Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 78 [<< | >>]
| 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? |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 78 [<< | >>]
Article: 1 [<< | >>]
| 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" (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. |
| 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. | 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. |
| 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. | 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. |
| 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. | 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. |
| 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. 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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 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. |
| 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. Question [73], Article [3], ad 1). |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 78 [<< | >>]
Article: 2 [<< | >>]
| 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. | 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." |
| 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. | 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." |
| 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. | 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." |
| 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. | 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. |
| 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 Mt. 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 (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." |
| 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," 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. |
| 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 (Question [76], Article [1], ad 2). Hence this form is most appropriate: "This is My body." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod fieri non est ultimus effectus huius consecrationis, sed factum esse ut dictum est. Et ideo hoc potius exprimi debet in forma. | 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. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod sermo Dei operatus est in creatione rerum, qui etiam operatur in hac consecratione, aliter tamen et aliter. Nam hic operatur sacramentaliter, idest secundum vim significationis. Et ideo oportet in hoc sermone significari ultimum effectum consecrationis per verbum substantivum indicativi modi et praesentis temporis. Sed in creatione rerum operatus est solum effective, quae quidem efficientia est per imperium suae sapientiae. Et ideo in creatione rerum exprimitur sermo dominicus per verbum imperativi modi, secundum illud Gen. I, fiat lux, et facta est lux. | 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." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod terminus a quo in ipso facto esse conversionis non retinet naturam suae substantiae, sicut terminus ad quem. Et ideo non est simile. | 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. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod per hoc pronomen meum, quod includit demonstrationem primae personae, quae est persona loquentis, sufficienter exprimitur persona Christi, ex cuius persona haec proferuntur, ut dictum est. | 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]). |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod haec coniunctio enim apponitur in hac forma secundum consuetudinem Romanae Ecclesiae a beato Petro apostolo derivatam. Et hoc propter continuationem ad verba praecedentia. Et ideo non est de forma, sicut nec praecedentia formam. | 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. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 78 [<< | >>]
Article: 3 [<< | >>]
| Ad tertium sic proceditur. Videtur quod haec non sit conveniens forma consecrationis vini, hic est calix sanguinis mei, novi et aeterni testamenti, mysterium fidei, qui pro vobis et pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Sicut enim panis convertitur in corpus Christi ex vi consecrationis, ita et vinum in sanguinem Christi, sicut ex praedictis patet. Sed in forma consecrationis panis ponitur in recto corpus Christi, nec aliquid aliud additur. Inconvenienter ergo in hac forma ponitur sanguis Christi in obliquo, et additur calix in recto, cum dicitur, hic est calix sanguinis mei. | Objection 1: It seems that this is not the proper form for the consecration of the wine. "This is the chalice of My blood, of the New and Eternal Testament, the Mystery of Faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins." For as the bread is changed by the power of consecration into Christ's body, so is the wine changed into Christ's blood, as is clear from what was said above (Question [76], Articles [1],2,3). But in the form of the consecration of the bread, the body of Christ is expressly mentioned, without any addition. Therefore in this form the blood of Christ is improperly expressed in the oblique case, and the chalice in the nominative, when it is said: "This is the chalice of My blood." |
| Praeterea, non sunt maioris efficaciae verba quae proferuntur in consecratione panis quam ea quae proferuntur in consecratione vini, cum utraque sint verba Christi. Sed statim dicto, hoc est corpus meum, est perfecta consecratio panis. Ergo statim cum dictum est, hic est calix sanguinis mei, est perfecta consecratio sanguinis. Et ita ea quae consequuntur non videntur esse de substantia formae, praesertim cum pertineant ad proprietates huius sacramenti. | Objection 2: Further, the words spoken in the consecration of the bread are not more efficacious than those spoken in the consecration of the wine, since both are Christ's words. But directly the words are spoken---"This is My body," there is perfect consecration of the bread. Therefore, directly these other words are uttered---"This is the chalice of My blood," there is perfect consecration of the blood; and so the words which follow do not appeal to be of the substance of the form, especially since they refer to the properties of this sacrament. |
| Praeterea, testamentum novum pertinere videtur ad internam inspirationem, ut patet ex hoc quod apostolus, ad Heb. VIII, introducit verba quae habentur in Ierem. XXXI, consummabo super domum Israel testamentum novum, dando leges meas in mentibus eorum. Sacramentum autem exterius visibiliter agitur. Inconvenienter ergo in forma sacramenti dicitur, novi testamenti. | Objection 3: Further, the New Testament seems to be an internal inspiration, as is evident from the Apostle quoting the words of Jeremias (31:31): "I will perfect unto the house of Israel a New Testament . . . I will give My laws into their mind" (Heb. 8:8). But a sacrament is an outward visible act. Therefore, in the form of the sacrament the words "of the New Testament" are improperly added. |
| Praeterea, novum dicitur aliquid ex eo quod est prope principium sui esse. Aeternum autem non habet principium sui esse. Ergo inconvenienter dicitur novi et aeterni, quia videtur contradictionem implicare. | Objection 4: Further, a thing is said to be new which is near the beginning of its existence. But what is eternal has no beginning of its existence. Therefore it is incorrect to say "of the New and Eternal," because it seems to savor of a contradiction. |
| Praeterea, occasiones erroris sunt hominibus subtrahendae, secundum illud Isaiae LVII, auferte offendicula de via populi mei. Sed quidam erraverunt aestimantes mystice solum esse corpus et sanguinem Christi in hoc sacramento. Ergo in hac forma inconvenienter ponitur mysterium fidei. | Objection 5: Further, occasions of error ought to be withheld from men, according to Is. 57:14: "Take away the stumbling blocks out of the way of My people." But some have fallen into error in thinking that Christ's body and blood are only mystically present in this sacrament. Therefore it is out of place to add "the mystery of faith." |
| Praeterea, supra dictum est quod, sicut Baptismus est sacramentum fidei, ita Eucharistia est sacramentum caritatis. Ergo in hac forma magis debuit poni caritas quam fides. | Objection 6: Further, it was said above (Question [73], Article [3], ad 3), that as Baptism is the sacrament of faith, so is the Eucharist the sacrament of charity. Consequently, in this form the word "charity" ought rather to be used than "faith." |
| Praeterea, totum hoc sacramentum, et quantum ad corpus et quantum ad sanguinem, est memoriale dominicae passionis, secundum illud I Cor. XI, quotiescumque manducabitis panem hunc et calicem bibetis, mortem domini annuntiabitis. Non ergo magis debuit in forma consecrationis sanguinis fieri mentio de passione Christi et de eius fructu, quam in forma consecrationis corporis, praesertim cum, Luc. XXII, dominus dixerit, hoc est corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur. | Objection 7: Further, the whole of this sacrament, both as to body and blood, is a memorial of our Lord's Passion, according to 1 Cor. 11:26: "As often as you shall eat this bread and drink the chalice, you shall show the death of the Lord." Consequently, mention ought to be made of Christ's Passion and its fruit rather in the form of the consecration of the blood, than in the form of the consecration of the body, especially since our Lord said: "This is My body, which shall be delivered up for you" (Lk. 22:19). |
| Praeterea, passio Christi, ut supra habitum est, ad sufficientiam profuit omnibus, quantum vero ad efficaciam profuit multis. Debuit ergo dici quod effundetur pro omnibus, aut pro multis, sine hoc quod adderetur pro vobis. | Objection 8: Further, as was already observed (Question [48], Article [2]; Question [49], Article [3]), Christ's Passion sufficed for all; while as to its efficacy it was profitable for many. Therefore it ought to be said: "Which shall be shed for all," or else "for many," without adding, "for you." |
| Praeterea, verba quibus hoc sacramentum conficitur, efficaciam habent ex institutione Christi. Sed nullus Evangelista recitat Christum haec omnia verba dixisse. Ergo non est conveniens forma consecrationis vini. | Objection 9: Further, the words whereby this sacrament is consecrated draw their efficacy from Christ's institution. But no Evangelist narrates that Christ spoke all these words. Therefore this is not an appropriate form for the consecration of the wine. |
| Sed contra est quod Ecclesia, ab apostolis instructa, utitur hac forma in consecratione vini. | On the contrary, The Church, instructed by the apostles, uses this form. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod circa hanc formam est duplex opinio. Quidam enim dixerunt quod de substantia formae huius est hoc solum quod dicitur, hic est calix sanguinis mei, non autem ea quae sequuntur. Sed hoc videtur inconveniens, quia ea quae sequuntur, sunt quaedam determinationes praedicati, idest sanguinis Christi; unde pertinent ad integritatem locutionis. | I answer that, There is a twofold opinion regarding this form. Some have maintained that the words "This is the chalice of My blood" alone belong to the substance of this form, but not those words which follow. Now this seems incorrect, because the words which follow them are determinations of the predicate, that is, of Christ's blood. consequently they belong to the integrity of the expression. |
| Et propter hoc sunt alii qui melius dicunt quod omnia sequentia sunt de substantia formae, usque ad hoc quod postea sequitur, hoc quotiescumque feceritis, quae pertinent ad usum huius sacramenti, unde non sunt de substantia formae. Et inde est quod sacerdos eodem ritu et modo, scilicet tenendo calicem in manibus, omnia haec verba profert. Lucae etiam XXII interponuntur verba sequentia verbis primis, cum dicitur, hic calix novum testamentum est in sanguine meo. | And on this account others say more accurately that all the words which follow are of the substance of the form down to the words, "As often as ye shall do this," which belong to the use of this sacrament, and consequently do not belong to the substance of the form. Hence it is that the priest pronounces all these words, under the same rite and manner, namely, holding the chalice in his hands. Moreover, in Lk. 22:20, the words that follow are interposed with the preceding words: "This is the chalice, the new testament in My blood." |
| Dicendum est ergo quod omnia praedicta verba sunt de substantia formae, sed per prima verba, hic est calix sanguinis mei, significatur ipsa conversio vini in sanguinem, eo modo quo dictum est in forma consecrationis panis; per verba autem sequentia designatur virtus sanguinis effusi in passione, quae operatur in hoc sacramento. Quae quidem ad tria ordinatur. Primo quidem, et principaliter, ad adipiscendam aeternam hereditatem, secundum illud Heb. X, habemus fiduciam in introitu sanctorum per sanguinem eius. Et ad hoc designandum dicitur, novi testamenti et aeterni. Secundo, ad iustitiam gratiae, quae est per fidem, secundum illud Rom. III, quem proposuit Deus propitiatorem per fidem in sanguine eius, ut sit ipse iustus, et iustificans eum qui ex fide est Iesu Christi. Et quantum ad hoc subditur, mysterium fidei. Tertio autem, ad removendum impedimenta utriusque praedictorum, scilicet peccata, secundum illud Heb. IX, sanguis Christi emundabit conscientias nostras ab operibus mortuis, idest a peccatis. Et quantum ad hoc subditur, qui pro vobis et pro multis aliis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. | Consequently it must be said that all the aforesaid words belong to the substance of the form; but that by the first words, "This is the chalice of My blood," the change of the wine into blood is denoted, as explained above (Article [2]) in the form for the consecration of the bread; but by the words which come after is shown the power of the blood shed in the Passion, which power works in this sacrament, and is ordained for three purposes. First and principally for securing our eternal heritage, according to Heb. 10:19: "Having confidence in the entering into the holies by the blood of Christ"; and in order to denote this, we say, "of the New and Eternal Testament." Secondly, for justifying by grace, which is by faith according to Rm. 3:25,26: "Whom God hath proposed to be a propitiation, through faith in His blood . . . that He Himself may be just, and the justifier of him who is of the faith of Jesus Christ": and on this account we add, "The Mystery of Faith." Thirdly, for removing sins which are the impediments to both of these things, according to Heb. 9:14: "The blood of Christ . . . shall cleanse our conscience from dead works," that is, from sins; and on this account, we say, "which shall be shed for you and for many unto the forgiveness of sins." |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum dicitur, hic est calix sanguinis mei, est locutio figurativa, et potest dupliciter intelligi. Uno modo, secundum metonymiam, quia ponitur continens pro contento, ut sit sensus, hic est sanguis meus contentus in calice. De quo fit hic mentio, quia sanguis Christi in hoc sacramento consecratur inquantum est potus fidelium, quod non importatur in ratione sanguinis, et ideo oportuit hic designari per vas huic usui accommodatum. | Reply to Objection 1: The expression "This is the chalice of My blood" is a figure of speech, which can be understood in two ways. First, as a figure of metonymy; because the container is put for the contained, so that the meaning is: "This is My blood contained in the chalice"; of which mention is now made, because Christ's blood is consecrated in this sacrament, inasmuch as it is the drink of the faithful, which is not implied under the notion of blood; consequently this had to be denoted by the vessel adapted for such usage. |
| Alio modo potest intelligi secundum metaphoram, prout per calicem similitudinarie intelligitur passio Christi, quae ad similitudinem calicis inebriat, secundum illud Thren. III, replevit me amaritudinibus, inebriavit me absynthio, unde et ipse dominus passionem suam calicem nominat, Matth. XXVI, dicens, transeat a me calix iste; ut sit sensus, hic est calix passionis meae. De qua fit mentio in sanguine seorsum a corpore consecrato, quia separatio sanguinis a corpore fuit per passionem. | Secondly, it can be taken by way of metaphor, so that Christ's Passion is understood by the chalice by way of comparison, because, like a cup, it inebriates, according to Lam. 3:15: "He hath filled me with bitterness, he hath inebriated me with wormwood": hence our Lord Himself spoke of His Passion as a chalice, when He said (Mt. 26:39): "Let this chalice pass away from Me": so that the meaning is: "This is the chalice of My Passion." This is denoted by the blood being consecrated apart from the body; because it was by the Passion that the blood was separated from the body. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod quia, ut dictum est, sanguis seorsum consecratus expresse passionem Christi repraesentat, ideo potius in consecratione sanguinis fit mentio de effectu passionis quam in consecratione corporis, quod est passionis subiectum. Quod etiam designatur in hoc quod dominus dicit, quod pro vobis tradetur, quasi dicat, quod pro vobis passioni subiicietur. | Reply to Objection 2: As was said above (ad 1; Question [76], Article [2], ad 1), the blood consecrated apart expressly represents Christ's Passion, and therefore mention is made of the fruits of the Passion in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body, since the body is the subject of the Passion. This is also pointed out in our Lord's saying, "which shall be delivered up for you," as if to say, "which shall undergo the Passion for you." |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod testamentum est dispositio hereditatis. Hereditatem autem caelestem Deus disposuit hominibus dandam per virtutem sanguinis Iesu Christi, quia, ut dicitur Heb. IX, ubi est testamentum, mors necesse est intercedat testatoris. Sanguis autem Christi dupliciter est hominibus exhibitus. Primo quidem, in figura, quod pertinet ad vetus testamentum. Et ideo apostolus ibidem concludit, unde nec primum testamentum sine sanguine dedicatum est, quod patet ex hoc quod, sicut dicitur Exod. XXIV, lecto omni mandato legis a Moyse, omnem populum aspersit, dicens, hic est sanguis testamenti quod mandavit ad vos Deus. | Reply to Objection 3: A testament is the disposal of a heritage. But God disposed of a heavenly heritage to men, to be bestowed through the virtue of the blood of Jesus Christ; because, according to Heb. 9:16: "Where there is a testament the death of the testator must of necessity come in." Now Christ's blood was exhibited to men in two ways. First of all in figure, and this belongs to the Old Testament; consequently the Apostle concludes (Heb. 9:16): "Whereupon neither was the first indeed dedicated without blood," which is evident from this, that as related in Ex. 24:7,8, "when every" commandment of the law "had been read" by Moses, "he sprinkled all the people" saying: "This is the blood of the testament which the Lord hath enjoined unto you." |
| Secundo autem est exhibitus in rei veritate, quod pertinet ad novum testamentum. Et hoc est quod apostolus ibidem praemittit, dicens, ideo novi testamenti mediator est Christus, ut, morte intercedente, repromissionem accipiant qui vocati sunt aeternae hereditatis. Dicitur ergo hic sanguis novi testamenti, quia iam non in figura, sed in veritate exhibetur. Unde subditur, qui pro vobis effundetur. Interna autem inspiratio ex sanguinis virtute procedit secundum quod passione Christi iustificamur. | Secondly, it was shown in very truth; and this belongs to the New Testament. This is what the Apostle premises when he says (Rm. 9:15): "Therefore He is the Mediator of the New Testament, that by means of His death . . . they that are called may receive the promise of eternal inheritance." Consequently, we say here, "The blood of the New Testament," because it is shown now not in figure but in truth; and therefore we add, "which shall be shed for you." But the internal inspiration has its origin in the power of this blood, according as we are justified by Christ's Passion. |
| Ad quartum dicendum quod hoc testamentum est novum ratione exhibitionis. Dicitur autem aeternum, tam ratione aeternae Dei praeordinationis; quam etiam ratione aeternae hereditatis, quae per hoc testamentum disponitur. Ipsa etiam persona Christi, cuius sanguine testamentum disponitur, est aeterna. | Reply to Objection 4: This Testament is a "new one" by reason of its showing forth: yet it is called "eternal" both on account of God's eternal pre-ordination, as well as on account of the eternal heritage which is prepared by this testament. Moreover, Christ's Person is eternal, in Whose blood this testament is appointed. |
| Ad quintum dicendum quod mysterium hic ponitur, non quidem ad excludendum rei veritatem, sed ad ostendendum occultationem. Quia et ipse sanguis Christi occulto modo est in hoc sacramento; et ipsa passio Christi occulte fuit figurata in veteri testamento. | Reply to Objection 5: The word "mystery" is inserted, not in order to exclude reality, but to show that the reality is hidden, because Christ's blood is in this sacrament in a hidden manner, and His Passion was dimly foreshadowed in the Old Testament. |
| Ad sextum dicendum quod dicitur sacramentum fidei, quasi fidei obiectum, quia quod sanguis Christi secundum rei veritatem sit in hoc sacramento, sola fide tenetur. Ipsa etiam passio Christi per fidem iustificat. Baptismus autem dicitur sacramentum fidei quia est quaedam fidei protestatio. Hoc autem est sacramentum caritatis quasi figurativum et effectivum. | Reply to Objection 6: It is called the "Sacrament of Faith," as being an object of faith: because by faith alone do we hold the presence of Christ's blood in this sacrament. Moreover Christ's Passion justifies by faith. Baptism is called the "Sacrament of Faith" because it is a profession of faith. This is called the "Sacrament of Charity," as being figurative and effective thereof. |
| Ad septimum dicendum quod, sicut dictum est, sanguis seorsum consecratus a corpore expressius repraesentat passionem Christi. Et ideo in consecratione sanguinis fit mentio de passione Christi et fructu ipsius, potius quam in consecratione corporis. | Reply to Objection 7: As stated above (ad 2), the blood consecrated apart represents Christ's blood more expressively; and therefore mention is made of Christ's Passion and its fruits, in the consecration of the blood rather than in that of the body. |
| Ad octavum dicendum quod sanguis passionis Christi non solum habet efficaciam in Iudaeis electis, quibus exhibitus est sanguis veteris testamenti, sed etiam in gentilibus; nec solum in sacerdotibus, qui hoc efficiunt sacramentum, vel aliis qui sumunt, sed etiam in illis pro quibus offertur. Et ideo signanter dicit, pro vobis Iudaeis, et pro multis, scilicet gentilibus, vel, pro vobis manducantibus, et pro multis pro quibus offertur. | Reply to Objection 8: The blood of Christ's Passion has its efficacy not merely in the elect among the Jews, to whom the blood of the Old Testament was exhibited, but also in the Gentiles; nor only in priests who consecrate this sacrament, and in those others who partake of it; but likewise in those for whom it is offered. And therefore He says expressly, "for you," the Jews, "and for many," namely the Gentiles; or, "for you" who eat of it, and "for many," for whom it is offered. |
| Ad nonum dicendum quod Evangelistae non intendebant tradere formas sacramentorum, quas in primitiva Ecclesia oportebat esse occultas, ut dicit Dionysius, in fine ecclesiasticae hierarchiae. Sed intenderunt historiam de Christo texere. Et tamen omnia haec verba fere ex diversis Scripturae locis accipi possunt. Nam quod dicitur, hic est calix, habetur Luc. XXII et I Cor. XI. Matthaei autem XXVI dicitur, hic est sanguis meus novi testamenti, qui pro multis effundetur in remissionem peccatorum. Quod autem additur, aeterni, et iterum, mysterium fidei, ex traditione domini habetur, quae ad Ecclesiam per apostolos pervenit, secundum illud I Cor. XI, ego accepi a domino quod et tradidi vobis. | Reply to Objection 9: The Evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms of the sacraments, which in the primitive Church had to be kept concealed, as Dionysius observes at the close of his book on the ecclesiastical hierarchy; their object was to write the story of Christ. Nevertheless nearly all these words can be culled from various passages of the Scriptures. Because the words, "This is the chalice," are found in Lk. 22:20, and 1 Cor. 11:25, while Matthew says in chapter 26:28: "This is My blood of the New Testament, which shall be shed for many unto the remission of sins." The words added, namely, "eternal" and "mystery of faith," were handed down to the Church by the apostles, who received them from our Lord, according to 1 Cor. 11:23: "I have received of the Lord that which also I delivered unto you." |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 78 [<< | >>]
Article: 4 [<< | >>]
| Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praedictis verbis formarum non insit aliqua vis creata effectiva consecrationis. Dicit enim Damascenus, in IV libro, sola virtute spiritus sancti fit conversio panis in corpus Christi. Sed virtus spiritus sancti est virtus increata. Ergo nulla virtute creata horum verborum conficitur sacramentum hoc. | Objection 1: It seems that in the aforesaid words of the forms there is no created power which causes the consecration. Because Damascene says (De Fide Orth. iv): "The change of the bread into Christ's body is caused solely by the power of the Holy Ghost." But the power of the Holy Ghost is uncreated. Therefore this sacrament is not caused by any created power of those words. |
| Praeterea, opera miraculosa non fiunt aliqua virtute creata, sed sola virtute divina, ut in prima parte habitum est. Sed conversio panis et vini in corpus et sanguinem Christi est opus non minus miraculosum quam creatio rerum, vel etiam formatio corporis Christi in utero virginali, quae quidem nulla virtute creata fieri potuerunt. Ergo neque hoc sacramentum consecratur virtute creata aliqua dictorum verborum. | Objection 2: Further, miraculous works are wrought not by any created power, but solely by Divine power, as was stated in the FP, Question [110], Article [4]. But the change of the bread and wine into Christ's body and blood is a work not less miraculous than the creation of things, or than the formation of Christ's body in the womb of a virgin: which things could not be done by any created power. Therefore, neither is this sacrament consecrated by any created power of the aforesaid words. |
| Praeterea, praedicta verba non sunt simplicia, sed ex multis composita; nec simul, sed successive proferuntur. Conversio autem praedicta, ut supra dictum est, fit in instanti, unde oportet quod fiat per simplicem virtutem. Non ergo fit per virtutem horum verborum. | Objection 3: Further, the aforesaid words are not simple, but composed of many; nor are they uttered simultaneously, but successively. But, as stated above (Question [75], Article [7]), this change is wrought instantaneously. hence it must be done by a simple power. Therefore it is not effected by the power of those words. |
| Sed contra est quod Ambrosius dicit, in libro de sacramentis, si tanta est vis in sermone domini Iesu ut inciperet esse quod non erat, quanto magis operativus est ut sint quae erant, et in aliud commutentur? Et sic quod erat panis ante consecrationem, iam corpus Christi est post consecrationem, quia sermo Christi creaturam mutat. | On the contrary, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv): "If there be such might in the word of the Lord Jesus that things non-existent came into being, how much more efficacious is it to make things existing to continue, and to be changed into something else? And so, what was bread before consecration is now the body of Christ after consecration, because Christ's word changes a creature into something different." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod quidam dixerunt nullam virtutem creatam esse nec in praedictis verbis ad transubstantiationem faciendam, nec etiam in aliis sacramentorum formis, vel etiam in ipsis sacramentis ad inducendos sacramentorum effectus. Quod, sicut supra dictum est, et dictis sanctorum repugnat, et derogat dignitati sacramentorum novae legis. Unde, cum hoc sacramentum sit prae ceteris dignius, sicut supra dictum est, consequens est quod in verbis formalibus huius sacramenti sit quaedam virtus creata ad conversionem huius sacramenti faciendam, instrumentalis tamen, sicut et in aliis sacramentis, sicut supra dictum est. Cum enim haec verba ex persona Christi proferantur, ex eius mandato consequuntur virtutem instrumentalem a Christo, sicut et cetera eius facta vel dicta habent instrumentaliter salutiferam virtutem, ut supra habitum est. | I answer that, Some have maintained that neither in the above words is there any created power for causing the transubstantiation, nor in the other forms of the sacraments, or even in the sacraments themselves, for producing the sacramental effects. This, as was shown above (Question [62], Article [1]), is both contrary to the teachings of the saints, and detracts from the dignity of the sacraments of the New Law. Hence, since this sacrament is of greater worth than the others, as stated above (Question [65], Article [3]), the result is that there is in the words of the form of this sacrament a created power which causes the change to be wrought in it: instrumental, however, as in the other sacraments, as stated above (Question [62], Articles [3],4). For since these words are uttered in the person of Christ, it is from His command that they receive their instrumental power from Him, just as His other deeds and sayings derive their salutary power instrumentally, as was observed above (Question [48], Article [6]; Question [56], Article [1], ad 3). |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod, cum dicitur sola virtute spiritus sancti panem in corpus Christi converti, non excluditur virtus instrumentalis quae est in forma huius sacramenti, sicut, cum dicitur quod solus faber facit cultellum, non excluditur virtus martelli. | Reply to Objection 1: When the bread is said to be changed into Christ's body solely by the power of the Holy Ghost, the instrumental power which lies in the form of this sacrament is not excluded: just as when we say that the smith alone makes a knife we do not deny the power of the hammer. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod opera miraculosa nulla creatura potest facere quasi agens principale, potest tamen ea facere instrumentaliter, sicut ipse tactus manus Christi sanavit leprosum. Et per hunc modum verba eius convertunt panem in corpus Christi. Quod quidem non potuit in conceptione corporis Christi, qua corpus Christi formabatur, ut aliquid a corpore Christi procedens haberet instrumentalem virtutem ad ipsius corporis formationem. In creatione etiam non fuit aliquod extremum in quod instrumentalis actio creaturae posset terminari. Unde non est simile. | Reply to Objection 2: No creature can work miracles as the chief agent. yet it can do so instrumentally, just as the touch of Christ's hand healed the leper. And in this fashion Christ's words change the bread into His body. But in Christ's conception, whereby His body was fashioned, it was impossible for anything derived from His body to have the instrumental power of forming that very body. Likewise in creation there was no term wherein the instrumental action of a creature could be received. Consequently there is no comparison. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod praedicta verba quibus fit consecratio, sacramentaliter operantur. Unde vis conversiva quae est in formis horum sacramentorum, sequitur significationem, quae in prolatione ultimae dictionis terminatur. Et ideo in ultimo instanti prolationis verborum praedicta verba consequuntur hanc virtutem, in ordine tamen ad praecedentia. Et haec virtus est simplex ratione significati, licet in ipsis verbis exterius prolatis fit quaedam compositio. | Reply to Objection 3: The aforesaid words, which work the consecration, operate sacramentally. Consequently, the converting power latent under the forms of these sacraments follows the meaning, which is terminated in the uttering of the last word. And therefore the aforesaid words have this power in the last instant of their being uttered, taken in conjunction with those uttered before. And this power is simple by reason of the thing signified, although there be composition in the words uttered outwardly. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 78 [<< | >>]
Article: 5 [<< | >>]
| Ad quintum sic proceditur. Videtur quod praedictae locutiones non sunt verae. Cum enim dicitur, hoc est corpus meum, ly hoc est demonstrativum substantiae. Sed secundum praedicta, quando profertur hoc pronomen hoc, adhuc est substantia panis, quia transubstantiatio fit in ultimo prolationis verborum. Sed haec est falsa, panis est corpus Christi. Ergo etiam haec est falsa, hoc est corpus meum. | Objection 1: It seems that the aforesaid expressions are not true. Because when we say: "This is My body," the word "this" designates a substance. But according to what was said above (Articles [1],4, ad 3; Question [75], Articles [2],7), when the pronoun "this" is spoken, the substance of the bread is still there, because the transubstantiation takes place in the last instant of pronouncing the words. But it is false to say: "Bread is Christ's body." Consequently this expression, "This is My body," is false. |
| Praeterea, hoc pronomen hoc facit demonstrationem ad sensum. Sed species sensibiles quae sunt in hoc sacramento neque sunt ipsum corpus Christi, neque sunt accidentia corporis Christi. Ergo haec locutio non potest esse vera, hoc est corpus meum. | Objection 2: Further, the pronoun "this" appeals to the senses. But the sensible species in this sacrament are neither Christ's body nor even its accidents. Therefore this expression, "This is My body," cannot be true. |
| Praeterea, haec verba, sicut supra dictum est, sua significatione efficiunt conversionem panis in corpus Christi. Sed causa effectiva praeintelligitur effectui. Ergo significatio horum verborum praeintelligitur conversioni panis in corpus Christi. Sed ante conversionem haec est falsa, hoc est corpus meum. Ergo simpliciter est iudicandum quod sit falsa. Et eadem ratio est de hac locutione, hic est calix sanguinis mei et cetera. | Objection 3: Further, as was observed above (Article [4], ad 3), these words, by their signification, effect the change of the bread into the body of Christ. But an effective cause is understood as preceding its effect. Therefore the meaning of these words is understood as preceding the change of the bread into the body of Christ. But previous to the change this expression, "This is My body," is false. Therefore the expression is to be judged as false simply; and the same reason holds good of the other phrase: "This is the chalice of My blood," etc. |
| Sed contra est quod haec verba proferuntur ex persona Christi, qui de se dicit, Ioan. XIV, ego sum veritas. | On the contrary, These words are pronounced in the person of Christ, Who says of Himself (Jn. 14:6): "I am the truth." |
| Respondeo dicendum quod circa hoc multiplex fuit opinio. Quidam enim dixerunt quod in hac locutione, hoc est corpus meum, haec dictio hoc importat demonstrationem ut conceptam, non ut exercitam, quia tota ista locutio sumitur materialiter, cum recitative proferatur; recitat enim sacerdos Christum dixisse, hoc est corpus meum. | I answer that, There have been many opinions on this point. Some have said that in this expression, "This is My body," the word "this" implies demonstration as conceived, and not as exercised, because the whole phrase is taken materially, since it is uttered by a way of narration: for the priest relates that Christ said: "This is My body." |
| Sed hoc stare non potest. Quia secundum hoc, verba non applicarentur ad materiam corporalem praesentem, et ita non perficeretur sacramentum, dicit enim Augustinus, super Ioan., accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum. Et ex hoc totaliter non evitatur difficultas huius quaestionis, quia eaedem rationes manent circa primam prolationem qua Christus haec verba protulit; quia manifestum est quod non materialiter, sed significative sumebantur. Et ideo dicendum est quod etiam quando proferuntur a sacerdote, significative, et non tantum materialiter accipiuntur. Nec obstat quod sacerdos etiam recitative profert quasi a Christo dicta. Quia propter infinitam virtutem Christi, sicut ex contactu carnis suae vis regenerativa pervenit non solum ad illas aquas quae Christum tetigerunt, sed ad omnes ubique terrarum per omnia futura saecula; ita etiam ex prolatione ipsius Christi haec verba virtutem consecrativam sunt consecuta a quocumque sacerdote dicantur, ac si Christus ea praesentialiter proferret. | But such a view cannot hold good, because then these words would not be applied to the corporeal matter present, and consequently the sacrament would not be valid: for Augustine says (Tract. lxxx in Joan.): "The word is added to the element, and this becomes a sacrament." Moreover this solution ignores entirely the difficulty which this question presents: for there is still the objection in regard to the first uttering of these words by Christ; since it is evident that then they were employed, not materially, but significatively. And therefore it must be said that even when spoken by the priest they are taken significatively, and not merely materially. Nor does it matter that the priest pronounces them by way of recital, as though they were spoken by Christ, because owing to Christ's infinite power, just as through contact with His flesh the regenerative power entered not only into the waters which came into contact with Christ, but into all waters throughout the whole world and during all future ages, so likewise from Christ's uttering these words they derived their consecrating power, by whatever priest they be uttered, as if Christ present were saying them. |
| Et ideo alii dixerunt quod haec dictio hoc in hac locutione facit demonstrationem, non ad sensum, sed ad intellectum, ut sit sensus, hoc est corpus meum, idest, significatum per hoc est corpus meum. Sed nec hoc stare potest. Quia, cum in sacramentis hoc efficiatur quod significatur, non fieret per hanc formam ut corpus Christi sit in hoc sacramento secundum veritatem, sed solum sicut in signo. Quod est haereticum, ut supra dictum est. | And therefore others have said that in this phrase the word "this" appeals, not to the senses, but to the intellect; so that the meaning is, "This is My body"---i.e. "The thing signified by 'this' is My body." But neither can this stand, because, since in the sacraments the effect is that which is signified, from such a form it would not result that Christ's body was in very truth in this sacrament, but merely as in a sign, which is heretical, as stated above (Question [85], Article [1]). |
| Et ideo alii dixerunt quod haec dictio hoc facit demonstrationem ad sensum, sed intelligitur haec demonstratio non pro illo instanti locutionis quo profertur haec dictio, sed pro ultimo instanti locutionis, sicut, cum aliquis dicit, nunc taceo, hoc adverbium nunc facit demonstrationem pro instanti immediate sequenti locutionem; est enim sensus, statim dictis his verbis, taceo. Sed nec hoc stare potest. Quia secundum hoc, huius locutionis est sensus, corpus meum est corpus meum. Quod praedicta locutio non facit, quia hoc fuit etiam ante prolationem verborum. Unde neque hoc praedicta locutio significat. | Consequently, others have said that the word "this" appeals to the senses; not at the precise instant of its being uttered, but merely at the last instant thereof; as when a man says, "Now I am silent," this adverb "now" points to the instant immediately following the speech: because the sense is: "Directly these words are spoken I am silent." But neither can this hold good, because in that case the meaning of the sentence would be: "My body is My body," which the above phrase does not effect, because this was so even before the utterance of the words: hence neither does the aforesaid sentence mean this. |
| Et ideo aliter dicendum est quod, sicut praedictum est, haec locutio habet virtutem factivam conversionis panis in corpus Christi. Et ideo comparatur ad alias locutiones, quae habent solum vim significativam et non factivam, sicut comparatur conceptio intellectus practici, quae est factiva rei, conceptioni intellectus nostri speculativi, quae est accepta a rebus, nam voces sunt signa intellectuum, secundum philosophum. Et ideo, sicut conceptio intellectus practici non praesupponit rem conceptam, sed facit eam, ita veritas huius locutionis non praesupponit rem significatam, sed facit eam, sic enim se habet verbum Dei ad res factas per verbum. Haec autem conversio non fit successive, sed in instanti, sicut dictum est. Et ideo oportet quidem intelligere praedictam locutionem secundum ultimum instans prolationis verborum, non tamen ita quod praesupponatur ex parte subiecti id quod est terminus conversionis, scilicet quod corpus Christi sit corpus Christi; neque etiam illud quod fuit ante conversionem, scilicet panis; sed id quod communiter se habet quantum ad utrumque, scilicet contentum in generali sub istis speciebus. Non enim faciunt haec verba quod corpus Christi sit corpus Christi; neque quod panis sit corpus Christi; sed quod contentum sub his speciebus, quod prius erat panis, sit corpus Christi. Et ideo signanter non dicit dominus, hic panis est corpus meum, quod esset secundum intellectum secundae opinionis; neque, hoc corpus meum est corpus meum, quod esset secundum intellectum tertiae; sed in generali, hoc est corpus meum, nullo nomine apposito ex parte subiecti, sed solo pronomine, quod significat substantiam in communi sine qualitate, idest forma determinata. | Consequently, then, it remains to be said, as stated above (Article [4]), that this sentence possesses the power of effecting the conversion of the bread into the body of Christ. And therefore it is compared to other sentences, which have power only of signifying and not of producing, as the concept of the practical intellect, which is productive of the thing, is compared to the concept of our speculative intellect which is drawn from things. because "words are signs of concepts," as the Philosopher says (Peri Herm. i). And therefore as the concept of the practical intellect does not presuppose the thing understood, but makes it, so the truth of this expression does not presuppose the thing signified, but makes it; for such is the relation of God's word to the things made by the Word. Now this change takes place not successively, but in an instant, as stated above (Question [77], Article [7]). Consequently one must understand the aforesaid expression with reference to the last instant of the words being spoken, yet not so that the subject may be understood to have stood for that which is the term of the conversion; viz. that the body of Christ is the body of Christ; nor again that the subject be understood to stand for that which it was before the conversion, namely, the bread. but for that which is commonly related to both, i.e. that which is contained in general under those species. For these words do not make the body of Christ to be the body of Christ, nor do they make the bread to be the body of Christ; but what was contained under those species, and was formerly bread, they make to be the body of Christ. And therefore expressly our Lord did not say: "This bread is My body," which would be the meaning of the second opinion; nor "This My body is My body," which would be the meaning of the third opinion: but in general: "This is My body," assigning no noun on the part of the subject, but only a pronoun, which signifies substance in common, without quality, that is, without a determinate form. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod haec dictio hoc demonstrat substantiam, sed absque determinatione propriae naturae, sicut dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1: The term "this" points to a substance, yet without determining its proper nature, as stated above. |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod hoc pronomen hoc non demonstrat ipsa accidentia, sed substantiam sub accidentibus contentam, quae primo fuit panis, et postea est corpus Christi, quod, licet non informetur his accidentibus, tamen sub eis continetur. | Reply to Objection 2: The pronoun "this" does not indicate the accidents, but the substance underlying the accidents, which at first was bread, and is afterwards the body of Christ, which body, although not informed by those accidents, is yet contained under them. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod significatio huius locutionis praeintelligitur rei significatae ordine naturae, sicut causa naturaliter est prior effectu, non tamen ordine temporis, quia haec causa simul habet secum suum effectum. Et hoc sufficit ad veritatem locutionis. | Reply to Objection 3: The meaning of this expression is, in the order of nature, understood before the thing signified, just as a cause is naturally prior to the effect; but not in order of time, because this cause has its effect with it at the same time, and this suffices for the truth of the expression. |
Index [<< | >>]
Third Part [<< | >>]
Question: 78 [<< | >>]
Article: 6 [<< | >>]
| Ad sextum sic proceditur. Videtur quod forma consecrationis panis non consequatur effectum suum quousque perficiatur forma consecrationis vini. Sicut enim per consecrationem panis incipit esse corpus Christi sub hoc sacramento, ita per consecrationem vini incipit esse sanguis. Si ergo verba consecrationis panis haberent effectum suum ante consecrationem vini, sequeretur quod in hoc sacramento inciperet esse corpus Christi exsangue. Quod est inconveniens. | Objection 1: It seems that the form of the consecration of the bread does not accomplish its effect until the form for the consecration of the wine be completed. For, as Christ's body begins to be in this sacrament by the consecration of the bread, so does His blood come to be there by the consecration of the wine. If, then, the words for consecrating the bread were to produce their effect before the consecration of the wine, it would follow that Christ's body would be present in this sacrament without the blood, which is improper. |
| Praeterea, unum sacramentum unum habet complementum, unde, licet in Baptismo sint tres immersiones, non tamen prima immersio consequitur suum effectum quousque tertia fuerit terminata. Sed totum hoc sacramentum est unum, ut supra dictum est. Ergo verba quibus consecratur panis, non consequuntur suum effectum sine verbis sacramentalibus quibus consecratur vinum. | Objection 2: Further, one sacrament has one completion: hence although there be three immersions in Baptism, yet the first immersion does not produce its effect until the third be completed. But all this sacrament is one, as stated above (Question [73], Article [2]). Therefore the words whereby the bread is consecrated do not bring about their effect without the sacramental words whereby the wine is consecrated. |
| Praeterea, in ipsa forma consecrationis panis sunt plura verba, quorum prima non consequuntur effectum nisi prolato ultimo, sicut dictum est. Ergo, pari ratione, nec verba quibus consecratur corpus Christi habent effectum, nisi prolatis verbis quibus sanguis Christi consecratur. | Objection 3: Further, there are several words in the form for consecrating the bread, the first of which do not secure their effect until the last be uttered, as stated above (Article [4], ad 3). Therefore, for the same reason, neither do the words for the consecration of Christ's body produce their effect, until the words for consecrating Christ's blood are spoken. |
| Sed contra est quod, statim dictis verbis consecrationis panis, hostia consecrata proponitur populo adoranda. Quod non fieret si non esset ibi corpus Christi, quia hoc ad idololatriam pertineret. Ergo verba consecrationis suum effectum consequuntur antequam proferantur verba consecrationis vini. | On the contrary, Directly the words are uttered for consecrating the bread, the consecrated host is shown to the people to be adored, which would not be done if Christ's body were not there, for that would be an act of idolatry. Therefore the consecrating words of the bread produce their effect before. the words are spoken for consecrating the wine. |
| Respondeo dicendum quod quidam antiqui doctores dixerunt quod hae duae formae, scilicet consecrationis panis et vini, se invicem expectant in agendo, ita scilicet quod prima non perficit suum effectum antequam secunda proferatur. | I answer that, Some of the earlier doctors said that these two forms, namely, for consecrating the bread and the wine, await each other's action, so that the first does not produce its effect until the second be uttered. |
| Sed hoc stare non potest. Quia, sicut dictum est, ad veritatem huius locutionis, hoc est corpus meum, requiritur, propter verbum praesentis temporis, quod res significata simul tempore sit cum ipsa significatione locutionis, alioquin, si in futurum expectaretur res significata, apponeretur verbum futuri temporis, non autem verbum praesentis; ita scilicet quod non diceretur, hoc est corpus meum, sed, hoc erit corpus meum. Significatio autem huius locutionis completur statim completa prolatione horum verborum. Et ideo oportet rem significatam statim adesse, quae quidem est effectus huius sacramenti, alioquin locutio non esset vera. Est etiam haec positio contra ritum Ecclesiae, quae statim post prolationem verborum corpus Christi adorat. | But this cannot stand, because, as stated above (Article [5], ad 3), for the truth of this phrase, "This is My body," wherein the verb is in the present tense, it is required for the thing signified to be present simultaneously in time with the signification of the expression used; otherwise, if the thing signified had to be awaited for afterwards, a verb of the future tense would be employed, and not one of the present tense, so that we should not say, "This is My body," but "This will be My body." But the signification of this speech is complete directly those words are spoken. And therefore the thing signified must be present instantaneously, and such is the effect of this sacrament; otherwise it would not be a true speech. Moreover, this opinion is against the rite of the Church, which forthwith adores the body of Christ after the words are uttered. |
| Unde dicendum est quod prima forma non expectat secundam in agendo, sed statim habet suum effectum. | Hence it must be said that the first form does not await the second in its action, but has its effect on the instant. |
| Ad primum ergo dicendum quod ex hac ratione videntur fuisse decepti illi qui praedictam positionem posuerunt. Unde intelligendum est quod, facta consecratione panis, est quidem corpus Christi ibi ex vi sacramenti, et sanguis ex reali concomitantia; sed postmodum, post consecrationem vini, fit ibi e converso sanguis Christi ex vi sacramenti, corpus autem Christi ex reali concomitantia; ita quod totus Christus est sub utraque specie, sicut supra dictum est. | Reply to Objection 1: It is on this account that they who maintained the above opinion seem to have erred. Hence it must be understood that directly the consecration of the bread is complete, the body of Christ is indeed present by the power of the sacrament, and the blood by real concomitance; but afterwards by the consecration of the wine, conversely, the blood of Christ is there by the power of the sacrament, and the body by real concomitance, so that the entire Christ is under either species, as stated above (Question [76], Article [2]). |
| Ad secundum dicendum quod hoc sacramentum est unum perfectione, sicut supra dictum est, inquantum scilicet constituitur ex duobus, scilicet ex cibo et potu, quorum utrumque per se habet suam perfectionem. Sed tres immersiones Baptismi ordinantur ad unum simplicem effectum. Et ideo non est simile. | Reply to Objection 2: This sacrament is one in perfection, as stated above (Question [73], Article [2]), namely, inasmuch as it is made up of two things, that is, of food and drink, each of which of itself has its own perfection; but the three immersions of Baptism are ordained to one simple effect, and therefore there is no resemblance. |
| Ad tertium dicendum quod diversa verba quae sunt in forma consecrationis panis, constituunt veritatem unius locutionis, non autem verba diversarum formarum. Et ideo non est simile. | Reply to Objection 3: The various words in the form for consecrating the bread constitute the truth of one speech, but the words of the different forms do not, and consequently there is no parallel. |