Article III. The Form of the Eucharist

178. The form of consecration consists in the words which the priest pronounces in the name of Christ (assertively and not merely historically); for Eugene IV says:⁶² "The form of this sacrament is the words of the Savior by which He effected this sacrament; for the priest, speaking in the person of Christ, effects this sacrament."

The form in the consecration of the bread is: "For this is My Body." All these words are essential except the word "for," the omission of which would constitute a venial sin. This form is taken from the Gospel of St. Matthew.⁶³

The form in the consecration of the wine is: "For this is the chalice of My Blood, of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins."⁶⁴ These words indeed are taken from diverse places of Sacred Scripture, except the words "eternal" and "the mystery of faith," which must be said to have come from Christ to the Church. In this form the essential words are: "This is the chalice of My Blood," or, "This is My Blood." Concerning the word "for," the same holds as was said above concerning the consecration of the bread. The remaining words must indeed be added under grave obligation, but they do not seem to pertain to the essence. Thus the common opinion, which is not opposed by the precept of the Church that, if a priest fails after pronouncing the words, "For this is the chalice of My Blood," another priest must repeat the whole form. For if the celebrating priest suddenly fails, it is morally impossible to know which words of the form he duly pronounced. Therefore the Church, lest the sacrifice of the Mass remain incomplete, chooses the safer course. Nor does St. Thomas in fact contradict this opinion, because his words⁶⁵ can and should be understood in a correct sense.⁶⁶

If anyone through negligence or bad usage were to pronounce "oc, ic, es, copus, calis, meus, sanguis," he would indeed sin, but he would consecrate validly, because such mutations are accidental, at least if the intention of the priest was right. In practice, the words of consecration are to be pronounced with the greatest diligence (yet in a human manner), without the least mutation. For the dignity of so great a sacrament requires this.

⁶² Decree for the Armenians (Denz., n. 698).

⁶³ Chapter 26, verse 26.

⁶⁴ The form according to the Greek rite is: "Take and eat: this is My Body, which is broken for you unto the remission of sins"; and: "Drink of this, all of you: for this is My Blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins." Thus it is given in the First Provincial Council of Alba Iulia and Făgăraș, p. 78.

⁶⁵ In IV, dist. 8, q. 2, a. 2, and S. theol. 3, q. 78, a. 3.

⁶⁶ Cf. Billuart, De euchar., diss. 5, a. 3, § 2, and Cajetan, Commentary on S. theol., q. 78, a. 1.

179. Scholion. On errors concerning the form of the Eucharist. Concerning the form of the Eucharist, the Protestants taught falsely, saying that the words are not so necessary, or that the words ought to be pronounced only for arousing faith. The schismatic Greeks say that the Eucharist is confected through the so-called "epiclesis," or in the prayers which, after the words "This is My Body," etc., have been pronounced, they pour forth according to their liturgies in this manner: "We beseech You, Father, that You send Your Spirit upon us and upon these gifts set before You, and make this bread the precious Body of Your Son and that which is in the chalice the precious Blood of Your Son." The united Greeks, however, have a form not essentially diverse from the form of the Latin rite. Innocent III⁶⁷ (as a private author) judged that Christ consecrated without words and by a blessing alone.⁶⁸ Ambrose Catharinus and a few others defended the same opinion. Scotus⁶⁹ thought that from the necessity of the sacrament the form must begin with the words "Who, the day before," etc., so that the consecration would be doubtful if these words were omitted. This opinion, as also the practice of the schismatic Greeks, was proscribed by Pius VII on May 8, 1822, who in letters to the Melkite Greek Patriarch of Antioch forbids all persons in every way to hold and defend that "opinion promoted by schismatic men, that the consecration does not consist solely in the words of Christ, which both the Western and Eastern Church use, but that for the perfect and consummated consecration it is necessary to add the formula of prayer which in the Western liturgy precedes and in the Eastern follows." Hence it is false what certain moderns teach; for example, Schell,⁷⁰ that the valid form of the Eucharist in the Greek Church is the epiclesis. Rauschen also erred in this matter, saying: "The moment of consecration depends upon the intention of the priest ... the consecration is completed in the epiclesis."⁷¹ For how does something pertain to the essence of the sacrament which can be present or absent? Yet Rauschen himself teaches that the epiclesis can be present or absent in the consecration.⁷² Finally, the heretics of the first centuries (Ebionites, Marcionites, Apostolics, etc.), who taught that pure water was to be consecrated in place of wine and therefore were called "Aquarians," also erred concerning the form of the Eucharist.⁷³

⁶⁷ De myst. Missae, l. 4, c. 6.

⁶⁸ Cf. S. theol. 3, q. 78, a. 1 ad 1.

⁶⁹ In IV, dist. 8, q. 2.

⁷⁰ Dogmatik III (1893), 539.

⁷¹ Euchar. und Bußsakram., § 6, p. 100.

⁷² Cf. J. Höller, Die Epiklese der griech.-orient. Liturgien (Vienna, 1912), 74-134.

⁷³ Cf. St. Cyprian, Epistle 63 to Caecilius (Migne, Patr. lat. 4, 384 sqq.).