|
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."
Objection 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."
Objection 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."
Objection 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."
Objection 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.
On the contrary, our Lord used this form in consecrating, as is
evident from Mt. 26:26.
I answer that, This is the proper form for the consecration of the
bread. For it was said (Article 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."
Now the conversion can be considered in two ways: first, in
"becoming," secondly, 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
(Question 75, Article 7), but instantaneous; and in such
changes the "becoming" is nothing else than the "being."
Secondly, 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.
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 (Question 76, Article 1,
ad 2). Hence this form is most appropriate: "This is My body."
Reply to Objection 1: The ultimate effect of this conversion is not
a "becoming" but a "being," as stated above, and consequently
prominence should be given to this in the form.
Reply to Objection 2: God's word operated in the creation of
things, and it is the same which operates in this consecration, yet
each in different fashion: because here it operates effectively and
sacramentally, that is, in virtue of its signification. And
consequently the last effect of the consecration must needs be signified
in this sentence by a substantive verb of the indicative mood and
present time. But in the creation of things it worked merely
effectively, and such efficiency is due to the command of His wisdom;
and therefore in the creation of things the Lord's word is expressed
by a verb in the imperative mood, as in Gn. 1:3: "Let there be
light, and light was made."
Reply to Objection 3: The term "whence" does not retain the
nature of its substance in the "being" of the conversion, as the term
"whereunto" does. Therefore there is no parallel.
Reply to Objection 4: The pronoun "My," which implicitly points
to the chief person, i.e. the person of the speaker, sufficiently
indicates Christ's person, in Whose person these words are uttered,
as stated above (Article 1).
Reply to Objection 5: The conjunction "for" is set in this form
according to the custom of the Roman Church, who derived it from
Peter the Apostle; and this on account of the sequence with the words
preceding: and therefore it is not part of the form, just as the words
preceding the form are not.
|
|