The Remote Matter of the Eucharist

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

¹ Matt. 26, 26; Cn. 815, 1.

² Matt. 26, 29; Cn. 815, 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Gobat, Theol. exper., tr. 3, n. 29.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

¹ Council of Florence, in the decree of union.

² Constitution Providentia romani pontificis (1566).

³ Constitution Etsi pastoralis (1742).

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

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

⁶ St. Alphonsus, n. 205.

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

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

108. Wine of the vine. For valid consecration only and every wine of the vine can be used which is substantially incorrupt. But wine is understood as liquor pressed from ripe grapes of the vine.

a. Therefore invalid matter includes all other liquids which by their nature are not wine, such as beer, juice pressed from fruits (apples, pears, etc.); also juice pressed from unripe grapes (agresta), which does not yet have the nature of wine; then wine which they call second wine, i.e., pressed again from grapes already pressed, with water poured on them (Jora), of which the greater part is water; vinegar, which is corrupted wine; distilled wine, which is a substance other than wine; and finally wine made by art, which is not wine of the vine. For although by art it may be composed from the same elements which are found in natural wine, nevertheless it is not valid matter unless it has its origin from the vine.¹

b. Valid matter is juice pressed from dried grapes, provided that it is so prepared that from its odor, color, and taste it is recognized to be wine.²

c. Pressed: for liquor not yet pressed, but still existing in the grapes, cannot be consecrated, both because the matter to be consecrated must be present in the state of drink (Suarez), and because the words of consecration, this is my blood, would not designate the liquor, but the whole mass of the grape (Lugo).

d. Incorrupt: for corrupted wine is no longer wine. Therefore the rubric of the Missal has: "If the wine has become entirely vinegar, or has been pressed from sour or unripe grapes, or so much water has been mixed with it that the wine is corrupted, the sacrament is not effected."³

e. Wine in which alcohol is not contained (alkoholfreier Wein) is not valid matter, because it is not wine, since a greater or lesser quantity of alcohol is an essential element of wine. For wines which naturally contain only five percent alcohol contain the minimum quantity of alcohol, while those which contain twenty percent alcohol contain the maximum quantity; but all have some.⁴

Note. Every wine, whether white or red or mixed from both, whether strong or weak, of whatever region and origin, is valid matter of consecration, because in all there is the true nature of wine. And although stronger wine is more fitting to the dignity of so great a sacrament, nevertheless because today ordinary wine is more easily established to be genuine, it is to be preferred to better wine, unless it is certain that this latter is pure and unmixed.

¹ Missale rom., De defectibus, IV, 1.

² Holy Office, 22 July 1706; and to the question "whether it is licit to celebrate with wine made from dried grapes" (Rosinen) it responded on 10 Apr. 1889: "It is licit, provided that the liquor is recognized from color and taste to be true wine." The manner in which this wine is made can be found in Lehmkuhl, n. 162.

³ Missale rom., De defectibus, IV, 1.

⁴ The Holy Office on 1 June 1910 declared that wine from which all spirit of wine (alcohol) is removed by art is neither licit nor valid matter of consecration.

109. Licit matter. In order licitly to consecrate, there must be used wine which, after fermentation has been completed, is perfect, pure, and incorrupt.

a. Must, or juice recently pressed from ripe grapes, is valid matter, but gravely illicit matter of consecration: valid indeed, because the Church holds it as valid, since it is wine, although not yet perfect;¹ but illicit both because it has mixed with it parts which are not consecrable, and because it is not perfect wine.

b. If aromatics or other liquids are mixed with wine, and indeed in a small quantity, so that it retains the substance of wine and is simply held as wine, the matter will be illicit, but not yet invalid. Indeed it can even be licit matter if a small amount is added for preserving the wine.² But a notable quantity of aromatics or of another liquid added to wine constitutes this as invalid or at least doubtful matter.

Wine preserved in casks gradually diminishes somewhat by evaporation (durch Verdunstung). The empty space arising in the cask from this must be filled so that the wine may be preserved. It is indeed better that the cask in which wine for the sacrifice of the Mass is contained be filled up with natural wine; nevertheless, for this end water also can be used without the wine ceasing to be valid and licit matter of consecration. For a foreign substance can licitly be mixed with wine in a small quantity when it is necessary for preserving the wine.

c. Wine becoming sour, which is somewhat acid and begins to be corrupted, remains valid matter and, when other wine is lacking, can licitly be used, because it preserves the nature of wine and is not substantially changed. But wine notably becoming sour, which is not yet vinegar, although perhaps it is valid matter because it is not wholly corrupted, is certainly gravely illicit.

d. Whether frozen wine is valid matter is disputed; but all concede that it is not licit to consecrate frozen wine, because this is contrary to the usage received in the Church. Therefore it must be liquefied before consecration.

Those who affirm that it is valid matter bring forward the reason that wine is not corrupted by freezing but only accidentally changed, and that consecrated wine, if it is frozen, retains consecration. But those who deny that it is valid matter bring forward much stronger reasons: for they say that the matter is not in the state of drink; besides, the words of consecration designate a liquor, not a solid mass. Moreover, nothing follows from the fact that consecrated wine, if it is frozen, retains consecration; for if consecrated wine is absorbed by some solid substance, it remains consecrated, but wine absorbed by a solid substance cannot be consecrated, just as neither can wine from grapes not yet pressed.

¹ Missale rom., tit. 4, n. 2.

² On this matter the decree of the Holy Office of 31 July 1890 must be noted, which permits that, for preserving weak wine longer, there be mixed with it a certain quantity of spirit of wine (alcohol), provided that the spirit has been extracted from the fruit of the vine, and the alcoholic quantity added together with that which the wine in question naturally contains does not exceed the proportion of twelve percent, and that the mixture be made when the wine is very fresh. Indeed, for preserving strong and extraordinarily sweet wines the same Holy Office on 5 Aug. 1896, in a special case, permitted the addition of an alcoholic quantity which did not exceed the proportion of seventeen or eighteen percent, provided that the mixture was made when the tumultuous fermentation had begun to subside.

110. To the wine to be consecrated a small amount of water must be mixed, not from the necessity of the sacrament, but from the precept of the Church by reason of the end, obliging under grave sin.¹

a. The reasons on account of which water is to be mixed with the wine to be consecrated are: alpha. the example of Christ, who is believed to have consecrated in wine mixed with water; beta. that the water and blood which flowed from the side of Christ may be signified; gamma. that through the wine and water the twofold nature of Christ may be signified; delta. that through the mixture of water and wine the union of the Church with Christ the head and the union among the faithful may be signified, which union is the effect of this sacrament.

b. This precept seems so grave to theologians that they admit no case in which it is licit to celebrate if the lack of water is foreseen. And if someone had forgotten to pour in water at the proper time, he must supply the defect, if he notices it before the consecration of the chalice, even immediately before the consecration of the wine, but not afterward, because nothing may be mixed with consecrated wine which is not consecrated.

c. One or another little drop of water suffices, and the quantity of water added to the wine ought not to exceed eight or ten drops, although water can be poured in up to an eighth, indeed up to a fifth, part of the wine without the matter becoming doubtful. But the quantity of water added which exceeds a third part of the wine renders the matter doubtful, and, if the wine is not strong, even invalid. Therefore, if by chance too much water had been added, some wine must again be added.

d. It is permitted to use acid, gaseous, or alkaline water (Mineralwasser), provided that it is natural and drinkable.²

e. Finally, water must be mixed with the wine at the altar in the chalice itself. A mixture made before Mass in the cruet would not suffice, even if it had been made by the priest himself, because the mixture belongs to the sacred rite according to which, by the precept of the Church, the sacrifice of the Mass must be offered.

Article Second. On the Proximate Matter

Proximate matter is called by some the use of remote matter, or of bread and wine in consecration; by others, consecrated remote matter, or the species insofar as they contain the body and blood of Christ.

¹ Council of Trent, sess. 22, c. 7, De sacrif. miss.; Cn. 814.

² Holy Office, 11 Aug. 1904.

111. For valid consecration two conditions are required: a. that the matter to be consecrated be physically present; b. that it be determined.

1. First, it is required that the matter be physically present to the priest consecrating. This is clear from the institution of Christ: for Christ gave the apostles the power of doing only that which he himself had done at the Last Supper; but Christ consecrated present matter. The obvious sense of the words of consecration demands the same thing, for the pronoun this and this do not demonstrate anything except present matter.

In order that this physical presence be had, it is indeed required that the matter in some way be before the priest and not be too far distant; nevertheless it is not required that it be perceived by the one consecrating by some sense, but it suffices that by the prudent judgment of men it can sufficiently be demonstrated by the pronouns this and this.

a. Hence all hosts which are found piled in the chalice are validly consecrated, although the lower ones cannot be seen. Likewise, as regards presence, particles in a closed ciborium or covered with a pall, wine in an uncovered chalice, indeed even wine in a vessel or bread in a closed basket, are consecrated. For by reason of the vessel in which the matter is contained and which is destined to contain it, it is physically sufficiently present so that it can be demonstrated by the words this and this. For common usage has this, that the container and the thing contained are demonstrated as one by the pronoun this, as when concerning money existing in a purse we say, this is gold, and concerning liquid in a closed cup, this is wine. And these indeed are certain; therefore the consecration is not to be repeated if, e.g., a pyx had remained closed during the consecration through forgetfulness.

b. But the consecration would not be valid if the matter, even with the priest knowing, were behind the altar or behind the tablet which is called the canon, or at the back of the one consecrating, because it is not so present that it can be demonstrated by the pronoun this and this. For the body which is interposed prevents it from being able to be so demonstrated. For the same reason, namely from defect of presence, matter which is more than ten (others say twenty) paces distant cannot be validly consecrated. If a host were hidden under the corporal or in the missal, or if it lay hidden under the altar cloth or under a cushion or under the foot of the chalice, the consecration would be doubtful, because the host lying hidden there can scarcely be sufficiently demonstrated by the pronoun this. And although a host existing in an open tabernacle is validly consecrated, the consecration would be at least doubtful if the tabernacle were closed.

112. 2. Next it is required that the matter to be consecrated be determined in the individual by the actual or virtual intention of the one consecrating. For any action must have a determinate term about which it is exercised; moreover, by the pronoun this and this nothing can be designated except determinate matter. Therefore, just as for consecrating there is required the intention of consecrating, so for consecrating determinate matter there is required the intention of consecrating that matter determinately.

a. Therefore what has in no way, either explicitly or implicitly, been determined by the intention of the priest as the object of consecration is not consecrated. But what in some way, at least implicitly (e.g., what I hold in my hands, what is on the corporal), has been determined by intention as the object of consecration is judged to be consecrated.

b. Hence if the priest after consecration notices that more hosts are present, whether placed by himself or by another, than he had thought, there is no doubt that all have been consecrated, because he had the actual or virtual intention of consecrating the present matter. But the error of the one consecrating concerning the quantity of matter does not impede a determinate intention.

c. But if from an entire pile of hosts he wished to consecrate only five or only half, none would be consecrated. Likewise, hosts which, without the priest's knowledge, have been placed on the altar or even on the corporal are not consecrated if he himself did not have the intention of consecrating whatever consecrable matter is on the corporal or altar.

113. For licit consecration it is required that the matter be: a. on the altar; b. upon the corporal; c. on the consecrated stone; d. either immediately on the corporal, or in the hands of the one consecrating, or in a sacred vessel and that open.

Therefore if, while the priest is celebrating on a portable altar, small hosts are not bare on the corporal but are in a ciborium, this during the consecration must be so placed that at least some part of the foot stands on the consecrated stone. Nevertheless scruples are not to be injected concerning this matter, provided that the ciborium is on the corporal. - Hence a priest would sin gravely who knowingly consecrated matter which is outside the altar or outside the corporal or in a non-sacred vessel; and he would sin venially who voluntarily did not open the sacred vessel.

114. Questions concerning consecration. 1. In order that a way may be prepared for solving several questions concerning this matter, let these things be noted. Given suitable presence of the matter to be consecrated, the whole matter essentially depends on the intention of the one consecrating, by which the matter to be consecrated is determined in the individual. Moreover, any priest about to celebrate first of all has the intention of celebrating, which by its nature is the intention of consecrating as Christ instituted and the Church intends. Now it is asked what the force and efficacy of this intention is.

a. This intention is, and must be, absolute, nor can it licitly be restricted by any condition unless there is doubt concerning the validity of the consecration.

There are some who think that the intention of the one consecrating, and universally of the one effecting a sacrament, is always conditioned, since it is to be presumed that the one consecrating and generally he who effects a sacrament does not wish to consecrate or effect the sacrament unless this can be done without (material) sin. But this principle cannot be admitted without many and grave inconveniences following in practice, which must altogether be avoided. For if we imagine a priest through inadvertence using a chalice not consecrated, or baptizing in notably turbid water, there is no consecration and likewise no baptism, although the priest or the faithful know nothing about the nullity of the sacrament. These are certainly gravely illicit inconveniences. And this is the reason on account of which the intention of consecrating must be absolute, unless there is doubt concerning the validity of the consecration.¹

b. By force of this intention only the host which is in the hands of the priest and the wine which is found in the chalice are consecrated. But by force of this intention there is not also consecrated a particle which, whether while the celebrant is unaware or while he notices but does not think about its consecration, has been placed on the corporal.

c. By force of this intention there probably is consecrated only matter which presents to the senses one continuous whole. For it cannot be supposed that this is the mind of the Church, that even that be consecrated which cannot be consecrated without manifest danger of dispersion and therefore of irreverence.

2. Besides this general intention of celebrating, the priest can expressly form the intention of consecrating, besides, other matter, e.g., particles which have been placed on the corporal or are contained in a ciborium. This intention also is, and must be, absolute, and not restricted by any condition unless there is doubt concerning the validity of the consecration. Moreover, by force of this intention, whether expressly elicited before Mass or during Mass, any matter to which that intention refers is validly consecrated, even if the priest in the act of consecration does not notice it, provided that it is physically present on the altar. For the twofold condition which is required for valid consecration is without doubt present in this case, since the matter to be consecrated, by supposition, is present, and the explicitly formed intention of consecrating it virtually continues in the act of consecration. But any priest is judged to elicit expressly the intention of consecrating who either himself carries particles to the altar so that he may afterward consecrate them, or who, during Mass, noticing that a ciborium to be consecrated is placed on the altar, proposes to consecrate it, or who before Mass is admonished about a ciborium to be consecrated in the Mass and assents, even if afterward he does not notice it. For by the very fact that, having been admonished about the consecration, he assents, he elicits the intention of consecrating the particles to be placed on the altar.

¹ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, IV, n. 856 ss.

115. Corollaries from the preceding declarations. 1. Little drops of wine adhering interiorly to the chalice, if the priest does not elicit a particular intention concerning them, do not seem to be consecrated. For the general intention of celebrating and therefore of consecrating is restricted to the matter which by way of one continuous whole is in the chalice at the time of consecration.

Little drops of wine adhering exteriorly to the chalice certainly are not consecrated, both from the same reason just brought forward, and because the intention of celebrating certainly does not extend to consecrating matter of this kind, which because of manifest danger of irreverence is not becomingly consecrable.

Since it is not plainly certain whether drops of wine adhering interiorly to the chalice are or are not consecrated, unless the priest had a particular intention concerning them, after consecration those little drops are in no way to be wiped away, but are to be received either with the most precious blood or with the purification. But if they are detected before consecration, they are either to be joined with the matter to be consecrated or wiped away, if this can be done conveniently.

2. Crumbs of bread which, having been torn from the host, adhere to the host at the time of consecration likewise do not seem to be consecrated, because the intention of the priest seems to be restricted to matter which presents one continuous whole. Crumbs which, separated from the host, exist either on the corporal or in the ciborium are not consecrated if the priest expressly intends nothing concerning them. For the intention of consecrating present matter is not extended to separated crumbs because of danger of irreverence.

3. A ciborium placed on the corporal, which through inadvertence remained closed during the time of consecration, is consecrated if in the one consecrating there was sufficient intention of consecrating it. But if concerning it he intended nothing either explicitly or implicitly, it is not judged to have been consecrated, because by the general intention of celebrating the ciborium is not determined as the object of consecration.

4. A ciborium which through forgetfulness remained outside the corporal at the time of consecration must be judged consecrated from the virtually continuing intention, provided that the priest previously had an explicit or implicit intention of consecrating it.

There are some who doubt whether a ciborium of this kind is consecrated. For they judge that in this case the one consecrating does not have the intention of consecrating, although previously he elicited it, because the consecration is objectively gravely illicit. This opinion is founded on this principle, that the intention of the celebrant is not absolute but conditioned, namely that it is presumed that the one consecrating does not wish to consecrate unless this can be done without sin; but this must not be admitted (n. 113).

Note. In order to forestall doubts concerning consecration, some authors rightly counsel new priests that they once for all elicit these intentions: a. of consecrating all hosts placed on the corporal; b. of consecrating drops of wine adhering interiorly to the chalice, lest non-consecrated drops be mixed with the sacred blood; c. of not consecrating crumbs adhering to the host; d. of not consecrating crumbs separated from the host, whether they are on the corporal or in the ciborium. Once these intentions have been elicited, it is certain that, by force of the intention of celebrating, nothing is consecrated besides the hosts placed on the corporal except that which exists by way of one continuous whole in the host or in the chalice, and drops adhering interiorly to the chalice.

116. On particles to be consecrated being placed on the altar. Hosts to be consecrated during Mass are to be placed on the altar at the beginning of Mass, or at least, unless a just cause excuses, they ought to be present at the offertory, so that together with the matter of the sacrifice, with which they are consecrated, they may also be offered at the same time. From a reasonable cause, hosts which are brought after the offertory can licitly be consecrated, provided that they are present before the preface and their mental oblation is made. From a grave cause (if, e.g., otherwise one or several would remain without communion or would have to wait too long), hosts brought after the preface but before the canon has been begun can also be consecrated. And from a most grave cause (e.g., to communicate a sick person, or if otherwise a great multitude of the faithful would not without offense be deprived of communion or would have to wait too long), hosts brought even after the canon has already been begun, before the consecration of the bread, can be licitly consecrated. Nevertheless, if otherwise only one person would have to be dismissed without communion, once the canon has already begun a host should no longer be consecrated for him, but rather a particle taken from the priest's host should be given to him.

The reason of this prescription is taken from the order of the Mass, which after the preparatory rites contains two parts, the oblation and the consecration with communion. Now the liturgical act of oblation begins from the offertory and ends with the secret prayers; but the liturgical act of consecration begins from the preface. Hence the order of the Mass is disturbed if, after the oblation has begun, matter to be consecrated and still to be offered is brought to the altar, and this disturbance of order is the greater the later the matter is brought. From this it is that before the preface the matter to be consecrated is still admitted from a reasonable cause, because the liturgical act of consecration has not yet begun. But after the preface has begun it is admitted only from a grave cause, because the liturgical act of consecration has indeed already begun, though only through the introductory preface into the very act of consecration. But once the canon has begun, some in no way admit other matter to be consecrated, others only from a most grave cause, because the canon already pertains to the very liturgical act of consecration.

117. The quantity to be consecrated. Just as any quantity of bread or wine, even very great, is validly consecrated, provided that it can sufficiently be demonstrated by the pronoun this, so also any quantity, however small (a crumb of bread or a little drop of wine), is validly consecrated, provided that it can be perceived by human sense. But matter so very minute that it is not perceived by human sense cannot be validly consecrated, both because such matter cannot be demonstrated by the pronoun this, and because a sacrament generally is a sensible sign, which therefore of its own nature demands sensible matter. But for licit consecration there is required that quantity of bread or wine which befits the end, use, and reverence of so great a sacrament.

118. Notes. 1. If particles are doubtfully consecrated, in another Mass they are again to be consecrated under condition, or to be received by the priest before purification, or finally, enclosed in a distinct vessel, to be placed in the tabernacle until they are corrupted. But they can in no way be distributed to those who have already received communion, because of the danger of material idolatry. It is also licit after the consecration either of the larger host or of the chalice to pronounce the words of consecration over them conditionally, because in this way a new sacrifice is not begun (n. 103, 2).

2. If non-consecrated particles are mixed with consecrated particles, the whole pile is to be carried to the altar and consecrated either with the intention of consecrating the non-consecrated particles or with the intention of consecrating the whole pile under condition, if they are not consecrated.¹ - Likewise, if non-consecrated wine is mixed with consecrated wine, the whole quantity which is contained in the chalice is to be consecrated with the intention of consecrating what in the chalice is not consecrated, or what in the chalice is consecrable.

De Lugo, however, judges that the former manner does not suffice, because the hosts to be consecrated are not sufficiently determined by the intention of the one consecrating so that they can be demonstrated by the pronoun this. But just as nothing prevents their being consecrated under condition together with the others, because all are present by way of one whole and can be demonstrated, so nothing prevents consecrating whatever is not consecrated in the ciborium, because this very thing can sufficiently be designated by the pronoun this. For although the man himself does not know this matter and therefore cannot designate it, nevertheless it is present in fact and can be designated objectively.

¹ St. Alphonsus, n. 216; Lugo, De euchar., disp. 4, n. 133 ss.

The matter from which the sacrament of the Eucharist is confected, or the matter around which, as others say, is bread and wine. This doctrine, after the Third Council of Carthage, the Fourth Lateran Council, and Florence, is expressed by the Council of Trent in these words: "It was always firmly believed in the Church, and now this Synod again declares it, that through the consecration of bread and wine a conversion takes place."¹ We shall speak about each matter separately.

¹ Session 13, chapter 4; cf. canon 2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quaer. Whether Donatus consecrated validly?

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

2. "It was set forth by a Bishop of France that, since the wine of that place has an acid taste, due to an excess of tartaric acid, it is customarily sweetened with potassium tartrate, a salt which is extracted from the lees of wine, and which forms with the excess tartaric acid a potassium bitartrate that precipitates to the bottom of the cask. Meanwhile it was asked whether this wine so treated was lawful for Mass.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quaer. Whether each consecration was valid?

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

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

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

Quaer. Whether the aforesaid small host was consecrated?

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

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

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

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

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

276. Principles. - I. Bread and wine are the remote matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. This is clear: 1. from the institution itself of this Sacrament; for Christ at the last supper took bread and wine and consecrated them into his Body and Blood; 2. from the definition of the Church in the Lateran Council, ch. Firmiter; in the Council of Florence, in the Decree of Union; and in Trent, sess. 13, in almost all the chapters. - To all these is added the unanimous tradition of each Church, Latin and Greek.

II. Only wheaten bread and only wine from the vine are valid matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. This is clear from the Council of Florence in the Decree cited above, where it is said: The third is the Sacrament of the Eucharist, whose matter is WHEATEN BREAD and WINE FROM THE VINE. The perpetual tradition and practice of each Church, Latin and Greek, also agree.

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

The first reason is drawn: 1. from the perpetual practice of the Church and the universal tradition of the Fathers; 2. from the Declaration of the Councils, and especially of Florence, which declares that the matter of the chalice is wine from the vine, to which a very little water must be mixed; and from the Council of Trent, sess. 22, ch. 7.

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

278. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether bread made from rye or secale is valid matter?

Resp. It is controverted. Some affirm, because rye, they say, seems to be of the same species as wheat, although it is of a different quality. - But others, much more commonly and more probably, deny; because rye bread is of a different species, nor is it commonly accustomed to be used by the rich. Therefore in practice this matter is prohibited under grave obligation. - See St. Ligorius, n. 200.

QUESTION 2. Whether bread made from far or spelt is valid matter?

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

279. • QUESTION 3. Whether both unleavened and leavened bread are valid and licit matter of the Eucharist?

Resp. 1. As to validity, affirmatively. The reason is that each is true bread, and is also simply called bread in Scripture; and each is made from wheaten flour and natural water. This is also clear from the definition of the Church. For thus the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union: We define that in unleavened, or in leavened wheaten bread, the body of Christ is confected.

Resp. 2. As to liceity, Latins are bound under grave obligation to consecrate in unleavened bread, and Greeks in leavened bread, each according to the rite of his Church. This is clear: 1. from the practice of each Church; 2. from the Council of Florence in the cited Decree, where it is added: And priests ought to confect the very body of the Lord in either, namely each according to the custom of his Church, whether Western or Eastern.

QUESTION 4. Whether a Priest consecrating in souring wine sins gravely?

Resp. The answer is affirmative, although that wine is still valid matter of the Sacrament. Indeed a mortal sin is committed not only if the wine is near vinegar, but also if it certainly begins to sour and to be corrupted, because even thus grave irreverence seems to be inflicted on the Sacrament. - Thus commonly with St. Ligorius, n. 207. - This is also clear from the Rubric, tit. 4, n. 2, where it is said thus: If the wine has begun to sour or to be corrupted, or has been somewhat sharp..., the Sacrament is confected, but the one confecting sins gravely.

Nevertheless Gobat, Sporer, and Lacroix probably say that, if other wine is lacking, it is permitted without scruple, as good men are accustomed, to use wine slightly souring, or not notably acid ¹. - St. Ligorius, ibid. - Hence the Rubric does not seem to be taken with so much rigor that it comprehends even all the first degrees of sharpness, but only those which proximately begin to constitute souring wine. - St. Ligorius, Homo apostolicus, appendix 3, exam. ordinand., n. 98.

¹ The preceding things will scarcely seem in reality to cohere with these. For if it is probably permitted to use wine slightly souring, how is whoever uses wine which begins to sour guilty of grave fault?

280. QUESTION 5. Whether frozen wine is valid matter?

Resp. It is controverted. The answer is affirmative, more probably. The reason is: 1. because it remains substantially wine, since it retains the same color, taste, and smell; 2. because from the Rubric of the Missal the species of wine frozen after consecration must be liquefied by applying heated cloths, and then consumed, since it is the true Sacrament (rubr. de defect., section 10, n. 11). Therefore it supposes that the species of frozen wine retains the Blood of Christ; therefore the sacred species are not substantially changed through freezing after consecration; therefore neither before. - Thus St. Ligorius, n. 207, where he says that it is the truer opinion because of the reason drawn from the cited Rubric.

QUESTION 6. What quantity of water is to be mixed in the chalice?

Resp. A very small quantity of water suffices, as the Council of Florence says above, n. 277. Probably water can be poured up to an eighth part of the wine, indeed up to a fifth part according to Lugo, disp. 4, n. 58. Busembaum adds that it suffices that the water not exceed a third part. But in practice this last opinion is not to be admitted, although a third part does not corrupt the wine if it is generous. Generally, it must be counseled that the Priest not exceed eight or ten little drops. But if by chance he has poured in too great a quantity of water, some quantity of wine can again be added. - St. Ligorius, n. 210.

281. Principles. - I. For valid consecration, besides suitable matter, it is required: 1. that the matter to be consecrated be physically present, because the demonstrative pronouns of the form, hoc, hic, necessarily require this; otherwise the form would be false, because that would be demonstrated as present which was not present; 2. that it be determined in the individual through the intention of the Minister, because just as the Minister does not consecrate unless he intends to consecrate, so also he does not consecrate this matter unless he determinately intends to consecrate it. Nevertheless actual determination is not required, but virtual determination suffices. - St. Ligorius, n. 211-214.

II. For licit consecration it is required: 1. that the Priest in no way depart from the use of the Church, especially as determined by the Rubrics of the Roman Missal; hence especially it is necessary that the matter to be consecrated be becoming and clean, because of the reverence due to so great a Sacrament;

2. that it be placed on the altar and on the corporal, indeed also on the sacred stone, according to Benedict XIV, On the Sacrifice of the Mass, sect. 2, n. 139; 3. that the ciborium or chalice to be consecrated be uncovered; 4. that it be done at the time of the canon prescribed by the Rubric. - See St. Ligorius, n. 218 and 219.

282. Resolves. - 1. Hosts hidden under others, or otherwise covered, are validly consecrated. Likewise wine is validly consecrated in a chalice covered with a veil, pall, or in any way whatever, because for the true presence of the matter it suffices that it can be demonstrated by the pronouns hoc or hic. - St. Ligorius, n. 212, etc., and others very commonly ².

² Here the question is usually added: what must be done if unconsecrated particles are mixed with consecrated ones? Busembaum, cited by St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 216), intimates a twofold opinion, namely either the whole heap must be brought to the altar, so that the priest may intend to consecrate the unconsecrated ones, or rather he should consecrate the whole heap under condition, if they are not consecrated.

And St. Alphonsus follows the latter opinion, adding: And this is rather to be done, because in consecrating unconsecrated hosts the true determination of the matter is lacking, nor can the word hoc be verified, whence all the hosts must be consecrated under condition, that they may be validly consecrated. Thus Lugo, disp. 4, n. 136, the Salmanticenses, chap. 4, n. 129, with Laymann, Dicastillus, Aversa, Leander, Diana, etc.

It is displeasing that the St. Doctor, after the Salmanticenses, numbers Laymann and Aversa among the patrons of this opinion, who manifestly stand for the opposite. For thus Laymann (lib. 5, tr. 4, chap. 2, n. 12): The whole heap can and must be brought to the altar, so that the priest may intend to consecrate only those which have not received consecration. And Aversa (De Eucharistia, q. 2, sect. 2): If some unconsecrated hosts are mixed with other consecrated ones..., and the priest determines to consecrate that which is not consecrated, Lugo judges that it does not avail and does not suffice.... Yet it seems to avail and to suffice.

To these Marcus Struggl acceded (tr. 10, q. 1, art. 2, n. 52), saying: In such a case that whole heap of hosts is to be consecrated in another Mass with this intention: I will to consecrate this whole thing, according as it is consecrable. Thus Laymann, Tamburini, and several others. And indeed Tamburini has it thus (Method of Celebrating Mass, lib. 2, c. 1, section 3, n. 10): If through someone's carelessness it happens that consecrated particles are mixed with unconsecrated ones, let the whole heap be consecrated with the intention of consecrating those which have not been consecrated. Nor otherwise Kresslinger (appendix to Anacl., tr. 14, dist. 4, q. 4, add. 4): I answer that such a heap can still be consecrated in such a way that the intention of consecrating is borne toward the unconsecrated ones. Then he alleges five others, among whom also is Felix Potestas. From these it is sufficiently gathered that whoever embraces either of these opinions relies on sufficiently grave authority.

Yet this can seem singular: that Lugo, who can be held as the author of the opinion more approved by St. Alphonsus with the Salmanticenses, then doubts whether it is done licitly. But whether, he says, n. 139, one could licitly consecrate all under condition, so that that other unconsecrated one might not remain mixed in, I do not see a sufficient necessity for repeating the form under condition over all those consecrated hosts... Otherwise it would also be permitted to consecrate again under condition the chalice into which after consecration a drop of unconsecrated wine had by chance been poured; yet no one will admit this.

St. Alphonsus (l.c.), after the Salmanticenses, merely responds that this can be done licitly, as the Salmanticenses, Laymann, Dicastillus, Diana, and Leander say; nor do the Salmanticenses add anything else. But indeed, Laymann being omitted, whom we have said is cited to no purpose as thinking the contrary, Dicastillus certainly does not solve the difficulty. For Lugo (l.c.), to avoid the inconvenience and the difficulty of repeated consecration, although conditional, over particles which certainly are established to be consecrated, proposes that two of those particles be given to each person in Communion; for thus it would be certain that each person receives some consecrated host. But Dicastillus (De Eucharistia, disp. 4, n. 139) merely replies that this way indicated by Lugo is subject to several and grave inconveniences; and therefore that inconvenience is rather to be tolerated, namely of consecrating conditionally even particles certainly consecrated. But this response, as is clear, does not prove against Lugo that a consecration of this sort is not illicit. Hence there is nothing wonderful that others judged the different opinion of Laymann to be preferable, and did not defer much to the reason which Lugo had objected to this opinion. If the priest, says Lugo (l.c., n. 139), directed the words only to that host which was not consecrated, and wished to speak of that alone, then he would not have a conditional intention of consecrating, but an absolute one, which we have said is probably impossible, because the host of which the priest wishes to speak could not be designated in any way. But those who have followed the opinion of Laymann do not see that probable impossibility of designating the host. This indeed will appear much more easily if it is observed that the formula of consecration is not merely indicative, but effecting transubstantiation, so that the particles hoc or hic serve rather for determining than for indicating the matter to which the intention of the consecrating priest is borne; and this determination of matter in the case seems in reality to present no difficulty.

2. Consecration is valid if the Priest thinks that only one or two hosts to be consecrated are present, when there are several, whether placed by himself or by another; the reason is that the Priest is always presumed to will to consecrate whatever is becomingly consecrable. Hence if after consecration the celebrant notices that two hosts are joined together, let him consume each as consecrated according to the Rubric of the Missal. But if before consecration, after he has offered, he notices this, let him set the other aside, and after Mass let him himself or another consume it as blessed bread. - St. Ligorius, n. 216, and all others.

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

4. Hosts would not be consecrated if, the Priest being unaware, they were placed even on the corporal ³, because the Priest, being wholly unaware, did not have the intention of consecrating them.

³ There will nevertheless be those who desire the coherence of this resolution with the principles on which the preceding second resolution rests.

5. If small hosts for communicating the people are brought to the Priest a little after the oblation has been made, he will be able licitly to consecrate them, the oblation being supplied mentally. - St. Ligorius, ibid.

283. Questions. - QUESTION 1. Whether a ciborium left outside the corporal through forgetfulness is to be judged consecrated?

Resp. It is controverted. The first probable opinion affirms. The reason is that the positive will of consecrating that ciborium in the beginning of the Mass, nor was that will retracted; therefore it persevered virtually at the time of consecration.

The second opinion denies. The reason is that that intention of consecrating outside the corporal would have been a grave sin, and therefore the Priest is not presumed to have had it ⁴.

⁴ That reason supposes this general principle: that an intention of consecrating cannot be presumed in a priest whenever some circumstance, although unknown to the same priest, intervenes, which, if it were known by him, would deter him from consecrating, lest namely he act illicitly. But I think that no one has ever admitted, or ever will admit, a principle of this sort. And indeed it is illicit, and according to the opinion of the Doctors gravely illicit, to celebrate Mass in an unconsecrated chalice or on an unblessed corporal, or to consecrate matter which is valid indeed but illicit, for example leavened bread in the Latin Church. Now who would contend that, if such a chalice or corporal, or such matter, were presented to a priest who did not notice it, it cannot be presumed that he had the intention of celebrating illicitly, and therefore that he did not consecrate validly? I would add that certain persons undeservedly hand down the second opinion as common. See St. Alphonsus, lib. 5, n. 217. For easily not fewer Doctors could be alleged for the first opinion also.

** Against this brief Note the VV. wrote fifteen columns (pp. 379-386). Led by Roncaglia, however, they rest in the examples which are brought forward in the Note, of an unconsecrated chalice, or an unblessed corporal, or leavened bread, in which, as they reason, if indeed intention were lacking, there would follow a most grave and altogether to-be-avoided inconvenience of a sacrifice either altogether void or mutilated. In these circumstances, therefore, they say, the intention of completing the sacrifice always prevails. But this inconvenience is absent if it is only a question of particles which the consecration does not reach; with regard to these, therefore, the intention of avoiding a defect against the rubrics, which otherwise must always be presumed in the priest, must prevail over the intention of consecrating. Therefore particles placed outside the corporal are not to be held as consecrated.

Resp. That argumentation of Roncaglia shows itself to be too weak, since, although it could perhaps have some force by resting in those examples, nevertheless it loses all force if the examples are changed. And indeed suppose with Elbel (De Sacram., conf. 12, n. 49) that the priest did not uncover the pyx, or that the pyx was not consecrated, or that the pyx remained outside the corporal. Indeed, as Elbel observes in the cited place, in these circumstances the particles would per se be consecrated illicitly. But in the first two hypotheses the pyx was lying upon the altar or corporal; and in the third hypothesis the base of the pyx, by chance, while the priest wishes to move it nearer, remains under the corporal and therefore outside it. Meanwhile, however, the priest either is ignorant of those circumstances which per se would render the consecration illicit, or in no way notices them; and otherwise he renews the intention of consecrating the particles even within the canon; indeed in the third case he consecrates the particles with actual intention and with the pyx uncovered. I ask: shall we conclude, in that threefold hypothesis, that the particles are not to be held as consecrated, on this reason, namely, that apart from the absolute intention necessarily to be posited for completing the sacrifice, an intention of consecrating can never otherwise be presumed whenever some circumstance, however much unknown, would make the consecration illicit?

Namely, that one may judge suitably about these things, it is necessary that the different hypotheses be distinguished, which certainly permit or even require a different judgment. Indeed no one would deny that it can happen that, for example, a Priest admonished in the sacristy concerning particles to be consecrated then set his intention; nevertheless the particles must be judged not doubtfully but certainly unconsecrated if, for example, the cleric serving the Mass left the particles brought by himself in the epistle corner, enclosed in a wooden or paper box. And certainly the reason here will be given that that single aforesaid intention of the priest in no way extended itself to a consecration of this sort in those circumstances. But must it therefore be concluded that, if anything even slight from those things which are prescribed in the rubrics by chance and inadvertently falls away, there is always to be presumed in the priest an absence of intention, however much the same priest, acting in good faith, even has actual intention while consecrating, because, as they say, a more general intention is presumed in him never to consecrate in those circumstances in which someone conscious of the matter would not consecrate without some fault? If the matter stands thus, it would have to be said, as Reuter well observes (part 4, n. 155), that intention would be lacking in the one acting whenever he acts against a law invincibly unknown or not known here and now. For example, he adds, in one baptizing, ordaining, or contracting matrimony, intention would be lacking when the subject receiving the Sacrament did not have the disposition required for the fruit of the Sacrament, invincibly unknown to the one conferring it. But these things can in no way be admitted; and Reuter himself adds the reason, ibid., because grave inconveniences would follow from it, and therefore, from the will of Christ, the intention must nevertheless be present.

And indeed Reuter, l.c., says that these grave inconveniences do not follow from an intention of not consecrating hosts placed outside the corporal; and we shall think this most truly said if we suppose that a defect of this sort does not remain hidden, but is noticed at once. But suppose, I ask, that neither the priest nor others noticed the defect, and consequently that those particles are adored, placed in the tabernacle, and distributed to the faithful asking for Eucharistic bread, indeed even carried to the sick as Viaticum. Would less grave inconveniences occur? Therefore that most grave reason by which Reuter proved the falsity of that principle taken generally, namely that intention is lacking in the one acting whenever he acts against a law invincibly unknown, this reason, I say, manifestly retains all its force in our case also.

Rather, it seems that one must inquire whether and how the opinions of Doctors apparently dissenting in this question can be reconciled. Now it can contribute much to this if it is inspected whether the Authors dispute about the same hypothesis or about a different one. For who does not see that, even concerning a pyx situated outside the corporal, multiple hypotheses can be imagined? And indeed we can think of two from among these, extremely opposed, concerning which hardly, or not even hardly, does dissent seem possible. One is about a pyx which the priest does not notice to be situated outside the corporal, and which he at the same time consecrates with actual intention. For who could deny or doubt that the particles were validly consecrated? The other is about particles brought by the cleric, but then left by him through forgetfulness in the epistle corner, enclosed in a box, however much in the sacristy mention had been made with the priest about their being consecrated. For neither does anyone seem able to judge these consecrated.

Therefore doubt remains concerning the case when the priest is supposed to have had only virtual intention while consecrating, and nevertheless the particles have not been placed in a position so distant or less becoming that the conjecture about intention concerning them is plainly improbable. The solution of this question does not seem to be sought elsewhere than from the preceding actual intention of the priest being weighed, namely how far that intention is to be thought to have extended itself, and therefore how far the virtual intention also extended itself; for the virtual cannot extend more than the preceding actual intention; wherefore in reality the validity or invalidity of the consecration must be said to depend on this. But once that norm of measuring intention has been rejected, which is taken from the will of not doing whatever would per se be in any way illicit, it already seems to remain that we say that this virtual intention suffices for consecrating those particles concerning which the priest, not then noticing the improper position of the particles, could have had actual intention. Therefore if the particles have been placed there where the priest, not noticing that they are outside the corporal, nevertheless could think them sufficiently present, and therefore could have an actual intention of consecrating them, we shall say that the intention of consecrating them was not lacking; but otherwise, if the particles lie in such a place that the priest could not have judged them sufficiently present, and therefore could not have had actual intention of consecrating them.

And from these things it is now clear what must be said about all those Authors whom the VV. (pp. 380-384) collected with immense labor, that they might confirm that the opinion of St. Doctor Alphonsus can be called common. Namely it must be inspected about what hypothesis they speak. For if they treat those circumstances in which all must confess that the intention of the priest cannot be presumed, it is manifest that they are improperly objected against us. But if anyone further contends that the opinion which the Authors gave about a particular hypothesis must be transferred, as some general principle, to any other hypothesis whatever, let him have this paralogism for himself.

In practice that ciborium will have to be consecrated again under condition in another Mass. Those particles can also be consumed after both Communions, but before the purification. - St. Ligorius, n. 217.

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

Resp. The answer is affirmative. The reason is: 1. because hosts in a closed ciborium certainly can be validly consecrated, as was said above; 2. because the Priest is always judged to have the absolute intention of consecrating whatever, with his knowledge, is upon the corporal, is becomingly consecrable, and is had by way of a continuous thing. - Thus Reuter, etc.

You will object: From the things said in the preceding question, a ciborium left outside the corporal probably is not consecrated, because the Priest is not judged to will to sin; by parity, in the present case for the same reason.

Resp. I deny the parity. For although the Church wills the ciborium to be opened for greater reverence, nevertheless since this irreverence does not seem notable, and this can happen more frequently, this precept does not urge so much as the precept of not consecrating outside the corporal. Reuter asserts that this is the common opinion of the Doctors.

284. • QUESTION 3. Whether drops of wine adhering to the chalice, either exteriorly or interiorly, are judged consecrated?

Resp. 1. Drops adhering exteriorly are never judged consecrated. The reason is that the intention of the Priest is deservedly presumed to be to consecrate that one thing which is licitly consecrable; but those little drops would be consecrated illicitly and irreverently and without any utility. Therefore... - Thus all. - St. Ligorius, n. 215.

Resp. 2. More probably neither are the drops adhering interiorly and altogether separated from the greater quantity judged consecrated. The reason is that it does not seem to be the intention of the Church, and therefore neither of the Priest, to consecrate anything except the wine which is potable by way of one thing and is found gathered together in the chalice. - Thus more commonly with Suarez, Laymann, etc., against others. - See St. Ligorius, ibid.

QUESTION 4. What sort of sin is it to consecrate a broken or stained host?

Resp. Scandal being excluded, it is only venial ⁵, unless the stain or fracture is enormous. If, however, some fracture or stain, even notable, is discovered in the host after the oblation, such a host will licitly be consecrated ⁶, because already through the oblation it has been somewhat dedicated and sanctified to God. - St. Ligorius, n. 204, and others commonly ⁷.

⁵ St. Alphonsus (cited n. 204) says that it is venial if it is done without reasonable cause.

⁶ St. Alphonsus limits: unless scandal of the people is feared.

⁷ Here the question is usually added: whether the consecration of one species without the other is valid. And St. Alphonsus (lib. 6, n. 196, dub. 3) distinguishes a twofold case: the first, if this happens by chance; the other, if the priest has a positive intention of consecrating only one species without the other. As to the first, however, he responds: No one doubts that it is valid if this happens by chance. But as to the other he responds: Lugo denies, De Eucharistia, disp. 19, n. 103, whom Renzi follows.... Others commonly affirm.

But this absurd opinion is attributed to John Lugo altogether undeservedly, for he writes most expressly, ibid., n. 104: All priests consecrating, whether by error or deliberately, one species without the other, validly consecrate. Now he who deliberately consecrates one species without the other certainly has the positive intention, as St. Alphonsus has it, of consecrating only one species without the other.

Certainly Lugo, after he had written, ibid., n. 102, that the opinion of those who said that the consecration of one species would be invalid is rejected by all, because it asserts this without any foundation against the truth of the words - since the consecration of either species is absolute, it immediately has its effect before the consecration of the other species - then adds concerning that opinion of theirs, ibid., n. 103: Besides, this opinion, if it is explained in the due manner, as perhaps it was understood by its Authors, is not absurd, but true. But he does not affirm this about the hypothesis of St. Alphonsus, namely if the priest has the positive intention of consecrating only one species without the other; rather, he affirms it about an altogether different hypothesis, namely of a priest consecrating, and indeed consecrating not one species only but both species, yet with the intention of offering sacrifice wholly and efficaciously excluded.

Namely Lugo explains how one must reason about the sacrifice of the Mass no otherwise than we are accustomed to speak about the sacrament of matrimony, namely that the sacrament of matrimony was so instituted by Christ the Lord that for the baptized the character of sacrament can in no way be separated from the character of matrimony; and by parity the character of sacrament in the Eucharist is so constituted that from the institution of Christ the Lord it has at the same time the character of sacrifice. Therefore, just as no matrimony can exist among Christians which is not a sacrament, so in no way can it happen that a consecration of the Eucharist is confected and at the same time does not have the character of sacrifice. From this, indeed, the consequence is that, just as the matrimony of one who would indeed wish to contract it, but at the same time would absolutely and efficaciously be unwilling to receive the sacrament, would be void and invalid, so also the consecration of each species would be invalid if the priest, pronouncing the form, should will absolutely and efficaciously to exclude the sacrifice by his intention.

Thus Lugo: I suppose that which our Theologians commonly suppose and teach, namely that Christ so instituted this Sacrament that he at the same time instituted it in the character of sacrifice, and did not will sacrifice to be made without Sacrament, nor Sacrament without sacrifice...; so that priests could neither consecrate outside sacrifice, nor offer sacrifice without consecration, as Suarez proves....

He applies this doctrine to the hypothesis of one consecrating one species in this way, l.c., n. 104: It is consequent that he who wishes to consecrate the host alone,

and not to offer sacrifice, but by excluding the oblation of sacrifice, would do nothing, because he does not have power for consecrating except by way of sacrifice. Yet in fact all priests consecrating one species without the other, whether by error or deliberately, validly consecrate: because they do not altogether efficaciously exclude the intention of sacrificing, but will to consecrate in the better way in which they can, and therefore will at least implicitly, through the consecration of the host, for example, to begin the sacrifice in such a way that, as far as lies in them, it can be completed through the consecration of the chalice, if it is applied; whence then they already have some intention of offering partially in the consecration of the host. Besides, if a Priest... foreseeing that sacrifice cannot be offered without the consecration of each species, and foreseeing that both cannot be consecrated, should will to consecrate one, altogether excluding the intention of offering even partially, or of beginning the sacrifice through that consecration, by an altogether efficacious will in the manner explained, then we say that he would not consecrate, because the will of consecrating must be at least an implicit will of offering partially, or of beginning the oblation of the sacrifice; and in this sense the aforesaid opinion would be true.

Therefore Lugo does not say that the consecration of one species is invalid when someone only has the positive intention of consecrating one species without the other; for he affirms that it is valid, although he deliberately consecrates one species without the other. But he pronounces it invalid when in this very consecration of one species someone efficaciously excludes any will whatever, even partially, of beginning the sacrifice, or of offering partially, no otherwise than if someone efficaciously excluded the will of receiving the sacrament while he intends to contract matrimony. This efficacious will of the sacrament is judged excluded when someone is of such a mind that, if he knew that true matrimony could not be celebrated unless at the same time the sacrament is received, he then would be unwilling even to have the contract of matrimony itself.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

169. The remote matter of the Eucharist is wheaten bread alone and wine from the vine. Thus teaches the Council of Florence.²¹ The reason is that it is established that Christ employed bread and wine in the institution of this sacrament. Now, wheaten bread alone is called simply bread, and natural wine from the vine alone is called simply wine. For the sake of clarity, the valid and licit matter both of bread and of wine must be treated separately.

²¹ Denz., n. 698.

1515. "Just as in the other Sacraments there is a twofold matter, namely proximate and remote, so also here, but in an inverted order: for in the others, the remote matter is a permanent thing; but the proximate is its use, which passes away; here, however, the remote passes away, and the proximate remains, namely the species of bread and wine."¹² And since, for practice, one must treat only of the remote, that is, of that which, through consecration, passes into the body and blood of Christ, we shall treat: 1. of the remote matter in general; 2. of the matter of bread; 3. of the matter of wine; 4. of the conditions required for consecration on the part of the matter.

1516. Principles. I. The matter of the Eucharist is BREAD and WINE. It is of faith, from the definitions of the Council of Florence,¹³ Lateran IV,¹⁴ and Trent.¹⁵ The reason is that Christ, in instituting this Sacrament, employed bread and wine, and commanded His Apostles to do the same.¹⁶

1517. II. Each matter, namely bread and wine, is REQUIRED for making the Sacrament LICITLY. "It is certain that it is necessary by necessity of precept to consecrate the Eucharist under each species, as St. Thomas teaches¹⁷ with others commonly... Whence it is common and certain among all that it is not licit, even in the article of death, to consecrate one species in order to offer Viaticum to the sick person."¹⁸

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

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

1518. It is asked: Whether the consecration of one species without the other is VALID?

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

1519. Principles. I. The VALID matter of the Eucharist for the first consecration is only WHEATEN and USUAL BREAD; such namely as, in the moral judgment of men, is judged to be only that which is mixed from wheat flour and natural water, and cooked or baked by fire, and incorrupt in its species: because this alone is simply called BREAD. It is established from the Decree of Eugene IV, where it is said concerning the Eucharist: "whose matter is wheaten bread and wine from the vine"; and from the Rubrics of the Missal, where one reads: "If the bread is not wheaten, the Sacrament is not made."²²

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

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

2. By defect of natural water, INVALID matter is bread kneaded from oil, butter, milk, eggs, sugar, or another liquid; because it would not be usual bread. The admixture of artificial water renders the matter at least doubtful.

3. By defect of preparation, INVALID would be raw wheaten dough, hardened by the heat of the sun, or not cooked after the manner of bread, but fried or boiled after the manner of a cake.²⁴

1520. II. Matter, although valid, is ILLICIT if it is not fitting and made according to the prescription of the Church. Now:

1. Bread would not be fitting if, for example, some grains or drops of another species were mixed with the wheat and water, even if the wheat and water greatly predominated. Likewise, moldy bread, which already tends toward corruption, would be unfitting or illicit. "This would be," says St. Alphonsus,²⁵ "if the taste were changed in some way, and then it would be mortal to use it." Therefore one must watch carefully that hosts and particles be fresh, made within one month at the most. For the Sacred Congregation of Rites condemns, as an enormous abuse, the custom of consecrating hosts which had been made three or four months before.²⁶ Nor must they only be fresh, but also whole and clean. Yet "scandal being excluded, it is only venial, without a reasonable cause, to consecrate a broken or stained host; unless the fracture or stain were enormous; for then it would be mortal. Yet if the fracture is discovered after the oblation, such a host will licitly be consecrated, unless scandal of the people is feared."²⁷

2. With respect to the FIGURE of the bread, among Latins a round host is required, larger for the celebrant, on which the sign of the cross is expressed, as is the constant custom of the Church.²⁸ If a larger host is lacking, the priest can probably, even for the sake of devotion, consecrate a smaller one, provided scandal is avoided: which can be avoided if, for example, the people are admonished concerning the lack of a larger host. Indeed, authors are not lacking who teach that a priest is HELD to consecrate in a smaller host if, from precept, the people would have to attend Mass, or if Viaticum had to be given to a sick person. But it is never licit for a priest, the larger host being set aside, for example for exposing in the monstrance, to take a smaller one, unless he has also consecrated this in the same Mass; because he must communicate from his own Sacrifice.²⁹

1521. It is asked: Whether a Latin can ever celebrate in LEAVENED bread, or a Greek in UNLEAVENED.

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

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

1522. Principles. I. Valid matter of the second consecration is only WINE FROM THE VINE, and indeed USUAL wine. This is established from Matthew 26:29: "I will not drink henceforth of this fruit of the vine, until the day, etc."; and from the Florentine Decree already cited, which the constant practice of the Church confirms.

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

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

1523. II. Valid but ILLICIT matter is true wine, VITIATED in some way, or MIXED. The reason is that it is against the reverence owed to the Sacrament. Whence exotic wine must be employed cautiously, because it is very often mixed with foreign substances and therefore illicit; indeed, not rarely one finds that which is altogether artificial, and consequently invalid.

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

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

1524. III. WATER is to be mixed ceremonially with the wine to be consecrated; not indeed from necessity of the Sacrament, but by force of a precept gravely obliging. Let Trent be heard:⁷ "Then the Holy Synod admonishes that it has been prescribed by the Church to priests that they mix water with the wine to be offered in the chalice: both because Christ the Lord is believed to have done thus, and also because from His side water came forth together with blood: which sacrament is recalled by this mixing; and since in the Apocalypse of Blessed John waters are called peoples, the union of the faithful people themselves with Christ the Head is represented."

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

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

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

1525. Principles. I. For VALID consecration, besides apt matter, it is required that this matter be PRESENT and DETERMINATE.

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

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

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

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

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

1526. II. "For LICIT consecration of matter there is required: 1. That there not be a greater quantity than can be consumed at a suitable time, because there would be danger lest the species rot. 2. That the celebrant not depart from the usage of the Church, especially prescribed in the Missal."¹⁷ Concerning this, these things especially are to be held:

1. The matter to be consecrated is to be placed upon the corporal and sacred stone: this obligation presses under grave obligation.¹⁸

2. The hosts which are to be consecrated in Mass for the Communion of the faithful are to be placed upon the corporal or upon the paten, or in some chalice or in a pyx. This pyx is then to be opened at the first oblation and at the consecration, so that the celebrant may direct his intention also to offering and consecrating those.¹⁹ Yet to consecrate in a closed pyx does not seem gravely unbecoming.²⁰

3. "If a little after the oblation has been made, small hosts are brought for communicating the people, these are licitly consecrated, the oblation being supplied mentally." If, the Canon already having been begun, they are brought, one must distinguish: in the case in which several would remain without Communion, it is licit to consecrate; but in the case in which only one would remain, it is not licit; to him, however, for a just cause, a part of the large host should be offered. Moreover, a cause would be sufficiently just if the one about to communicate would have to wait a long time, or if Viaticum had to be given to a sick person.²¹

1527. Questions. Q. 1. Whether a ciborium is to be judged consecrated which, from forgetfulness, has been left outside the CORPORAL or SACRED STONE?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1528. Q. 5. What is to be done by the celebrant if he has noticed some DEFECT concerning the matter, whether of bread or of wine?

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

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

2. "If he has noticed this after consecration, even after the reception of that host, another having been placed, let him make the oblation as above, and begin from the consecration, namely from those words: Who the day before He suffered; and the former, if he has not received it, let him receive after the reception of the Body and Blood, or let him give it to be received by others, or let him reverently preserve it somewhere. But if he has received it, nevertheless let him receive that which he consecrated: because the precept concerning the perfection of the Sacrament is of greater moment than that it be received by those fasting."

3. "But if this happens after the reception of the blood, new bread, and wine with water, must again be put; and the oblation having first been made as above, the priest should consecrate, beginning from those words: Who the day before: and immediately receive each, and proceed with the Mass, lest the Sacrament remain imperfect, and so that due order may be preserved."

4. "If the consecrated host disappears, or by some accident, as by wind, or by miracle, or having been taken by some animal, and cannot be found; then another is to be consecrated, beginning from that place: Who the day before He suffered, its oblation having first been made, as above."³

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

2. "If after the words of consecration he notices that wine had not been put, but water: the water having been placed in some vessel, let him again put wine with water in the chalice, and consecrate, resuming from the aforesaid words: In like manner, etc."

3. "If he notices this after reception of the Body or of water of this kind, let him put another host again to be consecrated, and wine with water in the chalice, offer each, and consecrate and receive, although he is not fasting. Or if Mass is celebrated in a public place, where several are present, to avoid scandal, he will be able to put wine with water, and the oblation having been made as above, consecrate, and immediately receive, and proceed with the rest."⁴

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Query 5° Is frozen wine valid matter?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On account of this intention, when it is present:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

b) Christ commanded that this sacrament not be confected unless at the same time sacrifice is offered to God; indeed He did not give to priests the power of consecrating except by way of sacrifice, as is clear both from the Council of Trent, which thus explains the words: Do this in commemoration of Me (sess. 22, c. 1 and can. 2), and from the form of ordination: Receive the power of offering sacrifice. Whence the sacrament cannot be separated from the aspect of sacrifice. But sacrifice is not had except by the consecration of the twofold species; without this the separation of the blood from the body of Christ would not be mystically represented.² Therefore by divine law each consecration is required at the same time. - From this it follows that, if someone by a predominant will absolutely did not wish the sacrifice or excluded it, the consecration would be invalid.

² Let it not be said: in the consecration of the bread, by force of the words the body is placed without the blood; therefore in the consecration of bread alone, by force of the words, the separation of the body from the blood is signified. - Billuart responds, diss. 3, a. 5: "In the consecration of the bread alone there is placed by force of the words the body without the blood, precisely and formally by force of the words of the consecration of the bread alone, I deny; with the consecration of the chalice added, I concede. For if I say precisely: This is My body, it is not formally signified that My body is separated from the blood; but it is indeed signified when I add: This is My blood. For then it is openly signified by force of the words that My body is placed apart from the blood by force of the words."

Nevertheless, the consecration of one matter without the other is valid, not only if it happens by chance, but also if it is done from intention and deliberately, because in all sacraments when the words are pronounced over the matter, the effect is immediately had, and does not depend on a future event:³ for the words effect what they signify, and therefore, when the bread has been consecrated and not the chalice, the body of Christ is proposed to the faithful to be adored. - Nor does it stand in the way that the minister deliberately consecrating one matter does not have the intention of sacrificing: for although he does not intend to complete the sacrifice, nevertheless he can have the intention of beginning it, or of placing a part of it, and thus he does not altogether exclude the intention of sacrifice; but if he altogether excluded even this, the consecration would be invalid.

³ St. Thomas in IV Sent., d. 11, q. 2, a. 1, qc. 1, ad 4; d. 8, q. 2, a. 4; III, q. 78, a. 6. Lugo is sometimes cited for the opposite opinion; not rightly, however, as is clear from De Euch., disp. 19, sect. 8, n. 102 and 104.

214. Question: Whether for giving viaticum to a dying person, it is lawful intentionally to consecrate one matter? - According to the Rubrics of the Roman Missal and the Code of Law, can. 817, it is altogether illicit. The reason is a) because it is mockery in the name of Christ to begin a sacrifice which one knows cannot be completed; b) because on one side the sacrament is not necessary, and on the other side the precept of Christ is most strict (n. 213), nor has there ever been a dispensation in it or can there be a dispensation, since concerning the substance of the sacraments (which also embraces integrity) the Church has no power (Council of Trent, sess. 21, c. 2).

Yet per accidens and beyond intention one matter is consecrated without the other without sin, on account of physical or moral impossibility: a) if someone consecrated water or another liquid for wine, and did not understand the defect until long afterward; or after he had noticed it, wine could not be had, or he could not use it without grave scandal or irreverence (as if it were only in the sacristy) or without danger to life (as if the wine were poisoned); b) if, the host having been consecrated, danger of death were imminent, for example from fire, the ruin of the church, or the invasion of enemies; scandal and contempt of the faith being excluded, however, for example if it were demanded by an enemy; c) if the priest, the host having been consecrated, could not continue, as if he died, lost speech, fell into insanity, and there was no other who could complete the sacrifice; but if another can supply and the sick priest can receive communion, the host must be divided and a part given to him.

215. Observations. - 1. To avoid danger of corruption for the species, no greater quantity should be consecrated than can be consumed at the opportune time.

2. If unconsecrated hosts are mixed with consecrated ones, the whole heap is to be brought to the altar and the whole is to be consecrated under condition, insofar as is necessary: namely, this must be done in this way so that the unconsecrated part may thus certainly be sufficiently demonstrated. Thus St. Alphonsus, Th. M., l. VI, n. 216.

3. Little drops adhering externally to the chalice are not to be consecrated, nor are they presumed to be consecrated. It is fitting to wipe away with the purificator the little drops adhering internally before the oblation of the chalice (S.C.R., September 7, 1816), but not before the consecration. Moreover concerning them, as also concerning crumbs, one is not held to elicit an intention; but if he wishes, he will better elicit once for all the intention of not consecrating except that which has itself by way of one continuous thing: for irreverence toward the sacrament is more to be guarded against than violation of the fast. But crumbs which are in the ciborium are more fittingly consecrated, because the danger of losing them is absent.

4. On account of the danger of material idolatry and of the nullity of the sacrifice, it is never lawful to use matter (or form) probably invalid, neither so that the sick person may receive viaticum, nor so that the people on a feast day may hear Mass; but perhaps only for completing the sacrifice.

5. If smaller hosts for communicating the people are brought to the priest a little after the oblation, the oblation having been supplied mentally, it is lawful to consecrate them; indeed even if they are offered when the Canon has already begun, when otherwise several would remain without communion, or even one who otherwise would have to wait long for communion: in which case certain authors commend giving this one part of the larger host. But it is never lawful to consecrate them after the consecration has been completed, because it would be to begin another sacrifice and to make this incomplete, whence this would be sacrilege. Noldin had said this to be lawful, but in this he was generally disapproved.

I say. Bread and wine, and indeed only wheaten bread and wine from the vine, are the valid remote matter of the Sacrament of the Eucharist. It is required, however, that a very small amount of water be mixed with the wine, not by necessity of the sacrament, but of ecclesiastical precept. The first is clear from many Councils, but especially from Florence in the Decree of Union, and from Trent, sess. 13, in nearly all the chapters. But the other is had both from the same Councils and from the Catechism of the Council of Trent, which, after it taught that this mixing cannot be omitted without mortal sin, adds: "Yet if it [water] is lacking, the sacrament can stand." - Cf. De Augustinis, part 2, art. 2 and 3.

The most holy Sacrifice of the Mass must be offered from bread and wine, to which a very small amount of water is to be mixed (Can. 814).

§ 1. The bread must be merely wheaten and recently made, so that there is no danger of corruption.

§ 2. The wine must be natural, from the fruit of the vine, and not corrupt (Can. 815).

Wine, even if it is from the vine, from which nevertheless by the aid of art all spirit of wine (alcohol) is removed, is not valid and licit matter of consecration. - Holy Office, 1 June 1910.

Question 1. Is bread confected from rye, oats, barley, and the like valid matter?

Resp. Negatively, according to the more common and more probable opinion; because although all these seem to pertain to the species of wheat, nevertheless they are not properly wheat as this is commonly employed and understood. - But concerning spelt it must be said that the solution depends on the diversity of the thing which is understood by such a word, since by the name spelt the same thing is not signified everywhere. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 200. - Lehmkuhl, n. 119.

Question 2. Is both unleavened and leavened bread valid and licit matter?

Resp. Affirmatively, as regards validity, both because each is true bread, since it is confected from wheaten flour and natural water, and because each is called simply bread in Scripture. But it must be answered negatively as regards liceity; for, as is clear from the practice of each Church and from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union, Latins are bound under grave obligation to consecrate in unleavened bread, and Greeks in leavened bread; and no other reason seems to excuse from this precept, excepting the necessity of completing the sacrifice. Even a traveling priest, if a church of his own rite is lacking, must conform himself to his own rite, and cannot conform himself to another rite. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 203. - Lehmkuhl, n. 121. - Cf. Can. 816.

Question 3. Whether the matter becomes invalid if, besides natural water, something of milk, butter, or another liquid is placed for mixing with the flour?

Resp. Negatively, if the amount of natural water is far greater than that of the other liquid, so that true bread is had according to the common estimation of men. The same must be said if some grains from oats, millet, almonds, peas, beans, etc., are mixed with wheaten flour; but certainly he would sin gravely who used such matter. - Cf. Kenrick, tract. 17, nn. 1 and seq.

Question 4. Does a priest consecrating in souring wine sin gravely?

Resp. Affirmatively, and the reason is taken from the irreverence which in such a case would be inflicted upon the sacrament, from the common consent of theologians, and from the Rubric de defect., tit. 4, n. 2, where these things are had: "If the wine has begun to sour or to corrupt, or has been somewhat sharp . . . the sacrament is confected, but the one confecting sins gravely." - But several theologians probably say that this Rubric is not to be accepted with such rigor that it also comprehends the first degrees of sharpness, but only those which proximately begin to constitute souring wine. Observe, however, 1st. that the question here is about souring wine, for if the wine were certainly corrupt and had properly become vinegar, then the consecration would be invalid and certainly gravely illicit. Observe 2nd. that a priest who after consuming the chalice doubts concerning acidity must not consecrate again, and must stand for validity, because wine somewhat sharp is accustomed to appear much sharper to a fasting priest. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 207; and Hom. Ap., Append. 3, Exam. Ordinand., n. 98.

Question 5. Is frozen wine valid matter?

Resp. Some deny, because it is not drink; but several more probably affirm, because from the Rubric of the Missal the frozen species of wine after consecration must be liquefied, with heated cloths having been brought near, and then reverently consumed; for it is a true sacrament: therefore the sacred species are not changed substantially by freezing. - Cf. Rubr. de defect., tit. 10, n. 11. - St. Alphonsus, n. 207.

Question 6. What must be said concerning must, and what concerning wine of our region?

Resp. Natural wine from the vine, incorrupt, and every wine from the fermented juice of ripe grape, is valid and licit matter of this second consecration. Another sense has been given by men to this word wine, so that it signifies must, new wine, as it is called, genuine juice of ripe grape not adulterated, containing the elements by which fermentation is naturally procured. The first sense is the most used among men; in this way the word is understood by the Councils, in tradition, and by Theologians for signifying the licit matter of this consecration. Eugene IV, Const. Exsultate Deo; Holy Office, 30 Aug. 1901; 22 July 1706; 7 May 1897; 4 May 1887; 30 July 1890; 5 Aug. 1896. In the Roman Missal, tit. 4, n. 2, we read: "If the wine has begun to sour, or to corrupt, or has been somewhat sharp, or must pressed then from grapes . . . the Sacrament is confected, but the one confecting sins gravely." In the Decree of Gratian, c. 7, D. 1, de consecr.: "If it is necessary, let a cluster be pressed in the chalice and water be mixed." In these cases there can be no question of perfect fermentation, or scarcely even imperfect fermentation, except in a broader sense: fermentation lasts for some time; at most there is had an inception of fermentation of the genuine juice of ripe grape, which contains the elements by which fermentation can be naturally obtained. Such matter can be employed in necessity, as is plain from the Ritual and from the Decree: "This necessity would be verified if fermented wine absolutely could not be had in the region." Gasparri, De Eucharistia, n. 819; Prümmer, vol. 3, p. 139: "Must, or juice recently pressed from ripe grapes, is indeed valid matter but gravely illicit." Biel, Sacri Canonis Missae Expositio, lect. 35: "And in necessity the pressing of wine from a cluster in the chalice is conceded." Suarez, disp. 45, Sect. 1, n. 6; Vasquez, disp. 175, c. 1, 2; Sylvius, q. 74, a. 5; Toletus, vol. 4, p. 162; Génicot-Salsman, vol. 2, n. 171; Gopfert, n. 126. Practically the reason of all is this: because that is wine in substance. "Likewise it is clear from the effect," says Suarez, "because must is warm, intoxicates, and from intrinsic and proper power is purified and ripened, and brings itself to the perfect state. Therefore it is a sign that it is substantially wine." - Cf. Alex. Alensis, De Sacr. Eucharis., q. x. Wine in its ordinary sense, or fermented juice of ripe grape, is valid and licit matter of this sacrament. Must is valid matter, but outside the case of grave necessity is gravely illicit. But concerning wine of our region it must be said that the Fathers of Baltimore wish it to be preferred to any other, even if it is naturally sharp or less flavorful, because it is more easily established that it is genuine. It is licit to employ in the Sacrifice of the Mass wine confected from dried grapes provided that the liquid to be extracted from them is discerned by color, odor, and taste to be true wine. Holy Office, 7 May 1879. For preserving wine it is licit to add a quantity of spirit or alcohol, provided that the spirit was extracted from the fruit of the vine, and the alcoholic quantity added, together with that which the wine in question naturally contains, does not exceed the proportion of seventeen or eighteen percent, and the mixture is made when tumultuous fermentation has begun to subside: this wine is licitly employed in the Sacrifice of the Mass. Holy Office, 5 Aug. 1896. The wine about which there is question in that decree exceeds twelve degrees of alcoholic strength. Concerning weak wine the following response was given: "Provided that the spirit (Alcohol) was extracted from the fruit of the vine, and the alcoholic quantity added, together with that which the wine in question naturally contains, does not exceed the proportion of twelve percent, and the mixture is made when the wine is very recent, nothing stands in the way of the same wine being employed in the sacrifice of Mass." Holy Office, 31 July 1890.

Besides, by the same decree of the Holy Office, 5 Aug. 1896, it was declared: that it is licit to use wine obtained from must which before vinous fermentation has been condensed by fiery evaporation, "provided that a decoction of this kind does not exclude alcoholic fermentation, and the fermentation itself can be obtained naturally, and in fact is obtained." - Cf. Second Plenary Council of Baltimore, n. 373. - St. Alphonsus, nn. 206 and seq. - Kenrick, nn. 5 and seq. - Lehmkuhl, n. 119, with note 1.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1124, n. 79.

Question 7. What quantity of water is to be mixed into the chalice?

Resp. A very small quantity suffices according to the Council of Florence, and therefore, generally speaking, the priest ought not to exceed eight or ten little drops. But if by chance too great a quantity of water falls in, some wine will have to be added over and above. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 210.

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

1. What is the matter of the Most Holy Eucharist?

2. Is consecration under one species valid, or ever lawful?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is the matter of the Holy Eucharist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Applied correction from Woywod's opening insert: CASE V, page 29.—This case must be corrected in as far as the New Code, in Canons 816, 819 and 823, 2°, absolutely demands that the priest wherever he celebrates Holy Mass must use the kind of altar breads his respective rite prescribes (Can. 816) and use the language of his own rite (Can. 819) and though he may say Mass on an altar consecrated according to another rite whenever he cannot find a church of his own rite he may not say Mass with the antimensia of the Greeks. The antimensia of the Orientals are something like our corporals in the corners of which are deposited relics of the saints and they are used on altars that are not consecrated. In the Greek and other Oriental rites only one altar in each church is consecrated.

Titius, a priest of the Latin rite, while traveling in the Orient with some friends, who are lay persons, also of the Latin rite, has occasion to say Mass, now in a Greek church, now in a Latin church, and again in a church of some other Oriental rite, and to give Holy Communion to his friends. In whatever church he says Mass, he uses the kind of altar breads they give him, whether fermented or unfermented, and he gives his friends Holy Communion in the same kind. He claims that Leo XIII. abrogated the older discipline, which restricted a Latin priest to the use of unfermented bread in saying Mass, thus leaving a Latin priest free to say Mass in a Greek church "in fermentato," and a Greek priest to say Mass in a Latin church, "in azymo." Titius, on his return to America, had occasion to go to his mission-church on Sunday to say Mass for his people, but by some mischance, he forgot to take along any altar breads. The distance to the home church was too great to permit sending there for altar bread and as Titius was already accustomed to say Mass with fermented bread, he sent to one of the neighbors for a piece of bread and said Mass with it, because, he said, the prohibition to do so was only a law of Church discipline, which did not bind in the circumstances in which he found himself. On this occasion, he also gave Holy Communion to the faithful "in fermentato." What is to be thought of Titius' "modus agendi"?

Answer. In the Oriental Church, the Armenians and the Maronites use unfermented bread, or azym, for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass; the Greeks, the Melchites, the Chaldeans, the Syrians and the Copts use fermented bread. The use of fermented bread by these several rites of the Oriental Church, dates back to the beginning of Christianity. The Latin Church uses only unfermented bread, or azym, although before the IX. or X. century, the use of fermented bread for the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass was not unknown in the Latin Church. The Council of Florence, in the decree for the union of the Greeks, allowed the Greeks to retain their ancient custom of consecrating in fermented bread, because there is no express command of Our Divine Lord to the contrary, viz., that the Holy Eucharist should be celebrated in azym. At the same time that the Council of Florence permitted the Greeks to continue to celebrate the Holy Eucharist in fermented bread, the Council issued a decree commanding both the Oriental and the Latin Church to adhere each to its respective rite in the celebration of the Holy Eucharist. This ruling of the Council of Florence (1440) was reaffirmed by St. Pius V. (1566) and later still by Benedict XIV. (1742).

Benedict XIV. says: "Since it was ordained by the General Council of Florence that each and every priest should celebrate the Holy Eucharist according to the rite of his Church, if the Latin Church, then in azym, if the Greek Church, then in fermented; and since it has been forbidden by the Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, for a Latin priest to use the Greek rite, or a Greek priest the Latin rite, we do now strictly forbid, under pain of permanent suspension, Greek priests to celebrate Mass and other divine offices or to cause them to be celebrated according to the Latin rite, and Latin priests according to the Greek rite, under any pretext whatsoever of having obtained faculties from the Apostolic See or its legates, or even from the Grand Penitentiary, for Greeks to use the Latin rite or for Latins to use the Greek" (Const. "Etsi pastoralis," vi.).

This precept of the Church, commanding priests of different rites to conform to their own rite in all things pertaining to the celebration of the divine mysteries, has always been very strictly interpreted by the theologians. St. Alphonsus, vi., n. 204, maintains that it is the common teaching of theologians that a Latin priest would not be allowed to celebrate in fermented bread, even to give a dying person viaticum, neither would a Greek priest be allowed to celebrate in azym. The only case in which this would be lawful, would be to complete the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.

But now there arises the question: Suppose a Latin priest is traveling through a country where the Greek rite prevails, how is he to say Mass? What rite shall he use? Is he at liberty to use the Greek rite, if it suits his convenience? Theologians do not agree as to what such a priest may do or must do under the circumstances. Some theologians think that the priest ought to observe the rite of the country through which he travels; thus a Latin priest ought to say Mass with fermented bread, if he be traveling through the country of the Greeks, and a Greek priest ought to say Mass with azym if he happened to be journeying through the country of the Latins (cf. Ledesma iv. p. 1).

Others, as St. Alphonsus, think that a priest on his travels may use either rite, according as it suits his convenience. And this view of the matter, the holy doctor calls communis et probabilissima (vi. n. 204). Others again think that a Latin priest, passing through a country of the Greek rite, ought to celebrate Mass in azym, if there be a Latin Church within reach; otherwise he may say Mass in fermented bread. Gasparri, de Euch. II. n. 805, thinks that it is never allowed for a Latin priest to say Mass with fermented bread: “The true opinion is that a Latin priest traveling through regions of the Greeks and celebrating in a Greek church, and a Greek priest traveling through regions of the Latins and celebrating in a Latin church, not only can, but also can—the Latin with fermented bread and the Greek with unleavened bread—offer the Eucharistic sacrifice. For this is inferred not obscurely from the pontifical constitutions that deal with this matter.”

We prefer to follow the opinion of those who maintain that a priest, on his travels, may say Mass either with azym or with fermented bread, if he says Mass in a church of another rite than his own, and there be no church of his own rite in the place, because the pontifical constitutions, issued in regard to this matter, apply only to priests having a domicile or permanent dwelling in a country of another rite. Thus v. g. Noldin S.J., de Euch. 106, b. says: “A priest on a journey can, in places where a church of his own rite is lacking, consecrate at will either in unleavened or in fermented bread. Nor does the cited Benedictine constitution stand in the way, since it deals only with those priests who have a domicile in a place of another rite.”

In answer, therefore, to the question whether Titius did right in saying Mass in a church of the Greek or Latin rite and using fermented or unfermented bread, as it suited his convenience, we would say that Titius ought to have gone to a church of the Latin rite, whenever it was possible to do so, and to have said Mass in azym. But whenever he found himself in a place where there was no church of his own rite, he was at liberty to say Mass in a Greek church and to use fermented or unfermented bread, whichever he preferred.

To the second question, namely, whether it was lawful to say Mass at his mission church, after his return from his travels, in fermented bread, because he had no azym, we answer it was unlawful. There is no theologian who would justify him in that. The precept to hear Mass on Sunday is less binding than the precept to says Mass in one's own rite, in one's own country. As we said above, not even to administer holy Viaticum, would this be allowed (cf. Lehmkuhl, II, n. 121, Gasparri, de Euch. n. 804).

St. Alphonsus, VI. n. 204, writes:

“It is asked, secondly: In a case of necessity, in order to provide Viaticum to a sick person, can a Latin priest consecrate in fermented bread? Mayor and Tanner answer affirmatively, because, as they say, the divine precept of receiving Viaticum ought to prevail over the human precept of celebrating in unleavened bread. But the common and more probable opinion, held by Navarra, Contensou, Tournely, Antoine, Suarez, Soto, Ledesma, Diana, Lacroix, Layman, Tamburini, and Bonacina, answers negatively.”

Regarding the Communion of the faithful of the different rites, the discipline to be followed now is contained in a decree of Leo XIII., 1893:

“To all the faithful of whatsoever rite, whether Latin or Oriental, living in places in which there is no church or priest of their own rite, the faculty is henceforth granted by the Holy See to receive Holy Communion, not only at the point of death and for fulfilling the Easter precept, but also at any time for devotion, according to the rite of the church existing in the aforesaid places, provided it is Catholic.”

A year later, in 1894, the same Pontiff, Leo XIII., extended this privilege to all the faithful who could not attend a church of their own rite, without serious inconvenience on account of the distance, of receiving Holy Communion in a church of another rite, in azym or fermented according to the rite of the church attended, provided said church be in communion with the Holy See. The lay people, therefore, who traveled with Titius in the Orient, ought to have gone to a Latin church for Holy Communion, if there was one in the place. Otherwise they might receive in any church, provided it were Catholic.

A Catholic man died recently in an outmission belonging to the parish of A. The pastor of A. was absent from home on the annual retreat of the clergy of the diocese. He had made arrangements with the assistant of a neighboring parish, belonging to a neighboring diocese, to look after his parish as well as this outmission during his absence, in the matter of sick calls and funerals, if there should be any, which was thought unlikely. This assistant was a young priest, just ordained, and unfamiliar with the conditions at A., and, especially, at the outmission. As this Catholic man died suddenly, in fact had been killed accidentally, the assistant priest was not notified until almost the last moment. The family of the deceased wanted a Requiem High Mass, and the necessary arrangements were made with the choir of the parish of A., etc. The church was crowded with Catholics and non-Catholics, when the young priest arrived to say the Mass and bless the corpse. But he had forgotten to bring along any Mass wine, and there was none to be had in the neighborhood for several miles around. To send home for some was out of the question. At the same time the young priest was afraid to omit the Mass. In his excitement he said the Mass, consecrating only one species, that is, the bread. Now it is asked:

1st. Is it ever allowed to consecrate one species alone?

2d. Would the Mass, said with one species, i. e., with bread alone, or with wine alone, be a true sacrifice or a real Mass?

3d. Might a priest retain the stipend, if he said Mass only with one species?

Answer.—We are not concerned here with the subjective question of the young priest’s guilt or innocence in saying Mass with bread alone. That question will depend on the state of the young man’s conscience at the time, as to what could be done lawfully, under the circumstances. If, in his excitement, he thought it was best to proceed as he did, in order to avoid scandal and harsh criticism, and having no means at hand, as for instance, a manual of Moral Theology, to advise him that his conduct was wrong, he may be acquitted of mortal sin. It is difficult to conceive, however, how any one, having completed an ordinary course of theology, and not have been guilty of grave criminal negligence in his studies during that time, could doubt for a moment that it is never allowed to say Mass with one species alone. However, this question does not concern us at present.

Our concern at present is with the objective question:

1st. Does the Church ever allow a priest to say Mass with one species alone?

Would it be lawful to say Mass with bread alone, or with wine alone, for any purpose whatever, v. g., to administer Viaticum? No, it is never allowed, under any circumstances, to say Mass with one species. St. Thomas (III. pars., q. 83, a. 6) calls it an “immane sacrilegium,” and the Church, in the Corpus Jur. Can., pronounces excommunication against any priest who would dare to interrupt the Mass after the consecration of the bread, “if anyone rashly presumes to do this (namely, that a priest, once he has begun, presume to leave the rites altogether incomplete), he shall undergo the sentence of excommunication.” (Decree Gratian, p. 2, c. 7, q. 1, cap.: Nihil.) The Church is so strict in this matter, that should a priest, after the consecration of the bread, be stricken with a fatal malady and be unable to proceed with the consecration of the wine, the Church not only permits, but commands, even an excommunicated priest, yes, even a vitandus, if no other be at hand, to consecrate the wine and complete the Mass, rather than allow or permit the Mass to end with the consecration of only one species. St. Alphonsus maintains that the obligation to consecrate both species in the Mass, both the bread and the wine, is of strict divine command, from which neither the Pope nor the Church has any authority to dispense.

Again, in the instructions on the Mass, as contained in the Roman missal, we read:

“If the matter that should be supplied, by reason of a lack either of bread or of wine, could in no way be obtained: if this occurs before the consecration of the Body, one must not proceed further; if after the consecration of the Body, or even of the wine, a lack of the other species is discovered after one species has already been consecrated, then, if it can in no way be obtained, one must proceed and complete the Mass, but in such a way that the words and signs pertaining to the missing species are omitted. But if it can be obtained by waiting for some time, one must wait, lest the sacrifice remain incomplete.” (De defect. occur. circa Missam, n. iv, 8.)

If this young priest was not aware that there was no wine until after the consecration of the bread, and there was no wine to be had, then he would be permitted to continue the Mass to the end, omitting only those words and signs that refer to the consecrated wine. But if at any time before the consecration of the bread he perceived the absence of the wine, he should have discontinued the Mass immediately. Not even in order to administer Viaticum to himself, or to another, would, or could, the Church allow him to consecrate one species alone. “This is certain: it is never lawful to consecrate one species without the other; for Christ gave the power to do what He Himself did, and commanded it to be done thus.” (Ballerini-Palmieri, tr. 10, 230.)

2d. Would the Mass celebrated with one species be a true Mass and a real sacrifice?

Modern theologians maintain that it would not. Thus, Father Lehmkuhl holds that it is dogmatically settled that the consecration of both species is required for the essence or substance of the Mass as a sacrifice. Without this double consecration, namely of the bread and of the wine, there is no adequate or sufficient showing forth or representation of the sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, as instituted and ordained and willed by Jesus Christ.

It is in no way probable that either consecration by itself suffices for the essence of the sacrifice of the Mass. For although it could have been sufficient, so that it might have been adopted for the sacrifice, nevertheless it was not in fact adopted in that manner by Christ the Lord. For the real representation of the bloody death is not sufficiently had according to what Christ willed unless the consecration of each separate species takes place. But this real representation is essential to the Mass.” (Lehmkuhl, I., n. 165).

According to Cardinal De Lugo, the Mass is essentially, in its institution by Christ, a commemorative sacrifice, representing the bloody sacrifice of Christ on the Cross. Now it represents the death of Christ, in as far as, by virtue of the words of consecration, the Body and the Blood of Christ are separated one from the other. If, therefore, a priest intended from the beginning to consecrate only one species, such an one could not be considered as having the intention of doing what Christ ordained and instituted, and consequently he would not consecrate at all. Other theologians, however, deny this.

Ballerini thinks that in the consecration of the bread alone, the death of Christ is shown forth in a partial manner: “Nor is it altogether improbable that a representation of Christ’s death is in some manner had there also, because by force of the words and from the celebrant’s intention, only the Body, not the Blood, is placed there.” (Ballerini, tr. 10, 230).

3d. May a priest retain the stipend for saying Mass in which he consecrates only the bread?

Berardi, Praxis Confessariorum, 1182, puts a question concerning a priest who in good faith used unsuitable wine in the celebration of Mass: namely, whether he is bound to celebrate another Mass on account of the offering received? He quotes the answer, taken from “L’Avvisatore Eccl. p. 168:

“For Masses celebrated in good faith before the doubt arose, he seems bound to nothing, because although commutative justice was violated, theological fault was nevertheless absent. He can, however, seek remission (understand, for greater security) from the Holy See.” If the young assistant acted in good faith he may retain the stipend. Ballerini says that he may not, because he cannot liquidate a debt that is quite certain by a doubtful payment.

By oversight the Mass wine had been put into a bottle half filled with water, and the mixture was used for holy Mass by two priests who celebrated at the same time. When the unfortunate mistake was discovered one priest was at holy Communion, and had just consumed the wine mixed with water; the other priest, however, without having noticed the state of facts, had finished holy Mass and returned to the sacristy.

Question: What must these two priests do, in order to comply, to their best ability, with the Divine and ecclesiastical law of the integrity of the holy Sacrifice of the Mass?

1. It is to be remarked, first of all, that the mixture here spoken of, water and wine, is beyond all doubt a wholly invalid materia consecrationis. The opinion of some theologians that the consecrating material may be one-third water and two-thirds wine is rightly restricted only to the case si vinum sit generosum (St. Alph. 1. VI. n. 210), and for security’s sake the rule is made: it is advised ... that the priest, when offering in the chalice, not exceed eight or ten drops of water. Marc. n. 1524.

2. As regards the priest who has partaken of the invalidly consecrated materia, the rubic of the Missal prescribes precisely what he has to do. According to Rubr. Tit. IV. de defectu vini n. 5, he must, if possible, cause both substances to be brought, host and pure wine, then mentaliter offer and consecrate both (incipiendo “qui pridie,” etc.), and finally consume both and conclude holy Mass. In this case the holy Sacrifice is complete and the obligation of the stipend is complied with. (A complete exposition of this rubic is found in the splendid work of Benedict XIV., De Sacrosancto Missae Sacrificio, lib. III. cap. XV.)

3. If, on account of a much smaller quantity of water, the materia may be considered as doubtful, then both substances must nevertheless be duplicated, but consecrated only conditionally: sub conditione; si prior materia non fuerit consecrata (according to St. Alphonsus I. VI. n. 206, but opposed by the opinion of other theologians), in order that, in case the former consecration was valid, there is not committed an iteratio Missae, or a sacrificium truncatum.

4. For the other priest, who before discovery had already returned to the sacristy, the rubric contains no instruction, and most authorities who speak the defectu vini, leave him without counsel. He remembers in his perplexity the very probable opinion of theologians that the priest, after his return to the sacristy, if he has not taken off the sacred vestments, may consume any fragments of the Sacred Host consecrated at the just concluded sacrifice. (St. Alph. 1. VI. n. 251) and the precept that, if the celebrating priest, after the consecration of one species should faint or die, the holy Sacrifice should even after interruption of about an hour be continued and finished by consecration of the second species (St. Alph. 1. VI. n. 355). He concludes, therefore, that in his case the act of sacrifice was not concluded so absolutely that he might not return at once to the altar, and by consecration of proper species validate the sacrifice, provided it can be done without giving scandal to the people.