevertheless, in many other places He is sacramentally present to us in His substance by that manner of existing which, although we can scarcely express it in words, we can nevertheless apprehend by thought illuminated by faith as possible to God, and which we ought most steadfastly to believe. For thus all our forefathers, as many as were in the true Church of Christ and discoursed concerning this most holy Sacrament, most openly professed that our Redeemer instituted this so admirable Sacrament at the Last Supper, when, after the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified in express and clear words that He was giving them His own very Body and His Blood; and since those words, commemorated by the holy Evangelists and afterward repeated by St. Paul, bear that proper and most manifest meaning according to which they were understood by the Fathers, it is indeed a most unworthy crime that they are twisted by certain contentious and depraved men into fictitious and imaginary tropes, by which the truth of the flesh and blood of Christ is denied, contrary to the universal sense of the Church. As the pillar and ground of truth, she has detested these fabrications devised by impious men as satanic, always acknowledging with a grateful and mindful spirit this most excellent benefit of Christ.

“Chapter 2. On the Reason for the Institution of This Most Holy Sacrament.—Therefore our Savior, when about to depart from this world to the Father, instituted this Sacrament, in which He poured forth, as it were, the riches of His divine love toward men, making a remembrance of His wonderful works; and in its reception He commanded us to cherish His memory and to proclaim His death until He Himself comes to judge the world. Moreover, He willed this Sacrament to be received as the spiritual food of souls, by which those living by the life of Him who said, He who eats me, he also shall live because of me, may be nourished and strengthened; and as an antidote by which we may be freed from daily faults and preserved from mortal sins. Furthermore, He willed it to be a pledge of our future glory and perpetual felicity, and thus a symbol of that one body of which He Himself is the head, and to which He willed us to be bound, as members, by the closest bond of faith, hope, and charity, so that we all might say the same thing and there might be no schisms among us.

“Chapter 3. On the Excellence of the Most Holy Eucharist over the Other Sacraments.—This indeed is common to the Most Holy Eucharist with the other Sacraments: that it is a symbol of a sacred thing and a visible form of invisible grace. But this excellent and singular thing is found in it: that the other Sacraments first possess the power of sanctifying when someone uses them, whereas in the Eucharist the Author of sanctity is present before its use. For the Apostles had not yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord when He nevertheless truly affirmed that what He was giving was His Body. And this faith has always been in the Church of God: that immediately after the consecration, the true Body of Our Lord and His true Blood exist under the species of bread and wine, together with His soul and divinity; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words; and the Body itself under the species of wine, the Blood under the species of bread, and the soul under each, by the force of that natural connection and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, who has now risen from the dead, nevermore to die, are united with one another; and the Divinity, furthermore, by reason of its admirable hypostatic union with the Body and soul. Wherefore it is most true that just as much is contained under either species as under both. For Christ whole and entire exists under the species of bread and under every part of that species, and likewise whole under the species of wine and under its parts.

“Chapter 4. On Transubstantiation.—Since, however, Christ our Redeemer said that what He offered under the species of bread was truly His Body, it has therefore always been the persuasion of the Church of God—and this holy Synod now declares it anew—that, by the consecration of the bread and wine, there takes place a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of His Blood. This conversion has fittingly and properly been called transubstantiation by the holy Catholic Church.

“Chapter 5. On the Worship and Veneration to Be Shown to This Most Holy Sacrament.—Therefore no place for doubt is left that all the faithful of Christ, according to the custom always received in the Catholic Church, should in veneration render to this Most Holy Sacrament the worship of latria which is due to the true God. For it is not, on that account, to be less adored because it was instituted by Christ the Lord to be received; for we believe that the same God is present in it whom the eternal Father, when bringing Him into the world, says: And let all the Angels of God adore Him; whom the Magi, falling down, adored; whom, finally, Scripture testifies to have been adored by the Apostles in Galilee. The holy Synod furthermore declares that this custom was most piously and religiously introduced into the Church of God: that each year, on a certain particular and festive day, this transcendent and venerable Sacrament should be celebrated with singular veneration and solemnity, and that it should be carried reverently and honorably through the streets and public places in processions. For it is most just that certain sacred days should have been established, on which all Christians, with a certain singular and uncommon manifestation, may testify their grateful and mindful spirits toward their common Lord and Redeemer for so ineffable and altogether divine a benefit, by which the victory and triumph of His death is represented. And thus indeed it was fitting that victorious truth should celebrate triumph over falsehood and heresy, so that its adversaries, placed in the sight of so great a splendor and amid so great a rejoicing of the universal Church, may either waste away, weakened and broken, or, affected with shame and confounded, may at length come to their senses.

“Chapter 6. On Reserving the Sacrament of the Sacred Eucharist and Carrying It to the Sick.—The custom of reserving the Holy Eucharist in the sacred repository is so ancient that even the age of the Council of Nicaea recognized it. Moreover, that the Sacred Eucharist itself should be carried to the sick and that this practice should be diligently preserved in the churches, besides being joined with the greatest equity and reason, is also found to have been commanded in many Councils and was observed by the most ancient custom of the Catholic Church. Therefore this holy Synod establishes that this salutary and necessary custom is wholly to be retained.

“Chapter 7. On the Preparation to Be Employed That One May Receive the Sacred Eucharist Worthily.—If it does not become anyone to approach any sacred functions unless holily, certainly, the more the holiness and divinity of this heavenly Sacrament is known to a Christian man, the more diligently ought he take care not to approach to receive it without great reverence and holiness, especially since we read those words full of terror in the Apostle: He who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks judgment to himself, not discerning the Body of the Lord. Wherefore, for one wishing to communicate, that precept of his is to be recalled to mind: Let a man prove himself. Ecclesiastical custom, however, declares that this proving is necessary: that no one conscious to himself of mortal sin, however contrite he may seem to himself, ought to approach the Sacred Eucharist without previous sacramental confession. This holy Synod has decreed that this is to be perpetually observed by all Christians, even by those priests upon whom it is incumbent by office to celebrate, provided that access to a confessor is not lacking to them. But if, with necessity pressing, a priest shall celebrate without previous confession, let him confess as soon as possible.

“Chapter 8. On the Use of This Admirable Sacrament.—As regards its use, however, our Fathers rightly and wisely distinguished three ways of receiving this Holy Sacrament. For they taught that some receive it sacramentally only, as sinners; others spiritually only, namely those who, eating in desire that heavenly bread set before them, by a living faith which works through charity perceive its fruit and usefulness; while the third receive it both sacramentally and spiritually. These, however, are those who so prove and prepare themselves beforehand that, clothed in the wedding garment, they approach this divine table. In sacramental reception, however, it was always the custom in the Church of God that the laity receive Communion from priests, but that priests when celebrating communicate themselves. This custom, as descending from Apostolic tradition, ought rightly and deservedly to be retained. Finally, with paternal affection the holy Synod admonishes, exhorts, asks, and beseeches, through the bowels of the mercy of our God, that each and all who are reckoned by the Christian name should now at last unite and agree in this sign of unity, in this bond of charity, in this symbol of concord; and, mindful of so great a majesty and of so excellent a love of Jesus Christ our Lord, who gave His beloved soul as the price of our salvation and His flesh for us to eat, that they should believe and venerate these sacred mysteries of His Body and Blood with such constancy and firmness of faith, such devotion and piety of spirit, and such worship, that they may be able frequently to receive that supersubstantial bread, and that it may be for them truly the life of the soul and the perpetual health of the mind; so that, strengthened by its vigor, they may be able to pass from the journey of this miserable pilgrimage to the heavenly fatherland, there to eat without any veil the same Bread of Angels which they now eat beneath sacred veils.

“Since, however, it is not enough to state the truth unless errors are uncovered and refuted, it has pleased the holy Synod to subjoin these canons, so that all, the Catholic doctrine now having been recognized, may also understand what heresies must be guarded against and avoided by them.

“Canon 1. If anyone shall deny that, in the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and therefore the whole Christ, are truly, really, and substantially contained, but shall say that He is in it only as in a sign, or figure, or power: let him be anathema.

“Canon 2. If anyone shall say that in the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there remains the substance of bread and wine together with the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ, and shall deny that wonderful and singular conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the Body and of the whole substance of the wine into the Blood, only the species of bread and wine remaining—a conversion which the Catholic Church most aptly calls transubstantiation: let him be anathema.

“Canon 3. If anyone shall deny that, in the venerable Sacrament of the Eucharist, the whole Christ is contained under each species and, separation having been made, under each single part of either species: let him be anathema.

“Canon 4. If anyone shall say that, after the consecration has been completed, the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ are not in the admirable Sacrament of the Eucharist except only in its use while it is being received, but not before or after, and that the true Body of the Lord does not remain in the consecrated hosts or particles which are reserved or remain after Communion: let him be anathema.

“Canon 5. If anyone shall say either that the principal fruit of the Most Holy Eucharist is the remission of sins or that no other effects proceed from it: let him be anathema.

“Canon 6. If anyone shall say that, in the Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist, Christ, the only-begotten Son of God, is not to be adored with the worship of latria, including external worship, and therefore is neither to be venerated with a particular festive celebration, nor solemnly carried about in processions according to the laudable and universal rite and custom of the Holy Church, nor publicly set before the people that He may be adored, and that His adorers are idolaters: let him be anathema.

“Canon 7. If anyone shall say that it is not lawful for the Sacred Eucharist to be reserved in the sacred repository, but that immediately after consecration it must necessarily be distributed to those present; or that it is not lawful for it to be carried honorably to the sick: let him be anathema.

“Canon 8. If anyone shall say that Christ set forth in the Eucharist is eaten only spiritually, and not also sacramentally and really: let him be anathema.

“Canon 9. If anyone shall deny that each and all of the faithful of Christ of either sex, when they have arrived at the years of discretion, are bound to communicate every year, at least at Easter, according to the precept of Holy Mother Church: let him be anathema.

“Canon 10. If anyone shall say that it is not lawful for a priest celebrating to communicate himself: let him be anathema.

“Canon 11. If anyone shall say that faith alone is sufficient preparation for receiving the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist: let him be anathema. And, lest so great a Sacrament be received unworthily and therefore unto death and condemnation, the holy Synod itself establishes and declares that those whose conscience is burdened with mortal sin, however contrite they may even think themselves, must necessarily make sacramental confession beforehand if access to a confessor is available. But if anyone shall presume to teach, preach, or obstinately assert the contrary, or even to defend it in public disputation, let him by that very fact be excommunicated.”

What is the Eucharist? - It is the mystery of our Faith, by which, under the species of bread and wine consecrated through the words of the priest, Christ himself is offered, contained, and received. Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent sess. 13, c. 1, 3, 7; can. 1-4; sess. 22, c. 1, 6. It has the nature of sacrifice and of sacrament: of sacrifice while it is confected; of sacrament while it is confected, remains, and is received. Trent sess. 13, c. 4; sess. 22, c. 1; Decree of the Holy Office Lamentabili, July 3, 1907, prop. 45; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 73, a. 1, 4, 5; q. 75, 76, 77; q. 79, a. 5; L. 189, 190; E. M.

How long does Christ remain really present in the Eucharist? - He remains as long as the species remain whole; but he ceases to be under them as soon as the species are corrupted in such a way that, according to the estimation of men, they no longer seem to be bread and wine. But then, from the law established by God in the institution of this sacrament, there is substituted for the species the same matter which would succeed to corrupted bread and wine. - Wherefore the whole Christ remains present under the individual parts of the species when separation has been made. Trent sess. 13, c. 3. - "The species are not to be retained in the mouth so long until they wholly perish, because then Christ would not be eaten, nor would the grace of the sacrament be conferred, just as neither if you were to die while the host is still in the mouth." L. 226. For grace is given as soon as the eating is verified, which is the vital passage of food from the mouth into the stomach, according to the words of Christ: He who eats my flesh, and drinks, etc. But it is probable that grace is increased ex opere operato during the whole time in which the presence of Christ under the species perseveres, if the man then disposes himself more and more. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 77, a. 4, 5, 8; L. 225; La Croix 474; Lugo dist. 12, n. 40 ff.; E. M.

How long are the sacred species judged to remain whole after the reception of the sacrament? - Some say after a minute, others after five minutes, others after half a quarter of an hour, others still longer, after a quarter of an hour, after half an hour. Concerning this matter it does not seem that any general rule can be handed down. For a shorter or longer delay must chiefly be taken from the different digestive power of different men, and from other circumstances both internal and external. But it remains longer in a priest, who in Mass communicates under each species and with the larger host, than in a layman, who according to custom receives only a small host. L. 225.

Whether the Eucharist is one sacrament, or a double sacrament? - It is one sacrament in species, although there are several signs. For although there is a physical plurality of sign, nevertheless there is a moral unity; for the sacrament of the Eucharist, although composed of the physically distinct species of bread and wine, is nevertheless ordered to one spiritual refreshment in species as to the end and signified effect, just as material food and drink are ordered to one bodily refreshment. Thus in extreme unction there are several anointings, and nevertheless one sacrament is had, because those several anointings are ordered to one end and effect, namely to removing the remnants of sins. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 73, a. 2; L. 191, 199. - But since under only one species someone receives the whole thing of the sacrament, or the whole Christ, just as he who receives the Eucharist under each species, it follows that the effect of the sacrament is of itself the same under one species as under each species, if the dispositions of those receiving are the same. Council of Trent sess. 21, c. 3; Suarez d. 63, s. 6, n. 9; Lugo d. 12, s. 3, n. 68.

What are the effects of the sacrament of the Eucharist in the soul? - The principal ones are the following, namely: 1. Spiritual nourishment or increase of sanctifying grace, which constitutes the proper and principal effect of the Eucharist of itself. For according to the words of Christ, John 6:56: My flesh is truly food, this sacrament was instituted as spiritual nourishment; and nourishment supposes life in him who receives it. Hence it comes about that through this nourishment the very life of the soul, which chiefly consists in sanctifying grace, is strengthened and increased. Trent sess. 14, c. 5; Lugo d. 1, n. 7. - 2. The attainment of eternal glory; for Christ promises this: If anyone shall eat of this bread, he shall live forever, John 6:51. Wherefore eternal glory will be conferred by this new title, that the glorious flesh of Christ has sanctified our body, if someone has persevered in the state of grace to the end. And by the helps which this sacrament confers, it wonderfully aids him to attain eternal life, which he will in reality attain who frequently, as is fitting, and devoutly eats this bread.

3. A most abundant bestowal of actual graces, which flow from habitual grace and infused habits. For "every effect which material food and drink produce as regards bodily life, by sustaining, increasing, repairing, and delighting, this sacrament works as regards spiritual life." Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians. Therefore this sacrament is a morally necessary means for preserving sanctifying grace. More abundant helps are therefore given in view of it for overcoming temptations and dangers of sinning. - 4. Weakening of bad habits and amendment of vices, especially of lust. For, as was just said, the proper effect of this spiritual food is spiritually to repair, sustain, increase, and delight the powers. Moreover, by this sacrament the flesh of Christ through the Eucharistic species is joined to the body and sanctifies it. - 5. Remission of venial sins, which is done ex opere operato. Trent sess. 13, c. 2, the Eucharist is called "an antidote by which we are freed from daily faults and preserved from mortal sins." But this remission of venial sins ex opere operato is together with the remission of venial sins ex opere operantis through supernatural acts, to which the sacrament excites us, of sorrow and charity. Roman Catechism. - 6. Remission of temporal punishment due to sin; not indeed of the whole, but according to the manner of devotion and fervor, as St. Thomas says, 3 p., q. 79, a. 5. And this remission of temporal punishment is ex opere operantis from acts of sorrow and charity, to which the sacrament excites us. For the Eucharist by force of the sacrament has only that effect for which it was instituted. But it was not instituted for making satisfaction, but for nourishing spiritually through union with Christ and with his members. But this union is made through charity, from which there follows remission not only of guilt, but also of punishment, not indeed of the whole, but according to the manner of devotion and fervor. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 79, a. 5. Therefore this remission of temporal punishment ex opere operantis does not impede also the remission of temporal punishment ex opere operato indirectly, namely that which follows the remission of venial faults ex opere operato. - 7. Special union with Christ and his members, as is clear from John 6:57: He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, abides in me and I in him. "The effect of this sacrament," says the Council of Florence, Decree for the Armenians, "which it works in the soul of one worthily receiving, is the uniting of man to Christ." And this union is had through grace, by which "man is incorporated into Christ and united to his members." Council of Florence, ibid. This intimate conjunction with Christ is also the proper and principal effect of this sacrament of itself, as is clear of itself from the very nature of this sacrament.

8. Preservation from future sins, both because, charity having been increased through this food, the soul becomes stronger against corrupt nature, and because it is an efficacious memorial of the Lord's Passion, by which the demons were conquered. L. 268, 269; H. A. 5. - Florence, Decree for the Armenians; Trent sess. 13, c. 2; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 79; q. 73, a. 4; q. 74, a. 1.

It is clear that the preceding effects of the Eucharist depend very greatly on one's own cooperation with grace. And therefore, in those who approach it indevoutly and rarely, those admirable effects often do not appear.

Can the Eucharist ever destroy mortal sin? - Resp. More probably in the affirmative, not indeed of itself, but accidentally and mediately through the infusion of grace, namely when someone, ignorant that he is living in the state of mortal sin, approaches the Eucharist in good faith and with attrition for sins committed beforehand. Then nothing prevents the sacrament from producing its effect. But it cannot produce the effect while mortal sin stands. Therefore it must indirectly remove that sin. L. 268; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 79, a. 3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For what the dying priest said is not sufficiently established.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

180. The nourishing sacrament of the Eucharist, just as it is the most worthy, so also is the most efficacious. Its efficacy proceeds especially from a threefold source: 1. from union with Christ; 2. from its spiritual nourishment; 3. from its special signification of the Passion of Christ.

1. In the reception of the Eucharist there is had a perfect union with Christ, God and man.

For the Lord says: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."⁷⁴ From this union a great increase of sanctifying grace is spontaneously produced. For just as Christ, coming visibly into this world, conferred grace upon it according to the saying, "Grace and truth came through Jesus Christ,"⁷⁵ so, coming sacramentally into man, He effects the life of grace.⁷⁶ But since the Eucharist is a sacrament of the living, it already presupposes sanctifying grace in the soul and increases it; accidentally, however, when one has neither consciousness nor affection of a mortal sin committed, or if one approaches Holy Communion both in good faith and with attrition, the Eucharist causes first grace.⁷⁷

⁷⁴ John 6:57.

⁷⁵ John 1:17.

⁷⁶ Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 79, a. 1.

⁷⁷ Ibid., a. 3.

181. 2. The Eucharist is the most perfect food of the soul; indeed, it is a sacred banquet at which all Christians are invited to recline.

Therefore it produces all the effects of good food and of a most delightful banquet, as the Council of Florence teaches: "Every effect which material food and drink produce with respect to bodily life, by sustaining, increasing, repairing, and delighting, this sacrament produces with respect to spiritual life."⁷⁸ Hence the Eucharist:

a) Sustains spiritual life, insofar as it guards against mortal and venial sins. For just as good bodily food guards against disease, so the Eucharistic food strengthens the soul against all temptations to sin, and especially against dangers to chastity; for it is that wine which "brings forth virgins."⁷⁹ The tinder of sin is not indeed diminished directly, but indirectly through charity greatly increased by the Eucharist.⁸⁰ It is established from the experience of all confessors that no more efficacious remedy against temptations is given than the frequent and devout reception of the Eucharist.

b) Together with grace, it increases the fervor of all the virtues. Through this sacrament, insofar as concerns its own power, not only is the habit of grace and virtue increased, but it is also excited into act according to the saying, "The charity of Christ urges us."⁸¹ Therefore, not rarely, through the Eucharist devoutly received the virtues are exercised in a truly heroic degree.

⁷⁸ Decree for the Armenians (Denz., n. 698).

⁷⁹ Cf. Zechariah 9:17.

⁸⁰ Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 79, a. 6 ad 3.

⁸¹ 2 Corinthians 5:14.

182. c) It remits venial faults and temporal punishments. Hence the Council of Trent⁸² teaches that the Eucharist is "an antidote by which we may be freed from daily faults and preserved from mortal sins." The reason why the Eucharist destroys venial sins is the increased fervor of charity, and this not only ex opere operantis, but also ex opere operato, that is, by the power of the sacrament itself. For venial sin and the fervor of charity destroy one another. The more venial sins are committed, the more the fervor of charity is diminished. But the more the fervor of charity is increased, the more venial sins are taken away. Concerning the remission of temporal punishment, the Angelic Doctor teaches:⁸³ The Eucharist "has an effect in two ways: in one way directly from the power of the sacrament; in another way, as it were, from a certain concomitance.... From the power of the sacrament, indeed, it directly has that effect for which it was instituted. But it was not instituted for making satisfaction, but for nourishing spiritually through union with Christ and with His members, just as nourishment is united to the one nourished. But because this unity is made through charity, from the fervor of which one obtains remission not only of fault but also of punishment, it follows from this that, through a certain concomitance with the principal effect, a man obtains remission of punishment, not indeed of the whole, but according to the measure of his devotion and fervor." From these things it is understood why Holy Communion is the best disposition for gaining a plenary indulgence, and why the Church is accustomed to prescribe Holy Communion as a condition required for gaining an indulgence.

d) It delights, because it increases charity, unites with Christ, and repairs both fault and punishments, as has been explained. Hence it is deservedly said in the Office of Corpus Christi: "You have given them bread from heaven, having in itself all delight"; and many saints after Communion were rapt into ecstasy.

⁸² Session 13, c. 2 (Denz., n. 875).

⁸³ Loc. cit., a. 5.

183. 3. The Eucharist specially signifies the Passion of Christ.

For the sacrifice of the Mass, in which the sacrament is consecrated, is an unbloody renewal of the sacrifice of the Cross. Because of this close conjunction with the Passion of Christ, the Eucharist is a precious pledge of future glory and a strong shield against diabolical temptations. The first effect is produced because Christ through His Passion opened for us the approach to eternal life. The Eucharist is prefigured by that miraculous food which Elijah "ate and drank, and walked in the strength of that food forty days and forty nights, unto the mount of God, Horeb."⁸⁴ But since the power of the devil was broken through the Passion of Christ, the Eucharist makes us strong also in the struggle with the demon. Hence St. John Chrysostom says: "As lions breathing fire, so we depart from that table, having been made terrible to the devil."⁸⁵

⁸⁴ 3 Kings 19:8.

⁸⁵ Homily 46 (45), n. 3. Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 79, a. 6.

184. Scholion. On the human cooperation necessary for obtaining the Eucharistic effects. The admirable effects of the Eucharist depend in part upon the cooperation of the recipient. For just as food does not produce all its effects unless it is well digested by the nutritive power, so also the Eucharistic food does not exert its whole efficacy if the tepidity, negligence, and distractions of man stand in the way. Hence it happens that men, even after innumerable Holy Communions received, still remain very imperfect.

St. Thomas notes,⁸⁶ however, that past venial sins, whose affection is no longer retained by a man, in no way impede the effect of the Eucharist, since it takes them away, as has been said. Therefore, only venial sins actually pleasing impede the fervor of charity and the refreshment of spiritual sweetness arising from Holy Communion.

⁸⁶ Loc. cit., a. 8.

185. You ask: 1. At what moment does the sacrament of the Eucharist produce its effect ex opere operato? The response which seems to us alone true says: At that moment at which true eating or reception is had. For this sacrament was instituted after the manner of food and drink. But eating or reception is had not at that moment at which the Eucharistic species are placed in the mouth, but when they pass into the stomach. Therefore, if the species are dissolved in the mouth or removed from the mouth, the effect of the Eucharist is not produced. Likewise, the Eucharistic species do not operate ex opere operato for as long as they remain undissolved, as Cajetan with certain others wished, but at the moment at which they arrive in the stomach. Otherwise, he who, because of a weaker digestive power, preserves the undissolved species longer in the stomach, or who received a great quantity of consecrated hosts or wine, would be in a better condition than one who quickly digests small quantities of the species. These things indeed seem absurd. For as long as the Eucharistic species are not dissolved, the Body of Christ is present, and therefore it is highly expedient that a man, after receiving the Eucharist, elicit fervent acts of charity.

2. Whether the Eucharist produces its effects if a host is transferred artificially through a tube into the stomach in a case in which a man cannot receive it in the natural manner? The affirmative opinion seems probable, because even then the Eucharist is received after the manner of food, although not after the manner of eating. The Holy Office, however, on January 27, 1886, is said to have prohibited such a manner of administering it, even though it concerns Viaticum, because the sacrament can then be exposed in some measure to irreverence.⁸⁷

The Angelic Doctor treats broadly, profoundly, and clearly of the effects of the Eucharist in S. theol. 3, throughout question 79, from which we have briefly drawn the things said above.

⁸⁷ Cf. Noldin, De sacr., n. 100, and Linzer Quartalschrift (1915), 128 sqq.

233. Catholic doctrine. - According to Catholic doctrine, by the words of consecration three things especially admirable are effected, to be explained in three articles:

1. that the body and blood of Christ are truly contained in this sacrament,

2. that no substance of the elements, i.e., of bread and wine, remains in it,

3. that the accidents which are perceived by the senses are subjected in no thing.

S. Th. III, q. 75, a. 1.

234. Thesis. In the sacrament of the Eucharist Christ is contained truly, really, and substantially, and not only in sign, or figure, or power. - Thus the Council of Trent defined, sess. 13, c. 1 and can. 1, against the Sacramentarians, such as Zwingli, Carlostadius, Oecolampadius, after the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 1, against the Albigensians, and the Council of Florence, decree of union.¹

¹ The same is taught in the profession of faith for the Waldensians prescribed by Innocent III; and in the condemnation of Wycliffe's propositions in the Council of Constance, sess. 8 and 13.

Christ is contained 1. truly, i.e., not only representatively in sign: which is chiefly against Zwingli;

2. really, i.e., not only in a figure or expressed likeness, or objectively insofar as by faith it is apprehended and by the contemplation of faith that which is in heaven is figured as present: which seems more against Oecolampadius;

3. substantially, i.e., not only according to effect, operation, and power: which is directly against Calvin and many Anglicans.

235. The doctrine is proved first from the words of promise. - Christ promised, John VI, the bread of eternal life, which came down from heaven: His flesh to be eaten as true food. But although the bread from verses 27 to 47 is perhaps to be understood in a figurative and transferred sense concerning spiritual eating through faith, or concerning faith in Christ or grace, nevertheless the words from verses 48 to 59 must be understood in the proper and immediate sense concerning Christ's own flesh to be eaten really. Therefore Christ promised His flesh really to be eaten, which promise would not be verified unless He were truly present in the Eucharist. - Similarly He promised that His blood was to be drunk.

It is proved: a) If Christ wished to speak in the proper sense, He could not speak, nor in the Last Supper did He speak, more clearly and openly: for the bread to be eaten is the same flesh which He will give for the life of the world (v. 52), i.e., His flesh immolated for the salvation of the world, where eating is proposed as participation in the immolation. But participation in bloody sacrifice everywhere on earth is made through the real eating of the victim. Therefore it is a matter of true flesh really to be eaten, which therefore is truly food (v. 56). - But if Christ wished to speak in a figurative sense, He could not speak more obscurely.

b) For the locution to drink blood among the Jews, who abhorred blood, has no metaphorical sense; but the locution to eat the flesh of someone in Hebrew and other oriental languages is taken in a transferred sense in a bad part concerning calumnies, injuries, persecutions against someone.² But that sense here is impossible: for how would Christ command and reward calumnies directed against Himself? (v. 52, 54, 55, 57).

² Ps. XIII, 4; XXVI, 2; Job XXXI, 31; Mic. III, 3; Eccles. IV, 5; Zech. XI, 9; Ezek. XXXIX, 17, 18; Gal. V, 15.

c) For this reason the hearers understood the words of Christ in the proper sense concerning flesh truly and really to be eaten, and therefore they judge this thing as impossible (v. 53, 61). But if from ignorance they had understood badly, Christ would have corrected the error as He was accustomed to do;³ He did not correct it, but rather six times confirmed it, demanding faith in His words as they had been understood by the Jews (v. 54-59).

³ Christ corrects in John III, 5; IV, 32-34; VI, 32-36; VIII, 21-23; 32-34; 40-44; XI, 14; Matt. XVI, 6-11; XIX, 24-26; Mark VIII, 15-21; - on the contrary He confirms in John V, 41-51; VIII, 56-58; X, 30-38; Matt. IX, 2-6.

d) Indeed, when on account of the proper sense many disciples went away, Christ permits them to go away; which He would not have done if they had understood badly, since by a very simple explanation He could have prevented their apostasy. But He would even have permitted the apostles to go away, if they had not believed His words (v. 68).

e) Hence the whole Catholic tradition understood it of the proper sense: the Fathers, and the Councils of Ephesus, Nicaea II, and Trent, sess. 13, c. 2; sess. 21, c. 1, although it does not define this.

Nor let it be said that Christ corrected the error and indicated a spiritual sense, by saying: The Spirit is He who gives life, the flesh profits nothing; the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life (v. 64). - For He did not correct it, as the withdrawal of the disciples proves, and besides those words are not to be opposed to the preceding things but composed with them; nor is it surely the same thing to say: My words are spirit and life, and to say: My words are metaphorical. Therefore the sense is: the flesh profits nothing for understanding spiritual things, i.e., the animal man does not perceive them, but the spirit gives life, i.e., the spiritual man, aided by the grace of God, perceives them. Whence the flesh of Christ is not to be eaten merely materially like bodily food, but in a spiritual and sacramental mode, and with due disposition. Now the words which I have spoken to you are spirit and life, i.e., they are concerning a spiritual thing. But certain ones among you are carnal men and therefore do not believe.⁴ Thus already Chrysostom.

⁴ Others interpret otherwise: My flesh separated from the divinity of the Word, the life-giving spirit, profits nothing; but it profits when united to the life-giving spirit, i.e., with the divinity. But the interpretation does not seem to cohere with the text nor to be conformable to the mind of the hearers.

236. The doctrine is proved second from the words of institution. - In the Last Supper Christ, designating that which is contained under the species of bread and wine, says it to be His body and blood (Matt. XXVI, 26-29; Mark XIV, 22-25; Luke XXII, 19-20; I Cor. XI, 23 sq.). But these words are to be taken in the proper and immediate sense, not in a transferred sense. Therefore the body and blood of Christ are truly contained under the species of bread and wine.

It is proved: a) If Christ wished to speak in a figurative sense, He would have spoken with the greatest obscurity, as is clear from this alone, that already in the year 1577 Protestants had found more than 200 diverse interpretations of the words of Christ; but if in the proper sense, He could not speak more clearly. This sense is still more expressly signified in Greek by emphasis: This which I give you to eat (eat: for this is) is My very body, that very one which is delivered for you; that which I offer to be drunk is My very blood, the very blood of the New Testament, that very one which is poured out for many. But the body to be delivered is a true body; blood to be poured out in sacrifice, sanctioning the New Testament, is true blood, just as the Old Testament was sanctioned by true blood.

b) And indeed Christ was establishing a covenant, founding a testament, instituting a sacrament, bearing a law, handing down a dogma to be believed, and addressing friends when death was at hand; all which things are customarily done by proper and clear speech, not by metaphorical words, at least equivocal and obscure, and difficult to grasp.

c) Indeed Christ could not have spoken in a figurative sense: for the apostles were very simple men, accustomed to miracles, judging nothing impossible; whence they could in no way have suspected a metaphorical sense which was not manifest and was difficult to grasp.⁵ Therefore Christ, who is God, would have deceived the apostles, and through them would have cast the Church into a most pernicious error which He knew would endure through 20 centuries.

⁵ Thus Matt. XVI, 11; John XI, 12; IV, 32; Luke XXII, 36-38; John XIV, 7-9: the apostles understand properly.

d) Whence the apostles understood the words of Christ in the proper sense: for since they are accustomed to declare figures less obscure,⁶ here not even one of them insinuates a figurative sense even by one little word. Indeed Paul, I Cor. XI, 27, concludes from those very words: Therefore whoever shall eat this bread or drink the chalice of the Lord unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord; but if Christ were not present, he would be guilty not of the body itself but of its symbol; and on the contrary: he who eats unworthily eats judgment to himself, not discerning the body of the Lord, i.e., because he does not distinguish it from common bread, or because practically by his action he does not esteem the thing which he receives as the body of Christ.

⁶ They declare, for example, the metaphorical sense: John II, 19-21; III, 3-5; IV, 32-34; VII, 38-39; VIII, 32-34; XXI, 19-23; Matt. XVI, 6, 12; XVII, 12, 13; John XII, 4 with Matt. XXVI, 8 and Mark XIV, 4; Luke XXII, 39; Matt. XXVII, 44 and Mark XV, 32.

e) And thus the common interpretation of the Fathers understood it, which the Council of Trent defined as to be believed, sess. 13, c. 1.

237. The doctrine is proved third from Tradition and the perpetual faith of the Church. - It is established in various ways:

A. From the Fathers, whose testimonies are undoubted from the apostolic age onward, and in every region: Ignatius, who reproves the Docetae "because they do not confess the Eucharist to be the flesh of the Savior... which suffered for us," Ad Smyrn. VII, 1; Justin, who speaks according to the received doctrine, which he proves through the very words of Christ taken from the Gospels, Apol. I, 65-67; Dial. 41, 70, 117; Abercius in the epitaph, reporting a universal fact; Irenaeus, who says that the Eucharist was instituted by Christ and handed down to the Church by the apostles and received in the whole world, and that it consists of a twofold element, namely earthly and heavenly (i.e., the body of Christ and the spirit of divinity), Adv. haer. IV, 17, 18; V, 2, 3; Clement of Alexandria, Paedag. I, 5, 6; Origen, hom. 9 on Lev. 10; hom. 13 on Ex. 3; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV, 22; De carn. res. 8; Cyprian, De laps. 16; ep. 57 and 63; Dionysius of Alexandria apud Eusebius, H.E. VI, 44; VII, 9; Athanasius, fragm. VII; Cyril of Jerusalem, cat. XX, 1, 3; XXII, 1-2; XXIII, 20-22; Chrysostom, hom. 46 on John 3; hom. 82 on Matt. 4; Basil, ep. 93; Gregory Nazianzen, or. 45, n. 19; Gregory of Nyssa, Or. cat. 37; Aphraates, dem. III, 2; Ephrem, hymn. De Virg. XXXVII; Hilary, De Trin. VIII, 14; Ambrose, De myst. 8-9; book De Sacr. IV, 16; Jerome, ep. 14, n. 8; Augustine, serm. 71 and 272; Inter ined. 6; on John XXVII, 11; XLVII, 2; on Ps. XCVIII, 9; XXXIII, 2; Cyril of Alexandria, on Luke XXII, 19; on Matt. XXVI, 27; John Damascene, De fide orth. IV, 13.⁷

⁷ On the doctrine of the Fathers there may be compared: Nicole and Arnauld, La perpetuite de la Foi de l'Eglise catholique touchant l'Eucharistie; Bellarmine, Controv.: De sacr. Eucharistiae; Billuart, Franzelin, Van Noort, Tanquerey, Hugon in their theological treatises; Wiseman, Lectures on the Real presence; Dictionnaire de Theologie, art. Eucharistie; Mgr. Besson, La presence reelle de N. S. J. C. dans le sacrement de l'Eucharistie; Battifol, L'Eucharistie, 5th ed.; d'Ales, De Sanctissima Eucharistia.

The Fathers 1. appeal to the words of Christ's promise and institution in order to prove the real presence;

2. teach that the body which we eat is the very body of Christ which was born of the Virgin, suffered on the cross, was raised, and sits at the right hand of the Father;

3. teach that it is not a mere figure or image, but the true body and blood of Christ;

4. teach that Christ is not received by faith alone or merely spiritually, but truly, physically, and corporally;

5. teach that this sacrament is confected through the true conversion of bread into the body of Christ;

6. teach that it is the greatest mystery, the astounding compendium of miracles, surpassing every sense and reason;

7. use the real presence as a principle of demonstration against the Gnostics, Docetae, Monophysites, Nestorians, Arians, Macedonians, etc.;

8. say that the Eucharist is to be adored and treated with the greatest reverence.

B. From Liturgies, even the most ancient.

Such are: the most ancient form of the Roman liturgy which Hippolytus reports, Apost. trad. (second century); that which is read in the Apostolic Constitutions, VIII, 12 (fourth century), and in essentials agrees with those things which are reported by Clement of Rome; that which was used in Egypt according to the Sacramentary of Serapion (end of the third century); similarly the Alexandrian liturgy, and that which is reported by Cyril of Jerusalem (fourth century); likewise the Chaldaic, etc.

C. From the Councils Nicaea I, Ephesus, Nicaea II, Tours, Rome II, Vienne, Lateran IV, Constance, Florence, and Trent.

D. From the magisterium of the Church, which always reproved the least error against the truth of the Eucharist.

Thus St. Ignatius of Antioch already censures the Docetae who abstain from the Eucharist, because it is the flesh of the Savior. Origen, De or. V, 1, and Epiphanius, Haer. LX, 11, testify that certain heretics did not use the Eucharist or cast it away. The Nestorians indeed did not deny the real presence, but they erred because they said the flesh of Christ was not united to the Word, just as on the contrary those Monophysites who did not admit flesh in Christ.

In the eleventh century Berengarius, who first denied transubstantiation, afterwards also the real presence, was compelled by the Roman Council to a retraction. Likewise in the twelfth century Tanchelinus, who denied the real presence, was held as a heretic; and Peter of Bruys, who said that priests do not have the power of consecrating; in the thirteenth century the Waldensians denying transubstantiation, and certain Albigensians also the real presence, to whom a profession of faith was prescribed by Innocent III; in the fourteenth century Wycliffe, who erred at least concerning transubstantiation, on which occasion this third proposition was also condemned in the Council of Constance: Christ is not in the same sacrament identically and really by His proper corporeal presence (cf. questions for Wycliffites and Hussites 16 and 17); in the fifteenth century Pius II reproved the error of Zanini de Solcia: that in the consecrated host Christ exists not as to humanity but only as to divinity; in the sixteenth century the Protestants were condemned; in the nineteenth century the Modernists, who deny the historicity of the institution, but say that according to faith it is necessary that our mode of acting be as if we were before Christ.

E. By the argument of prescription. In the eleventh century, when the first denial of the real presence by Berengarius was heard, the universal Church possessed faith in it by a tranquil and immemorial possession, as is clear from the very confession of Berengarius and from the universal opposition against his assertions. But this possession proves the apostolic origin of this doctrine; therefore.

For: a) a doctrine of such great moment, if introduced, would have been introduced either simultaneously, by the consent of all, in which case so illustrious a fact would be historically established; or gradually and successively, and this would not have happened without contradiction and opposition, which history also would narrate; b) such an introduction is the more improbable because the same doctrine is found among all the oriental sects, separated from the Church already in the first centuries; c) the introduction of a thing not revealed as a dogma in the whole Church would be against the promise of infallibility made to her by Christ.

I. Many are the errors of the heretics against this Sacrament, from which a Catholic ought to beware. Passing over the Capharnaites, Manichees, Marcionites, Phantasiasts, Messalians, and Enthusiasts, who denied the flesh of Christ, the first who thought ill of the Eucharist in the ninth century was John Scotus Erigena; in the eleventh century Berengarius, whose doctrine was proscribed in the year 1050 in the Roman Council. Berengarius offered a retractation of his error to Gregory VII. Having many times relapsed into his errors, and many times retracted them, he died a Catholic in the year 1088. There succeeded the Petrobrusians, the Henricians, and the Albigenses, who attempted to take away the Sacrament of the Eucharist out of the midst. Among the innovators nearer to us the first was Carlstadt, who in the year 1524 denied the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Him Zwingli followed, who blurted out in this same year that the Eucharist is a mere figure of the body of Christ. Zwingli's doctrine Bucer embraced; but that he might decline the odium of Luther, who keenly maintained the real presence, he studied to temper it with various emollients.

II. Calvin, more fraudulent than the Arians and all cunning men, now recedes from Bucer whom he cultivates as his master, now adheres to him and to Zwingli, now refutes both, now inclines to the Lutherans; now with crafty artifice he feigns to maintain the doctrine of the Catholic Church; at last, the mask being laid aside, he detests the Catholic dogma.

III. Those errors the Council of Trent, session 13, canon 1, condemned in these words: If anyone shall deny that in the most holy Sacrament of the Eucharist there are contained truly, really, and substantially the body and blood together with the soul and divinity of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ; but shall say that he is in it only as in a sign, or figure, or power: let him be anathema. This canon Trent drew from the perpetual tradition of the Church.

IV. Luther with us demands the heresy of the Calvinists, because they deny the true, real, and substantial presence of Christ in the Eucharist. But he contends at the same time that together with the substance of the body of Christ the substance of the bread remains. Hence his followers were called Impanators or Panists. This error Trent condemned, session 13, chapter 4, and confirmed the perpetual dogma of the Catholic Church in these words: But since Christ our Redeemer said that that was truly his body which he offered under the species of bread, therefore it has always been the persuasion in the Church of God, and this holy Synod now again declares it, that by the consecration of the bread and wine there is made a conversion of the whole substance of the bread into the substance of the body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of the wine into the substance of his blood: which conversion is fittingly and properly called by the holy Catholic Church Transubstantiation.

V. The Catholic dogma being in few words set forth, Trent expounds the manner in which Christ exists in this Sacrament. By force of these words, This is my body, the body of Christ is directly placed. By these other words, This is my blood, the blood of Christ is directly placed. But by force of concomitance all those things are placed which are united to the body of Christ; and because the body is united to the blood, the soul, and the divinity — nay, the body itself subsists by the subsistence of the Word — therefore where the body of Christ is, with it all these things are. And thus in the Eucharist by concomitance the soul, the substance of the Word, and the divinity are in this Sacrament in a special manner, as Trent, session 13, chapter 3, plainly sets forth.

VI. QUESTION I. Is Christ whole in every part of the species? ANSWER. If the parts be separated, that the whole Christ exists in each Trent defined, session 13, canon 3. But theologians dispute whether before the separation of the host the whole body of Christ is in the whole host, and whole in every part. The affirmative opinion St. Thomas defends, III, q. 76, art. 6. The body of Christ is not in this Sacrament as in a place, because it is there in a sacramental manner. But this manner escapes the edge of our talent.

VII. QUESTION II. Can the accidents, or sacramental species, be corrupted and nourish? ANSWER. It is certain that after the consecration the accidents remain which affected the bread and wine. And it is established by experience that they can be corrupted after the consecration, just as before. How much time is required for the corruption in the stomach of one receiving the Sacrament nothing certain can be laid down. That not even half an hour is required all affirm. In one they are corrupted more quickly, in another more slowly. Wherefore for at least a quarter of an hour a priest ought to recollect himself after celebration, in reverence of so great a Sacrament.

VIII. QUESTION III. Is Christ in the Eucharist to be adored with the worship of latria? ANSWER. All Catholics affirm it, and the truth was defined, session 13, canon 3, by Trent. Religiously also and holily is the Eucharist kept in the churches, and, whatever the Protestants may prate, it is piously and holily exposed to the public adoration of the faithful.

I. The divine mandate I shall set forth in few words. It is of faith that the Sacrament of the Eucharist received in fact is not necessary with the necessity of means, as Trent defined, session 21, canon 4. Theologians dispute whether at least it be necessary in desire with the necessity of means. Turnely denies it, if the discourse be, he says, of a desire properly so called. The disagreement is rather about the word than about the thing. The more probable opinion is that which St. Thomas teaches out of Augustine, III, q. 73, art. 3: that the Eucharist is necessary in a desire not explicit but implicit. The Eucharist is the end of all the sacraments, which joins us to Christ with a stricter bond, and makes us his members in a peculiar manner. Therefore when a man receives Baptism, he has at least an implicit desire of receiving the Eucharist.

II. QUESTION I. Is the Eucharist necessary by force of a divine precept? ANSWER. All commonly affirm it with St. Thomas, III, q. 80, art. 11, and it is proved by Christ's words: Unless you eat the flesh, and so forth; and this was defined by the Council of Trent, session 13. Which precept binds all adults. Since the divine mandate is absolute and universal. Therefore it comprehends all. But this precept presses especially when the article of death is urgent. That the custom of carrying the Eucharist to the sick is most ancient Trent asserts, session 13, chapter 6.

III. QUESTION II. Is one who communicated a little before he fell into danger of death bound to take the sacred Viaticum again? ANSWER. The more probable and more common opinion affirms it. He nevertheless who on the same day communicated out of devotion, if he fall into danger of death, is not bound on the same day to take the Viaticum, because it is the custom of the Church that the Eucharist be not taken twice on the same day. But if anyone, kindled with fervour, being constituted in extreme straits should ask the sacred Viaticum, that he might more securely consult his own salvation, I for my part would administer it to him, although formerly I was doubtful.

IV. He who has once taken the Viaticum, if afterwards he fall into sin, is not bound on the same or on the next day to take the Viaticum. But if he survive several days — say eight or ten — it can be administered to him again.

V. QUESTION III. Does this divine precept oblige more than once? ANSWER. All affirm it. A general rule cannot be prescribed. The Church for the community of the faithful has laid down that communion is to be made once in the year. Each of the faithful, conscious of his own infirmity and fervour, and a prudent confessor who directs his conscience, can determine the frequency of that sacred medicine.

VI. QUESTION IV. Does this divine precept oblige that the Eucharist be taken under both species? ANSWER. The discipline of the Church is to be distinguished from the obligation of the precept. In the Latin Church up to the twelfth century, and in the Greek even now, the discipline obtains of communicating under both species, even as regards laymen. In the fourteenth century certain Bohemians dared to carp at the discipline of the Latin Church, and were called Calixtines, whose audacity the Council of Constance repressed in the year 1415, and laid down that the introduced discipline was to be observed; and at last the Council of Trent, session 21, canon 1, defined that communion under both species is not necessary to laymen, or to those not sacrificing, either with the necessity of the sacrament or with the necessity of a divine precept. For John says, chapter 6: If any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever. The tradition of the Church also supports it. See Vol. VIII, Book 3, dissertation 1, chapter 9.

VII. QUESTION V. What are the effects of the Eucharist? ANSWER. First, the increase of grace. Second, an intimate conjunction with Christ and with the brethren. Third, the delight of the spirit and an inward sweetness of heart. Fourth, spiritual strength against the temptations of the demon, the prestiges of the world, and the enticements of sins. Fifth, the remission of venial sins. Sixth, the remission of punishment. Seventh, the repression of the senses and appetites. Eighth, the seed of immortality and of resurrection. Ninth, final perseverance, upon which eternal life follows.