Article — Konings, Theologia Moralis
ARTICLE II: ON THE FORM OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST
Just as in the Sacrament of the Eucharist there is a twofold distinct matter, so also there is a twofold form of Consecration, one of bread and the other of wine.
1284. Principles. - I. The form for the Consecration of bread consists in these words: For this is my Body. But these words, or equivalent ones, are altogether essential to the form, if you except the word for.
It is established: 1° from the universal practice of the Church, and from her precept in the Roman Missal; 2° from the Council of Florence in the Decree of union, and from Trent;1 3° from the divine institution itself; for Christ transubstantiated bread into his Body by pronouncing the aforesaid words.
II. The form for the Consecration of wine is this: 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.
It is established likewise: 1° from the practice and prescription of the Church; 2° from the various Evangelists, who, although they do not report altogether the same words, nevertheless agree perfectly as regards this sense.
Appendix annotation (5), to n. 1284. q. 3°. p. 42. col. 2. The controversy seems to some to be a dispute about a name, which owes its origin to the double signification of the word siligo. For the most ancient signification of this word denotes wheat of the first note, and St. Thomas seems to have had this signification before his eyes, P. III. q. 74. a. 3 ad 2, where he pronounces the validity of this matter as undoubted. But siligo, which is sometimes also called secale, also signifies that which the English call rye, the French seigle, the Germans Roggen or Korn, the Italians segala; and siligo taken in this sense is invalid matter. - Linz. P. Bl.
1285. Resolves. - 1° Valid, but illicit, is the Consecration if the one consecrating says: This food is my Body; this chalice is my Blood. - Likewise if you pronounce: Colpui for Corpus; meus for meum; es for est; calis for calix; Sanguis for Sanguinis, etc.2
2° The Consecration will be invalid if you say: Here (adverbially) is my Body; This Body is mine; or Here is my Blood: because these words do not have a sense by which they signify that which they ought to effect.3
3° The Consecration is doubtful if you say: This is my Flesh: which, nevertheless, Laymann thinks to be valid.4
4° The words of the form must be pronounced in the person of Christ formally and assertively, or recitatively and at the same time significatively, but not merely 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. Nevertheless no scruple is 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. - Elbel,1 St. Alphonsus.2
Notes to n. 1285. (1) Sess. 13, c. 1. (2) L. VI. 221. (3) Ib. (4) Ib.
1286. Questions. - Query 1° Is the omission of the word for in the form of Consecration grave?
Resp. It is controverted. The first sentence denies, because that word is not found in the words pronounced by Christ in the Consecration of the bread, and from another side, as regards the precept of the Church, it does not seem to constitute grave matter. - Thus Busembaum.3
The second sentence affirms, and St. Alphonsus4 says that this is not improbable. The reason is because in so grave a matter there does not seem to be light matter in any deliberate change whatever.
Query 2° In Consecration are required, as essential, those antecedent words: Who the day before he suffered, etc. ... In like manner, etc.?
Resp. Negatively, with the common sentence, which St. Alphonsus holds as most probable. The reason is because these words are pronounced only historically, and do not seem to have any sacramental efficacy. Nevertheless he does not dare to say that the opposite sentence is improbable, all the more because, if because of a doubtful Consecration the form must be repeated, according to the Rubrics one must begin from the words: Who the day before, and In like manner.5 (v) p. 401.
Query 3° In the Consecration of the chalice are these words alone: THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD ... of the essence of the form?
Resp. The affirmative sentence is more common than the negative, but each is speculatively probable on account of the reasons which are to be seen among the Dogmaticians or at St. Alphonsus.6 But in practice it is certain that it would be grave sin if all the words which are had in the Consecration of the chalice were not pronounced, and, if perhaps only the first words were said, the whole form must be repeated.
Query 4° Is the form valid if it is said: HOC ENIM CORPUS MEUM, by understanding EST, as in the Latin language this frequently is customarily done?
Resp. Negatively. For although in continuous speech the substantive verb is can easily be understood, nevertheless in the present case this cannot be done; both because continuous speech is not had, and especially because in the matter of which we are treating, the form has not only an assertory sense, as in common speech, but also a force effecting transubstantiation.1
Notes to n. 1286 - note sequence 1. (1) n. 34. (2) L. VI. 220. (3) Ib. (4) Ib. (5) Ib. 222. (6) Ib. 223. Notes to n. 1286 - note sequence 2. (1) Ib. 223. Appendix annotation (upsilon), to n. 1286. q. 2°. p. 47. col. 1. In the Brief to the Patriarch of Antioch of the Melchite Greeks, dated 8 May 1822, Pius VII forbids anyone, whether publicly or privately, to defend or maintain the opinion of the schismatics which teaches that the form of the Eucharist "does not consist in the words of Jesus Christ alone." Bullar. S. C. de Prop. Fide, T. IV. p. 388 sq.