St. Thomas on the consecration form

[gladius_veritatis]

6. The Mind Of St. Thomas

Albeit the matter concerning which words of the wine-consecration form are essential cannot be settled conclusively by any theologian, nevertheless one cannot minimize the importance of the opinion of St. Thomas.  He is and always has been the one central figure, not only in this dispute, but in all theological questions.  To begin to appreciate the unique role of the Angelic Doctor in the affairs of the Church one should read Pope Leo XIII's encyclical Aeterni Patris.  In that document we find, among others, the following exceptional tributes to the Angelic Doctor:

'The ecumenical councils have always been careful to hold Thomas Aquinas in singular honor.  In the councils of Lyons, Vienne, Florence,and the Vatican one might almost say that Thomas took part and presided over the deliberations and decrees of the Fathers.'

'But the chief and special glory of Thomas, one which he has shared with none of the Catholic doctors, is that the Fathers of Trent made it part of the order of the conclave to lay upon the altar, together with the code of sacred Scripture and the decrees of the Supreme Pontiffs, the Summa of Thomas Aquinas, whence to seek counsel, reason, and inspiration.'

The view of St. Thomas on the essential words of the wine-consecration form is stated in three different places:  (1)  Scriptum Super Lib. IV Sententiarum; (2)  In I Cor. XI, (lect. 6); (3)  The Summa Theologica.

(1) In Scriptum Super Lib. IV Sententiarum (dist. 8, Q. 2, a. 2, q. 1, ad 3) we read:  "And therefore those words which follow [that is, which follow 'This is the chalice of My Blood] are essential to the blood, inasmuch as it is consecrated in this sacrament; and therefore they must be of the substance of the form."44

(2) In I Cor. XI, (lect. 6) has the following:  "In regard to these words which the Church uses in the consecration of the Blood, some think that not all of them are necessary for the form, but the words 'This is the chalice of My Blood' only, not the remainder which follows, 'of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins.'  But it would appear that this is not said correctly, because all that which follows is a determination of the predicate [the predicate being 'This is the chalice of my blood'] : hence those subsequent words belong to the meaning or signification of the same pronouncement.  And because, as has often been said, it is by signifying that the forms of sacraments have their effect, hence all of these words appertain to the effecting power of the form."45  (Emphasis added).

(3) In Summa Theologica (111, Q. 78, A. 3) St. Thomas again lucidly expounds his view:

"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 its [i.e, the forms] recitation.

"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 the 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."46

 

From The Robber Church, by Patrick Henry Omlor

[BibleCatholicJMJ]

Very good quote.  This is definitely going into my list of important sources.

[HMiS]

But there is also an apostolic form which merely has "This is the Chalice in My Blood, of the New and Eternal Testament, shed for you unto remission of sins". Seems "pro multis" is not thát essential? But I will never agree that the "for all" is good, correct, or admissible, as it is a faulty translation and a lie, but Mr Omlor's reasoning might be too tight. 'Of the new and eternal testament' might be essential.

 

I do know st. Thomas on other occasions said, that the prime essential is the "This is My Blood".

 

After all, the Catechism of St. Pius Xth also says, that "This is My Blood" suffices for validity and the Consecration to be done. So I would always - to be sure - considerd those celebrations of even the vernacular Novus Ordo valid, in which no intention against the intention of the Church is made clear or audible by the celebrating priest. Just to be sure. But I will not receive Holy Communion in the Novus Ordo, because of the scandal of communion in the hand and the severe doubts and controversy surrounding the "for all" (which was not approved by Missale Romanum, neither by Paul VI initially, though later he complied).

[creimann]

There is no reason to assume that Christ at the Last Supper consecrated by an act of His will without the use of words. But even if this could be proved, it would not alter the fact that His human ministers convert bread and wine into His Flesh and Blood by pronouncing the words of institution: "This is my Body, . . . this is my Blood." This fact settles the question as to the sacramental form of the Holy Eucharist. ... We know from the Gospel that, in instituting the Blessed Sacrament, our Divine Lord employed the words, "This is my Body, . . . this is my Blood." In adding the command, "Do this for a commemoration of me," He plainly wished to say: Do as you have seen and heard me do. Consequently He Himsef consecrated by pronouncing the words, "This is my Body, . . . this is my Blood." (The Sacraments, vol. II., Pohle-Preuss, 1922, Part II, Ch. 1, Section 2).

The words of institution demonstrate, at least with a high degree of probability, that at the Last Supper Jesus effected the transmutation by the words: "This is My Body," "This is My Blood," and not by a mere act of will.... According to the mandate of Christ: "Do this in commemoration of Me," the Church must similarly complete the consecration, as did Christ, by the words of consecration." (Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Ludwig Ott, 1957, Book Four, Part 3, "The outward signs of the Eucharist".)

[gladius_veritatis]

 

But there is also an apostolic form which merely has "This is the Chalice in My Blood, of the New and Eternal Testament, shed for you unto remission of sins". Seems "pro multis" is not thát essential?... 

...I do know st. Thomas on other occasions said, that the prime essential is the "This is My Blood".

 

These are both canards, that have merely been repeated so often by others, you have come to believe them.  I will deal with it later today, as I have to get ready for work.

 

Show the "apostolic form", and the quote from St. Thomas, if you have them.  I do have the refutation of both these claims, although I do not have the time to put it up at present.  Apologies for that.

 

creimann, et alii, the "short form" bit is demonstrably incorrect.  I shall show why within this thread.  As I have to go, I would just leave you with the teaching of Pope Leo XIII on the necessity of the Sacraments to give the grace they signify, and signify the grace they give - the "short form" utterly fails this simple test.

[HMiS]

It is merely your interpretation of Pope Leo XIII speaking on Anglican "orders". The form "This is My Body" suffices for the sacred Host and aptly signifies the grace conferred: the grace turning the bread into the Body (soul, Divinity and Blood of Christ).

 

I must add, that the "for all" may be "approved" by the Congregation for Divine Worship since 1970, but the New Mass was only and officially introduced and promulgated in the Latin form and by 'Missale Romanum' (1969), thereby not protecting the vernacular translations.

 

  

 

5 Q: What is the form of the sacrament of the Eucharist?

A: The form of the sacrament of the Eucharist consists of the words used by Jesus Christ Himself: "This is My Body; This is My Blood."

 

11 Q: What is the consecration?

A: The consecration is the renewal, by means of the priest, of the miracle wrought by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper, of changing bread and wine into His adorable Body and Blood by saying: "This is My Body; This is My Blood."

 

Integrity of the Expression  

On the one hand as we see in the above table, St. Thomas divides the words of Consecration into words that signify the change of wine into blood (the shorter form) and words that show the power of the blood (the determining words). It is clear that the shorter form is sufficient for Consecration, since:  

• the form must signify what it effects [S.T. III.78.2]  
• the effect of the Eucharist is the change of the matter [S.T. III.78.1], in this case that of wine into blood, and  
• the words of the shorter form "This is the cup of My Blood" sufficiently signify the change of wine into blood [S.T. III.78.1, III.78.3].

On the other hand, St. Thomas insists that the determining words together with the shorter form comprise the "integrity of the expression" [S.T. III.78.3], a term not used elsewhere by St. Thomas when he speaks of the "substance of the form" of the other sacraments. Hence the term "integrity of the expression" applies only to the words of the Consecration of the wine and is crucial to the understanding of why St. Thomas insists that the determining words must not be omitted by the minister at the Consecration.  

In considering the effect of changes to the words of the form, St. Thomas speaks of maintaining the "essential sense" of the words of Consecration [S.T. III.60.8]. Now the essence of a thing is what the thing is, its nature, and this makes it different in nature from other things. For example, the nature of man is to be a rational animal; the possession of reason making him different from other animals and the possession of a physical body making him different from the angels. But there are parts of a man that are called integral parts, and these are parts that according to his nature he ought to have, but at the same time if these parts are lost, an individual man does not cease to be a man. For example, men have arms and legs, but by the loss of an arm or a leg a man does not cease being a man. The arms and legs which we would normally expect to find in a man but which could be lost are then integral parts of a man.  

In this light we can see what St. Thomas means when he says "integrity of the expression." The determining words ( like "the mystery of faith") are quite simply integral parts of the form. This means on the one hand that we would expect to find these words in the Mass, but if they were omitted, as some of them are by the Eastern Rites, the Mass would not cease being a Mass. And this is because the removal of some or all of the determining words doesn't change the essential sense of the words of Consecration: the change of wine into the Blood of Christ. On the other hand it also means that when the priest pronounces the words of Consecration over the wine, he adores the Precious Blood only after he says all the determining words, and not before, so that all of the words of Consecration are thus necessarily pronounced as an integral unit.  

That is why the determining words of Consecration are not all strictly necessary (absolutely speaking) for the validity of the Consecration, but it is nonetheless necessary that when they are said, they must be said by the priest together with the shorter form of Consecration, and if they are not said, the priest is obliged to begin the words of Consecration again from the beginning. And so it is that the Roman Missal instructs the priest to do so as noted above. Thus we can conclude that in the case of the New Mass, a change to the determining words such as the removal of the words "the mystery of faith" doesn't automatically render every Mass invalid.

 

 

The apostolic tradition of St. Hippolyte contains no "pro multis" at all, merely "pro vobis".

 

You may personally say, that reasoning from De defectibus occurentibus in celebratione Missarum of Pope St. Pius V, added to each Roman Missal since 1570, strictly speaking would mean the vernacular form of the New Mass's translation renders the Consecration invalid (for the record: e.g. the French ["pour la multitude"] and the Polish vernacular translations have retained the "for many" and thus this cannot be applied to them). But Mr Patrick Omlor thought he could thereby prove that the new form of consecration in the vernacular Novus Ordo Missae versions is invalid, because they lack "the mystery of the faith" in the form. This of course is nonsense theologically, as the valid rites of the Eastern particular churches never had the "mystery of the faith" (which belongs to the apostolic form of Sts. Peter and Paul). So, I do not merely accept something on Mr Omlor's authority (though Omlor has written some great pieces of work). It would be a substantial omission from De defectibus' view point though.

 

If however, there are many apostolic texts from African and Latin churches of Antiquity whose sacramentaries lacked the "pro multis" totally (only "pro vobis"), then we know, that the "for all" is not necessary.

 

St. Thomas speaks of the integrity of the text, which refers to the accuracy. "For all" is a theological error, as the fruits of the Redemption are spoken of in the Consecration formula (cfr. Catechism of the Council of Trent), not of the theoretical redemptive power of the Sacrifice of the Cross.

 

"For all" is a lie, but one cannot univocally say it renders the Consecration invalid with certainty. But I would not try it, and avoid every Mass thus celebrated except for reasons of social obligation (matrimonies and school events).

 

But nevertheless we should kneel sub conditióne even in front of the Novus Ordo tabernacles. Though I do not personally think it is permissible to receive at the Novus Ordo service.

[gladius_veritatis]

Where to begin the refutation, HMiS?

 

I will start here:

 

The Meaning Of "Ad Integritatem Ejusdem Locutionis"

By Patrick Henry Omlor

From a single isolated phrase in St. Thomas's Summa Theologica, III, Q. 78, Art. 3, some commentators have claimed that the Angelic Doctor's opinion is that the entire form for the wine-consecration is not essential for the validity of the Sacrament, but essential only for the integrity of the form.  The phrase in question is "unde pertinent ad integritatem ejusdem locutionis."

These commentators argue that St. Thomas teaches that the words fol-lowing "This is the Chalice of My Blood" -- namely, "of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins" -- pertain to "integrity" and not to "validity."  They give the analogy that the integrity, meaning wholeness, of a human body is destroyed by, say, the loss of an arm or a leg, but that does not destroy the essential being of the person.  Hence (so they argue) if one were to omit the words following "This is the Chalice of My Blood" that would destroy the integrity, or wholeness, of the sacramental form, but not its very essence.  They claim this is what St. Thomas means.

On the contrary, I will show that by the word integritatem St. Thomas does not mean "integrity" in the limited sense of wholeness, which is its common meaning in English, but he uses this word as a synonym for "meaning or signification."  Hence "pertinent ad integritatem ejusdem locutionis" can be correctly rendered as "they [i.e., the words following 'This is the Chalice of My Blood'] pertain to the meaning or signification of the very recitation [of the form]."

Consider two parallel passages from the pen of St. Thomas.

 

In I Cor. XI, (lect. 6)                                |Summa Theologica       

                                                            |

Sed hoc non videtur convenienter               | Sed hoc videtur inconveniens, quia

dici:  nam totum illud quod sequi-    | ea quae sequuntur sunt quaedam de-

tur est quaedam determinatio prae-           | terminationes praedicati, id est,

dicati:  unde et ad ejusdem locu-    | sanguinis Christi; unde pertinent

tionis sententiam seu significati-     | ad integritatem ejusdem locutionis.

onem pertinet.                                  

Although the actual words used differ slightly in these two parallel passages, the idea that St. Thomas is conveying is identical in both.  Often I (and many others, I am sure) do the same thing; that is, in several different writings I will be making the same point, but my actual wording differs in these several writings.

In these two treatises St. Thomas is saying that the opinion that the words "This is the Chalice of My Blood" suffice for validity does not seem to be correct ("Sed hoc non videtur convenienter dici" and "Sed hoc videtur inconveniens").  He then explains that the words which follow are "determinations of the predicate" ("quaedam determinatio praedicati" and "quaedam determinationes praedicati").

He concludes by saying "therefore they [the words 'of the new and eternal testament, the mystery of faith, which shall be shed for you and for many unto the remission of sins'] pertain to the meaning or signification ['sententiam seu significationem' are his words in In I Cor. XI, (lect. 6)] of the very recitation [ad ejusdem locutionis] of the form."

But in Summa Theologica instead of "sententiam seu significationem" he uses the word "integritatem."  Since the meaning he intends must be the same in the two treatises, it is evident that by integritatem in the Summa St. Thomas does not mean simply "wholeness"; but by this word he intends to convey the idea of "meaning or signification."

-1-

In the very next sentence of In I Cor. XI (following the last one quoted in the table above) St. Thomas explains the vital role of signification in sacramental forms, which in turn explains his use of the words "pertain to the meaning or signification" : ("sententiam seu significationem pertinet").  He continues: "And because, as has often been said, it is by signifying [emphasis added] that the forms of sacraments produce their effect; hence all of these words belong to the effecting power of the form."

The position of St. Thomas that the entire form is essential for validity is clearly expressed in three separate writings: Summa Theologica, In I Cor. XI, (lect. 6), and in Scriptum Super Lib. IV Sententiarum.  It is important to note that all of the early commentators on St. Thomas agreed that he held that the entire wine-consecration form is essential for the validity of the Sacrament.

Among these commentators were not only those who espoused this view, but also those who held the opposite opinion and those who, like John Duns Scotus, did not state a definite opinion.  The Salmanticenses re-mark: "All the earlier Thomists up to Cajetan, who rejected it, unani-mously [emphasis added] taught the same [i.e., the necessity for validity of the entire form]."  "Et idem unanimiter docuerunt omnes antiqui Thomistae usque ad Cajetanum, qui recalcitravit" (De Eucharistiae Sacra-mento, Disp. IX, Dub. III, Sec. 2, par. 22).

Hervaeus Natalis and Aegidius Columna (Colonna) were disciples of St. Thomas, who learned from the very lips of the Angelic Doctor.  Both of these renowned Thomists strongly upheld the position that the entire form is essential for validity.  Another staunch defender of this position was the Dominican theologian John Capreolus (d. Apr. 6, 1444).  Capreolus is known as "Prince of Thomists" and, moreover, "a scrupulous fidelity to the Angelical Doctor earned for him the extraordinary appel-lation 'Soul of St. Thomas'." (The Catholic Encyclopedia, 1908 edition, Vol. III, p. 314c).

Surely all of the early Thomists, who unanimously taught the necessity of the entire form for validity, are more reliable interpreters of the mind of St. Thomas than those innovators who came upon the scene much later.  For it was not until three centuries after the death of St. Thomas that the hollow "integrity" argument surfaced, a fact that in it-self would seem to destroy all credence in it.  St. Alphonsus remarks that how such a theory squares with the mind of St. Thomas is not at all apparent (cf. Theologia Moralis, Lib. 6, Tract. III, Cap. I, Dub. VI, par. 223).

The analogy comparing the integrity of the human body to that of the integrity of the sacramental form is a fanciful invention, and nowhere does St. Thomas say or even imply that such is his meaning.  Seizing upon just one word (integritatem) out of all of the Angelic Doctor's writings (the significance of this word in this place they misinterpret!), certain bearers of a novel theory groundlessly and belatedly, after a lapse of three hundred years, build a bizarre case upon this single word, thus contradicting all the preceding Thomists.  Such behavior strikes me as being fatuous to the extreme.

Patrick Henry Omlor

February 27, 1995

Feast of St. Gabriel of Our Lady of Sorrows

[gladius_veritatis]

But Mr Patrick Omlor thought he could thereby prove that the new form of consecration in the vernacular Novus Ordo Missae versions is invalid, because they lack "the mystery of the faith" in the form. This of course is nonsense theologically, as the valid rites of the Eastern particular churches never had the "mystery of the faith" (which belongs to the apostolic form of Sts. Peter and Paul).

What is nonsense is to act as if Mr. Omlor were not aware of this "objection" while he was composing the very article on mysterium fidei.  He addresses this very issue, and - to my satisfaction - shows it to be an errant objection.

 

Have you actually read his argument on this matter?  I have my doubts, as you have twice mentioned this point, as if Omlor did not address it in the first place.

[gladius_veritatis]

 

The apostolic tradition of St. Hippolyte contains no "pro multis" at all, merely "pro vobis".

Is this supposed to be your "apostolic form"?  This is total crap (as the origins and supposed 'usage' of this "form" are nebulous indeed), and "for you", which is what pro vobis may be translated as, does not violate the principle enumerated as to the necessity of sacramental forms to signify the grace they give, and give the grace they signify.

 

To say this is "my interpretation" of Leo XIII's principle is to say I can read - for he says exactly this. 

 

As for an example of some of the modern "scholarship" that you are allied to (by advocating the "short form"):

 

From The Robber Church:

 

One of the early Adversarii, Father Daniel Lyons,S.J., was able to settle the matter conclusively for the readers of Twin Circle (Jan. 4, 1970).  He wrote: "The translation of the consecration of the Precious Blood as 'all men' is perfectly valid.  The matter has been checked out theologically.... One good source is an old but very scholarly manual of Dogmatic Theology, more rigorous than many modern treatises. ... Fr. Tanquerey says that for validity ... these words are sufficient:  'Hoc est corpus meum.  Hic est calix sanguinis mei'."  So! We can all rest easily now; there is no problem; Tanquerey has spoken.  And Father Lyons has ratified!

To attempt thus to settle that centuries-old controversy by appealing to a single theologian bespeaks a deplorable and culpable ignorance and an incredible temerity.  Moreover Fr. Lyons's alleged "facts" are even in error.  Here is what Tanquerey actually says in his Brevior Synopsis Theologiae Dogmaticae: "It is certain (Certum est) that for the valid consecration of the bread the words of Christ are required:  'This is my body'; and for the consecration of the wine the words: 'This is the chalice of my blood'; or 'This is my blood'."33

What Tanquerey is saying here is that it is certain that at least those words are essential, not that they alone suffice.  Which is evident from what he says next:  "There is a dispute as to whether the words: 'of the new and eternal testament ... etc.' are required for a valid consecration.  Many of the Thomists say that they are required because ... etc.  Other theologians say that they are not required because ... etc."34

And again Tanquerey: "For the valid consecration of the blood of Christ; the words 'this is the chalice of my blood' or 'this is my blood' are required; rather, with much probability they are sufficient.  In practice, however, the form, as it is in the Missal, must always be pronounced; for when validity is at stake, the safer opinion must be followed."35

 

You are following the less safe opinion here, HMiS.

[gladius_veritatis]

the words of the shorter form "This is the cup of My Blood" sufficiently signify the change of wine into blood [S.T. III.78.1, III.78.3]

Of course they do!  They sufficiently signify trans-substantiation, but that is not the res sacramenti - and the res sacramenti must be signified in the form, too. 

 

The trans-substantiated substance (the Body and Blood of Our Lord) is only the res et sacramentum, which is only one part of the equation.

 

"Grant, I beseech Thee, that I may receive not only the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Our Lord [that is, not just the transubstantiated species, which is the res et sacramentum], but also the reality [res sacramenti] and effect of this Sacrament.  0 most indulgent God, grant me so to receive the Body of Thine only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, which He took of the Virgin Mary, that I may be found worthy to be incorporated with His Mystical Body and numbered among its members." - Prayer of Saint Thomas Aquinas before Holy Communion