Chapter II. On the Form

I. The legitimate and usual form is:

1. For the Latin Church: For this is my body. For this is the chalice of my blood, 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. "The words of consecration," says the Roman Missal,¹ "which are the form of this sacrament, are these: For this is my body, and: For this is, etc."

2. For the Greek Church: Take and eat: this is my body, which is broken for you unto the remission of sins. Drink ye all of this: for this is my blood of the New Testament, which is poured out for you and for many unto the remission of sins.

Now the form is to be uttered not merely recitatively or historically, that is, as uttered by Christ Himself, but also assertively or significatively, that is, with the mind of asserting that this is the body and blood of Christ (St. Alphonsus, VI, 220).

Note. The epiclesis, as it is called, does not pertain to the form. Now the epiclesis is an invocation of the Holy Spirit by which the Church prays that the bread and wine may become for us the body and blood of Christ. It occurs in the Roman Liturgy before the consecration, in the Eastern liturgies after the consecration. Now that this epiclesis is either the sole or at least the principal form of the Most Holy Sacrament, as having the sole or principal force of effecting transubstantiation, several Greek schismatics have admitted from the fourteenth century, and a few Catholics agreed with them. But this opinion is to be rejected, as is clear from the Decree for the Armenians to be cited under II; likewise from the letter of Pius VII, Adorabile Eucharistiae, 8 May 1822, to the Antiochian Patriarch and the bishops of the Greek Melchites. The epiclesis, as the Greeks confessed with Bessarion² in the Council of Florence,³ on the one hand is a ceremony by which that which the words of consecration effect is explained, and on the other hand is a prayer by which the Church asks that the body and blood of Christ may not only simply be such, but may also become fruitfully for the faithful, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, the body and blood of Christ (cf. St. Thomas, III, q. 83, a. 4, ad 7).

¹ Roman Missal, On Defects, title V, n. 1.

² De Sacr. Euch. (Migne, Patrologia Graeca, 161, col. 514 and following).

³ Session 25 (Hardouin, vol. 18, col. 512 D-536 inclusive).

II. The essentials of the form are determined in these things:

1. These are certainly essential: This is my body; and: This is my blood, or: This is the chalice of my blood. This is a certain opinion. "The form of this sacrament," says Eugene IV in the Decree for the Armenians, "is the words of the Savior, by which He confected this sacrament. For the priest, speaking in the person of Christ, confects this sacrament."

2. These are certainly not essential:

a) The word for, both in the consecration of the bread and in the consecration of the wine.

b) The words preceding the form, namely Who the day before, etc., and In like manner, etc., almost certainly do not pertain to the essence, since in the instruction of Eugene they are not reckoned among those things which pertain to the form (St. Alphonsus, VI, 222).

3. There is dispute about the words New through of sins. Some judge that they pertain to the essence, because it must be expressed that the consecration is sacrificial, or that the presence of Christ is an immolative presence. Nevertheless the contrary opinion is more common and more probable, both because St. Paul has only these words: This chalice is the new Testament in my blood; and because in different liturgies different words from the cited words are omitted; and because the analogy of the consecration of bread is added. Nevertheless in practice the first opinion must be followed, as is clear (St. Alphonsus, VI, 223).

Corollary I. The forms are invalid: 1. This body is mine; this blood is mine; for then before the consecration the body and blood are asserted to be present, though they are constituted present through the consecration. It is otherwise if someone only transposed the words, so that the sense would be: "This, it is my body." 2. If someone deliberately used the word this adverbially; otherwise if by error. 3. If someone omitted is, because the circumstances do not sufficiently indicate that that word is understood, or at least do not sufficiently signify that it is understood in the sense which imports production.

Corollary II. The forms are doubtful: 1. That is my body; that is the chalice, etc., because although the pronoun that is rather often used for this, nevertheless it does not certainly signify a thing present to the speaker. The forms are still more doubtful: That over there is my body; that over there is the chalice, etc. 2. This is my flesh, because flesh, strictly speaking, does not signify the whole body.

Corollary III. The form is valid: This thing, this substance, is my body. It is otherwise: This bread is my body (cf. St. Alphonsus, VI, 221-223).

III. With respect to liceity, observe that an omission, addition, or change knowingly made, even if it does not obstruct validity, easily constitutes grave sin. Nevertheless there can be only venial sin, for example if someone omitted only the word for. For the rest, the words should be uttered distinctly, reverently, and, as the Missal admonishes, secretly, not in a loud voice or with vehement expulsion of words from the mouth. In order that every danger of erring may be avoided, it is better to read the form from the altar card.

IV. With respect to errors to be corrected, note that if the form must be repeated, one must always begin from the words Who the day before, or In like manner.¹ For the rest, receive these things from the Missal: "If the celebrant does not remember that he said those things which are commonly said in the consecration, he ought not for that reason be troubled. If, however, it is certain to him that he omitted something of those things which are of the necessity of the sacrament, that is, the form of consecration, or part of it, let him resume the form itself and continue the rest in order. But if he very probably doubts that he omitted something essential, let him repeat the form at least under a tacit condition. But if the things are not of the necessity of the sacrament, let him not resume them, but proceed further."²

¹ Roman Missal, On Defects, title III, nn. 5, 6, 7; title IV, nn. 3, 4; title X, nn. 3, 13.

² Roman Missal, On Defects, title V, n. 2.