(2) Whether the form for the consecration of the bread is appropriate?
(3) Whether the form for the consecration of the blood is appropriate?
(4) Of the power of each form?
(5) Of the truth of the expression?
(6) Of the comparison of the one form with the other?
_______________________
FIRST ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 1]
Whether This Is the Form of This Sacrament: "This Is My Body," and "This Is the Chalice of My Blood"?
Objection 1: It seems that this is not the form of this sacrament: "This is My body," and, "This is the chalice of My blood." Because those words seem to belong to the form of this sacrament, wherewith Christ consecrated His body and blood. But Christ first blessed the bread which He took, and said afterwards: "Take ye and eat; this is My body" (Matt. 26:26). Therefore the whole of this seems to belong to the form of this sacrament: and the same reason holds good of the words which go with the consecration of the blood.
Obj. 2: Further, Eusebius Emissenus (Pseudo-Hieron: Ep. xxix; Pseudo-Isid.: Hom. iv) says: "The invisible Priest changes visible creatures into His own body, saying: "Take ye and eat; this is My body."" Therefore, the whole of this seems to belong to the form of this sacrament: and the same hold good of the works appertaining to the blood.
Obj. 3: Further, in the form of Baptism both the minister and his act are expressed, when it is said, "I baptize thee." But in the words set forth above there is no mention made either of the minister or of his act. Therefore the form of the sacrament is not a suitable one.
Obj. 4: Further, the form of the sacrament suffices for its perfection; hence the sacrament of Baptism can be performed sometimes by p.r.o.nouncing the words of the form only, omitting all the others.
Therefore, if the aforesaid words be the form of this sacrament, it would seem as if this sacrament could be performed sometimes by uttering those words alone, while leaving out all the others which are said in the ma.s.s; yet this seems to be false, because, were the other words to be pa.s.sed over, the said words would be taken as spoken in the person of the priest saying them, whereas the bread and wine are not changed into his body and blood. Consequently, the aforesaid words are not the form of this sacrament.
_On the contrary,_ Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "The consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because, by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to G.o.d, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ. Therefore, it is Christ"s words that perfect this sacrament."
_I answer that,_ This sacrament differs from the other sacraments in two respects. First of all, in this, that this sacrament is accomplished by the consecration of the matter, while the rest are perfected in the use of the consecrated matter. Secondly, because in the other sacraments the consecration of the matter consists only in a blessing, from which the matter consecrated derives instrumentally a spiritual power, which through the priest who is an animated instrument, can pa.s.s on to inanimate instruments. But in this sacrament the consecration of the matter consists in the miraculous change of the substance, which can only be done by G.o.d; hence the minister in performing this sacrament has no other act save the p.r.o.nouncing of the words. And because the form should suit the thing, therefore the form of this sacrament differs from the forms of the other sacraments in two respects. First, because the form of the other sacraments implies the use of the matter, as for instance, baptizing, or signing; but the form of this sacrament implies merely the consecration of the matter, which consists in transubstantiation, as when it is said, "This is My body," or, "This is the chalice of My blood." Secondly, because the forms of the other sacraments are p.r.o.nounced in the person of the minister, whether by way of exercising an act, as when it is said, "I baptize thee," or "I confirm thee," etc.; or by way of command, as when it is said in the sacrament of order, "Take the power," etc.; or by way of entreaty, as when in the sacrament of Extreme Unction it is said, "By this anointing and our intercession," etc. But the form of this sacrament is p.r.o.nounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this sacrament, except to p.r.o.nounce the words of Christ.
Reply Obj. 1: There are many opinions on this matter. Some have said that Christ, Who had power of excellence in the sacraments, performed this sacrament without using any form of words, and that afterwards He p.r.o.nounced the words under which others were to consecrate thereafter. And the words of Pope Innocent III seem to convey the same sense (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), where he says: "In good sooth it can be said that Christ accomplished this sacrament by His Divine power, and subsequently expressed the form under which those who came after were to consecrate." But in opposition to this view are the words of the Gospel in which it is said that Christ "blessed," and this blessing was effected by certain words. Accordingly those words of Innocent are to be considered as expressing an opinion, rather than determining the point.
Others, again, have said that the blessing was effected by other words not known to us. But this statement cannot stand, because the blessing of the consecration is now performed by reciting the things which were then accomplished; hence, if the consecration was not performed then by these words, neither would it be now.
Accordingly, others have maintained that this blessing was effected by the same words as are used now; but that Christ spoke them twice, at first secretly, in order to consecrate, and afterwards openly, to instruct others. But even this will not hold good, because the priest in consecrating uses these words, not as spoken in secret, but as openly p.r.o.nounced. Accordingly, since these words have no power except from Christ p.r.o.nouncing them, it seems that Christ also consecrated by p.r.o.nouncing them openly.
And therefore others said that the Evangelists did not always follow the precise order in their narrative as that in which things actually happened, as is seen from Augustine (De Consens. Evang. ii). Hence it is to be understood that the order of what took place can be expressed thus: "Taking the bread He blessed it, saying: This is My body, and then He broke it, and gave it to His disciples." But the same sense can be had even without changing the words of the Gospel; because the participle "saying" implies sequence of the words uttered with what goes before. And it is not necessary for the sequence to be understood only with respect to the last word spoken, as if Christ had just then p.r.o.nounced those words, when He gave it to His disciples; but the sequence can be understood with regard to all that had gone before; so that the sense is: "While He was blessing, and breaking, and giving it to His disciples, He spoke the words, "Take ye,"" etc.
Reply Obj. 2: In these words, "Take ye and eat," the use of the consecrated, matter is indicated, which is not of the necessity of this sacrament, as stated above (Q. 74, A. 7). And therefore not even these words belong to the substance of the form. Nevertheless, because the use of the consecrated matter belongs to a certain perfection of the sacrament, in the same way as operation is not the first but the second perfection of a thing, consequently, the whole perfection of this sacrament is expressed by all those words: and it was in this way that Eusebius understood that the sacrament was accomplished by those words, as to its first and second perfection.
Reply Obj. 3: In the sacrament of Baptism the minister exercises an act regarding the use of the matter, which is of the essence of the sacrament: such is not the case in this sacrament; hence there is no parallel.
Reply Obj. 4: Some have contended that this sacrament cannot be accomplished by uttering the aforesaid words, while leaving out the rest, especially the words in the Canon of the Ma.s.s. But that this is false can be seen both from Ambrose"s words quoted above, as well as from the fact that the Canon of the Ma.s.s is not the same in all places or times, but various portions have been introduced by various people.
Accordingly it must be held that if the priest were to p.r.o.nounce only the aforesaid words with the intention of consecrating this sacrament, this sacrament would be valid because the intention would cause these words to be understood as spoken in the person of Christ, even though the words were p.r.o.nounced without those that precede. The priest, however, would sin gravely in consecrating the sacrament thus, as he would not be observing the rite of the Church. Nor does the comparison with Baptism prove anything; for it is a sacrament of necessity: whereas the lack of this sacrament can be supplied by the spiritual partaking thereof, as Augustine says (cf. Q. 73, A. 3, ad 1).
_______________________
SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 2]
Whether This Is the Proper Form for the Consecration of the Bread: "This Is My Body"?
Objection 1: It seems that this is not the proper form of this sacrament: "This is My body." For the effect of a sacrament ought to be expressed in its form. But the effect of the consecration of the bread is the change of the substance of the bread into the body of Christ, and this is better expressed by the word "becomes" than by "is." Therefore, in the form of the consecration we ought to say: "This becomes My body."
Obj. 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv), "Christ"s words consecrate this sacrament. What word of Christ? This word, whereby all things are made. The Lord commanded, and the heavens and earth were made." Therefore, it would be a more proper form of this sacrament if the imperative mood were employed, so as to say: "Be this My body."
Obj. 3: Further, that which is changed is implied in the subject of this phrase, just as the term of the change is implied in the predicate. But just as that into which the change is made is something determinate, for the change is into nothing else but the body of Christ, so also that which is converted is determinate, since only bread is converted into the body of Christ. Therefore, as a noun is inserted on the part of the predicate, so also should a noun be inserted in the subject, so that it be said: "This bread is My body."
Obj. 4: Further, just as the term of the change is determinate in nature, because it is a body, so also is it determinate in person.
Consequently, in order to determine the person, it ought to be said: "This is the body of Christ."
Obj. 5: Further, nothing ought to be inserted in the form except what is substantial to it. Consequently, the conjunction "for" is improperly added in some books, since it does not belong to the substance of the form.
_On the contrary,_ our Lord used this form in consecrating, as is evident from Matt. 26:26.
_I answer that,_ This is the proper form for the consecration of the bread. For it was said (A. 1) that this consecration consists in changing the substance of bread into the body of Christ. Now the form of a sacrament ought to denote what is done in the sacrament.
Consequently the form for the consecration of the bread ought to signify the actual conversion of the bread into the body of Christ.
And herein are three things to be considered: namely, the actual conversion, the term _whence,_ and the term _whereunto._
Now the conversion can be considered in two ways: first, in _becoming,_ secondly, in _being._ But the conversion ought not to be signified in this form as in _becoming,_ but as in _being._ First, because such conversion is not successive, as was said above (Q. 75, A. 7), but instantaneous; and in such changes the _becoming_ is nothing else than the _being._ Secondly, because the sacramental forms bear the same relation to the signification of the sacramental effect as artificial forms to the representation of the effect of art. Now an artificial form is the likeness of the ultimate effect, on which the artist"s intention is fixed; just as the art-form in the builder"s mind is princ.i.p.ally the form of the house constructed, and secondarily of the constructing. Accordingly, in this form also the conversion ought to be expressed as in _being,_ to which the intention is referred.
And since the conversion is expressed in this form as in _being,_ it is necessary for the extremes of the conversion to be signified as they exist in the fact of conversion. But then the term _whereunto_ has the proper nature of its own substance; whereas the term _whence_ does not remain in its own substance, but only as to the accidents whereby it comes under the senses, and can be determined in relation to the senses. Hence the term _whence_ of the conversion is conveniently expressed by the demonstrative p.r.o.noun, relative to the sensible accidents which continue; but the term _whereunto_ is expressed by the noun signifying the nature of the thing which terminates the conversion, and this is Christ"s entire body, and not merely His flesh; as was said above (Q. 76, A. 1, ad 2). Hence this form is most appropriate: "This is My body."
Reply Obj. 1: The ultimate effect of this conversion is not a _becoming_ but a _being,_ as stated above, and consequently prominence should be given to this in the form.
Reply Obj. 2: G.o.d"s word operated in the creation of things, and it is the same which operates in this consecration, yet each in different fashion: because here it operates effectively and sacramentally, that is, in virtue of its signification. And consequently the last effect of the consecration must needs be signified in this sentence by a substantive verb of the indicative mood and present time. But in the creation of things it worked merely effectively, and such efficiency is due to the command of His wisdom; and therefore in the creation of things the Lord"s word is expressed by a verb in the imperative mood, as in Gen. 1:3: "Let there be light, and light was made."
Reply Obj. 3: The term _whence_ does not retain the nature of its substance in the _being_ of the conversion, as the term _whereunto_ does. Therefore there is no parallel.
Reply Obj. 4: The p.r.o.noun "My," which implicitly points to the chief person, i.e. the person of the speaker, sufficiently indicates Christ"s person, in Whose person these words are uttered, as stated above (A. 1).
Reply Obj. 5: The conjunction "for" is set in this form according to the custom of the Roman Church, who derived it from Peter the Apostle; and this on account of the sequence with the words preceding: and therefore it is not part of the form, just as the words preceding the form are not.
_______________________
THIRD ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 3]
Whether This Is the Proper Form for the Consecration of the Wine: "This Is the Chalice of My Blood," Etc.?
Objection 1: It seems that this is not the proper form for the consecration of the wine. "This is the chalice of My blood, of the New and Eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins." For as the bread is changed by the power of consecration into Christ"s body, so is the wine changed into Christ"s blood, as is clear from what was said above (Q. 76, AA. 1, 2, 3). But in the form of the consecration of the bread, the body of Christ is expressly mentioned, without any addition. Therefore in this form the blood of Christ is improperly expressed in the oblique case, and the chalice in the nominative, when it is said: "This is the chalice of My blood."
Obj. 2: Further, the words spoken in the consecration of the bread are not more efficacious than those spoken in the consecration of the wine, since both are Christ"s words. But directly the words are spoken--"This is My body," there is perfect consecration of the bread. Therefore, directly these other words are uttered--"This is the chalice of My blood," there is perfect consecration of the blood; and so the words which follow do not appeal to be of the substance of the form, especially since they refer to the properties of this sacrament.
Obj. 3: Further, the New Testament seems to be an internal inspiration, as is evident from the Apostle quoting the words of Jeremias (31:31): "I will perfect unto the house of Israel a New Testament ... I will give My laws into their mind" (Heb. 8:8). But a sacrament is an outward visible act. Therefore, in the form of the sacrament the words "of the New Testament" are improperly added.
Obj. 4: Further, a thing is said to be new which is near the beginning of its existence. But what is eternal has no beginning of its existence. Therefore it is incorrect to say "of the New and Eternal," because it seems to savor of a contradiction.
Obj. 5: Further, occasions of error ought to be withheld from men, according to Isa. 57:14: "Take away the stumbling blocks out of the way of My people." But some have fallen into error in thinking that Christ"s body and blood are only mystically present in this sacrament. Therefore it is out of place to add "the mystery of faith."
Obj. 6: Further, it was said above (Q. 73, A. 3, ad 3), that as Baptism is the sacrament of faith, so is the Eucharist the sacrament of charity. Consequently, in this form the word "charity" ought rather to be used than "faith."
Obj. 7: Further, the whole of this sacrament, both as to body and blood, is a memorial of our Lord"s Pa.s.sion, according to 1 Cor.
11:26: "As often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord." Consequently, mention ought to be made of Christ"s Pa.s.sion and its fruit rather in the form of the consecration of the blood, than in the form of the consecration of the body, especially since our Lord said: "This is My body, which shall be delivered up for you" (Luke 22:19).