§ 2. On the Form of the Eucharist

1529. The FORM of the Sacrament of the Eucharist is the very words by which Christ the Lord made this Sacrament. For in the name and in the person of Christ the priest speaks and operates in making the Sacred.

Principles. I. The form prescribed for the consecration of BREAD is taken from St. Matthew the Evangelist, and consists in these words: FOR THIS IS MY BODY. The word for is placed according to the custom of the Roman Church derived from Blessed Peter; but it is inserted that the form may cohere with the preceding words.

In this form, the essential words are: "This is My body"; for they signify completely and import the conversion of bread into the Body of Christ. Hence, the word for does not pertain to the essence, and therefore its omission is judged to be only venial. "But not improbably Concina and Roncaglia condemn this as mortal; and in truth, in a matter of so great moment, any change deliberately placed does not seem light."⁸ And the same must be said concerning the same word in the following form.

1530. II. For the consecration of the CHALICE the following form is assigned: FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL TESTAMENT, THE MYSTERY OF FAITH, WHICH WILL BE POURED OUT FOR YOU AND FOR MANY UNTO THE REMISSION OF SINS. All these words are taken either from diverse places of Sacred Scripture, or from Apostolic tradition, as St. Thomas teaches.⁹

The essential words are more probably these alone: "This is the chalice of My Blood," since they perfectly express the presence of the Blood of Christ under the species of wine. Nor, however, does the other opinion lack probability, which teaches that the other words also, as expressing the power of the passion of Christ, are essential, excepting only these: eternal and mystery of faith, which are included virtually in the others. Hence a priest would certainly sin gravely if he did not pronounce all the words which are contained in the consecration of the chalice; and if perhaps he had said only the first words, he ought indeed to repeat, under condition, the whole form.¹⁰

1531. III. "The form of the Eucharist ought to be pronounced RECITATIVELY AND SIGNIFICATIVELY, that is, by referring the words of Christ and applying them to the present matter, so that it may be transmuted into the Body and Blood of Christ."¹¹ Thus all with St. Thomas.

IV. A change of words which imports no change of sense does not render the consecration invalid. This is established from the rubric of the Missal: "But if someone should diminish or change something from the form of consecration, and the words would not signify the same, he would not make the Sacrament. But if he added something which would not change the signification, he would indeed make it, but would sin most gravely."¹² Nor similarly does faulty pronunciation impede the consecration from being valid. "The reason is that words have been so constituted that, if sometimes they are pronounced with a fault, they signify the same thing; for it suffices that the words of the form convey the sense intended by Christ; otherwise, if they conveyed another sense."¹³

From these things you resolve: 1. Consecration is valid but GRAVELY ILLICIT if it is said: This food is my body, this chalice is my blood; colpus for corpus, meus for meum, es for est, calis for calix, sanguis for sanguinis, etc. Whence, he cannot be excused from venial sin who does not employ due diligence for pronouncing the words of consecration rightly.¹⁴

2. Consecration is invalid if it is said: This for my body, omitting is.¹⁵ Likewise, if it is said: Here, adverbially, is my body; this body is mine; or this blood is mine; because these words do not have the sense by which that is signified which they ought to effect. Likewise, if it is said: That is my body; that is my blood; for the sense of the form is changed, as is clear of itself.¹⁶

3. Consecration is doubtful if it is said: This is my flesh; this thing is my body; this is my blood.¹⁷

1532. Questions. Q. 1. Whether in consecration these words are to be held as essential: WHO THE DAY BEFORE, etc.; IN LIKE MANNER, etc.?

Resp. The common and most probable opinion denies, and it is proved: 1. from the Decree of Eugene IV to the Armenians, where it is said that consecration is made by no other than the words of Christ, which are only these: This is the body, etc., This is the chalice, etc.; 2. from the rubric of the Missal, which teaches that the words required by necessity of the Sacrament are the words of the form, namely This is My body, etc., This is the chalice, etc.¹⁸

Q. 2. What is to be done by the celebrant if he DOES NOT REMEMBER that he has pronounced all the words of consecration?

Resp. From the rubric of the Missal these things are to be held: "If the celebrant does not remember that he has said those things which are commonly said in the consecration, he ought not therefore to be troubled. Yet if it is certain to him that he has omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the Sacrament, let him resume the form. But if he very probably doubts that he has omitted something essential, let him repeat the form, at least under a tacit condition."¹⁹