“Following the example of Christ, the Church has always used bread and wine with water to celebrate the Lord’s Supper” (GIRM 319). “The words of the Savior, by which He instituted this sacrament, are the form of this sacrament; for the priest speaking in the person of Christ effects this sacrament.”¹ From these authoritative yet broad strokes we can develop more precisely the matter and form of the Eucharist.

From the Grain, from the Vine

Taking up the remote matter of the sacrament, the water listed alongside bread and wine is not necessary for validity. Mixing a small quantity of water into the wine to be consecrated (no more than 1/3 part, to avoid all doubt)² may be an ancient sign of the union of human nature with Christ’s divinity,³ but the Church requires it only for liceity. Instead, “the essential signs of the Eucharistic sacrament are wheat bread and grape wine” (CCC 1412).

In further specifying these materials, the “common estimation of men” plays an important role. For instance, despite debate about the botanical classification of varieties of wheat, the key is that bread not be made “of barley, rye, oats, etc.,” whereas “any form of wheat is sufficient”⁴ regardless of “the variety of the wheat or the region of its origin.”⁵ Liturgical law requires that wheat be ground into flour, yet when necessary “a white material thrashed or crushed from wheat” suffices.⁶

To transform wheat into bread one must add natural water and bake the resulting dough.⁷ Apart from the use of yeast in the Eastern Churches, no other ingredients are allowed. Were the flour not purely wheaten or the liquid not simply water, the effect of any admixture would depend on quantity. An ingredient added in “great” amount—equal to or greater than the part of the flour or liquid—definitely invalidates, whereas a “small” (modica) addition is illicit yet valid. A “notable” admixture—somewhere between those other quantities—occasions doubt as to the sacrament’s validity.⁸ Adding very common bread ingredients, “such as salt or sugar, is unlawful but valid.”⁹ One specific element must not be removed, as “hosts that are completely gluten-free are invalid matter.”¹⁰ Low-gluten breads are valid, however, “provided they contain a sufficient amount of gluten to obtain the confection of bread without the addition of foreign materials and without the use of procedures that would alter the nature of bread.”¹¹

Mention of procedures may refer to the fact that bread is a baked good, therefore the correct dough cannot yield valid matter if it is “a raw lump, or fried in oil or butter, or boiled in water, or only dried by the sun.”¹² While the ritual requirement to fraction some bread and the insistence that “the material for the Eucharistic Celebration truly have the appearance of food” (GIRM 321) cause some to insist on larger loaves, the Church directs that “small hosts requiring no further fraction ought customarily to be used for the most part.”¹³ Though these hosts do not appear as what we most commonly encounter as bread, it suffices that, “knowing the composition,” the common estimation of persons “would judge that it is wheat bread.”¹⁴

Moving on to the wine, the criteria for validity are prescribed by law, that it “must be natural from the fruit of the vine and not spoiled.”¹⁵ “It does not matter whether it is white, or red, or mixed from both; whether it is noble, or weak, of this or that region or grape.”¹⁶ Because fermentation follows immediately upon pressing, even mustum—“grape juice that is either fresh or preserved by methods that suspend its fermentation without altering its nature”¹⁷—is valid matter. The same is true of wine made from raisins, “provided it is recognized as true wine from its color and taste.”¹⁸ Nonetheless, normally “vinum perfectum” should be used, i.e., “liquid pressed from mature grapes of the vine which has completed its fermentation” without any additives.¹⁹ That fermentation may result in varying amounts of alcohol by volume, as this is not dogmatically defined, though previous instructions identified 12-18% as the normal range²⁰ and academic opinion considered 5-20% reasonable.²¹ Grape alcohol can be used to fortify weaker wine, especially for the sake of preservation,²² but the posited 20% maximum assumes that stronger alcoholic liquid is more properly a spirit. On the lower end, while mustum’s trace alcohol suffices, were even this modicum to evaporate, the remaining liquid would no longer be valid matter.²³ Were the wine, on the other hand, to freeze, it would remain valid matter while frozen (even if it should be thawed before use).²⁴

Real Presence (Really)

This remote matter must still enter into relation with the minister to constitute valid proximate matter of the Eucharist, which is “the use of the bread and wine in the act of consecration.”²⁵ The form, discussed below, makes reference to “this” (hoc, hic) bread or wine, a signification requiring that “the matter to be consecrated must be physically present” and “be specifically determined” by the priest’s intention.²⁶ While scholars speculate maximum possible distances from 10 to 50 paces,²⁷ awareness can have greater impact than proximity. In the traditional ordination Mass the newly ordained validly concelebrated while kneeling at floor level (the bishop alone stood at the altar), whereas a host placed quite near, but unbeknownst to, a celebrant might remain unconsecrated.²⁸ The priest need not see the matter at the moment²⁹ or have exact knowledge of its quantity,³⁰ but he must have a determined intention to consecrate, which may be a habitual intention to consecrate all matter on the corporal (or, more expansively, on the altar). It is presumed that no priest intends to consecrate drops of wine on the outer surface of a chalice.³¹

To this matter determined for consecration the minister then unites the spoken sacramental form. The “words of the Savior” are not identical across all biblical institution narratives³² or across apostolic rites. Moreover, the words identified as the form in the Missals of Pius V and Paul VI differ slightly. Therefore, the current Roman forms (Accipite et manducate ex hoc omnes: hoc est enim Corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur and Accipite et bibite ex eo omnes: Hic est enim calix Sanguinis mei novi et æterni testamenti, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Hoc fácite in meam commemoratiónem) certainly contain more than the bare essentials. The core phrases signifying the Lord’s presence suffice for validity: “This is my Body” (Hoc est corpus meum) and “This is the chalice of my Blood” (Hic est calix sanguinis mei) or simply “This is my blood” (Hic est sanguis meus), the latter being used by Eastern rites.³³

Latitude for equivalence, additional information, and mispronunciation is accorded this form, as usual, but any alteration must still declare a present identification of “this” species with the Lord to remain valid. Therefore, changing or omitting the verb—“This becomes (fit) my Body;” “Let this be (sit) my Body;” “Behold (ecce), my Body”—invalidates. Transposition of words, even in generously synthetic languages (languages that pack a lot of grammatical meaning into a single word), can also impact validity. Hoc est meum corpus, for instance, means exactly the same as the prescribed form, whereas Hoc meum est corpus is considered doubtful (it could mean “This thing of mine is a body”) and Hoc corpus est meum (straightforwardly rendered “This body is mine”) is simply invalid.³⁴

Addai Addendum

One quite ancient case curiously defies these requirements for Eucharistic form. The Assyrian Church of the East uses the Anaphora of Addai and Mari for most of its liturgies. This contains no institution narrative and thus does not explicitly pronounce the Lord’s words even in the minimal form identified above. Nonetheless, with papal approval, the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity permitted Chaldean Catholics to receive the Eucharist consecrated with this anaphora. While Assyrian celebrants are encouraged to insert the words of institution out of consideration for Catholic participants, the curial guidance notes that for the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, among the Church’s most ancient anaphoras, validity “was never officially contested,” and the words of institution are present “not in a coherent way and ad litteram, but rather in a dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in prayers of thanksgiving, praise and intercession.”³⁵

_{^{Image Source: AB/ Lawrence Lew on Flickr, Courtesy of Martin Beek}}

1. Decree for the Armenians.

2. Nicholas Halligan, OP, The Administration of the Sacraments (Staten Island: Alba House, 1963), 101.
3. Order of Mass 24: “By the mystery of this water and wine may we come to share in the divinity of Christ who humbled himself to share in our humanity.”
4. Dominic M. Prummer, OP, Handbook of Moral Theology (Cork: Mercier, 1956), 266.
5. N. Halligan, 100.
6. Halligan, 100. This was confirmed by a decision of the Holy Office dated June 23, 1852, cited in Eduardo F. Regatillo, SJ, Ius Sacramentarium, vol. 1 (Santander: Sal Terrae, 1945), 90.
7. Felix M. Capello, SJ, Tractatus Canonico-Moralis de Sacramentis, 5th ed., vol. 1 (Rome: Marietti, 1947), 227; Regatillo, 90. For discussion of natural water, refer to Part 1 of this series.
8. Capello, 227.
9. Halligan, 100.
10. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, “Circular Letter to all Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences concerning the use of low-gluten altar breads and mustum as matter for the celebration of the Eucharist” (July 24, 2003), A.1.
11. Ibid., A.2. Furthermore, “The amount of gluten necessary for validity in such bread is not determined by minimum percentage or weight” (Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship, Newsletter, vol. XLVIII [October 2012]).
12. Capello, 229. While Capello acknowledged doubt about whether electrical power could replace fire as the heat source for baking, no such doubts remained by the time of Regatillo’s writing (p. 91).
13. Redemptionis Sacramentum 49.
14. John M. Huels, The Pastoral Companion: A Canon Law Handbook for Catholic Ministry, 3^rd rev. ed. (Quincy, IL: Franciscan, 2002), 96.
15. Can. 924 §3.
16. Capello, 231.
17. “Circular Letter to all Presidents of the Episcopal Conferences concerning the use of low-gluten altar breads and mustum as matter for the celebration of the Eucharist” (July 24, 2003), A.3. The USCCB elaborates: “Mustum is defined as grape juice in which fermentation has begun, but has been suspended with the result that its alcohol content (usually less than 1.0%) does not reach the levels found in most table wines. It should not contain additives and may be stored through freezing or other means. The process used for the suspension of fermentation must not alter the nature of the juice in any way. The amount of alcohol needed for validity in mustum is not determined by a minimum percentage or weight” (Bishops’ Committee on Divine Worship, Newsletter, vol. XLVIII [October 2012]).
18. Regatillo, 94.
19. Regatillo, 92.
20. E.F. Regatillo, 93.
21. Capello, 232.
22. Regatillo, 93.
23. Capello, 232; Regatillo, 94.
24. As Capello, 232, notes regarding the erstwhile Missal’s De defectibus X.11, “it manifestly supposes that the Blood of Christ remains under the species of frozen wine, and therefore if the consecrated species are not changed substantially through freezing, indeed they are also not changed before the consecration.”
25. D. Prummer, 267.
26. Prummer, 267.
27. Regatillo, 95. Halligan, 104, speculates a limit of 50-100 feet.
28. Halligan, 105; Prummer, 267.
29. “It is sufficient that the matter can be seen or touched in itself or in its container,” Halligan, 104.
30. Regatillo, 95. That quantity might be “very great or very small, provided it can be perceived by the senses.”
31. Halligan, 105; Regatillo, 95–96.
32. Found in Mt 26; Mk 14; Lk 22; 1 Cor 11.
33. Prummer, 267–268; Capello, 253; Regatillo, 97; Halligan, 103.
34. Capello, 254.
35. Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist Between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East, July 20, 2001.