Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

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."

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.

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.

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.

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."

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."

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).

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."

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.

On the contrary, The Church, instructed by the apostles, uses this form.

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.

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."

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."

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.

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.

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."

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."

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

Articulus 3

Argumentum 1

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.

Argumentum 2

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.

Argumentum 3

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.

Argumentum 4

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.

Argumentum 5

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.

Argumentum 6

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.

Argumentum 7

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.

Argumentum 8

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.

Argumentum 9

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.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod ecclesia, ab apostolis instructa, utitur hac forma in consecratione vini.

Corpus

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.

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.

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.

Ad 1

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.

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.

Ad 2

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.

Ad 3

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.

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.

Ad 4

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.

Ad 5

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.

Ad 6

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.

Ad 7

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.

Ad 8

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.

Ad 9

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.