The Sacrament of the Eucharist

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

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

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

¹ Sess. xiii, c. 1, 3.

n. 2.

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

¹ Sess. xiii, c. 2.

² Summa, 3, q. 79, a. 3.

Vol. II, Bk. V, Pt. I, Chapter II. The Matter and Form of the Eucharist

THE remote matter of the Eucharist is twofold—wheaten bread and wine of the grape. Barley bread, or bread made from oats or rye, or any other kind of grain or vegetables or fruits, is invalid matter. The wheaten bread must be baked with water, not boiled, or mere dough. If baked with oil or milk or butter, it will be doubtful matter. The wine must be genuine juice of the grape, not made artificially; wine made from any other kind of fruit will be invalid matter. If the wine has become vinegar, it is changed: substantially, and will not serve for Mass; if it has only begun to get sour, it will be consecrated validly, but the priest who uses it sins grievously. There is some controversy as to whether frozen wine could be consecrated. The rubrics prescribe that if the precious blood is frozen after the consecration it should be liquefied again by putting warm cloths about the chalice and then consumed. It is clear, then, that freezing does not change the species substantially so as to render our Lord no longer present under them; it follows from this that freezing does not prevent the wine being consecrated.

Unfermented bread is used for the Eucharist in the Western Church, and fermented in the Oriental rites. Members of the two Churches are bound under grave precept to follow their respective rites, even if a Western priest were for a time in the East (Can. 816).

Because water came forth from the opened side of our Redeemer with his blood, the Church has commanded that in saying Mass a little water, not more than a fifth or at most a third part of the wine, should be mixed with the wine in the chalice. If the wine of a country is of a poor quality and difficult to keep, a little alcohol may be added to it to preserve it, but not so as to make more than 12 or 18 per cent. of the whole. No other matter may be added either to the flour or to the wine which are used for the Blessed Eucharist, and the greatest care should be taken both by bishops and priests to insure the use of only genuine matter in the confection of this sacrament.

Vol. II, Bk. V, Pt. I, Chapter III. The Minister of the Eucharist

ONLY a priest can say Mass and consecrate the Eucharist, and a priest is also the ordinary minister who distributes Holy Communion to others. If, however, the priest is occupied and is unable to give Holy Communion himself, he may delegate faculties to a deacon who is the extraordinary minister of the Eucharist. In case of necessity, especially when there is danger of dying without receiving the Viaticum, and there is no priest or deacon to give it, a simple cleric, or even a lay person, may administer Holy Communion to himself or to another. It was not very unusual in the primitive Church for laymen to do this, but nowadays the occasion would seldom arise.

Vol. II, Bk. V, Pt. I, Chapter IV. Reservation of the Eucharist

THE Ritual prescribes that the parish priest, or one who has the cure of souls, should take care that some consecrated particles, in sufficient number for the use of the sick and for the Communion of the rest of the faithful, should be always reserved in a clean, pyx of solid and decent material, well closed with its own lid, covered with a white veil, and as far as possible in an ornamented tabernacle kept locked with a key. This key should be in the keeping of the priest, not in that of the sacristan or other person. As a rule the pyx or ciborium is of silver, and gilded inside. There seems to be no strict law prescribing that it should be consecrated or even blessed, though there is a form for blessing it in the Ritual.

The Blessed Sacrament, then, must be thus reserved for the use of the faithful in all cathedrals, parish churches, and chapels of ease attached to parochial churches. Religious orders of men and women who take solemn vows have the privilege of reserving the holy Eucharist in their churches. It can only be reserved in other churches or oratories by special indult from the bishop, or from the Holy See in the case of strictly private oratories (Can. 1265).

Vol. II, Bk. V, Pt. I, Ch. V, Article I. The Necessity of the Eucharist

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, The Sacrament of the Eucharist · Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, Matter and Form of the Eucharist · Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, The Minister of Consecration · Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, The Custody and Worship of the Eucharist

THE holy Eucharist can be received only materially by one who is not baptized and who consequently is incapable of receiving the other sacraments; it is received spiritually by one who ardently desires to receive it with the proper dispositions; it is received sacramentally when it is really received by one who has been baptized. The sacramental reception of the Eucharist is not a necessary means of salvation, for it is a sacrament of the living and supposes the grace of God in the soul, and a soul in the state of grace has everything which is necessary for salvation. Divines dispute whether the Eucharist is a necessary means for preserving the life of grace in the soul. It is, indeed, the ordinary food of the Christian soul, as bread is the ordinary food of the body, but as there is other spiritual food which may be taken, and notably prayer, and this may supply for the want of the ordinary food, the better opinion holds that the Eucharist is not strictly necessary even for the preservation of the life of grace in the soul. However, it is certainly necessary by divine and ecclesiastical precept. The divine precept is manifest from the words of our Lord: ‘‘ Unless you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you shall not have life in you.”¹ Not that these words imply that Communion under both kinds is of divine law, for he who receives the sacrament under one species receives the body and blood of Christ with his soul and divinity. Moreover, as the Council of Trent explains,² he who made use of those words also said, ‘‘ He that eateth this bread shall live for ever.”³ The Church, therefore, for just and weighty reasons has forbidden Communion under both kinds, using the power given to her by Christ with reference to the dispensation of the sacraments, though she has no authority to change their substance.⁴

This divine precept must be fulfilled at least at the time of death, when it is of the greatest importance, and also sometimes during life. How often it must be received to satisfy the divine precept is uncertain, but the Church has determined the divine law by ordering all the faithful who have come to years of discretion to receive Holy Communion at least once a year, at Easter! Those, however, who desire to lead a good Catholic life, are by no means content with yearly Communion; they receive it once a month or still more frequently.

¹ John vi 54.

² Sess. xxi, c. 1.

³ John vi 59.

⁴ Trent, sess. xxi, c. 2.

Vol. II, Bk. X, Pt. III, Ch. I, A.—Excommunications Very Specially Reserved to the Holy See

n. 5.

See the comments on this censure above, Penance, Chapter XI.

McHugh–Callan, Moral Theology

John A. McHugh, O.P., and Charles J. Callan, O.P. — 5 passages

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, The Sacrament of the Eucharist

n. 2699.

The Sacrament of the Eucharist

The Sacrament of the Eucharist.—This is the chief Sacrament, for, while the other Sacraments produce the grace or the grace and the character of Christ, this one contains Christ Himself; and, while the other Sacraments are means that prepare man to consecrate or to receive the Eucharist or at least symbolize it, the Eucharist is the end of them all. The Eucharist may be defined as follows: “The body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ present through the words of consecration under the appearances of bread and wine to be offered to God and to be received by man.” Thus, we may distinguish various aspects of the Eucharist.

(a) It is a sacrifice, since the Mass is the supreme act of worship and is one with the sacrifice of the cross (see 2178 sqq.).

(b) It is a permanent Sacrament, since unlike the other Sacraments it does not consist in the passing application of a sacred sign to a recipient, but in the abiding presence of a thing absolutely sacred contained under sensible forms.

(c) It may be considered in its passing phases of beginning, in which it is consecrated by the priest (performance of the Sacrament), and termination, in which it is received by the communicant (application, dispensation of the Sacrament).

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

n. 2700.

The Matter and Form of the Eucharist

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

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

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

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

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, The Minister of Consecration

n. 2701.

The Minister of Consecration

The Minister of Consecration.—(a) Qualifications.—Every priest and only a priest can consecrate validly, for only to the Apostles and their successors in the priesthood were spoken the words of Christ: “Do this in commemoration of Me.” But only those priests can consecrate lawfully who have the faculty of celebrating Mass (see 2709).

(b) Duties as regards Valid Consecration.—Internally, there must be the intention (actual or virtual) of acting in the name of Christ, and of effecting what the words of consecration signify; and hence a merely narrative recitation of the form is insufficient. This actual or virtual intention must also determine the individual matter to be consecrated, and hence a host placed on the corporal is not consecrated if the priest neither saw it nor took it up for consecration. Small crumbs in the ciborium and small drops of wine on the inner side of the chalice are consecrated, unless excluded by the priest’s intention; but drops of wine on the outside of the chalice should be considered unconsecrated, since it is unlawful to consecrate what is not contained in the chalice.

Externally, bread and wine must be physically present to the priest, that is, so within his reach or range that according to human usage they can be correctly designated by the demonstrative pronoun “this” used in the form. Accordingly, they must be near the minister; how near cannot be mathematically defined, and authors variously assign about ten, twenty, thirty, forty and fifty paces as the extreme limit. Again, the bread and wine must not be separated from the minister by any dividing partition, such as a wall, or the altar, or perhaps even the closed door of the tabernacle, though a closed container (such as a covered ciborium or chalice) would not put the matter away from the minister’s presence. Finally, they must not be behind the minister’s back, and, even if they are before him but hidden (e.g., hosts under the corporal or chalice), the consecration is doubtful.

(c) Duties as regards Lawful Consecration.—Internally, there must be the state of grace, which the divine law prescribes, Further, one who is conscious of grave sin certainly committed and certainly unconfessed (unless inculpably omitted in confession) must go to confession beforehand, unless there be need to celebrate at once (e.g., because otherwise there will be no parochial Mass on a day of precept, or because grave scandal or defamation will result, or a dying person will be deprived of the Viaticum) and confession is impossible (i.e., there is no confessor present who has jurisdiction, or who can be resorted to without a serious inconvenience extrinsic to confession, and moreover it is very difficult on account of distance, health, weather, or other like reasons to go elsewhere to confession). Under these circumstances, he may make an act of perfect contrition and then proceed to celebrate. But one who has consecrated without confession because of such necessity must go to confession as soon as possible—i.e., within three days, or, if circumstances so require, earlier than that (e.g., if a confessor can be had the same day, but not again for a week) or later (e.g., if a confessor cannot be had for a week). These rules about confession are of grave obligation, from Church law at least (Canon 807). On account of disrespect, it seems that grave sin is committed when the celebrant is voluntarily and advertently distracted during consecration, but he should not repeat the form unless it is certain or very probable that something essential has been omitted. Externally, consecration must be made only during Mass, both species must be consecrated, a larger quantity must not be consecrated than can be conveniently used, the matter at the moment of consecration must rest on the corporal and above the stone of the altar, and a ciborium must be uncovered while its bread is being consecrated.

n. 2702.

Inadvertent Neglect of Grave Liturgical Precept

Inadvertent Neglect of Grave Liturgical Precept.—Is the consecration valid when the minister inadvertently neglects some grave liturgical precept as to the matter or manner of consecration?

(a) Some authors reply in the negative, because they feel that no priest has the will to consecrate in a way forbidden by the Church under pain of grave sin. According to this opinion, then, if accidentally no water were placed in the chalice, or if the chalice were unconsecrated, or if the ciborium were left off the corporal, the consecration would be invalid.

(b) Other authors distinguish as follows: if the celebrant intended not to consecrate with a material breach of grave liturgical prescription, the consecration would be null; if the celebrant had only the intention to consecrate all valid matter before him, the consecration would be valid. This latter intention, it seems, should be formed by all priests once for all, since it ensures the validity of their consecrations and is not sinful, as it does not aim to violate the rubrics, but only to provide for exceptional cases when a rubric is unintentionally violated.

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. IV, Art. 2. Baptism; Confirmat…, The Custody and Worship of the Eucharist

n. 2708.

Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament

Reservation of the Blessed Sacrament.—Having considered the duties owed to the consecration and communion of the Eucharist, we shall conclude by mentioning those that are owed to the Sacrament in its permanency or to Christ dwelling in the tabernacle.

(a) The Duty of Custody.—The Blessed Sacrament must be reserved in cathedral, abbatial, parochial, and religious churches; and it may be reserved with due permission of the Ordinary in collegiate churches and in certain public oratories; but there must be someone in charge, and it is not allowed to reserve the Eucharist in private homes or to carry it about when travelling. Churches which have the Blessed Sacrament should be open at least a few hours daily to the faithful. It is not lawful to reserve the Sacrament habitually on more than one altar of the church, and that altar should be the one that is most honorable or most suited for worship, and it should be suitably decorated. The tabernacle should be as precious as possible and be carefully guarded, and the Hosts should be reserved inside in a solid pyx or ciborium. Before the tabernacle should burn day and night a sanctuary lamp fed by olive or other oil (Canons 1265-1271).

(b) The Duty of Renewal of the Hosts.—The consecrated species kept for Communion and adoration should be frequently renewed, lest they be corrupted. It would be a serious sin of irreverence to neglect this duty for over one or two months, or even for a shorter time if the danger of corruption is great on account of local conditions, such as dampness (Canon 1272).

(c) The Duty of Worship.—Pastors and others in charge of religious instruction should encourage devotion to the Eucharist, and especially the practice of assistance at Mass even on weekdays and of visits to the Blessed Sacrament. Benediction may be given frequently, and at least once a year there should be held in every parish church the Devotion of the Forty Hours, or at least some more solemn exposition of the Blessed Sacrament for a number of hours (Canons 1273-1275).

Bucceroni, Institutions of Moral Theology

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 84 passages

Vol. I, On Laws, IX. Privileges of Clerics, Bishops, Regulars · Vol. I, On the Precept of Faith · Vol. III, On the Sacraments in General, II. On the Matter and Form of the Sacraments · Vol. III, On the Eucharist, I. On the Nature and Effects of the Eucharist · Vol. III, On the Eucharist, II. On the Matter and Form of the Eucharist · Vol. III, On the Eucharist, III. On the Minister of the Eucharist

Vol. I, On Laws, IX. Privileges of Clerics, Bishops, Regulars

n. 262.

As regards Mass. - "A Bishop can dispense for celebrating on another altar, or in a church not designated by the founder, when another just cause is present." L. 60; l. 6, n. 329. - "He can dispense for just causes both with himself and with others for celebrating after midday." L. 61; l. 6, n. 344. - They can celebrate not only in their own episcopal house, but also in lay houses, in which on occasion of visitation or a journey they are received with hospitality, and when, in cases permitted by law, or by special license of the Apostolic See, being absent from the house of their own habitation, they therefore make a stay in another's house after the manner of a similar habitation.

But not only can they themselves, wherever they dwell, celebrate even on a portable altar, but they can also permit another Mass for their own convenience; and the faithful hearing either one satisfy the precept. S. R. C., 22 Aug. 1818; 8 June 1896; L. 63; l. 6, n. 358; Bened. XIV, de Sacr. miss., l. 3, c. 6, n. 6. - They can grant the faculty of celebrating outside a church in a non-sacred place, if grave and proportionate causes are present; and in private houses, from just and reasonable causes, but by way of an act and in a decent place. S. C. de Sacram., 20 Dec. 1912; L. 64; l. 6, n. 344, 359; Lucidi, de Visit. Sacror. Limin., vol. 1, p. 97, n. 108. - When Bishops have died, Masses can be celebrated through the whole morning in the larger hall of their own residence, where the body lies exposed. S. R. C., 3 Apr. 1894; Ferraris, Supplementum, v. Missa de Requie, n. 7; E. M.

Vol. II, Treatise On the Eucharist, First Part. On the Eucharist as Sacrament · Vol. II, Treatise On the Eucharist, First Part. On the Euchari…, Chapter I. On the Nature and Efficacy of the Eucharist

As regards the Eucharist. - Besides public churches, Regulars also have private oratories. Now they can admit others in both, both for celebrating and for hearing the prescribed Mass. In public churches they retain the Most Holy Sacrament. But the license of the Ordinary is necessary for regulars, even exempt ones, so that they can publicly expose the Most Holy Sacrament uncovered; yet this is by no means required either for exposing the sacred Eucharist veiled, with the people present, or for exposing it uncovered, seculars being excluded. From the Constitutions of Julius II, Paul III, and St. Pius V, regulars can distribute the Most Holy Eucharist daily and to individual faithful, not even excepting Easter day. Regulars cannot in any way be prohibited by the Bishop from distributing the Most Holy Eucharist in their churches from Palm Sunday to Low Sunday.

Thus S. C. C., 9 July 1644; S. C. C., 27 Nov. 1912. Cf. Benedict XIV, de Syn., l. 9, c. 15, 16; l. 11, c. 14. Pius VI, 14 Jan. 1783, granted to the Congregation of Purity the faculty of celebrating two hours after midday and before dawn; and all who have communication in the privileges of regulars enjoy this privilege. "Regulars can celebrate one hour before dawn; wherefore they can celebrate Mass three hours before sunrise. Indeed, when some just cause is present, they can celebrate immediately after two hours after midnight. And this holds only for their own churches; in which, however, secular priests can also use a privilege of this sort. Moreover Eugene IV granted to regulars license of celebrating three hours after midday, yet from a just cause."

L. 122; Salmant., tr. 15, c. 7, p. 4, n. 94, 45; Pellizzar., Manuale Regul., tr. 8, c. 2, n. 97. But the same Holy Doctor hands down the opposite, l. 6, n. 342. Moreover in this latter place, n. 344, the Holy Doctor affirms that the faculty is present to all superiors of dispensing, in some particular case, from a reasonable cause, concerning the hour of Mass, "privilege set aside, toward their own religious, since they are their Ordinaries." Mendicants, at least superiors or prelates, have the privilege of blessing sacred vestments. L. 62, 121, 123; l. 6, n. 239, 240, 300, 357, 360, 363, 376, 378, 381; H. A. tr. 12, n. 41; Lugo, de Euchar., d. 18, n. 49-50; Diana, tom. 2, tr. 2 de Praec. div. et eccles. sacrae commun., r. 22, 23; Compend. Privil. Soc. Iesu, n. 409; E. M.

Vol. I, On the Precept of Faith

n. 365.

As to the Eucharist. - All must know and believe the real presence of Christ in it. Likewise, according to the common opinion, it must be believed explicitly that Christ is whole under each species, and more probably also that he is offered in sacrifice, since all must assist at the sacrifice of the Mass. But transubstantiation is more probably not to be believed explicitly. Lugo, d. 13, n. 121.

Vol. III, On the Sacraments in General, II. On the Matter and Form of the Sacraments

n. 315.

What is the form of the sacraments? - The form of the sacraments is certain words determined from the institution of Christ for perfecting the sacrament by perfecting the signification of the thing or matter. For what things demonstrate more obscurely, words signify more clearly. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 60, a. 6.

Vol. III, On the Eucharist, I. On the Nature and Effects of the Eucharist

n. 495.

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

n. 496.

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

n. 497.

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

n. 498.

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

n. 500.

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

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

n. 501.

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

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

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

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

n. 502.

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

n. 503.

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

n. 504.

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

n. 505.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

n. 506.

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

n. 507.

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

n. 508.

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

n. 509.

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

n. 510.

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

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

n. 511.

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

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

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

n. 512.

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

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

n. 513.

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

n. 514.

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

n. 516.

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

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

n. 517.

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

n. 518.

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

n. 519.

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

n. 520.

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

n. 521.

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

n. 522.

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

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

n. 523.

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

n. 524.

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

n. 525.

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

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

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

Vol. III, On the Eucharist, III. On the Minister of the Eucharist

n. 526.

Who is the minister of consecration and dispensation? - Every priest and only a priest, although he is bad, is the minister for confecting the Eucharist. This is clear 1. from Scripture; for Christ, instituting the sacrament, said to all and only the Apostles reclining with him, and therefore to all and only those who were going to succeed them in the priesthood: Do this in memory of me, Luke 22:19. Therefore all and only priests received this power from Christ. 2. From Trent sess. 22, c. 2, 3; Florence, Decree for the Armenians. 3. Finally from universal and perpetual tradition. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 1, 5. - Only priests or presbyters are ordinary ministers of the dispensation of the Eucharist. This is clear 1. from Trent sess. 13, c. 8, where it is said: "It has always been the custom in the Church of God that laymen receive communion from priests, but priests celebrating communicate themselves." 2. From the universal practice of the Church. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 3. - Deacons, by force of their ordination, are extraordinary ministers of the Eucharist, so that its dispensation can be committed to them. This is clear 1. from the practice of the earlier centuries, in which deacons everywhere, from the commission of bishops or presbyters, whether general or particular, ministered the Eucharist. 2. From various Councils, e.g., the first general Council of Nicaea, the fourth of Carthage, etc. L. 237; St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 3 ad 1, ad 3; Trent sess. 14, c. 10.

By ordinary law only the pastor, or his superior, can dispense the Eucharist. For for this there is required jurisdiction, ordinary, or delegated, or at least reasonably presumed, or a privilege, or custom, not indeed for the validity of the act, as in absolution, but for the due order of ministering. It belongs to pastors to feed, which is done chiefly through the sacraments. This is besides clear from the Councils, especially from Carthage I, can. 7, and from Milevis can. 18, Clement 1, de Privil., etc., and from the universal practice of the Church. Hence he who ministers the Eucharist without at least presumed permission of the pastor violates his right in a grave matter, and therefore sins gravely. - When the pastor grants others permission to celebrate in his church, he is always judged to grant also permission of ministering the Eucharist, unless he expresses the contrary; which is confirmed by common practice. Indeed custom has it that in whatever church a priest celebrates Mass, he can distribute the Eucharist to the faithful, which responds to the desire of Trent sess. 22, c. 6. - Yet permission is not so easily to be presumed if it concerns reception of the Eucharist from obligation. Wherefore as regards Paschal Communion, from Law and the universal practice of the Church, this is to be received in each one's own parish; likewise, to minister viaticum outside the case of necessity without permission of the pastor is illicit. Yet reasonably presumed permission suffices in each case. Cf. vol. 1, n. 1562. "It is also probable outside the article of death, from a grave cause and with scandal removed, that it is licit for a priest to take the sacred host from the tabernacle, or, brought by a deacon, to give it to himself, e.g., if in a long illness he had not communicated for a long time... Indeed Croix 471, etc., say that from the cause of devotion alone, a priest can always communicate himself, because, scandal being removed, there is no irreverence, nor is it forbidden anywhere, unless another priest is present." L. 238. - Lugo d. 18, n. 19, 36; L. 230, 231, 234, 235, 236, 239; E. M.

n. 527.

In order that a deacon may minister, must the necessity be extreme? In extreme necessity is it licit even for a layman to minister the Eucharist?

Resp. To the first: In the negative with the common opinion; but grave necessity suffices, namely when no priest is present who can conveniently minister the Eucharist. But for this a commission of the bishop or pastor is required. S. R. C., Feb. 25, 1777, n. 2504; L. 236. "But in extreme necessity, namely if another priest is absent, a deacon can and is bound to minister viaticum, even without the commission of the pastor; thus likewise the common doctors. And the same runs in the administration of baptism." L. 805. - But a deacon solemnly ministering the Eucharist without the required commission, according to St. Alphonsus 234, incurs irregularity, which however others deny. Cf. 419, 423; Lugo d. 18, n. 7, 72; Suarez d. 72, s. 1, n. 8; La Croix 472; L. l. 7, n. 346.

A deacon carrying viaticum to a sick person, when a presbyter is lacking and with permission of the Apostolic Vicar, can make the sprinkling of blessed water, say the Misereatur, the Indulgence, sign the sick person, say Dominus vobiscum with the Prayer, and bless the sick person and those assisting with the Sacrament. S. R. C., Aug. 14, 1858; E. M.

A deacon can carry the Eucharist from one altar to another, even with priests present. S. R. C., Nov. 23, 1906.

Resp. To the second: In extreme necessity it is licit not only for a deacon but also for a layman, scandal being excluded, to communicate both others and himself. L. 237. - When such a necessity occurs, e.g., in time of plague, it can well be permitted by the judgment of the bishop even to laymen to minister the Eucharist. S. C. de P. F., July 11, 1841, n. 728; L. 237. - St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 3; 4 d., q. 1, a. 3; E. M.

n. 528.

Whether, and in what circumstances, can religious minister the Most Holy Eucharist? - They can always minister the Eucharist in their own churches either by themselves or through other priests, with Easter day previously excepted. This is clear from the privileges of the Supreme Pontiffs. At Rome, Thursday in the Supper of the Lord was also excepted. - For the law by which it is prohibited that on Easter day in non-parish churches, especially regular churches, the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist be administered to the faithful even for the cause of devotion, is no longer to be observed. S. C. C., Nov. 27, 1912. Cf. Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 9, c. 16, n. 3; Const. Magno cum § 22; Lugo d. 16, n. 62; d. 18, n. 50; L. 249. - In other churches they cannot minister the Eucharist except with at least presumed permission of the pastors or superiors; nor viaticum to seculars except with express permission of the pastors, except in a case of necessity. Cf. 526, 1197. - "Regulars licitly give the Eucharist... if the sick person has satisfied the precept concerning viaticum, with the intention of fulfilling it; because administration of the Eucharist is forbidden to regulars only when the precept of communion obliges.

Yet never, without permission of the bishop or pastor, is it licit for religious publicly to carry the Eucharist through the streets, since this derogates from the right of pastors obtained by custom; therefore in that case, in the oratory of the sick person, or another honorable place of the house (if legitimate faculty is had), sacred action having been privately done, the Eucharist is to be given." L. 239, 240; Elbel 57; La Croix 624, 626; Benedict XIV, de Syn. l. 9, c. 15, 16. Cf. here 536.

n. 529.

What about the obligation of dispensing the Eucharist? - A pastor, or any priest having care of souls, is bound from justice to minister the Eucharist to subjects, not only at Easter and in danger of death, but also as often as they reasonably ask, nevertheless excluding the cause of a legitimate impediment. The reason is that it belongs to the pastor from quasi-contract to provide, not only that the faithful fulfill precepts, but also that they not lack helps which greatly profit spiritual progress. Roman Ritual, de SS. Euch. sacr., de Commun. infirm.; L. H. A. 8. - Any priest whatever, whether secular or regular, is bound, the pastor lacking, to minister the Eucharist to one about to die; otherwise in other cases. The first reason is that anyone is bound from charity to aid his neighbor constituted in so great an extremity through this salutary and most efficacious remedy. The second reason is that no obligation intervenes, either from justice, since there is no contract, or from charity, since it is not supposed that a case of necessity is present.

n. 535.

What is required for the licit dispensation of the Eucharist? - Besides due faculty, it is required that the minister be free from every excommunication, interdict, and suspension from sacred things; otherwise he would sin gravely and would contract irregularity. - It is required that the minister be in the state of grace, because the most august and most holy Body of Christ must not be treated by impure hands. L. 30 seq. Cf. 353. - It is required that the minister distribute the Eucharist according to the accustomed rite of the Church. Hence generally speaking, the administration of this sacrament is to be omitted when it cannot be done in the manner prescribed by the Roman Ritual or by the custom of the place. - The burse with the corporal must always be used, on which the sacred pyx is to be placed as often as Communion is administered outside Mass, as is suggested in the Rubric of the Roman Ritual, which is preceptive. S. R. C., Feb. 27, 1847, n. 2932. - If outside Mass, or immediately before or after Mass, Communion is to be ministered only to nuns, and the choir is situated either behind the altar or at a distance from the altar, the priest places the ciborium at the little window of the choir, and there, turned toward the nuns, says the Misereatur, and Ecce Agnus Dei, etc. S. R. C., July 13, 1893, n. 3800. - L. 241 seq.; E. M.

n. 537.

When can the Eucharist be ministered? - It can be ministered both outside Mass, and in Mass, both before and after Mass from a reasonable cause. Roman Ritual, Order of administering sacramental communion. Before or after a private Mass, not a solemn or sung Mass, or even a conventual Mass. S. R. C., Jan. 19, 1906, ad 3. But in Mass it can be ministered, whatever kind it may be; even of the dead, and in black vestments, whether within Mass, namely after the communion of the priest, even by extracting the pyx, or immediately before, from a just and reasonable cause, or immediately after, the blessing being omitted in either case, and in Paschal time Alleluia being omitted, although the Prayer and Versicles of the time must be said. Roman Ritual; S. R. C., June 27, 1868, General Decree n. 3177;

Nov. 26, 1878, n. 3465; Benedict XIV, de Sacrif. miss. l. 3, c. 18. It can be ministered on any day, except Friday of greater week, as is drawn from the Rubrics of the Missal on Thursday in the Supper of the Lord, and from universal custom, and this is prohibited under grave obligation. It can be given in the solemn Mass of Holy Saturday and after Mass, S. R. C., March 22, 1806, n. 2561; Apr. 28, 1914. Nor likewise can it be given in the Mass of the Nativity of Our Lord which is celebrated at midnight, outside the case of privilege or legitimate custom. - Benedict XIV, De Sacrif. miss. l. 3, c. 18. Likewise it can be ministered at any hour at which Mass is celebrated; indeed, if a special cause is present, at any hour of the day. But toward evening it is not to be ministered unless a grave cause is present; but at night only in a case of necessity, both because of present-day custom and because scandal or rather wonder is to be avoided; which, as is clear, is not verified in Communities which reserve the Most Holy Eucharist in a domestic chapel, where it concerns Communion of the sick. L. 252, 349; Suarez d. 66, s. 5; Benedict XIV, de Sacr. miss. c. 18, n. 14; E. M.

If a special cause is present; unless a grave cause is present; for from the general rule one must stand by the Decree of S. R. C. "Whether only from time to time, when Mass is permitted to be celebrated, Communion is to be ministered to the Christian faithful according to Decree 2572, ad 23; or whether it is also licit to minister beyond the aforesaid time, namely until sunset? "Resp. In the affirmative to the first part; in the negative to the second." S. R. C., June 11, 1904; Sept. 7, 1816, n. 2572, ad 23.

From the indult which priests enrolled in the Eucharistic Priestly League have, it can be distributed from the first hour before dawn until sunset. It cannot be distributed within Mass only on the night of the Nativity, unless likewise an indult is had, which was granted to all religious Communities, seminaries of clerics, and pious houses having an oratory, with the faculty of reserving the Most Holy Sacrament. There can be celebrated there on the night of the Nativity of Our Lord Jesus Christ three Masses, and Holy Communion can be distributed to all standing by, the doors being closed. Holy Office, Aug. 1, 1907. - It is not licit to distribute Communion at an altar on which the Most Holy Sacrament is exposed, if other altars are not lacking in the church. Indeed neither is it licit to celebrate Mass at that altar without grave cause or indult. Cf. Ceremonial of Bishops l. 1, c. 12, n. 8, 9; S. R. C., Feb. 8, 1913.

Violet or white color is to be used in Communion administered outside Mass on the day of the Commemoration of all the Faithful Departed. S. R. C., Apr. 19, 1912, ad 10. "A priest clothed in the sacred vestments of the Sacrifice cannot administer Holy Communion before or after solemn or sung Mass, or even conventual Mass, as is permitted before or after private Mass." S. R. C., Jan. 19, 1906, ad 3.

Holy Communion can be ministered to a layman serving Mass within the presbytery and at the edge of the footpace of the altar, even if he is not clothed in clerical habit. S. R. C., June 8, 1911.

n. 538.

Immediately after consecration, can Communion, from some just cause, be distributed to the people by another priest from particles consecrated in the Mass before the celebrant communicates? - Some affirm, because just as particles of this kind can not be consumed by the priest or by other communicants, although they are after the manner of one victim, provided the priest receives another part of the matter then consecrated, so they can be carried by another priest into another place for the use of the faithful even before the Communion of the priest, provided as much remains as suffices for the integrity of the sacrifice. Others deny it, because all the following prayers and blessings equally regard them, nor is it fitting that another participate in the sacrifice before the priest himself, who is principally offering. Thus also from S. R. C., May 11, 1878, ad 7, n. 3443. St. Thomas 3 p., q. 82, a. 4; Diana tr. 1, de Celebr. miss., r. 232, 233.

…and 44 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

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

Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J.; notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. — 17 passages

Vol. II, Treatise On the Eucharist, First Part. On the Eucharist as Sacrament

We must treat: 1. of the nature and efficacy; 2. of the matter and form; 3. of the Minister; 4. of the subject of the Eucharist.

Vol. II, Treatise On the Eucharist, First Part. On the Euchari…, Chapter I. On the Nature and Efficacy of the Eucharist

The Eucharist is defined: The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, under the species of bread and wine, for the spiritual refreshment of souls.

n. ¶2.

Or: A Sacrament of the new law instituted by Christ the Lord for the spiritual refreshment of the soul, in which the Body and Blood of Christ are truly, really, and substantially contained under the species of bread and wine. This is clear from the Council of Trent, sess. 13, ch. 2 and 3.

Matters To Be Established As Of Faith. - I. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist Christ is really present in body and soul, together with the divinity. This is clear: 1. from the words of the promise of the Most Holy Eucharist in John 6.52: The bread which I will give is my flesh for the life of the world, etc.; 2. from the words of institution of the Most Holy Eucharist at the last supper, Matt. 26.26: This is my body, etc.; 3. from the whole tradition, and also from the definition of the Church; for thus Trent, sess. 13, can. 1: If anyone shall deny that in the Sacrament of the most holy Eucharist there are contained truly, really, and substantially the Body and Blood, together with the soul and divinity, of our Lord Jesus Christ, and consequently the whole Christ, but shall say that he is in it only as in a sign, or figure, or virtue, let him be anathema.

II. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist the whole Christ is contained under each species, and, when separation has been made, in any part of the species, at least a sensible part, and indeed permanently.

Hence Christ is contained as much under either one species as under both; as much in the least part of either species, at least when separation has been made, as in a greater part or in the whole species. Therefore the entire Body of Christ is had under the species of wine, no otherwise than under the species of bread. For although, by force of the words, the Body is placed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, nevertheless the whole Body exists undivided under the individual species. The reason is that, since the Body of Christ is living, all its parts by force of natural concomitance are inseparable, since Christ rising from the dead now dieth no more, as the Apostle says, Rom. 6.9. The divinity also exists under each species because of the admirable hypostatic union by which the body and soul are joined to the person of the Word. Concerning all these things it is clear from Trent, sess. 13, ch. 3 and can. 1 and 3. - Likewise from the Decree of the Council of Florence to the Armenians.

III. In the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is true transubstantiation, or the real conversion of the whole substance of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, so that, when the consecration has been completed, nothing remains of the bread and wine, the species alone excepted. This is clear: 1. from Sacred Scripture, namely from the words of Christ: This is my body, etc.; for these words signify simply that the present matter is the body of Christ, nor would they be simply true if the substance of bread remained together with the body of Christ; 2. from the whole tradition, and from the definition of the Church in many Councils, especially in Trent, sess. 13, can. 2.

Questions. - QUESTION 1. How long does Christ remain really present in the Eucharist?

Resp. He remains as long as the species remain entire; but he ceases to be under them as soon as the species are corrupted in such a way that, according to the estimation of men, they no longer seem to be bread and wine. - Then, by the law established by God in the institution of this Sacrament, the same matter is substituted for the species which would succeed corrupted bread and wine. - St. Ligorius, n. 225. - Lacroix, n. 474.

QUESTION 2. How long are the sacred species judged to remain entire after reception of the Sacrament?

Resp. It is not established; some say after a minute, others after five minutes, others after half a quarter of an hour ¹. But they remain longer in a Priest, who in Mass communicates under each species and with a larger Host, than in a layman, who according to custom receives only a small Host. - St. Ligorius, ibid., etc.

¹ Concerning this matter it seems that no general rule at all can be handed down. shorter or longer delay is chiefly to be sought from the different digestive power of different men. Nor is it only ascertained that some have easier digestion, others more difficult digestion, but that the same man also, according to different circumstances, both internal, namely the habit of the body and especially of the stomach, and external, for example according to the temperature of the weather, digests foods now more quickly, now more slowly; and we know that not rarely it has happened that, after vomiting had been provoked after a longer space, for example of half an hour or even an hour, the sacramental species were returned almost entire.

n. 274.

- QUESTION 3. Whether the Eucharist is one Sacrament or a twofold Sacrament?

n. 274.

Resp. It is one Sacrament in species, although there are several signs. For although there is a physical plurality of sign, nevertheless there is moral unity; for the Sacrament of the Eucharist, although it is composed of the species of bread and wine physically distinct, nevertheless is ordered to one spiritual refreshment in species, as to the end and signified effect, just as material food and drink are ordered to a single bodily refreshment. Thus in Extreme Unction there are several anointings, and nevertheless one Sacrament is had, because those several anointings are ordered to one end and effect, namely to taking away the remains of sins. - Thus most commonly and certainly with St. Thomas, 3 part, q. 73, art. 2. - St. Ligorius, n. 194 and 199.

- QUESTION 4. What are the effects of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in the soul?

Resp. The principal effects are the following, namely: 1. the increase of sanctifying grace, which constitutes the principal effect of the Eucharist. For according to the words of Christ (John 6.56), My flesh is truly food, this Sacrament was instituted as spiritual nourishment; and nourishment supposes life in him who receives it; from this it happens that through this nourishment the very life of the soul, which chiefly consists in sanctifying grace, is strengthened and increased; 2. the attainment of eternal glory, for Christ promises this: If anyone shall eat of this bread, he shall live forever (John 6.52, etc.); 3. a most abundant bestowal of actual graces, which flow from habitual grace and infused habits; 4. the weakening of evil habits and correction of vices, especially of lust; 5. the remission of venial sins; this is clear from Trent, sess. 13, ch. 2, where the Eucharist is called the antidote by which we are freed from daily faults and preserved from mortal sins; 6. the remission of temporal punishment due to sin, not indeed of the whole, but according to the manner of devotion and fervor, as St. Thomas says, part 3, q. 79, art. 5; 7. special union with Christ and his members, as is clear from John 6.57: He who eateth my flesh and drinketh my blood abideth in me, and I in him; 8. preservation from future sins, both because, charity being increased through this food, the soul becomes stronger against corrupted nature, and because it is an efficacious memorial of the Lord's Passion, through which the demons were conquered. - St. Ligorius, n. 268 and 269, Homo apostolicus, n. 5.

QUESTION 5. Whether the Eucharist can ever delete mortal sin?

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. IV, Section I. On The Eucharist As It Is A Sacrament · Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. IV, Sect. I, Chapter I. On The Notion And Institution Of The Eucharist

Resp. The answer is affirmative, more probably, not indeed per se, but per accidens and mediately through the infusion of grace, namely when someone, ignorant that he is in a state of mortal sin, approaches the Eucharist in good faith and with attrition concerning sins committed beforehand. Then nothing prevents the Sacrament from producing its effect; but it cannot produce the effect while mortal sin remains. Therefore it must indirectly remove that sin. - St. Ligorius, n. 268. - Recall the things said on the Sacraments in general, n. 192.

Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J. — 2 passages

Vol. III, Bk. II, Tr. IV, Title II: On the Most Holy Sacrament of the Eucharist

n. 365.

— Utility. While we are preparing to speak about the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist, which is deservedly called the sacrament of sacraments, it has seemed good to us first to gather the utility of the argument from its very nobility. It pleases us to set forth this excellence in the words of the Council of Trent, sess. XIII, ch. 3, and of St. Thomas, who throughout his treatises can be called the Doctor, and by his hymns the Singer, of the Most Holy Eucharist.

"This indeed is common to the Most Holy Eucharist with the other sacraments, that it is a symbol of a sacred thing and a visible form of invisible grace; but this excellent and singular thing is found in it, that the other sacraments first have the power of sanctifying when someone uses them, but in the Eucharist the author of sanctity himself is present before use" (Trent).

"This sacrament of itself has power to confer grace" (3 p., q. 79, art. 1, ad 1). "The effect which the passion of Christ made in the world, this sacrament makes in man" (ibid., c.). "Simply speaking, the sacrament of the Eucharist is the chief among the other sacraments. And this appears in three ways: first, from that which is contained in it; for in the sacrament of the Eucharist Christ himself is contained substantially, but in the other sacraments there is contained a certain instrumental power participated from Christ... Secondly, this appears from the order of the sacraments to one another; for all the other sacraments seem to be ordered to this sacrament as to an end. For it is manifest that the sacrament of Order is ordered to the consecration of the Eucharist; but the sacrament of Baptism is ordered to the reception of the Eucharist, in which one is also perfected by Confirmation, so that he may not be afraid to withdraw himself from such a sacrament; by Penance also and Extreme Unction man is prepared for worthily receiving the body of Christ; Matrimony also, at least by its signification, touches this sacrament, inasmuch as it signifies the conjunction of Christ and the Church, whose unity is figured by the sacrament of the Eucharist... Thirdly, this appears from the rite of the sacraments. For nearly all the sacraments are consummated in the Eucharist, as is clear from the fact that the ordained communicate, and also the baptized, if they are adults" (3 p., q. 65, art. 3, c.).

If then we turn directly to considering practical utility, through a prudent manner of counseling the use of the sacrament the confessor will be able greatly to preserve, strengthen, and restore the virtue of the penitent. Therefore, as priest he must draw from the present part of the treatise rules concerning licit administration, and as spiritual physician counsels concerning the use of this sacrament.

n. 366.

— Appendix IX belongs to this section. Historical Matters Concerning the Sacrament of the Most Holy Eucharist. Cf. Appendix IX.

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. — 5 passages

Vol. III, Pt. II, Tr. IV, Section I. On The Eucharist As It Is A Sacrament

n. ¶27.

We divide this section into five chapters: 1. on the notion and institution of the Eucharist; 2. on its matter and form; 3. on its effects; 4. on its subject; 5. on its minister.

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

n. 165.

165. Diverse names.

a) The name Eucharist is taken from the Greek verb εὐχαριστεῖν, to give thanks, because St. Paul, narrating the institution of this sacrament, says: "And giving thanks, He broke and said: Take," and so forth;² hence Eucharist is the same as an act of thanksgiving. The Roman Catechism³ gives still other explanations of this name.

b) This sacrament is called synaxis, or gathering, congregation, communion, union, both because the faithful are gathered together in some place to celebrate this mystery,⁴ and because the faithful who eat this one bread ought to form one mystical body.⁵

c) It is called the Supper of the Lord,⁶ because Christ instituted this sacrament at the Last Supper. This appellation greatly pleases Protestants, who misuse it to teach that the Eucharist is not a permanent sacrament but consists in a transient use alone.

d) It is called Viaticum,⁷ because this sacrament refreshes, sustains, and strengthens one on the way, and especially on the final journey, when the soul must pass into eternity. There are, furthermore, several other appellations, for example, the breaking of bread, supersubstantial bread, sacrament of the altar, most holy sacrament, Body of Christ, and so forth. The Angelic Doctor⁸ explains why this sacrament is fittingly designated by so many diverse names.

² 1 Corinthians 11:24.

³ P. 2, c. 4, q. 3.

⁴ Cf. 1 Corinthians 11:20.

⁵ Cf. 1 Corinthians 10:17.

⁶ German: Abendmahl (evening meal).

⁷ German: Wegzehrung (provision for a journey).

⁸ In S. theol. 3, q. 73, a. 4.

n. 166.

166. Definition. The sacrament of the Eucharist can be considered in three ways: in fieri, in facto esse, and in use.

If it is considered in the first way:

The Eucharist is the conversion of bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, the species remaining, for the nourishment of the soul; or, more briefly, it is the very act of transubstantiation, that is, the very words of consecration insofar as they attain the matter to be consecrated.

If it is considered in the second way:

The Eucharist is the sacrament of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ under the species of bread and wine for the nourishment of the soul, instituted by Christ.

Finally, if it is considered in the third way:

The Eucharist is the reception of the Body and Blood of Christ under the Eucharistic species.

The second mode of understanding is the more proper mode. For although reception is a condition without which the Eucharist cannot produce its sacramental effect, and accordingly is altogether necessary even in the sacrifice of the Mass, nevertheless the sacrament is already complete before its use, and this is something altogether peculiar to the sacrament of the Eucharist.

The Scholastics dispute wherein precisely the essence of this sacrament as such is situated. From what was said above concerning the essence of the sacraments, it is evident that every sacrament is a practical sign of grace. Now, in the Eucharist, this sign of grace appears to be the consecrated species, as containing the Body and Blood of Christ. Therefore, they are also the essence of the sacrament of the Eucharist. The Roman Catechism also teaches this, saying: "But it is evident that all these things [which were recounted previously] are less properly called sacraments. The species of bread and wine themselves, however, possess the true and absolute character of this name."⁹ Whoever seeks more concerning this controversy, which is theoretical rather than practical, may consult Billuart¹⁰ or the dogmatic theologians.

⁹ P. 2, c. 4, q. 8.

¹⁰ De euchar., diss. 2, a. 1, § 2.

n. 167.

167. Signification. Since it is proper to each sacrament to signify something, the Eucharist signifies three things: 1. the Passion of Christ; hence St. Paul says: "As often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall announce the death of the Lord until He comes";¹¹ 2. grace for nourishing and sustaining the soul; 3. the pledge of future glory. Although many things are contained in the sacrament of the Eucharist, and things pertaining to its essence, namely, a twofold matter, a twofold form, and reception, nevertheless it is not a multiple sacrament, but is one moral being, because each of its parts has the same threefold signification.¹² From this it follows that one who receives the Eucharist under both species does not receive greater grace than one who has received Communion under the species of bread alone. Thus teaches the truer opinion. The Eucharist confers sanctifying grace upon the soul in the very reception or eating, that is, when the species are conveyed from the mouth into the stomach. For Christ said: "He who eats Me, the same also shall live because of Me."¹³ Hence, if someone retains the species in his mouth so long that they have dissolved, or if a dying person cannot swallow the species, he does not receive the grace of the sacrament. One, however, who has received the species into the stomach but afterward vomits them has truly eaten and accordingly received grace.

¹¹ 1 Corinthians 11:26.

¹² Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 73, a. 2, and Roman Catechism, loc. cit., q. 10.

¹³ John 6:58.

n. 168.

168. Institution. That the Eucharist is a true sacrament instituted by Christ is of faith, and is so certain that scarcely any heretic has dared to deny it. Several indeed erred concerning the real presence of Christ in this sacrament, but scarcely anyone denied its existence. In our times, however, certain Protestants, such as Jülicher, Spitta, and others, have dared to deny that the institution of the Eucharist was made by Christ.¹⁴ Catholic doctrine was defined at the Fourth Lateran Council,¹⁵ the Council of Florence,¹⁶ and the Council of Trent.¹⁷ Christ instituted this sacrament on the day before He suffered, at the Last Supper, when, taking bread and wine into His hands, He said: "Take and eat: this is My Body.... Drink ye all of this; for this is My Blood."¹⁸ "Do this in commemoration of Me."¹⁹

In the Eucharist the three constitutive elements of every sacrament are found most clearly: institution by Christ; a sensible sign, namely, bread and wine; invisible grace on account of Christ's promise: "If anyone shall eat of this bread, he shall live forever."²⁰

¹⁴ Cf. G. Rauschen, Eucharistie und Bußsakr., § 3.

¹⁵ Denz., n. 430.

¹⁶ Denz., n. 698.

¹⁷ Sess. 7, can. 1 on the sacraments in general, and sess. 13 throughout (Denz., nn. 844 and 874 sqq.).

¹⁸ Matthew 26:26 sqq.

¹⁹ Luke 22:19.

²⁰ John 6:52.

Marc, Institutiones Morales

Clement Marc, C.SS.R. — 8 passages

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Dissertation I: On the Most Holy Eucharist Insofar as It Is a Sacrament · Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. I, Chapter I: On the Nature of the Eucharist · Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. I, Ch. I, Article I: On the Notion and Effect of the Eucharist

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Dissertation I: On the Most Holy Eucharist Insofar as It Is a Sacrament

In this dissertation one must treat: 1. of the nature of the Eucharist; 2. of the Minister; 3. of the Subject; 4. of the reservation and worship of the Eucharist.

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. I, Chapter I: On the Nature of the Eucharist

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARIST AS SACRAMENT · Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, CHAPTER I: ON THE NATURE AND EFFICACY OF THE EUCHARIST

We shall investigate the nature of the Eucharist in a twofold article. Speech will be in the first on its notion and effect; in the second on its constituents, that is, on its matter and form.

Vol. II, Part Third: On the Sacrame…, Tr. IV, Diss. I, Ch. I, Article I: On the Notion and Effect of the Eucharist

n. ¶1509.

DEFINITION. The Eucharist, that is, good grace, is the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, under the species of bread and wine, divinely instituted for the spiritual refreshment of the soul.¹⁸

It is said 1. is a Sacrament; "for in it there are external signs and signs subject to the senses; it then has the signification and efficacy of grace; moreover, concerning the institution of Christ neither the Evangelists¹⁹ nor the Apostle²⁰ leave a place for doubting."²¹

It is said 2. of the Body and Blood of Christ, under the species of bread and wine: for the Tridentine Synod teaches that "in the nourishing Sacrament of the holy Eucharist, after the consecration of bread and wine, Our Lord Jesus Christ, true God and man, is contained truly, really, and substantially, under the species of those sensible things."²²

It is said 3. divinely instituted for the spiritual refreshment of the soul: by which words the principal effect of this Sacrament is expressed. For "just as earthly bread nourishes the body, so heavenly bread nourishes the soul, and makes it grow in divine love."²³

n. ¶1510.

Since, therefore, the Most Holy EUCHARIST consists both of the body of Christ and of the species under which the body of Christ lies hidden, if it is asked in what precisely the essence of this Sacrament is situated, St. Alphonsus responds: "There are several opinions, but two more received. Some say the essence of the Eucharist consists directly in the species of bread and wine; and that the body of Christ pertains to the Sacrament only obliquely, that is, as something extrinsically connoted. Others say that it consists directly equally in the species and in the body of Christ. Each opinion is probable."²⁴

But if it is asked IN WHAT MANNER the Body of Christ begins to become present, it must be said that it becomes present neither by production from nothing, nor by being brought from heaven, but "by the conversion of the whole substance of bread into the substance of the Body of Christ our Lord, and of the whole substance of wine into the substance of His Blood; which conversion has fittingly and properly been called TRANSUBSTANTIATION by the holy Catholic Church."²⁵

n. ¶1511.

Principles. I. The whole CHRIST under each species, and under any part of each species, is REALLY PRESENT. The first part of the proposition is of faith; likewise the second, if it is understood of separated parts of the species.²⁶ But if it is understood of continuous parts, before separation has been made, it is certain, and altogether to be held.²⁷

The COUNCIL OF TRENT speaks thus aptly to the matter: "This faith has always been in the Church of God, that immediately after consecration, the true body of Our Lord and His true blood exist under the species of bread and wine, together with His soul and divinity; but the body indeed under the species of bread, and the blood under the species of wine, by force of the words; but the body itself under the species of wine, and the blood under the species of bread, and the soul under each, by force of that natural connection and concomitance by which the parts of Christ the Lord, who has now risen from the dead, no longer to die, are joined among themselves; moreover the divinity, on account of that admirable hypostatic union of it with the body and soul. Wherefore it is most true that just as much is contained under either species as under both: for whole and entire Christ exists under the species of bread, and under any part of that species; likewise whole under the species of wine, and under its parts."²⁸

Therefore Christ EXISTS in the Sacrament in a singular and altogether ineffable MANNER, which St. Thomas thus expresses: "The Body of Christ is in this Sacrament by way of substance, that is, by the manner in which substance is under dimensions... But it is manifest that the nature of substance is whole under any part of the dimensions under which it is contained, just as under any part of air there is the whole nature of air, and under any part of bread there is the whole nature of bread. And this indifferently, whether the dimensions are actually divided, as when air is divided or bread is cut, or even are actually undivided, but divisible in potency."²⁹

And hence it is why some teach that the whole specific notion of this Sacrament is saved in the species of bread or wine alone, taken separately. This opinion is indeed probable; but the opposite is more probable, since only through each species is signified a BANQUET or refreshment of food and drink, in which the specific notion or essence of this Sacrament consists.³⁰

It is asked: Whence is the NUMERICAL UNITY of this Sacrament taken?

Resp. Some say it is taken from the unity of the body of Christ; others from the physical continuation of the parts themselves of the species; finally others, and more probably, from the moral conjunction which the species have while they are proposed or taken after the manner of one thing. Whence, if diverse consecrated species, or several parts of the same species, are proposed at the same time and on the same altar, or ministered to the same person, there will be one Sacrament; but if the same species are divided, and proposed on diverse altars, or ministered to diverse persons, or to the same person at diverse turns morally distinct, there will be diverse Sacraments.³¹

n. ¶1512.

II. The Eucharist is a PERMANENT Sacrament. "That excellent and singular thing is found in it, that the remaining Sacraments then first have the power of sanctifying when someone uses them; but in the Eucharist the Author Himself of sanctity is before use; for the Apostles had not yet received the Eucharist from the hand of the Lord, when nevertheless He Himself truly affirmed that what He was giving was His Body."³²

Q. When does the body of Christ CEASE to be under the species?

Resp. It ceases when so great a change of the species has been made as would have had to be made in order that the substance of bread and wine in unconsecrated species would be corrupted.³³

Hence: 1. If a little consecrated wine is mixed with other wine, at least of the same species, as happens in the first ablution, Christ does not cease to be there. If the wine is very diverse, it is disputed whether from the mixing of the species such a change arises as would suffice to destroy the substance of consecrated wine. Yet, in this doubt, it must be held that the species are not corrupted. But if to consecrated wine there is mixed a liquid of another species, for example water, in so great a quantity that the accidents of wine are corrupted, namely in such a way that the substance of wine, if it were present, could not be conserved, Christ ceases to be present under those species.¹

The species, in one receiving the Sacrament, are consumed sooner or later according to the greater or lesser digestive power. Yet commonly, in a healthy man, the species are judged to be corrupted at least after a quarter hour from Communion, even in a priest.² Otherwise in a sick person, who even after an hour can reject the species plainly incorrupt.
"Species rejected by vomiting, if they are such that under them bread or wine can exist, are truly to be adored; and if they are again taken, they again confer grace, as Cardinal de Lugo teaches."³

n. ¶1513.

III. The EFFECT of the Eucharist is the NOURISHMENT of souls through the perfection of charity. The Most Holy Eucharist indeed has this in common with the other Sacraments of the living, that it confers an INCREASE OF GRACE, but not first grace except per accidens, as was said above, n. 1395. But its proper effect is that this increase of grace imports the refreshment of the soul, namely for fostering charity and perfecting UNION with Christ, as He Himself promised in John 6:57, saying: "He who eats My flesh and drinks My blood abides in Me, and I in him."

But since this nourishing Sacrament has the notion of FOOD, "therefore, every effect which material food and drink makes with respect to bodily life, namely that it sustains, increases, repairs, and delights, this whole thing this Sacrament does with respect to spiritual life." Thus St. Thomas.⁴

Therefore the principal EFFECTS of the Eucharist in the SOUL, besides the increase of grace, are the following:⁵

REMISSION OF VENIAL SINS (it repairs); for this Sacrament, according to Trent,⁶ "is an antidote by which we are freed from venial faults and preserved from mortal sins." "But the Salmanticenses think with others that Communion of itself destroys venial sins from the work worked, through the very infusion of grace by which the soul is refreshed. But Tournely says better that the Sacrament destroys venial sins not immediately of itself, but by means of an act of charity which it excites in the soul."⁷ And in the same way it remits temporal punishment due for sins.
PRESERVATION FROM MORTAL SINS (it sustains); as is established from the praised words of Trent. But the Eucharist preserves us from death of the soul through the help of sacramental grace, by which devotion is excited, temptations are more strongly resisted, demons are put to flight, etc. Indeed, grave authors assert that from the reception of the Eucharist the soul is fortified by such external protection that God does not permit it to be living in occasions in which it would fall into sin.⁸
INCREASE OF VIRTUES (it increases); for just as the body through natural food is not only conserved, but also grows, so similarly the soul through supernatural food, that is, the Eucharist, is not only sustained, but also strengthened and enriched with a supply of graces, by which the exercise of all virtues, especially charity, is promoted more and more.
SPIRITUAL SWEETNESS (it delights); and this effect indeed is infallible, unless it is impeded on account of the fault of the recipient. But this sweetness consists in a certain cheerfulness of the will for accomplishing all things which are known to be pleasing and acceptable to God (cf. n. 536).
ATTAINMENT OF GLORY, according to that of Christ (John 6:59): "He who eats this bread will live forever." "By the grace of this Sacrament, namely, the faithful, while they pass this life, enjoy the highest peace and tranquillity of conscience; then, recreated by its power, not otherwise than Elias, who by the strength of the hearth-baked bread walked even to the mountain of God Horeb, when the time of departing from life has come, ascend to eternal glory and beatitude."⁹

n. ¶1514.

Nor do the effects of the Eucharist extend to the soul alone, but also to the BODY itself, as the Fathers teach. But they are the following:

THE QUIETING OF CONCUPISCENCE and of the tinder of sin. But the Eucharist works this quieting partly by putting demons to flight, lest they excite species of a shameful object, partly by repressing the powers of the humors, mitigating ardor, etc.¹⁰
The future RESURRECTION AND GLORY of the body, on account of a special title, namely because of the union of our bodies with the life-giving flesh of Christ, which is the cause of our resurrection, as Christ promised, saying in John 6:55: "I will raise him up on the last day."

It is asked: Whether the Eucharist, insofar as it is a Sacrament, can profit OTHERS than those receiving?

Resp. 1. It cannot profit DIRECTLY and from the work worked; because it was instituted by way of food; but food does not profit except the one taking it. 2. It can profit INDIRECTLY and from the work of the worker, both the living by way of impetration, and the departed by way of satisfaction and suffrage, if namely the one communicating offers this act of religion to God in their favor. Add that the prayers which accompany or follow Communion are more acceptable to God than those which are poured forth at another time. Whence the Congregation of the INDEX, under Innocent X, condemned the book of Theophilus Raynaud, who attacked the custom of communicating for the departed.¹¹ See the dogmatic authors.

Konings, Theologia Moralis

Anthony Konings, C.SS.R. — 3 passages

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARIST AS SACRAMENT

We must treat: 1° of the nature and efficacy; 2° of the matter and form; 3° of the Minister; 4° of the subject of the Eucharist.

Vol. II, TREATISE ON THE EUCHARIST, FIRST PART: ON THE EUCHARI…, CHAPTER I: ON THE NATURE AND EFFICACY OF THE EUCHARIST

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

The Eucharist is defined: The Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Christ, under the species of bread and wine, for the spiritual refreshment of souls. It is established from Trent.¹

n. ¶1278.

1278. Questions. - Query 1° How long does Christ remain really present in the Eucharist?

Resp. He remains as long as the species remain entire; but he ceases to be present under them immediately when the species are so corrupted that, according to the estimation of men, they no longer seem to be bread and wine. - Then, by the law established by God in the institution of this Sacrament, there is substituted for the species the same matter which would succeed to the corrupted bread and wine.²

Query 2° How long are the sacred species thought to remain entire, i.e. not corrupted, after the taking of the Sacrament?

Resp. It is not established. The mechanical dissolution of the species is carefully to be distinguished from their corruption or chemical change. The former is not considered here, since it does not remove the real presence. The latter is a little slower or quicker according to the different digestive power of different men and the different circumstances of the same man, both internal (for example, the condition of the stomach) and external (for example, the temperature of the sky). Hence an absolutely universal answer can scarcely be handed down. Capellmann the physician¹ thinks that with those things which are vomited before a half-hour has elapsed after Communion, even of lay persons, the same thing should be done which the Church prescribes must be done with species not yet corrupted. But this certainly must be done when the species are still discerned, although several hours after Communion have elapsed.

Query 3° What are the effects of the Sacrament of the Eucharist in the soul?

Resp. The principal ones are the following, namely: 1° an increase of sanctifying grace, which constitutes the principal effect of the Eucharist. For, according to the words of Christ:² My flesh is truly food, this Sacrament was instituted as spiritual nourishment; and nourishment supposes life in him who receives it; hence it comes to pass that through this nourishment the very life of the soul, which consists chiefly in sanctifying grace, is strengthened and increased; 2° the obtaining of eternal glory; for Christ promises this: If anyone shall eat of this bread, he shall live forever;³ 3° a most abundant bestowal of actual graces, which flow from habitual grace and infused habits;

4° weakening of evil habits and amendment of vices, especially of lust; 5° remission of venial sins: this is established from Trent,¹ where the Eucharist is called an antidote, by which we are freed from daily faults, and are preserved from mortal sins; 6° remission of the temporal punishment due to sin; not indeed of all of it, but according to the mode of devotion and fervor, as St. Thomas says;² 7° special union with Christ and with his members, as is clear from John:³ He who eats my flesh and drinks my blood, abides in me and I in him; 8° preservation from future sins, both because, charity being increased through this food, the soul becomes stronger against corrupt nature, and because it is an efficacious memory of the Lord's Passion, through which the demons have been conquered.⁴

Query 4° Can the Eucharist ever blot out mortal sin?

Resp. More probably affirmatively. See n. 1208, Q. 2°.

Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis

Benedict Henry Merkelbach, O.P. — 40 passages

Vol. III, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On the Most Holy…, Section A: On the Sacrament Itself of the Eucharist

201. The sacrament of the Eucharist is customarily defined: A sacrament of the New Law instituted by Christ the Lord, which, under the consecrated species of bread and wine, contains the body and blood of Christ for the spiritual refreshment of man.

In this definition there is indicated:

The genus to which the Eucharist pertains: a Sacrament of the New Law;

The author of the Eucharist: instituted by Christ the Lord;

The external sign, which is sacrament only, consisting at the same time of matter: which under the species of bread and wine, and form: consecrated by the very words of Christ which are now uttered by the priest in His name;

Reality and sacrament: it contains the body and blood of Christ;

The reality or proper effect of the sacrament: for the spiritual refreshment of man, by which also the subject is indicated, who is baptized man; for he alone who by Baptism has been born unto spiritual life can be spiritually refreshed.

202. Division of the treatment. - According to the given definition, whose truth will be shown in the whole course of the treatise, this is divided into three parts:

The first treats of the external sacrament: 1. of the sacrament itself in itself, namely, of its existence, essence, and institution; - 2. of the matter: a) of matter in general, b) of bread, c) of wine; - 3. of the form: a) of form in general, b) of the form of consecration of the bread, c) of the form of consecration of the wine.

The second treats of the body and blood of Christ, which are reality and sacrament: 1. of the action by which Christ becomes present: a) of the real presence of Christ, b) of the ceasing-to-be and conversion of bread and wine, c) of the accidents remaining; - 2. of the mode in which Christ is present; - 3. of the species under which Christ is present.

The third treats of the effects which are the reality of the sacrament: 1. of the effects themselves according to themselves; - 2. of the use of the Eucharist for obtaining the effects, i.e. a) of the dispositions of the soul, b) of the dispositions of the body, c) of the frequency of communion, and d) of the necessity of communion.¹

¹ Concerning the Sacrament of the Eucharist there can be consulted: St. Albert the Great, De Sacrosancto Corporis Domini Sacramento; St. Thomas, C. Gent. IV, 61 sq., and III, q. 73-80, with the commentaries of Cajetan, John of St. Thomas, the Salmanticenses, and Billuart; - likewise Suarez, on III p.m.; St. Bellarmine, Controversies: on the Sacrament of the Eucharist; Lugo, De Venerabili Sacramento Eucharistiae; Du Perron, Traite du Sacrement de l'Eucharistie; Franzelin, Tractatus de SS. Eucharistiae Sacramento et Sacrificio; Scheeben, Die Mysterien des Christentums; Billot, Van Noort, Tanquerey, and Hugon in their dogmatic works; Labauche, Lecons de Theologie Dogmatique, IV; de la Taille, Mysterium Fidei; A. Van Hove, on the Most Holy Eucharist; - Beguinot, La tres sainte Eucharistie, expose de la Foi des 12 premiers siecles; Corblet, Histoire dogmatique, liturgique, archeologique du sacrement de l'Eucharistie; Chardon, Histoire des Sacrements; Ermoni, L'Eucharistie dans l'Eglise primitive; Rauschen, Eucharistie und Buszsakrament (French version); Battifol, L'Eucharistie (5th ed.); Dict. de Theol., art. Eucharistie; Struckmann, Die Gegenwart Christi in die H. Eucharistie nach den Schrift. Quellen der Vor-Nicaemschen Zeit; d'Ales, Prima Lineamenta tractatus dogmatici de SS. Eucharistia; Goossens, Les Origines de l'Eucharistie; Janssens, De H. Eucharistie; - for the practical part, St. Alphonsus in Th. M., and other modern authors such as Aertnijs-Damen and Marc-Gestermann-Rausch, Ballerini, Lehmkuhl, Noldin-Schmitt and Genicot-Salsmans, Prummer, Vermeersch; - for the canonical part: Gasparri, Tractatus canonicus de SS. Eucharistia; and Cappello, Tractatus canonico-moralis de Sacramentis, I; - among orators: Monsabre, L'Eucharistie.

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

S. Th. III, q. 73, a. 1.

203. Thesis. The Eucharist is a true and properly so-called sacrament of the New Law. - Thus it is declared by the Fourth Lateran Council, c. 1, and Florence, decree for the Armenians; and it is defined by Trent, sess. 7, can. 1; nor is it denied by Protestants, a few excepted.¹

¹ The Quakers and Unitarians deny it: these say that it is a mere commemoration of the supper.

It is proved: 1. From the fact that the definition of sacrament belongs to the Eucharist. For it is a) a sensible sign through the species of bread and wine and the words of consecration; b) of a sacred thing: for the species no longer signify the substance of bread and wine, but the body and blood of Christ; c) insofar as it sanctifies men: for the body and blood of Christ are ordered to the spiritual refreshment of the soul, according to John VI, 48-59: He who eats this bread shall live forever; whence it is a practical sign of sanctification; d) instituted in perpetuity by Christ the legislator of the New Law (Luke XXII, 19).

From perpetual tradition, which is clear from the Rituals, the Fathers, and the practice of the Church.

By reason of fittingness: just as for bodily life generation is required, through which man receives life, and increase, by which he is brought to the perfection of life, so also nourishment is required, by which he is preserved in life; and therefore just as for spiritual life there must be Baptism, which is spiritual generation, and Confirmation, which is spiritual increase, so also the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is spiritual nourishment.

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

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

n. 204.

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

n. 204.

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

n. 204.

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

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

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

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

Therefore it must be said:

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

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

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

206. Corollaries. - From the foregoing it follows:

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

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

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

n. 207.

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

n. 207.

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

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

n. 207.

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

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

n. 208.

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

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