Question — Noldin, Summa of Moral Theology
Question Third. On the Form of the Eucharist
119. The form of consecrating the bread is constituted by the words by which Christ the Lord at the Last Supper consecrated and instituted this sacrament: This is (for) my body. All these words (excepting the particle for) and these alone are essential in the consecration of bread, because these alone completely signify what is effected in the consecration, namely the presence of the body of Christ, and likewise all are required for signifying this. Therefore if someone omitted even one of these words, e.g., is or my, or substantially changed it, he would not validly consecrate. But other words besides these, whether preceding or following, are not essentially and necessarily required for consecration.
Scotus had thought that those words, Who on the day before, etc., indeed are not essentially required for the consecration itself, but nevertheless must necessarily be premised, so that the words of the form may be understood to be uttered in the person of Christ and thus it may be established that the priest wishes to signify not his own body but the body of Christ. But in truth, that the priest speaks in the person of Christ is established not from those words but from his intention. For by the very fact that the priest intends to celebrate, he has an intention fitting the words of consecration and speaks in the person of Christ.1
1 Cf. Lugo, De eucharistia, disp. 11, n. 39.
120. The form of consecrating the wine likewise is constituted by the words of Christ: This is (for) the chalice of my blood, or This is my blood. And these alone indeed are essential in the consecration of the chalice, because these alone already perfectly signify and effect the sacrament, namely the presence of the blood under the species of wine. Hence the words which follow, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which for you and for many shall be poured out unto the remission of sins, are not of the essence of consecration, and in reality in other liturgies, especially Eastern ones, either most or all are absent, nor are they reported by St. Paul, who without doubt wrote down a valid form.1 Nevertheless they must necessarily be added from the precept of the Church, so that their voluntary omission or notable change is a grave sin.
a. He who in the consecration uttered only the first essential words does not necessarily have to repeat the whole form, because the consecration is certainly valid; nor does the contrary opinion of authors, which seems to lack every foundation, render the consecration truly doubtful. Nevertheless, since several authors doubt concerning the consecration if either all the words after the essentials are omitted, or only these words: which ... shall be poured out, etc., it is permitted to repeat the consecration, although it is not necessary.2
b. The words which are used in the consecration of the bread are taken from the Gospel of St. Matthew (26, 26), and the particle for, by which they are connected with the preceding words, has been inserted from the usage of the Roman Church. The words which are used in the consecration of wine are taken from diverse places of Sacred Scripture, except the words eternal and mystery of faith, which came from the Lord through the apostles to the Church.
1 Cf. 1 Cor. 11, 25.
2 Cf. Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor., II, n. 129 (n. 172).
121. The words of consecration must be uttered:
Recitatively or materially, i.e., by narrating historically what Christ the Lord did and said. For from the context of the canon it is established that the priest pronounces those words as having been uttered by another, namely by Christ himself.
Significatively or formally, i.e., in such a way that the priest himself affirms that this is the body of Christ. For if he uttered the words only materially, the presence of the body and blood of Christ would not be required for their truth.
Practically, not only speculatively, i.e., with the intention of effecting by the words of consecration that the body and blood of Christ be really present there.
Moreover, it is not necessary that the celebrant expressly intend all these senses, just as it is not necessary that he determinately intend to consecrate either by the essential words alone or by all the words of the form; but it suffices that he conform himself to the mind of the Church. Indeed, in order to forestall errors and scruples, it is to be counseled that the celebrant in all things intend what the Church wills and intends. But by the name of the Church is understood the moral body of the faithful, whose head is Christ himself, the institutor of the sacraments, who therefore knows best what words effect the consecration and what matter they convert into his body and blood.
122. The words of consecration must be uttered without change, both substantial and accidental; for substantial change would render the consecration invalid, but accidental change illicit.
In the form, this and this first of all signifies demonstratively a present thing, and as regards the object demonstrated it signifies the thing, the substance, which is contained under these species. Therefore this in the second form does not signify adverbially here - in this place. Is signifies that this present thing is the body and blood of Christ; therefore it signifies conversion, and that a permanent one, while on the contrary becomes, is made, signifies only the very action of conversion. Body and blood signify that which becomes present in the Eucharist by force of the words, the body itself and the blood, but not likewise the soul and divinity, which are not constituted present under the species by force of the words.
a. Forms are invalid because of substantial change: alpha. Here (adverbially, i.e., this place, in place of: the substance contained under these species) is my body and my blood; beta. this is my substance, for the substance of Christ also signifies the soul, which by force of the words does not become present under the species; gamma. this body is mine, this blood is mine, for these words do not signify transubstantiation but: this body belongs to me, unless by the intention of the speaker body is taken as predicate; delta. this may be, becomes, may become my body, my blood; epsilon. this is the body of Christ, this is the chalice of divine blood.
Doubtful forms are: alpha. that is my body; that is my blood, because it is not sufficiently established whether the pronoun that signifies a thing present to the speaker; but that signifies not a present thing but a remote one, and therefore this latter form seems to be invalid; beta. this is my flesh, for flesh of itself does not signify the whole of that which body signifies, unless the speaker by the term flesh wishes to signify the same thing.
Valid forms are: alpha. This is my body, this my body is; beta. this food is my body; this drink is my blood; gamma. this chalice is the new testament in my blood, as Luke 22, 20 has it;1 delta. this is indeed the chalice of my blood, because this form has the same sense.
b. A slight or accidental change does not indeed render the form invalid, but nevertheless for the most part renders it gravely illicit; for in this so great sacrament almost every voluntary change of the form must be avoided under grave sin. Nevertheless to omit the word for would be venial. Likewise, as Lehmkuhl notes (n. 128), from negligent pronunciation, not from a defect of a stammering tongue, to corrupt is into 's, body into b'dy, my into m', chalice into chalis, blood into blud, cannot be excused from venial sin.
c. But nevertheless he must repeat nothing who, either inculpably because of a slip or defect of tongue, or culpably because of negligence in pronunciation, has changed the form of consecration only slightly; for the consecration is certainly valid.
Note. Finally for practice it must be noted what the rubric has: "If the celebrant does not remember that he said the things which are commonly said in the consecration, he must not be disturbed on that account."2 Therefore if, because of distraction occurring during the time of consecration, a doubt arises concerning the validity of the consecration, to repeat the form is for the most part neither necessary nor licit. Nevertheless, if sometime the words of consecration must be repeated because of certain or very probable error, and the error is detected some time after the consecration, one must begin from those words: Who on the day before, etc.; but if the error is detected in the consecration itself, only the form is repeated.
1 Cf. also 1 Cor. 11, 25.
2 Missale rom., De defectib., V, 2.