Quaestio 78 Question 78 De forma huius sacramenti The Form of This Sacrament Deinde considerandum est de forma huius sacramenti. Et circa hoc quaeruntur sex. We must now consider the form of this sacrament; concerning which there are six points of inquiry: Primo, quae sit forma huius sacramenti. (1) What is the form of this sacrament? Secundo, utrum sit conveniens forma consecrationis panis. (2) Whether the form for the consecration of the bread is appropriate? Tertio, utrum sit conveniens forma consecrationis sanguinis. (3) Whether the form for the consecration of the blood is appropriate? Quarto, de virtute utriusque formae. (4) Of the power of each form? Quinto, de veritate locutionis. (5) Of the truth of the expression? Sexto, de comparatione unius formae ad aliam. (6) Of the comparison of the one form with the other? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum haec sit forma huius sacramenti, ‘hoc est corpus meum,’ et, ‘hic est calix sanguinis mei’ Whether this is the form of this sacrament: “this is My Body,” and “this is the chalice of My Blood”? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec non sit forma huius sacramenti, hoc est corpus meum, et, hic est calix sanguinis mei. Illa enim verba videntur pertinere ad formam sacramenti quibus Christus corpus suum et sanguinem consecravit. Sed Christus ante benedixit panem acceptum, et postea dixit, accipite et comedite, hoc est corpus meum, ut habetur Matth. XXVI; et similiter fecit de calice. Ergo praedicta verba non sunt forma huius sacramenti. Objection 1: It seems that this is not the form of this sacrament: This is My body, and, This is the chalice of My blood. Because those words seem to belong to the form of this sacrament, wherewith Christ consecrated His body and blood. But Christ first blessed the bread which He took, and said afterwards: Take ye and eat; this is My body (Matt 26:26). Therefore the whole of this seems to belong to the form of this sacrament: and the same reason holds good of the words which go with the consecration of the blood. Praeterea, Eusebius Emesenus dicit quod invisibilis sacerdos visibiles creaturas in suum corpus convertit, dicens, accipite et comedite, hoc est corpus meum. Ergo totum hoc videtur pertinere ad formam sacramenti. Et eadem ratio est de verbis pertinentibus ad sanguinem. Obj. 2: Further, Eusebius Emissenus (Pseudo-Hieron: Ep. xxix; Pseudo-Isid.: Hom. iv) says: The invisible Priest changes visible creatures into His own body, saying: ‘Take ye and eat; this is My body.’ Therefore, the whole of this seems to belong to the form of this sacrament: and the same hold good of the works appertaining to the blood. Praeterea, in forma Baptismi exprimitur persona ministri et actus eius, cum dicitur, ego te baptizo. Sed in praemissis verbis nulla fit mentio de persona ministri, nec de actu eius. Ergo non est conveniens forma sacramenti. Obj. 3: Further, in the form of Baptism both the minister and his act are expressed, when it is said, I baptize thee. But in the words set forth above there is no mention made either of the minister or of his act. Therefore the form of the sacrament is not a suitable one. Praeterea, forma sacramenti sufficit ad perfectionem sacramenti, unde sacramentum Baptismi quandoque perfici potest solis verbis formae prolatis, et omnibus aliis praetermissis. Si ergo praedicta verba sunt forma huius sacramenti, videtur quod aliquando possit hoc sacramentum perfici his solis verbis prolatis, et omnibus aliis praetermissis quae in Missa dicuntur. Quod tamen videtur esse falsum, quia, ubi verba alia praetermitterentur, praedicta verba acciperentur ex persona sacerdotis proferentis, in cuius corpus et sanguinem panis et vinum non convertuntur. Non ergo praedicta verba sunt forma huius sacramenti. Obj. 4: Further, the form of the sacrament suffices for its perfection; hence the sacrament of Baptism can be performed sometimes by pronouncing the words of the form only, omitting all the others. Therefore, if the aforesaid words be the form of this sacrament, it would seem as if this sacrament could be performed sometimes by uttering those words alone, while leaving out all the others which are said in the mass; yet this seems to be false, because, were the other words to be passed over, the said words would be taken as spoken in the person of the priest saying them, whereas the bread and wine are not changed into his body and blood. Consequently, the aforesaid words are not the form of this sacrament. Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, in libro de sacramentis, consecratio fit verbis et sermonibus domini Iesu. Nam per reliqua omnia quae dicuntur, laus Deo defertur, oratione petitur pro populo, pro regibus, pro ceteris. Ubi autem sacramentum conficitur, iam non suis sermonibus sacerdos utitur, sed utitur sermonibus Christi. Ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit sacramentum. On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): The consecration is accomplished by the words and expressions of the Lord Jesus. Because, by all the other words spoken, praise is rendered to God, prayer is put up for the people, for kings, and others; but when the time comes for perfecting the sacrament, the priest uses no longer his own words, but the words of Christ. Therefore, it is Christ’s words that perfect this sacrament. Respondeo dicendum quod hoc sacramentum ab aliis sacramentis differt in duobus. Primo quidem quantum ad hoc, quod hoc sacramentum perficitur in consecratione materiae, alia vero sacramenta perficiuntur in usu materiae consecratae. Secundo, quia in aliis sacramentis consecratio materiae consistit solum in quadam benedictione, ex qua materia consecrata accipit instrumentaliter quandam spiritualem virtutem, quae per ministrum, qui est instrumentum animatum, potest ad instrumenta inanimata procedere. Sed in hoc sacramento consecratio materiae consistit in quadam miraculosa conversione substantiae, quae a solo Deo perfici potest. Unde minister in hoc sacramento perficiendo non habet alium actum nisi prolationem verborum. Et quia forma debet esse conveniens rei, ideo forma huius sacramenti differt a formis aliorum sacramentorum in duobus. Primo quidem, quia formae aliorum sacramentorum important usum materiae, puta baptizationem vel consignationem, sed forma huius sacramenti importat solam consecrationem materiae, quae in transubstantiatione consistit; puta cum dicitur, hoc est corpus meum, vel, hic est calix sanguinis mei. Secundo, quia formae aliorum sacramentorum proferuntur ex persona ministri, sive per modum exercentis actum, sicut cum dicitur, ego te baptizo, vel, ego te confirmo; sive per modum imperantis, sicut in sacramento ordinis dicitur, accipe potestatem, etc.; sive per modum deprecantis, sicut cum in sacramento extremae unctionis dicitur, per istam unctionem et nostram intercessionem, et cetera. Sed forma huius sacramenti profertur ex persona ipsius Christi loquentis, ut detur intelligi quod minister in perfectione huius sacramenti nihil agit nisi quod profert verba Christi. I answer that, This sacrament differs from the other sacraments in two respects. First of all, in this, that this sacrament is accomplished by the consecration of the matter, while the rest are perfected in the use of the consecrated matter. Second, because in the other sacraments the consecration of the matter consists only in a blessing, from which the matter consecrated derives instrumentally a spiritual power, which through the priest who is an animated instrument, can pass on to inanimate instruments. But in this sacrament the consecration of the matter consists in the miraculous change of the substance, which can only be done by God; hence the minister in performing this sacrament has no other act save the pronouncing of the words. And because the form should suit the thing, therefore the form of this sacrament differs from the forms of the other sacraments in two respects. First, because the form of the other sacraments implies the use of the matter, as for instance, baptizing, or signing; but the form of this sacrament implies merely the consecration of the matter, which consists in transubstantiation, as when it is said, This is My body, or, This is the chalice of My blood. Second, because the forms of the other sacraments are pronounced in the person of the minister, whether by way of exercising an act, as when it is said, I baptize thee, or I confirm thee, etc.; or by way of command, as when it is said in the sacrament of order, Take the power, etc.; or by way of entreaty, as when in the sacrament of Extreme Unction it is said, By this anointing and our intercession, etc. But the form of this sacrament is pronounced as if Christ were speaking in person, so that it is given to be understood that the minister does nothing in perfecting this sacrament, except to pronounce the words of Christ. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod circa hoc est multiplex opinio. Quidam enim dixerunt quod Christus, qui habebat potestatem excellentiae in sacramentis, absque omni forma verborum hoc sacramentum perfecit; et postea verba protulit sub quibus alii postea consecrarent. Quod videntur sonare verba Innocentii III dicentis, sane dici potest quod Christus virtute divina confecit, et postea formam expressit sub qua posteri benedicerent. Sed contra hoc expresse sunt verba Evangelii, in quibus dicitur quod Christus benedixit, quae quidem benedictio aliquibus verbis facta est. Unde praedicta verba Innocentii sunt opinative magis dicta quam determinative. Reply Obj. 1: There are many opinions on this matter. Some have said that Christ, Who had power of excellence in the sacraments, performed this sacrament without using any form of words, and that afterwards He pronounced the words under which others were to consecrate thereafter. And the words of Pope Innocent III seem to convey the same sense (De Sacr. Alt. Myst. iv), where he says: In good sooth it can be said that Christ accomplished this sacrament by His Divine power, and subsequently expressed the form under which those who came after were to consecrate. But in opposition to this view are the words of the Gospel in which it is said that Christ blessed, and this blessing was effected by certain words. Accordingly those words of Innocent are to be considered as expressing an opinion, rather than determining the point. Quidam autem dixerunt quod benedictio illa facta est quibusdam aliis verbis nobis ignotis. Sed nec hoc stare potest. Quia benedictio consecrationis nunc perficitur per recitationem eorum quae tunc acta sunt. Unde, si tunc per haec verba non est facta consecratio, nec modo fieret. Others, again, have said that the blessing was effected by other words not known to us. But this statement cannot stand, because the blessing of the consecration is now performed by reciting the things which were then accomplished; hence, if the consecration was not performed then by these words, neither would it be now. Et ideo alii dixerunt quod illa benedictio eisdem etiam verbis facta est quibus modo fit, sed Christus ea bis protulit, primo quidem secreto, ad consecrandum; secundo manifeste, ad instruendum. Sed nec hoc stare potest. Quia sacerdos consecrat proferens haec verba, non ut a Christo in occulta benedictione dicta, sed ut publice prolata. Unde, cum non habeant vim huiusmodi verba nisi ex Christi prolatione, videtur quod etiam Christus manifeste ea proferens consecraverit. Accordingly, others have maintained that this blessing was effected by the same words as are used now; but that Christ spoke them twice, at first secretly, in order to consecrate, and afterwards openly, to instruct others. But even this will not hold good, because the priest in consecrating uses these words, not as spoken in secret, but as openly pronounced. Accordingly, since these words have no power except from Christ pronouncing them, it seems that Christ also consecrated by pronouncing them openly. Et ideo alii dixerunt quod Evangelistae non semper eundem ordinem in recitando servaverunt quo res sunt gestae, ut patet per Augustinum, in libro de consensu Evangelistarum. Unde intelligendum est ordinem rei gestae sic exprimi posse, accipiens panem, benedixit dicens, hoc est corpus meum, et deinde fregit et dedit discipulis suis. Sed idem sensus potest esse in verbis Evangelii non mutatis. Nam hoc participium dicens concomitantiam quandam importat verborum prolatorum ad ea quae praecedunt. Non autem oportet quod haec concomitantia intelligatur solum respectu verbi ultimi prolati, quasi Christus tunc ista verba protulerit quando dedit discipulis suis, sed potest intelligi concomitantia respectu totius praecedentis, ut sit sensus, dum benediceret et frangeret et daret discipulis suis, haec verba dixit, accipite et cetera. And therefore others said that the Evangelists did not always follow the precise order in their narrative as that in which things actually happened, as is seen from Augustine (De Consens. Evang. ii). Hence it is to be understood that the order of what took place can be expressed thus: Taking the bread He blessed it, saying: This is My body, and then He broke it, and gave it to His disciples. But the same sense can be had even without changing the words of the Gospel; because the participle saying implies sequence of the words uttered with what goes before. And it is not necessary for the sequence to be understood only with respect to the last word spoken, as if Christ had just then pronounced those words, when He gave it to His disciples; but the sequence can be understood with regard to all that had gone before; so that the sense is: While He was blessing, and breaking, and giving it to His disciples, He spoke the words, ‘Take ye,’ etc. Ad secundum dicendum quod in his verbis, accipite et comedite, intelligitur usus materiae consecratae, qui non est de necessitate huius sacramenti, ut supra habitum est. Et ideo nec haec verba sunt de substantia formae. Quia tamen ad quandam perfectionem sacramenti pertinet materiae consecratae usus, sicut operatio non est prima, sed secunda perfectio rei; ideo per omnia haec verba exprimitur tota perfectio huius sacramenti. Et hoc modo Eusebius intellexit his verbis confici sacramentum, quantum ad primam et secundam perfectionem ipsius. Reply Obj. 2: In these words, Take ye and eat, the use of the consecrated, matter is indicated, which is not of the necessity of this sacrament, as stated above (Q. 74, A. 7). And therefore not even these words belong to the substance of the form. Nevertheless, because the use of the consecrated matter belongs to a certain perfection of the sacrament, in the same way as operation is not the first but the second perfection of a thing, consequently, the whole perfection of this sacrament is expressed by all those words: and it was in this way that Eusebius understood that the sacrament was accomplished by those words, as to its first and second perfection. Ad tertium dicendum quod in sacramento Baptismi minister aliquem actum exercet circa usum materiae, qui est de essentia sacramenti, quod non est in hoc sacramento. Et ideo non est similis ratio. Reply Obj. 3: In the sacrament of Baptism the minister exercises an act regarding the use of the matter, which is of the essence of the sacrament: such is not the case in this sacrament; hence there is no parallel. Ad quartum dicendum quod quidam dixerunt hoc sacramentum perfici non posse praedictis verbis prolatis et aliis praetermissis, praecipue quae sunt in canone Missae. Sed hoc patet esse falsum. Tum ex verbis Ambrosii supra inductis. Tum etiam quia canon Missae non est idem apud omnes, nec secundum omnia tempora, sed diversa sunt a diversis apposita. Reply Obj. 4: Some have contended that this sacrament cannot be accomplished by uttering the aforesaid words, while leaving out the rest, especially the words in the Canon of the Mass. But that this is false can be seen both from Ambrose’s words quoted above, as well as from the fact that the Canon of the Mass is not the same in all places or times, but various portions have been introduced by various people. Unde dicendum est quod, si sacerdos sola verba praedicta proferret cum intentione conficiendi hoc sacramentum, perficeretur hoc sacramentum, quia intentio faceret ut haec verba intelligerentur quasi ex persona Christi prolata, etiam si verbis praecedentibus hoc non recitaretur. Graviter tamen peccaret sacerdos sic conficiens hoc sacramentum, utpote ritum Ecclesiae non servans. Nec est simile de Baptismo, quod est sacramentum necessitatis, defectum autem huius sacramenti potest supplere spiritualis manducatio, ut Augustinus dicit. Accordingly it must be held that if the priest were to pronounce only the aforesaid words with the intention of consecrating this sacrament, this sacrament would be valid because the intention would cause these words to be understood as spoken in the person of Christ, even though the words were pronounced without those that precede. The priest, however, would sin gravely in consecrating the sacrament thus, as he would not be observing the rite of the Church. Nor does the comparison with Baptism prove anything; for it is a sacrament of necessity: whereas the lack of this sacrament can be supplied by the spiritual partaking thereof, as Augustine says (cf. Q. 73, A. 3, ad 1). Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum haec sit conveniens forma consecrationis panis, ‘hoc est corpus meum’ Whether this is the proper form for the consecration of the bread: “this is My Body”? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec non sit conveniens forma consecrationis panis, hoc est corpus meum. Per formam enim sacramenti debet exprimi sacramenti effectus. Sed effectus qui fit in consecratione panis, est conversio substantiae panis in corpus Christi, quae magis exprimitur per hoc verbum fit, quam per hoc verbum est. Ergo in forma consecrationis deberet dici, hoc fit corpus meum. Objection 1: It seems that this is not the proper form of this sacrament: This is My body. For the effect of a sacrament ought to be expressed in its form. But the effect of the consecration of the bread is the change of the substance of the bread into the body of Christ, and this is better expressed by the word becomes than by is. Therefore, in the form of the consecration we ought to say: This becomes My body. Praeterea, Ambrosius dicit, in libro de sacramentis, sermo Christi hoc conficit sacramentum. Quis sermo Christi? Hic quo facta sunt omnia, jussit dominus et facta sunt caeli et terra. Ergo et forma huius sacramenti convenientior esset per verbum imperativum, ut diceretur, hoc sit corpus meum. Obj. 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv), Christ’s words consecrate this sacrament. What word of Christ? This word, whereby all things are made. The Lord commanded, and the heavens and earth were made. Therefore, it would be a more proper form of this sacrament if the imperative mood were employed, so as to say: Be this My body. Praeterea, per subiectum huius locutionis importatur illud quod convertitur, sicut per praedicatum importatur conversionis terminus. Sed, sicut est determinatum id in quod fit conversio, non enim fit conversio nisi in corpus Christi; ita est determinatum id quod convertitur, non enim convertitur in corpus Christi nisi panis. Ergo, sicut ex parte praedicati ponitur nomen, ita ex parte subiecti debet poni nomen, ut dicatur, hic panis est corpus meum. Obj. 3: Further, that which is changed is implied in the subject of this phrase, just as the term of the change is implied in the predicate. But just as that into which the change is made is something determinate, for the change is into nothing else but the body of Christ, so also that which is converted is determinate, since only bread is converted into the body of Christ. Therefore, as a noun is inserted on the part of the predicate, so also should a noun be inserted in the subject, so that it be said: This bread is My body. Praeterea, sicut id in quod terminatur conversio est determinatae naturae, quia est corpus; ita etiam est determinatae personae. Ergo, ad determinandam personam, debet dici, hoc est corpus Christi. Obj. 4: Further, just as the term of the change is determinate in nature, because it is a body, so also is it determinate in person. Consequently, in order to determine the person, it ought to be said: This is the body of Christ. Praeterea, in verbis formae non debet poni aliquid quod non sit de substantia eius. Inconvenienter ergo additur in quibusdam libris haec coniunctio enim, quae non est de substantia formae. Obj. 5: Further, nothing ought to be inserted in the form except what is substantial to it. Consequently, the conjunction for is improperly added in some books, since it does not belong to the substance of the form. Sed contra est quod dominus hac forma in consecrando est usus, ut patet Matth. XXVI. On the contrary, our Lord used this form in consecrating, as is evident from Matt. 26:26. Respondeo dicendum quod haec est conveniens forma consecrationis panis. Dictum est enim quod haec consecratio consistit in conversione substantiae panis in corpus Christi. Oportet autem formam sacramenti significare id quod in sacramento efficitur. Unde et forma consecrationis panis debet significare ipsam conversionem panis in corpus Christi. In qua tria considerantur, scilicet ipsa conversio, et terminus a quo, et terminus ad quem. I answer that, This is the proper form for the consecration of the bread. For it was said (A. 1) that this consecration consists in changing the substance of bread into the body of Christ. Now the form of a sacrament ought to denote what is done in the sacrament. Consequently the form for the consecration of the bread ought to signify the actual conversion of the bread into the body of Christ. And herein are three things to be considered: namely, the actual conversion, the term whence, and the term whereunto. Conversio autem potest considerari dupliciter, uno modo, ut in fieri; alio modo, ut in facto esse. Non autem debuit significari conversio in hac forma ut in fieri, sed ut in facto esse. Primo quidem, quia haec conversio non est successiva, ut supra habitum est, sed instantanea, in huiusmodi autem mutationibus fieri non est nisi factum esse. Secundo, quia ita se habent formae sacramentales ad significandum effectum sacramenti, sicut se habent formae artificiales ad repraesentandum effectum artis. Forma autem artificialis est similitudo ultimi effectus in quem fertur intentio artificis, sicut forma artis in mente aedificatoris est forma domus aedificatae principaliter, aedificationis autem per consequens. Unde et in hac forma debet exprimi conversio ut in facto esse, ad quod fertur intentio. Now the conversion can be considered in two ways: first, in becoming, second, in being. But the conversion ought not to be signified in this form as in becoming, but as in being. First, because such conversion is not successive, as was said above (Q. 75, A. 7), but instantaneous; and in such changes the becoming is nothing else than the being. Second, because the sacramental forms bear the same relation to the signification of the sacramental effect as artificial forms to the representation of the effect of art. Now an artificial form is the likeness of the ultimate effect, on which the artist’s intention is fixed; just as the art-form in the builder’s mind is principally the form of the house constructed, and secondarily of the constructing. Accordingly, in this form also the conversion ought to be expressed as in being, to which the intention is referred. Et quia ipsa conversio exprimitur in hac forma ut in facto esse, necesse est quod extrema conversionis significentur ut se habent in facto esse conversionis. Tunc autem terminus in quem habet propriam naturam suae substantiae, sed terminus a quo non manet secundum suam substantiam, sed solum secundum accidentia, quibus sensui subiacet, et ad sensum determinari potest. Unde convenienter terminus conversionis a quo exprimitur per pronomen demonstrativum relatum ad accidentia sensibilia, quae manent. Terminus autem ad quem exprimitur per nomen significans naturam eius in quod fit conversio, quod quidem est totum corpus Christi, et non sola caro eius, ut dictum est. Unde haec forma est convenientissima, hoc est corpus meum. And since the conversion is expressed in this form as in being, it is necessary for the extremes of the conversion to be signified as they exist in the fact of conversion. But then the term whereunto has the proper nature of its own substance; whereas the term whence does not remain in its own substance, but only as to the accidents whereby it comes under the senses, and can be determined in relation to the senses. Hence the term whence of the conversion is conveniently expressed by the demonstrative pronoun, relative to the sensible accidents which continue; but the term whereunto is expressed by the noun signifying the nature of the thing which terminates the conversion, and this is Christ’s entire body, and not merely His flesh; as was said above (Q. 76, A. 1, ad 2). Hence this form is most appropriate: This is My body.