Article — Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis
Article I: On the Form in General
S. Th. III, q. 78, a. 1 and 4.
224. Principle I. The form of the Eucharist is the words of Christ, but not the prayers either preceding among the Latins or following among the Greeks. - The proposition is theologically certain from the Council of Florence saying: "The form of this sacrament is the words of the Savior, by which He confected this sacrament," and from Trent, sess. 13, c. 3 and 1.
Thus against the recent schismatic Greeks, who besides the words of Christ additionally require the epiclesis, i.e., the invocation of the Holy Spirit, which follows the consecration and by which He is asked to change the bread and wine; - and against Catharinus, who required, as a condition without which not, the prayer Quam oblationem..., which in the Roman rite precedes the consecration.1
1 It is also against the Gnostics, who do not have a form but a prayer, because they take away likeness with the supper and remembrance of the Passion, but consider only the gift of immortality. - Against the schismatic Greeks in this matter the Church several times warned: Benedict XII, in the year 1341 among the noted errors of the Armenians; - Clement VI, in the year 1351 to the Armenians; - Benedict XIII, July 8, 1729; - Pius VII, May 8, 1822; - Pius X, December 26, 1910, in the letter against Max of Saxony.
It is proved: 1. From the precept of Christ: the priest consecrates in the same manner as Christ, according to the precept: Do this in commemoration of Me; which would not be unless it were done by each through the words alone: This..., This...; as moreover the Council of Trent and the Fathers teach. But the priest, saying in the person of Christ: This..., This..., says what is true. Therefore by force of these words, independently of the preceding and following things, the body and blood of Christ are present. In these words alone, namely, the priest speaks in the person of Christ; in the other prayers only in the person of the Church.
- From tradition, the witnesses of which are the Liturgies and the Fathers,2 which the Greeks, Mark of Ephesus excepted, confessed in the Council of Florence; and which that Council declared to the Armenians. Moreover these words alone are the same among all.
2 Justin, Apol. I, 66; Irenaeus, Adv. haer. IV, 18; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. IV, 40; Cyprian, ep. 63, c. 14; Origen, on Matthew, hom. XI, 14; C. Cels. VIII, 33; Eusebius, De laud. Const. 16; Cyril of Jerusalem, cat. XIX, 7; XXI, 3; XXVI, 4; Gregory of Nyssa, Or. cat. 37; Chrysostom, hom. 1 De prod. Iud.; Ambrose, De myst. IX, 32; author of the book De Sacr. IV, c. 4, n. 14; Augustine, serm. 227. Cf. Roman Missal, De defectibus, V, 1.
- By reason of fittingness: the Eucharist is the most excellent sacrament; therefore it is fitting that the words be uttered, not from the person of the minister speaking in his own person, but as of one speaking from the person of Christ, i.e., that the minister not only speak as minister (I baptize, I absolve...) but also as it were put on the person of Christ.
"Because the form ought to be suitable to the thing, therefore the form of this sacrament differs from the forms of other sacraments in two things: 1. indeed, because the forms of other sacraments imply the use of matter, for example baptism or signing; but the form of this sacrament implies only the consecration of the matter, which consists in transubstantiation, for example when it is said: This is My body, or: This is the chalice of My blood; - 2. because the forms of other sacraments are uttered from the person of the minister: whether by way of exercising an act, as when it is said: I baptize thee...; or by way of commanding, as in the sacrament of order it is said: Receive power...; or by way of beseeching, as when in the sacrament of extreme unction it is said: By this unction and our intercession... But the form of this sacrament is uttered from the person of Christ Himself speaking, so that it may be understood that the minister in the perfection of this sacrament does nothing except that he utters the words of Christ" (a. 1).
But by the subsequent invocation of the Holy Spirit the Greeks, just as the Latins by the preceding prayer, do not so much ask that the body of Christ be made, but rather that it be made salutary to the faithful: "that it may become for us the body and blood of Thy most beloved Son, Our Lord Jesus Christ."3 Indeed it seems also to be said that sometimes liturgical prayers successively explain what is accomplished in an instant, and therefore are to be referred not to the time at which they are said but to the time for which they are said: thus after consecration the Holy Spirit is invoked for making what is accomplished in the consecration itself. But if the Fathers sometimes say that transubstantiation is made by the invocation of the Most Holy Trinity or of the Holy Spirit coming upon, one must not understand a special invocation of the epiclesis, but the very words of consecration, which are a liturgical prayer and a practical invocation of the Holy Spirit; for transubstantiation is made by divine power, which by appropriation, as being a work of sanctification, is attributed to the Holy Spirit.
3 Certain men judge that an epiclesis after consecration formerly existed also in many Latin liturgies. - On the epiclesis one may consult the Dictionnaire de Theologie catholique, art. Epiclèse.
225. Principle II. The words: This is My body, This is the chalice of My blood, are probably alone essential, so that the following words in the consecration of the chalice pertain only to integrity. - It is proved:
a) Those words alone are essential which signify that which is effected; but the aforesaid words, all others omitted, signify the conversion of bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ.
b) Certain Fathers: Justin, Apol. 2; Damascene, IV De Fide orth. 14; Innocent III, l. 4 De Missa, c. 6, say that consecration is confected by these words: This is My blood.
c) Whence the Greeks and Orientals omit certain of the others, or even all, just as the Latins in the consecration of the bread do not have the words: which shall be delivered for you, which are pronounced in diverse Oriental Churches.
Hence: 1. The words which are added in the consecration of the chalice: new... do not seem to be of the essence; yet they are of the integrity because they declare the power of the blood of Christ poured out in the Passion or offered in the sacrament; but determinations of the predicate are of the integrity of the utterance. Nevertheless certain men hold those words as essential, even invoking the testimony of St. Thomas (q. 78, a. 3; IV Sent., d. 8, q. 2, a. 2, qc. 1), whose words, however, are understood by others of integrity alone. Whence in practice it is illicit to omit those words, because it is to expose the sacrament to the danger of nullity; - and if they have been omitted, the form will have to be repeated under condition, as the Missal prescribes, De defectibus, tit. 10, n. 3.
- The preceding words: Who the day before... In like manner... are not of the essence nor of the integrity. According to Scotus (IV Sent., d. 8, q. 2, n. 4), however, they are a necessary condition that the priest speak not in his own person concerning his own body, but in the person of Christ concerning the body of the Savior Himself. But this lacks every solid foundation: for to speak or not to speak in the person of Christ depends on the intention of the minister alone, as is clear from this, that a minister uttering without intention the words: Who the day before..., this is..., nevertheless would not act in the person of Christ but only in the person of one narrating. Nevertheless in practice they must be said from the grave precept of the Church.
- Similarly the word for is nothing except a connective particle with the preceding things; to omit it is probably only a light fault, unless it is done from contempt.
226. Notice. - The words of consecration are to be uttered not only historically, narratively, and recitatively, as though said by Christ, namely from the intention of narrating the things which Christ did: for this the minister does in his own person and it is not necessary for the value of the sacrament, as is clear from what has been said, for one who omitted the words: Who the day before, would not speak historically; - but they must also be said assertively or significatively, from the intention of imitating Christ and applying the words to the present matter: for he does not apply the form to the matter which was present to Christ, but, speaking in the person of Christ Himself, he imitates Him, intending to apply the words to the present matter, as if Christ were saying them by his mouth; likewise effectively and practically: for he wills to do what the words signify, as if Christ were making the sacrament. In practice, one who has the intention of celebrating Mass or of offering also has this intention.
In those words, according to the Fathers, as in the other sacraments, there is an instrumental power for making transubstantiation. This they explain in diverse ways in the diverse system of the causality of the sacraments. In transubstantiation two things are to be considered: the recession of bread and wine, and the accession of the body and blood of Christ. Now those who assert merely dispositive causality say that that power reaches only bread and wine and imposes on them the necessity of receding in order to the presence of Christ; which necessity is a disposition requiring of God that He perfect the transubstantiation and the presence of Christ. But those who hold perfecting physical causality say that the power reaches to the very presence of Christ, although it immediately reaches only the bread and wine which it converts, only mediately Christ Himself.