Those illustrious Discalced Carmelite
theologians of Salamanca, Spain (16th-17th 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
and 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 instalment. ... The Salmanticenses
have ever been held in the highest esteem, particularly at Rome
where they are considered a standard work on Thomistic scholasticism."
(The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIII, p. 402, 1912.)
An obscure 17th-century Dominican named
Martin Serra 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, and the remainder 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" is not required for validity. Serra based his argument
on Article 1 of Question 78 in Part III of the Summa Theologica,
which he (Serra) completely misunderstood.
Unfortunately there are those nowadays
who harbor the same unfounded notion about the meaning of III,
Q. 78, Art. 1. Not being good, experienced students of St. Thomas,
they 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. Therefore it is necessary to reproduce
the Salmanticenses' brilliant refutation of Martin Serra.
The following is from De Eucharistiae
Sacramento, Q. LXXVIII, Disp. IX, Dub. III, Sec. 2, par. 26,
which appears on pp. 573-574 of Vol. XVIII of the Paris edition
(1882) of the Salmanticenses' Cursus Theologicus:
"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's 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."
Occasionally in their homilies on transubstantiation
or on the truth of the Real Presence the Fathers (e.g., St. Justin,
St. John Damascene) say that the words of consecration are "This
is My Body, This is the Chalice of My Blood." Now no one
would seriously cite these passages to show that they considered
these words alone to be essential for validity. One would easily
see that the purpose of the homily was to teach transubstantiation,
etc., not to teach the precise form of words required for validity.
In his classic work, The Mystery of Faith, the distinguished
scholar Fr. Maurice de la Taille, S.J. discusses this point:
"I pass over an objection from
patristic authority in which it is presumed that: when the Fathers
say, as they often do, that the consecration is effected at the
words 'This is my body, this is my blood', they must be taken
thereby to determine the precise series of formal words which
is required. But what these Fathers actually mean to convey is:
that at the enunciation of the work which is done, that work which
is enunciated is done (as the Salmanticenses justly remark...).
Much in the same way St. Thomas, having said briefly in art. 1,
ad. 4m of the same question 78, that were the priest to make use
of these words alone, 'This is my body, This is the chalice of
my blood', without any narrative preamble, he would consecrate,
goes on to say, nevertheless, in article 3, that the words 'This
is the chalice of my blood' would not suffice without the words
which follow them." (The Mystery of Faith, Sheed and
Ward, London and New York, 1950, Thesis XXXV, Book II, p. 441,
footnote 2).
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
1 Cor. XI, (lect. 6); (3) 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."
[2] In 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 erroneous, 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 also 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." [Emphasis added].
[3] In Summa Theologica (III,
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 form's] 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 in the same action of the rite,
to wit, holding the chalice in his hands."
In the first of these works just mentioned
(Script. Sup. Lib. IV Sent.) St. Thomas says that the entire
sacramental form is essential (essentialia) and also in
the very same sentence he uses the equivalent phraseology 'of
the substance' (de substantia) of the form.
In the second source cited (In 1
Cor. XI) St. Thomas uses different phraseology, namely, "necessary"
(de necessitate), referring of course to the form in its
entirety.
Finally, in the Summa he reverts
to the word substantia (the substance of the form). And
earlier IN THIS VERY SAME Summa Theologica St. Thomas actually
defines PRECISELY WHAT HE MEANS when he says "the substance
of a sacramental form." In his section on the Sacraments
in General (III, Q.60, Art. 8) he establishes principles that
apply to all the sacraments, each of which he later in the Summa
discusses individually:
"Now it is clear that if anything
that is OF THE SUBSTANCE OF THE SACRAMENTAL FORM should be suppressed,
then that would destroy the essential sense of the words; AND
CONSEQUENTLY THE SACRAMENT WOULD NOT BE ACCOMPLISHED." [Emphasis
added].
Therefore since the Angelic Doctor,
in the words cited above in [3] states that "And on this
account others say more accurately that all the words which follow
[i.e., which follow 'This is the Chalice of My Blood'] are of
the substance of the form..."; and furthermore in the words
just cited from Q.60, Art. 8 that "if anything that is of
the substance of the form would be suppressed...the sacrament
would not be accomplished," it is evident that he teaches
that the entire sacramental form for the consecration of the wine
is essential for the validity of the Sacrament, and perforce,
for the validity of the Mass.
Patrick Henry Omlor
April 11, 1997
St. Leo I; St. Gemma Galgani