Article II: On the Form of the Consecration of Bread

227. The sense of the form consecrating bread. - In the words: This is My body, by which bread is consecrated:

This does not formally signify a determined thing; otherwise, by saying: this is a book, we would signify: the book is a book, which is a tautology; but it signifies indeterminately that which is before me, which I hold in my hands, which is contained under these species.

Is is taken, not metaphorically and figuratively for signifies, but properly and substantively: it indicates identity between subject and predicate.

Body is, not flesh alone, but the material composite from flesh, bones, nerves, etc., abstracting, however, from blood and soul.

My determines the word body to signify the body of Christ; it denotes that the words are uttered by the priest in the person of Christ.

Therefore the word this a) does not signify bread nor its species: for it is false that bread or its accidents are the body of Christ; - b) nor does it signify the body of Christ, otherwise the sense would be: My body is My body; - c) nor does it indicate the thing signified by this: for then Christ would not be there according to truth; - but d) it signifies something common to bread and to body, namely substance in common, i.e., the present thing, prescinding from the determination of its nature, that which is contained under the species, not indicating what it is. Behold the formal signified. Whence the sense is: that which is contained under these species truly is My body, namely, Christ's.

But because in fact nothing indeterminate exists, hence some determined thing is demonstrated, although it is not formally signified as such: that thing is the material signified. Concerning this there is a difference between a speculative and a practical proposition: the former enunciates that which is and does not make it; the latter makes true that which it enunciates. Hence in a speculative proposition identity between subject and predicate is presupposed; whence the thing demonstrated or the material signified of the subject, this, is the same at the beginning and at the end of the proposition, as in this one: this is a book; - in a practical proposition that identity is effected, whence the thing demonstrated by the subject or the material signified of the subject, this, at the end of the proposition is at least in some way other than at the beginning. Whence for the words of consecration, the material signified or that which is demonstrated at the beginning is the substance of bread, at the end is the body of Christ. But the signification, and consequently the truth or falsity of the proposition, is had only when the whole has been enunciated. Therefore the sense is not: this which now, i.e., at the beginning, is bread, is My body; but: this which I hold in my hands and is contained under the species (which was bread at the beginning of the utterance) is (consequently upon the enunciation) My body or the true body of Me, i.e., of Christ.

228.

228. The form of the consecration of bread is most fitting. - The form must signify that which is effected by the sacrament, namely, the conversion of bread into the body of Christ. But conversion can be considered in becoming and in having been made. This conversion, however, ought not to have been signified in becoming but in having been made: a) because it is not successive but instantaneous; whence in it there is nothing except the having-been-made; b) because in the sacraments principally intended is not the becoming but the thing made. But in having been made, bread does not remain according to substance but only according to accidents, whence it is fittingly designated in an indeterminate mode according to the accidents alone by the word this: that which is under the accidents; - but the body of Christ is present, and therefore it is fittingly enunciated determinately and designated expressly. Whence the fitting form is: this is My body.

229. Practical applications. - I. Consecration would be invalid if the sense of the form were changed:

a) If in place of this there were said that, which designates an absent or remote thing; or here adverbially (not masculine through a grammatical error), or: behold My body, here My body is placed, because conversion is not signified.

b) If the word is were omitted, because no adjuncts indicate that it is understood; or if in its place there were put: will be, is becoming, let it become, may it be, or it were said: this bread is converted into My body, because conversion already made would not be signified.

c) If the minister were to say: this is the body of Christ, because thus he would speak only in his own person.

d) If he were to say: this is My substance, this is My figured body.

II. The form is doubtful:

a) If in place of this there were put this thing, because it is doubted whether the present thing is sufficiently demonstrated.

b) If in place of body there were said flesh, because from one side body says more than flesh, and from the other, in Scripture body is sometimes called flesh.

III. The form seems ambiguous: this body is Mine. For body can belong as well to the predicate as to the subject; but by several it is held as invalid, whence practically it is doubtful.

IV. Valid but gravely illicit would be the form: this food, this thing contained under the species is My body; this is My body; this My body is, this is My real body, which I assumed from the Virgin; this is body Mine..., because the sense is the same. It would be only venial if from negligence in pronunciation a small corruption were introduced.