|
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" (Mt. 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
Objection 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.
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."
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. Secondly, 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." Secondly, 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
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.
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.
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.
Reply to Objection 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 (Question 74,
Article 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
Reply to Objection 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.
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. Question 73,
Article 3, ad 1).
|
|