Chapter III. On the Form of the Sacrament of the Eucharist

I say. Just as the matter is twofold and distinct, so also the form of consecration is twofold, one of bread and the other of wine. The first consists in these words: "For this is My body." But the other is this: "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." This is established from the Council of Florence in the Decree of Union, from Trent, sess. 13, chap. 1, and from the divine institution itself of the Eucharist.

Question 1. How must the words of the form be uttered?

Resp. They must be uttered in the person of Christ, both recitatively and significatively, but not historically only: namely, the words of Christ are to be uttered by applying their signification to the present matter, so that this may be transubstantiated into the Body and Blood of Christ. Yet a scruple is not to be had as to whether the words are uttered in the due sense; for any priest is presumed to have the intention of doing that which Christ did and instituted, and so he sufficiently intends to utter the consecratory words in both of the aforesaid senses. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 220 and following.

Question 2. Is the word FOR in the form of consecration altogether necessary?

Resp. Certainly that word is not required for validity, but only for liceity by force of a precept, concerning the gravity of which theologians dispute; but the opinion denying that it is grave is probable, because that word is not found in the words uttered by Christ. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 220.

Question 3. In the consecration, are those antecedent words required as essential: WHO ON THE DAY BEFORE HE SUFFERED, etc., IN LIKE MANNER, etc.?

Resp. Negatively, with the common opinion, which St. Alphonsus holds. The reason is that these words are uttered only historically, and do not seem to have any sacramental efficacy. Nevertheless, if at any time, on account of a doubtful consecration, the form must be repeated, one must begin altogether from the words: who on the day before and in like manner, not only because the Rubric so prescribes, but also on account of whatever probability there may be of the contrary opinion. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 222. - Ballerini, note (a), p. 189.¹

¹ Cf. Addenda, p. 1127, n. 86.

Question 4. In the consecration of the chalice, are only these words: THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD ... of the essence of the form?

Resp. Affirmatively; and the reason is both because the words of the consecration of bread are these: This is My body, and therefore, by parity, the words of the consecration of wine are only these other words: This is My blood, or other equivalent words; and because those words alone by themselves express the presence of the Blood of Christ under the species of wine. But in practice the priest would sin gravely if he did not utter all the words which are contained in the consecration of the chalice, both on account of the precept, and perhaps on account of the not-to-be-despised probability of the opposite opinion. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 223. - Ballerini, note (b), p. 189.

Question 5. Is the form valid if it is said: FOR THIS MY BODY, with IS understood, as often happens in the Latin language?

Resp. Negatively; for although in continuous speech the substantive verb can easily be understood, nevertheless in the present case this cannot be done: both because there is not continuous speech, and especially because, in the matter of which we are treating, the form has not only an assertive sense as in common speech, but also the force effecting transubstantiation. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 223.