WHY THE "SHORT FORM" [OF THE WORDS OF CONSECRATION] CANNOT POSSIBLY SUFFICE
by Patrick Henry Omlor
TRADITIO Traditional Roman Catholic Internet Site
E-mail List: traditio@traditio.com, Web Page: http://www.traditio.com
Copyright 1997 PHO. Reproduction prohibited without authorization.
[The traditional form for the words of Consecration of the species of
wine into the Most Precious Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ are:
HIC EST ENIM CALIX SANGUINIS MEI, NOVI ET AETERNI TESTAMENTI: MYSTERIUM
FIDEI: QUI PRO VOBIS ET PRO MULTIS EFFUNDETUR IN REMISSIONEM
PECCATORUM.
Translated literally as:
FOR THIS IS THE CHALICE OF MY BLOOD, OF THE NEW AND ETERNAL COVENANT:
THE MYSTERY OF FAITH: WHICH FOR YOU AND FOR MANY WILL BE SHED UNTO THE
REMISSION OF SINS.]
THE CONTROVERSY
Defenders of the "short form" position hold that these first few
words of the wine-consecration form in the Latin Rite, "This is the
chalice of My blood," suffice for the valid consecration of the Precious
Blood. They claim that the remaining words of the sacramental form,
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,"
although being part of the wine-consecration form laid down in the Roman
Missal, are nevertheless not necessary for the valid consecration of
the wine and hence not necessary for the validity of the Mass.
The defenders of the "entire form" position deny the foregoing
supposition. They hold that, except for the word "for," ALL the words
of the sacramental form for the wine-consecration, exactly as laid down
in the Roman Missal, are absolutely necessary for bringing about the
Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist and therefore are essential for the
celebration of a valid Mass.
Present-day advocates of the "short form" opinion are wont to point out
that from the beginning of the trend in the mid-17th century, it has
gradually become today the "more common opinion" among theologians.
Since the falsely translated words in the English version of the
wine-consecration, "for all so that sins may be forgiven", occur in
the latter part of the sacramental form, which (so they claim) is a
nonessential part anyway, that deviation from the correct and
certainly valid wording, "for many unto the remission of sins", has no
bearing on the validity of the consecration in the English version. So
they claim.
Doronzo[2] points out that the "entire form" position "is taught by
the majority of theologians and Thomists up to the Council of Trent,
and afterwards by very many Thomists as well as non-Thomists."[2]
Moreover, the Salmanticenses remarked on the UNANIMITY of thought
regarding the necessity for validity of the entire form: "All the
earlier Thomists up to Cajetan, who rejected it, taught the same
unanimously."[3]
Thus Cajetan (1469-1534), a Dominican cardinal, was the first
"Thomist" to oppose the mind of St. Thomas on this matter. In his
"Commentaries" on the Summa Theologica he emphatically declared that for
the wine-consecration nothing more is required than these four
words: "This is my blood." "Inveniemus non esse necessaria ad
consecrationem sanguinis nisi quatuor verba haec, 'Hic est sanguis
meus.'" [We shall find that nothing is necessary for the consecration
of the Blood except these four words, 'This is the My Blood.']
Continuing with excessive self-assurance, he asserted:
"Although Scotus and many others doubt this is true, it seems to me
that there is no basis for doubting it to be probable: but IT MUST BE
CONSIDERED AS BEYOND QUESTION [emphasis added], as I have
said."[4]
This opinion of Cajetan's appeared during his lifetime in the edition of
his "Commentaries" published at Venice in 1533.[5] But the Sovereign
Pontiff St. Pius V later proved to be one who certainly did NOT
consider Cajetan's opinion to be "beyond question", for when he
authorized the "Commentaries" to be republished in a Roman edition in
1570, he also explicitly commanded this particular opinion to be
expurgated!
As Cardinal Capisuccus notes, "They are in error who try to maintain
that this was expurgated only because Cajetan downgraded St.
Thomas's opinion too much. For Cajetan here does not merely
downgrade the opinion of St. Thomas: he departs from it. Just as he
departs from him on other matters, but those other divergences were
not ordered to be dropped from the Roman edition. It is evident that
Pope Pius V did not agree with this opinion of Cajetan's [which he
ordered to be expurgated]."[6]
Very many great theologians, including saints, popes and doctors of
the Church, have held that the mere words "This is the chalice of My
Blood" are insufficient for the validity of the consecration of the
wine and that the entire form (including "for you and for many unto
the remission of sins") is absolutely essential.
These exponents include St. Thomas Aquinas; St. Antoninus; Pope St.
Pius V; Pope Innocent III; the authors of the Catechism of the Council
of Trent; Cardinal Raymond Capisuccus, O.P.; those brilliant
Thomists the renowned Discalced Carmelites of Salamanca known as the
Salmanticenses; Hervaeus Natalis and Aegidius Columna (Colonna), who
were two of St. Thomas's disciples; Capreolus ("The Prince of
Thomists"); Bartholomeus Spina (a Dominican who was a Master of the
Sacred Palace); Sylvester; Tabiena; Armilla Peter de Soto; Viguerius;
Arauxo; Marcus Huertos; John Nicolai; Gonet; John Vincent
Asturicensis; John Gonzalez: N. Franciscus; Thomas Argentina; Richardus;
N. Philippus; N. Cornejo; John Gerson; Andrew Victorellus; Lorca; Thomas
Hurtado; Pasqualigo; Petrus de Palude; Henry Henriquez, S.J.; Francis
Amicus, S.J.; John of Freiburg; Jacobus de Graffus, O.S.B.; F.
Macedo, G.M.; Pere Maurice de la Taille, S.J.
It is worth mentioning that the redoubtable Suarez, who was a
prominent "short form" advocate, conceded that the "entire form"
position that he opposed "IS VERY PROBABLE AND OF GREAT AUTHORITY"
[emphasis added], and Scotus himself did not venture to contradict it,
but left it as a doubtful matter."[7]
THE MIND OF ST. THOMAS
The view of St. Thomas on which words of the wine-consecration form
are essential for validity is given in three different places: Scriptum
Super Lib. IV Sententiarum; (2) In 1 Cor. XI, (lect. 6); (3) Summa
Theologica.
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."
1 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 [emphasis added] 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: HENCE THOSE
SUBSEQUENT WORDS BELONG TO THE MEANING OR SIGNIFCATION 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 [emphasis added]."
In Summa Theologica (III. Q. 78, A. 3): '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 recitation of the form.
"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."
THE SALMANTICENSES EXPLAIN ARTICLE 1
Those illustrious Discalced Carmelite theologians of Salamanca, Spain
(l6th-l7th centuries), known as the Salmanticenses, were as a group
the most learned followers of all time of the mind of St. Thomas.
"Consequently they made strict adherence to Thomism their fundamental
principle, and carried it out with greater consistency than probably any
other commentators of the neo-Scholastic period.... [S]uch
uniformity ard consistency were obtained that it could be claimed that
there was not a single contradiction in any of these immense works,
although nearly a century elapsed between the publication of the first
and the appearance of the final installment.... The Salmanticenses
have ever been held in the highest esteem, particularly at Rome where
they are considered a standard work on Thomistic scholasticism." [8]
Martin Serra, an obscure 17th-century Dominican, claimed that St.
Thomas held that the mere words "This is the Chalice of my Blood" are
sufficient for the valid consecration of the wine. Serra based his
argument on Article 1 of Question 78 in Part III of Summa Theologica,
which he completely misunderstood. Unfortunately, nowadays there are
some who harbor the same ignorance of the meaning of this Article 1.
Not being experienced students of St. Thomas, these dilettantes read
ONLY HIS WORDS with no understanding whatever of their context and as
they relate to the overall purpose of the Angelic Doctor's explanations.
The following is the refutation against Martin Serra by the
Salmanticenses[9]:
"Forasmuch as opposites are more apparent when placed side by side, and
in order to avert the possibility of being confronted once again with
the question of the Holy Doctor's meaning, we shall set forth the
arguments adduced by various Thomists against our opinion. St. Thomas,
they say, remarks in Summa. III, Q. 78. Art. 1, Reply to Objection 4,
that 'If a priest were to pronounce only the aforesaid words with the
intention of confecting the sacrament, etc.' Now by the 'aforesaid
words' we must understand him to mean the words of consecration which he
had set forth in the title of the article. But the title reads:
'Whether this is the form of the sacrament, This is My Body, and This is
the Chalice of My Blood.' Therefore it is the opinion of the Holy
Doctor that only the following words are of the essence, or are
necessary, for the consecration of the chalice: 'This is the Chalice of
My Blood.' Serra places so much stock in this argument and line of
reasoning that he would have St. Thomas teaching that the changing of
wine into blood occurs by the agency of those words alone.
"To this we might reply as follows. In the passage under
consideration the Holy Doctor's only concern was so to determine the
bare minimum of words that are universally received as being essential
for the consecration, as to place them beyond questioning. Whether other
words besides these are required for the consecration of the chalice he
did not care to state in that passage, namely, Art. 1, but he
reserved the discussion of that issue for Art. 3, where he fully
considered the question. Therefore we must understand him exactly as he
explained the Master of Sentences [Peter Lombard] (In IV, d. 8), in
his commentary on the letter, where he said, 'It is not the intention of
the Master in this passage to determine definitively the precise words
which effect consecration, but only to explain that the consecration is
effected by the words of the Lord.'
"The reply given in the text itself corroborates this: for when the
Holy Doctor says: 'If a priest were to pronounce only the aforesaid
words with the intention of confecting this sacrament, this sacrament
would be valid,' his meaning is not at all such as would be favorable
to our opponents, that is to say, that these words alone are required
for sacramental validity [of the wine-consecration]: 'This is the
Chalice of My Blood'. His meaning is quite different and in no way
similiar to that, viz., that it is the words which precede: 'Qui pridie
quam pateretur, etc.' [i.e., the narrative preambles 'Who the day
before He suffered, etc.' for the bread; and 'In like manner, after He
had supped, taking also this excellent chalice, etc.' for the wine],
which are not required. This is evident from both the Objection itself
as well as from his reply thereto."
"Such was the difficulty with which St. Thomas was dealing, thus
posing a question quite different from that which [our opponents
suppose]..., and leading to the demonstration of an entirely
different matter. Furthermore, the Objection pertains to both
elements of the sacramental form, to both the bread and the wine.
"Thus both in the Objection and in the Reply it is manifest that he
is not treating of those 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' but of others, namely of those that precede, and, as
it were, introduce the consecratory form. 'Qui pridie quam
pateretur, etc',... and it is those words only which St. Thomas
declares unnecessary.... But in no part of this Article 1 does he
touch upon the present controversy. Consequently, it is evident that
the author of whom we spoke above [Martin Serra] erred in his
assertion that St. Thomas' teaching in this passage is contrary to
ours: in fact, neither explicitly nor implicitly did he teach what
Serra makes him teach, for on that occasion he was not even discussing
the matter of the essential form, since it was not relevant to the
question being considered in Article 1."
THE FATUOUS "INTEGRITY" ARGUMENT
In the first work of St. Thomas that was cited (Script. Sup. Lib.
IV Sent.) he uses the word "essential" (essentialia), and
in the very same sentence he uses the phrase "of the substance
(de substantia) of the form." In the second source cited (In 1 Cor.
XI) St. Thomas uses different wording, namely, NECESSARY (de
necessitate), referring to the entire form. Finally, in Summa
Theologica he reverts to the words "de substantia" (of the substance) of
the form.
About four centuries ago, sometime after the Council of Trent,
certain "short form" apologists came up with the theory that St. Thomas
in the Summa did not mean by the expression "de substantia formae" what
everyone up to that time had always thought he meant by "substance,"
namely, a term synonymous with "essentia" and with "necessitas." They
claimed that by "of the substance of the form" he did not mean necessary
for VALIDITY, but necessary only for THE INTEGRITY or completeness of
the form.[10] After this bit of sophistry had surfaced, many good
Thomists, including Capisuccus and the Salmanticenses, refuted it
soundly. And St. Alphonsus does not think much of this particular
argument, remarking that how such a theory squares with the mind of
St. Thomas is not at all apparent, which is a polite understatement.[11]
"There is no use objecting that the holy Doctor does not teach that all
these words are of the essence of the form, but only 'of the substance
of the form'; as though the words 'This is My blood' are of the
substance as an essential part, and the other words are of the
substance as an integral part . . ."[12]
The first thing that comes to mind that would seem to torpedo this
argument is the fact that in the very same Summa Theologica where
this supposed problematical expression "belonging to the
substance" (de substantia) is used, St. Thomas ACTUALLY DEFINES
what he means by "de substantia formae sacramentalis." In his section
on the sacraments in general he establishes principles that are to apply
to all the sacraments individually when he will be discussing them
later in the work. In Summa Theologica (III, Q. 60, A. 8) he
explains:
"Now it is clear that if anything that is OF THE SUBSTANCE OF A
SACRAMENTAL FORM be taken away, the essential sense of the words is
destroyed: AND CONSEQUENTLY THE SACRAMENT IS NOT ACCOMPLISHED
[enphasis added throughout]." ("Manifestum est quod si diminuatur
aliquid eorum, quae sunt de substantia formae sacramentalis, tollitur
debitus sensus verborum: et ideo non perficitur sacramentum.")
The next thing that would seem to torpedo this argument is that it was
not advanced until about THREE HUNDRED YEARS AFTER THE DEATH of St.
Thomas. As we saw earlier, the Salmanticenses mentioned that all the
earlier Thomists, UNANIMOUSLY, up to Cajetan taught that the entire
form is necessary. And Maurice de la Taille, S.J., points out that St.
Pius V ordered the expunging of Cajetan's contrary opinion "as being
OPPOSED TO [emphasis added] the teaching of the Angelic Doctor,"[13]
which is exactly what Raymond Cardinal Capisuccus said in the passage
quoted earlier.
The contemporaries of St. Thomas and those who followed soon
thereafter -- not only those who agreed with him, but also those who
opposed his view -- must be considered more reliable interpreters of his
mind than those who came upon the scene much later, coming as they did
after the fashion of innovators, entertaining such entirely
revolutionary and patently unsound theories.
Those wishful-thinking bearers of novelties were evidently employing
what Mgr. Pierre Batiffol has called la methode regressive: "This is a
cumbrous and uncomfortable method. The theory comes first, and then the
evidence. Sometimes it refuses to go in: and there is nothing for it
but to show that the author says the opposite elsewhere, and is
therefore inconsistent, or else to prove that the passage or the
whole work is not genuine".[14]
"Furthermore a special probability is given to the 'entire form' opinion
by the authority of Pope Innocent III, the more obvious interpretation
of the words of St, Thomas, and the words of the Catechism of the
Council of Trent and of the Roman Missal."[15]
THE GRACE OF THE SACRAMENT MUST BE SIGNIFIED
In his Bull Apostolicae Curae (1896), Pope Leo XIII authoritatively
re-emphasized the following important principle of sacramental
theology:
"All know that the Sacraments of the New Law, as sensible and efficient
signs of invisible grace, must both signify THE GRACE which they
effect, and effect THE GRACE which they signify. Although the
signification ought to be found in the whole essential rite --
that is to say, in the matter and in the form -- yet it pertains
chiefly to the form; since the matter is a part which is not determined
by itself, but which is determined by the form." [In the foregoing the
emphasis on the words "THE GRACE" was added.].
The Pontiff added: "That form consequently cannot be apt or sufficient
for a Sacrament which omits what it must essentially signify."
Here Leo XIII teaches that the forms of the various Sacraments ("it
still pertains chiefly to the form") must signify THE GRACE which they
effect: that is, the "grace proper to the Sacrament (i.e., its
sacramental grace). This is also called "the effect" of the
sacrament or its res sacramenti, translated as "the reality of the
sacrament." All those expressions -- grace proper, sacramental grace,
the effect, the reality of the sacrament, res sacramenti -- mean
exactly the same thing. It is this GRACE that the words of the
sacramental form MUST signify, as the Sovereign Pontiff so
clearly teaches.
On page 31 of A Vindication of the Bull "Apostolicae Curae" (1898),
the chief author of which was Cardinal Vaughan, we find the following
reiteration of Leo's teaching that the form of a Sacrament must signify
the GRACE of the Sacrament, which must not be confused with grace
in general or other kinds of grace:
"Moreover, the signification must not be ambiguous, but so far definite
[italics in the original text] as to discriminate the grace effected
from graces of a different kind; as, for instance, the graces of other
Sacraments."
And on p. 40: "The definite signification, as has already been
explained, must be found in the essential part [italics in the
original text], in the matter and form morally united together."
Now what is this sacramental grace. this "grace proper", this effect,
this reality, this res sacramenti of the Sacrament of the Holy
Eucharist? What is this grace that must be so definitely signified in
the sacramental form that it must not be confused with graces of a
different kind? As is acknowledged by all theologians, the res
sacramenti of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is the union of the
Mystical Body of Christ. And this must be signified in the
sacramental form, that is, in the Words of Consecration.
Is this signification contained in the mere words, "This is My Body;
This is the Chalice of My Blood"? Those words signify the TRUE Body,
Blood, Soul and Divinity of Christ, which become present through
transubstantiation; not the MYSTICAL Body, as some Protestant
theologians (e.g., Dorner and Loofs) have heretically claimed. To hold
that BOTH Christ's True Body AND His Mystical Body are somehow signified
by those words is absurd, for that would be saying that a valid
sacramental form can signify ambiguously, which is not possible.
The words which in fact provide the vital signification of the res
sacramenti are found in the final phrase of the form: "for you and for
many unto the remission of sins." The words "you" and "many" are the
only words of the form that explicitly designate the members of the
Mystical Body of Christ, which is the Catholic Church. Moreover, the
final words, "unto the remission of sins," signify the union of the
members, as will now be explained.
The very principle of existence of the union of members within the
Mystical Body is sanctifying grace. Any person living in the state of
sanctifying grace is automatically within Christ's Mystical Body. Since
sanctifying grace is the principle of existence of the union of the
Mystical Body, it is easily seen that the essential and absolute
prerequisite -- the sine qua non -- of this union is the remission of
sins.
By Baptism we first receive sanctifying grace through THE REMISSION OF
SIN(S), original sin and also actual sin in the case of adult baptisms.
Thus we first enter the union of the Mystical Body. We retain our
status as living members of the Mystical Body by remaining in the state
of sanctifying grace. One who has become spiritually dead through
mortal sin, though not severed altogether from the Mystical Body,
becomes a "dead member" and can be reinstated as a living member and
again become a VITAL part of the union of the Mystical Body only by THE
REMISSION OF HIS SINS through the Sacrament of Penance.
Thus it is seen that THE REMISSION OF SINS -- that is, the ACTUAL,
EFFICACIOUS remission of sins: or in other words "in remissionem
peccatorum" (UNTO the remission of sins) -- is the one thing necessary
for our initial incorporation in the Mystical Body and the
revitalization as living members of those who lose sanctifying
grace. Consequently, the remission of sins CAUSES one to be brought
within the unity of the Mystical Body.
Hence the final phrase of the form for the wine-consecration in its
entirety -- to wit: "for you and for many unto the remission of sins"
-- comprises the essential words signifying the grace of the Sacrament,
which is the union of the Mystical Body. For the words "you" and
"many" designate the members, and the words "unto the remission of
sins" signify the cause of their unity.
The words of the English version, "for you and for all so that sins may
be forgiven", give a false signification. "All" cannot and does not
designate the members of the Mystical Body since not all, but only
"many", are members. The words "so that sins may be forgiven" do not
express the actual, efficacious remission of sins: they express only the
potential forgiveness of sins of all men.
A ridiculous argument was raised a few years ago. It was claimed that
since the words, "This is My Body; This is the Chalice of My Blood,"
signify the Body and Blood of Christ, Who as true God is the Author of
all grace, those words suffice to satisfy Pope Leo's teaching that the
form must signify the grace of the Sacrament! That is on a par with
saying that the final words of the form for Baptism, "in the name of
the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost," suffice because
they signify the Blessed Trinity, God, the Author of all grace. Though
God is the Author of all grace, He is not grace, least of all is He
sacramental grace: He is not the res sacramenti of the Sacrament of the
Holy Eucharist or of any other Sacrament.
THERE'S MORE TO IT THAN HAS MET THE BRAIN
Those who imagine they have answered the case against the validity of
the English "Masses" by taking shelter under the "short form" opinion
seem to be overlooking the fact that the English version does not use
the mere "short form," "This is the cup of my blood," but a great deal
more is said: "This is the cup of my blood, the blood of the new and
everlasting covenant. It will be shed for you and for all so that sins
may be forgiven."
Let us assume, purely for the sake of illustrating a point,
that the "short form" opinion is correct, namely, that the first seven
words, "This is the cup of my blood," are sufficient for the valid
consecration of the wine.
Not one of all the reputable "short form" exponents, both past and
present, would deny that the consecration could possibly be rendered
invalid by a substantial change of meaning introduced in the
remaining words of the form, even though they did not consider those
remaining words essential. A single example will be more than enough to
drive home this point. Suppose a priest were to substitute the word
"old" for "new" in the wine-consecration:
"For this is the Chalice of My Blood, of the OLD and eternal
testament...."
Clearly that substituted word, "old", now being part of the same
utterance that begins with "For this is the Chalice of My Blood," in
effect blasphemously denies the true propitiatory nature of Christ's
Sacrifice on Calvary by putting the shedding of His Precious Blond in
the same category as the shedding of the blood of animals under the Old
Law, which was nowise efficacious for the atonement of sins.
Granting, hypothetically, that the word "multis" is not essential
for validity, the substitution of "omnibus" ("all") in place of
"multis" ("many") nevertheless invalidates the consecration just
as would the substitution of "old" for "new", as will now be
demonstrated.
As was seen earlier, the words "pro vobis et pro multis" ("for you and
for many") designate the members of the Mystical Body. The counterfeit
word "all" signifies falsely, because it cannot and does not signify the
members of Christ's Mystical Body, which consists of MANY members only,
not all persons.
In the example given previously it is clear that the word "old" destroys
the signification of the propitiatory nature of Our Lord's sacrifice of
the new testament, which is renewed in the Holy Sacrifice of the Mass.
That dogma was thereby implicitly denied, because whenever something
that was perennially in place is suppressed, it must be assumed that its
denial is intended. In like manner, the words, "for you and for all
so that sins may be forgiven," deny the doctrine of the Mystical Body of
Christ -- whose members are the sole heirs of the Holy Eucharist -- by
suppressing the divinely-established 16 signification of that doctrine
in the sacramental form of the Holy Fucharist.
August 17, 1997 (Feast of St. Hyacinth)
