top of page

The Manner in Which Jesus Christ Is in the Eucharist, Answering Philosophical Objections

32. Before we reply in detail to the philosophical objections of the Sacramentarians relative to the manner in which the body of Jesus Christ is in the Sacrament, we should reflect that the Holy Fathers in matters of faith do not depend on philosophical principles, but on the authority of the Scriptures and the Church, knowing well that God can do many things which our weak reason cannot comprehend. We never will be able to understand the secrets of nature in created things; how, then, can we comprehend how far the power of the Almighty, the Creator of nature, itself, extends? We now come to their objections. First, they say that, although God is omnipotent, he cannot do anything which is repugnant in itself, but it is repugnant, they say, that Christ should be in heaven and on earth, at the same time, really and truly, as he is according to our belief, and not alone in one, but in many places, at the same time. Hear what the Council of Trent says on this subject (Sess. xiii, c. 1): " Nec enim hæc inter se pugnant, ut ipse Salvator noster semper ad dexteram Patris in cœlis assideat, juxta modum existendi naturalem; et ut multis nihilominus aliis in locis sacramentaliter præsens sua substantia nobis adsit, ex existendi ratione; quam etsi verbis exprimere vix possumus, possibilem tamen esse Deo, cogitatione per fidem illustrata, assequi possumus, et constantissime credere debemus." The Council, therefore, teaches, that the body of Jesus Christ is in heaven in a natural manner, but that it is on earth in a sacramental or supernatural manner, which our limited understanding cannot comprehend, no more than we can understand how the three Divine Persons in the Trinity are the same essence, or how, in the Incarnation of the Word in Jesus Christ there is but one Divine Person and two Natures, the Divine and human.  

33. It is impossible, they say also, for a human body to be in several places at once. We believe, however, that the body of Christ is not multiplied in the Eucharist, for our Lord is not there present definitively, or circumscribed to that place and to no other, but sacramentally, under the appearance of bread and wine, so that wherever the species of the consecrated bread and wine are, there Jesus Christ is present. The multiplicity of the presence of Christ, therefore, does not proceed from the multiplication of his body in many places, but from the multiplicity of the consecrations of the bread and wine, performed by the priests in different places. But how is it possible, say they, that the body of Christ can be in several places at once, unless it is multiplied? We answer, that before our adversaries can prove this to be impossible, they should have a perfect knowledge of place and of glorified bodies; they should know distinctly what place is, and what existence glorified bodies have. When such knowledge, however, surpasses our weak understandings, who shall have the hardihood to deny, that the body of our Lord can be in several places at once, since God has revealed in the Holy Scriptures that Jesus Christ really exists in every consecrated Host? But, they reply, we cannot understand this. We answer again, that the Eucharist is a mystery of Faith, since our understanding cannot comprehend it, and as we never can do so, it is rashness to say that it cannot be, when God has revealed it, and when we know we cannot decide by reason what is beyond the power of reason.  

34. They assert, besides, that it is repugnant to reason to say that the body of Jesus Christ exists under the species, without extension or quantity, for both extension and quantity are essential qualities of bodies, and God himself cannot deprive things of their essences, therefore, say they, the body of Christ cannot exist without filling a space corresponding to its quantity, and, therefore, it cannot be in a small Host, and in every particle of the Host, as Catholics believe. We reply to this, that although God cannot deprive things of their essence, still he can deprive them of the property of their essence; he cannot take away from fire the essence of fire, but he can deprive fire of the essential quality of burning, as he did in the case of Daniel and his companions, who were unharmed in the furnace. Thus, in like manner, though God cannot make a body to exist without extension and quantity, still he can make it, so that it will not occupy space, and that it will be entire in every part of the sensible species which contain it as a substance; the body of Christ, therefore, into which the substance of the bread is changed, does not occupy place, and is whole and entire in every part of the species. Here is how St. Thomas explains it (1): " Tota substantia corporis Christi continetur in hoc Sacramento post consecrationem, sicut ante consecrationem continebatur ibi tota substantia panis. Propria autem totalitas substantial continetur indifferenter in pauca vel magna quantitate, unde et tota substantia corporis et sanguinis Christi continetur in hoc Sacramento."

35. That being the case, it is not the fact that the body of Christ in the Eucharist exists without quantity; the whole quantity is there, but in a supernatural, not a natural manner. It does not exist, then, drcumscriptive, that is, according to the measure of the proper quantity corresponding to the quantity of space; but it exists sacramentaliter sacramentally, after the manner of a substance. Hence it is that Jesus Christ, in the Sacrament, does not exercise any action dependent on the senses; and although he exercises the acts of the intellect and of the will, he does not exercise the corporal acts of the sensitive life, which require a certain sensible and external extension in the organs of the body.  

36. Neither is it true that Jesus Christ exists in the Sacrament without extension. His body is there, and it has extension; but this extension is not external, or sensible and local, but internal, in ordine ad se, so that although all the parts are in the same place, still one part is not confused with the other. Thus Jesus Christ exists in the Sacrament with internal extension; but as to external and local extension, he is inextended, and indivisible, and whole, and entire, in each particle of the Host, as a substance, as has been already said, without occupying space. Hence it is, that as the body of our Lord does not occupy space, it cannot be moved from one place to another, but is moved only per accidens, when the species are moved under which it is contained, just as happens to ourselves, that when our bodies are moved from one place to another, our souls are also moved, per accidetis, though the soul is incapable of occupying any space. In fine, the Eucharist is a Sacrament of Faith, misterium Fidei, and as we cannot comprehend all the matters of faith, so we should not pretend to understand all that faith, through the Church, teaches us concerning this Sacrament. (1) St. Thom p. 3, q. 76, a. 1,  

37. But how, say they, can the accidents of bread and wine exist without their substance, or subject, as it is called? We answer the question whether accidents are distinct from matter has been already mooted; the most general opinion is in the affirmative; the Councils of Lateran, Florence, and Trent, how ever, keeping clear of the controversy altogether, call the accidents species. In the ordinary course of things these accidents, or species, cannot exist without the subject, but they can in a supernatural and extraordinary manner. In the ordinary course of things, humanity cannot exist without its proper subsistence (subsistentia); but, notwithstanding, faith teaches us that the humanity of Christ had not human, but Divine subsistence, that is, the Person of the Word. As the humanity of Christ, there fore, united to the Word hypostatically, subsists without the human person, so, in the Eucharist, the species can exist without the subject, that is, without the substance of bread, because their substance is changed into the body of Christ. These species, therefore, have nothing of reality, but by Divine power they represent their former subject, and appear still to retain the substance of bread and wine, and may even become corrupted, and worms may be generated in them, but, then, it is from a new matter, created by the Almighty, that these worms spring, and Jesus Christ is no longer present, as St. Thomas teaches (2). As far as the sensations of our organs go, the body of Christ in the Eucharist is neither seen or touched by us immediately in itself, but only through the medium of those species under which it is contained, and it is thus we should understand the words of St. John Chrysostom (3): " Ecce eum vides, Ipsum tangis, Ipsum manducas."  

38. It is, then, an article of faith, that Jesus Christ is permanently in the Eucharist, and not alone in the use of the communion, as the Lutherans say, and this is the doctrine of the Council of Trent, which also assigns the reason: "In Eucharistia ipse auctor ante usum est, nondum enim Eucharistiam de manu Domini Apostoli susceperant, cum vere tamen ipse affirmavet corpus suum esse, quod prebebat" (Sees, xiii, cap. 3). (2) St. Thom 3 p. qu. 76, a. 5, ad. 3. (3) St. Chrysost. Horn. 60, ad Pap.  And as Jesus Christ is present before the use of the Sacrament, so he is also present after it, as the Fourth Canon expresses it: " Si quis dixerit ...... in Hostiis, seu particulis consecratis, quæ es communionem reservantur, vel supersunt, non remanere verum corpus Domini; anathema sit."  

39. This is proved, not alone by reason and authority, but by the ancient practice of the Church, likewise; for in the early ages, on account of the persecution, the Holy Communion was given in private houses and in caverns, as Tertullian testifies (4): " Non sciet Maritus, quid secreto ante omnem cibum gustes: et si sciverit panem, non ilium esse credat, qui dicitur." St. Cyprian (5) tells us, that in his time the faithful used to bring home the Eucharist to their houses, to communicate at the proper time. St. Basil (6), writing to the Patrician Cesaria, exhorts her, that as she could not, on account of the persecution, attend the public communion, she should carry it along with her, to communicate in case of danger. St. Justin, Martyr (7), mentions that the Deacons used to carry the communion to the absent. St. Iræneus (8) laments to Pope Victor, that having omitted to celebrate the Pasch, he deprived several Priests of the communion on that account, who could not come to the public meetings, and he therefore sent the Eucharist in sign of peace to those who were prevented from attending: " Cum tamen qui te præcesse-runt, Presbyteris, quamvis id minime observarent, Eucharistiam transmiserunt." St. Gregory of Nazianzan(9) relates that her sister Orgonia, standing with great faith nigh to the Sacrament, which was concealed, was freed from a disease under which she was labouring; and St. Ambrose (10) tells us that St. Satirus, having the Eucharist suspended round his neck, escaped shipwreck. (4) Tertul. l. 2, ad Uxor. c. 5.(5) St. Cypri. Tract, de Lapsis. (6) St. Basil, Ep. 289 ad Cesar. Patriciam (7) St. Justin. Apol. 2, p. 97. (8) St. Iræn. Ep. ad Vic. Pon. (9) St. Greg. Nazian. Orat. 11. (10) St. Ambr. Orat. de obitu fratris Satyri.  

40. Father Agnus Cirillo, in his work entitled " Ragguagli Teologici" (p. 353), adduces several other examples to the same effect, and proves that an anonymous author, who lately taught that it was not lawful to give communion with particles previously consecrated, and preserved in the tabernacle, is totally wrong. The learned Mabillon (11) shows that the practice of giving communion when Mass was not celebrated had its origin in the Church of Jerusalem, and existed in the days of St. Cyril, as it was not possible to say Mass each time that the numerous pilgrims frequenting the Holy City required communion. From the Eastern this custom was introduced into the Western Church, and Gregory XIII., in 1584, laid down in his Ritual the mode to be observed by the Priest in the administration of the holy communion, when Mass was not said. This Ritual was confirmed, subsequently, by Paul V., in 1614, and in the chapter de Sac. Eucharis., it is ordered that, " Sacerdos curare debet, ut perpetuo aliquot particulæ consecratao eo numero, quæ usui infirmorum, et aliorum (mark this) Fidelium communioni satis esse possint, conserventur in pixide." Benedict XIV., in his Encyclical Letter of the 12th November, 1742, approves of giving communion when Mass is not celebrated: " De eodem Sacrificio participant, præter eos quibus a Sacerdote celebrante tribuitur in ipsa Missa portio Victimæ a se oblatæ, ii etiam quibus Sacerdos Eucharistiam præservari solitam ministrat."  

41. We may as well remark here, that a certain Decree of the Congregation of Rites, dated 2nd September, 1741, was circulated, by which it was prohibited to give communion to the people at the Masses for the dead, with pre-consecrated particles, and taking the pixis from the tabernacle, because the usual benediction cannot be given in black vestments to those who communicate; but Father Cirillo (p. 368) says that this Decree is not obligatory, as it was not sanctioned by the reigning Pope, Benedict XIV. There is, certainly, one very strong argument in his favour, and it is this, that Benedict, while Archbishop of Bologna, in his work on the Sacrifice of the Mass, approved of the opinion of the learned Merati, that communion might be given, at the Masses for the dead, with pre-consecrated particles, and when he was afterwards Pope, and re-composed the same treatise on the Sacrifice of the Mass, he never thought of retracting his opinion, which he would have done had he considered the Decree we mentioned valid, and he would have given it his approbation, as published during his Pontificate. Father Cirillo adds, that one of the Consultors of the Congregation told him that, although the Decree was drawn up, yet several of the Consultors refused to sign it, and thus it was held in abeyance, and never published. (11) Miibill. Liturg. Gallic. l. 2, r. 0, n. 20.  

42. To come back to the sectaries who deny the Real Presence of Jesus Christ, unless in the use alone, I know not how they can answer the First Council of Nice, which ordains (Can. 13), that communion should be administered to the dying at all times, and it would be impossible to do that if the Eucharist was not preserved. The Fourth Council of Lateran expressly ordains the same thing (Can. 20): " Statuimus quod in singulis Ecclesiis Chrisma, et Eucharistia sub fideli custodia conserventur;" and this was confirmed by the Council of Trent (Sess. xiii, c. 6). From the earliest ages the Greeks preserved the Eucharist in silver ciboriums, made in the form of a dove, or of a little tower, and suspended over the altar, as is proved from the life of St. Basil, and the Testament of Perpetuus, Bishop of Durs(12).  

43. Our adversaries object that Nicephorus (13) relates, that in the Greek Church it was the custom to give the children the fragments that remained after communion; therefore, they say, the Eucharist was not preserved. We answer, that this was not done every day, only on Wednesdays and Fridays, when the pixis was purified; and it was, therefore, preserved on the other days, and, besides, particles were always preserved for the sick. They object, besides, that the words, " This is my body," were not pronounced by Christ before the manducation, but after it, as appears from St. Matthew (xxvi, 26): " Jesus took bread, and blessed, and broke; and gave to his disciples, and said: Take ye, and eat: This is my body." We answer, with Bellarmin, that in this text the order of the words is not to be regarded, for the order is different with each of the Evangelists. St. Mark, speaking of the consecration of the chalice, says (xiv, 23, 24): " Having taken the chalice they all drank of it. And he said to them: This is my blood." Now, it would appear from this, also, that the words, " This is my blood," were said after the sumption of the chalice; but the context of all the Evangelists show that both " This is my body," and " This is my blood," was said by our Lord before he gave them the species of bread and wine. (12) Tournelly, t. 2, de Euch. p. 105, n. 5. (13) Niceph. Histor. I 17, c. 25.  IV. THE MATTER AND FORM OF THE SACRAMENT OF THE EUCHARIST.  

44. As to the matter of the Eucharist, there is no doubt but that we should use that alone which was used by Jesus Christ that is, bread of wheat, and wine of the vine, as we learn from St. Matthew (xxv, 26), St. Mark (xiv, 12), St. Luke (xxii, 19), and St. Paul (1. Cor. xi, 27). This is what the Catholic Church has always done, and condemned those who dared to make use of any other matter, as is proved in the Third Council of Carthage (c. 27), which was held in the year 397. Estius (1) says that consecration can be performed with any sort of bread wheaten, barley, oaten, or millet; but St. Thomas (2) writes, that it is with bread of wheat alone it can be done, but still that bread made of a sort of rye, which grows from wheat sown in poor soil, is also matter for the consecration: " Et ideo si qua frumenta sunt, quas ex semine tritici generari possunt, sicut ex grano tritici seminato malis terris nascitur siligo, ex tali frumento panis confectus potest esse materia hujus Sacramenti." He, therefore, rejected all other bread, and this is the only opinion we can follow in practice. Doctors have disputed, as we may see in the works of Mabillon, Sirmond, Cardinal Bona, and others, whether unleavened bread, such as the Latins use, or leavened bread, as used by the Greeks, is the proper matter for the Sacrament. There is not the least doubt but that the consecration is valid in either one or the other; but, at present, the Latins are prohibited from consecrating in leavened, and the Greeks in unleavened, bread, according to a Decree of the Council of Florence, in 1429: "Definimus in azimo, sive in fermentato pane triticeo Corpus Christi veraciter confici, Sacerdotesque in alterutro ipsum Domini Corpus conficere debent, unum quenque scilicet juxta suæ Eeclesise Occidentalis, sive Orientalis consuetudinem." The matter of the consecration of the blood should be common wine, pressed from ripe grapes; and, therefore, the liquor expressed from unripe grapes, boiled wine, or that which has become vinegar, cannot be used. Must, however, or the unfermented juice of the grape, will answer; but it should not be used without necessity. (1) Æstius, in 4, dist. S, c. 6. (2) St. Thorn, q. 74, art. 3, ad 2,  

45. As to the quantity of bread and wine to be consecrated, it is quite sufficient that it be apparent to the senses, be it ever so little; it must, however, be certain, and of a known quantity, and morally present. According to the intention of the Church, and as St. Thomas teaches (3), a greater number of particles should not be consecrated than is sufficient to give communion to that number of people who are expected to receive within the time that the species would keep without corrupting. From this Peter de Marca concludes (4), that it is not in the power of a Priest to consecrate all the bread in a shop, for example; the consecration in this case, he says, would be invalid, though others assert it would only be illicit. Theologians also dispute of the validity of consecration, when performed for the purposes of witchcraft, or to expose the Host to the insult of unbelievers.  

46. We now have to treat of the form of the Eucharist. Luther (5) says, that the words of Christ alone, " This is my body," are not sufficient to consecrate, but that the whole liturgy must be recited. Calvin (6) said, that the words were not necessary at all for consecration, but only to excite faith. Some Greek schismatics, Arcudius (7) informs us, said that the words, " This is," &c., being once expressed by Christ, were sufficient in themselves to consecrate all the Hosts offered up ever after.  

47. Some Catholics taught that Christ consecrated the Eucharist by his occult benediction, without any words at all, by the excellence of his power; but ordained the form, at the same time, for man to use in consecration. (3) St. Thom. 3, p. q. 73, art. 2.. (4) Petr. de Marca Diss. posthuma de Sacrif. Missa. (5) Luther, l. de Abrog. Missa (6) Calvin, Inst. l. 4, c. 17, sec. 39. (7) Arcud. l. 3, c. 28.  This opinion was held by Durandus (8), Innocent III. (9), and especially by Catherinus (10), but as Cardinal Gotti(ll) informs us, it is now not held by any one, and some even say it was branded as rashness to hold it. The true and general doctrine is, as St. Thomas teaches (12), that Jesus Christ consecrated, when he expressed the words, " This is my body, this is my blood," and that the priest, at the present day, consecrates in the same manner, expressing the same words, in the person of Christ, and this not historically narrative, but significantly significative that is, by applying this meaning to the matter before him, as the generality of Doctors teach with St. Thomas (13).  

48. Catherinus says, also, that besides the words of our Lord, it is necessary, in order to consecrate, to add the prayers which, in the Latin Church, precede, and in the Greek, follow, the act; and the learned Oratorian, Father Le Brun (14), follows this opinion, likewise. The general opinion of theologians agreeing with St. Thomas (15), is, that Christ consecrated with the very same words as Priests do at present, and that the prayers of the Canon of the Mass are obligatory, but not necessary for consecration, so that it would be valid without them. The Council of Trent (Sess. xiii, c. 1) declares that our Saviour, " Post panis vinique benedictionem se suum ipsius corpus illis præbere, ac suum sanguinem disertis ac perspicuis verbis testatus est: quæ verba a sanctis Evangelistis commemorata, et a D. Paulo postea repetita, cum propriam illam et apertissimam significationem præ se ferant, secundum quam a Patribus intellecta sunt," &c. Were not the words, " Take and eat; this is my body," as the Evangelists inform us, clearly demonstrative that Christ gave his disciples his body to eat? It was by these words, then, and no other, that he converted the bread into his body, as St. Ambrose writes (16): " Consecratio igitur quibus verbis est, et cujus sermonibus? Domini Jesu. Nam reliqua omnia, quæ dicuntur, laudem Deo deferunt; oratio præmittitur pro Popolo, pro Regibus, pro ceteris; ubi venitur ut conficiatur venerabile Sacramentum, jam non suis sermonibus Sacerdos, sed utitur sermonibus Christi." (8) Durand. Z. 4. de Div. Offic. c. 41, n. 13 (9) Innoc. III. l 4, Myst. c. 6. (10) Ap. Tournelly Comp. de Euch. qu. 4, a. 6, p. 184. (11) Gotti, Theol. du Euch. qu. 2, sec. l,n.2. (12) St. Thom. 3, p. q. 78, a. 1. (13) St. Thom, loc. cit. a. 5. (14) Le Brun, t. 3, rer. Liturg. p. 212. (15) St. Thom 3, p. q. 78, a. 5. (16) St. Ambrose, de Sacramen. t 4, c . 4.  St. John Chrysostom (17), speaking of the same words, says: " Hoc verbum Christi transformat ea, quæ oposita sunt." And St. John of Damascus says: " Dixit pariter Deus, Hoc est corpus meum, ideoque omnipotenti ejus præepto, donee veniat, efficitur."  

49. The same Council (Cap. 3) says: " Et semper hæc fides in Ecclesia Dei fuit, statim post consecrationem verum Domini nostri Corpus, ver unique ejus sanguinem sub panis et vini specie existere ex vi verborum." Therefore, by the power of the words that is, the words mentioned by the Evangelists instantly after the consecration, the bread is converted into the body, and the wine into the blood, of Jesus Christ. There is a great difference between the two sentences, " This is my body," and " We beseech thee that the body of Jesus Christ may be made for us," or, as the Greeks say, " Make this bread the body of Christ;" for the first shows that the body of Christ is present at the very moment in which the sentence is expressed, but the second is only a simple prayer, beseeching that the oblation may be made the body, not in a determinative, but a suspended and expectative sense. The Council says that the conversion of the bread and wine into the body and blood of Christ takes place vi verborum, not vi orationum, by the power of the words, and not by the power of the prayers. St. Justin says (18): " Eucharistiam confici per preces ab ipso Verbo Dei profectas;" and he afterwards explains that these prayers are: " This is my body;" but the prayer in the Canon was not pronounced by the Word of God himself. St. Iræneus(19) says, also: " Quando mixtus calix, et factus panis percipit verbum Dei, fit Eucharistia corporis Christi." We do not find that Christ, in consecrating, used any other words but those: " This is my body, and this is my blood." Taking all this into consideration, we must decide that the opinion of Le Brun has not a sound foundation of probability. (17) St. Chrisost. Hom. 1 de Prod. Judæ. (18) St. Justin, Apol. 2. (19) St. Iræn. l. 5, c. 2.  

50. Several Fathers (say the supporters of this opinion) teach that the Eucharist is consecrated both by prayer and by the words of Christ. We answer, that by the word prayer they mean the very expression " This is my body," used by Christ, as St. Justin (20) expressly states, that the prayer by which the Eucharist is consecrated is the words, " This is my body," &c. St. Iræneus had previously said the same (21), that the Divine invocation by which the Eucharist is made is the Divine word. St. Augustine (22) says that the mystic prayer (23) by which the- Eucharist is made consists in the words of Christ, " This is my body," &c., as the forms of the other Sacraments are called prayers, because they are holy words which have the power of obtaining from God the effect of the Sacraments. They object to us, also, some Liturgies, as those of St. James, St. Mark, St. Clement, St. Basil, and St. John Chrysostom, which would make it appear that besides the words of Christ other prayers are requisite for consecration, as we have in the Canon: " Quæsumus ut nobis corpus, et sanguis fiat delectissimi Filii tui," &c. The same prayer is also used in the Greek Mass, but, as Bellarmin writes (24), when the Greeks were asked by Eugenius IV. what was the reason that they used the prayer " that this may become the body," &c., after having already expressed the words of consecration, " This is my body," &c., they answered that they added this prayer, not to confirm the consecration, but that the Sacrament might assist the salvation of the souls of those who received it.  

51. Theologians (25) say, notwithstanding, that it is not an article of Faith that Christ did consecrate with these words, and ordained that with these words alone priests should consecrate, for although this is the general opinion, and most consonant with the sentiments of the Council of Trent, still it is not anywhere declared to be an article of faith by the Canon of the Church; and although the Holy Fathers have given it the weight of their authority, they have never laid it down as a matter of faith. Salmeron mentions (loc. cit.) that the Council of Trent being entreated to explain the form with which Christ consecrated this Sacrament, the Fathers judged it better not to define anything on the subject. (20) St. Justin Apol. 2. (21) St. Iren. l. 4, c. 24, & l. 3, c. 2. (22) St. Aug. Serm. 28, de Verb. Do. (23) Idem, de Trinit. c. 4. (24) Bellar. l. 4 de Euchar. c. 19. (25) Salmeron. t. 9, trac. 13, p. 88; Tournell. de Euchar. 9, 4, a. 6, vers. Quær.  Tournelly (26) replies to all the objections made by those who wish to make it a matter of faith. If it is not a matter of faith, however, still, as St. Thomas teaches, it is morally certain (27), and we cannot even say that the contrary opinion is probable. The priest, then, would commit a most grievous sin, if he omitted the preceding prayers, but still his consecration would be valid. It is debated among authors, whether any other words unless these, " This is the Chalice of my blood," though the remainder is laid down in the Missal, are essentially necessary for the consecration of the blood. In our Moral Theology (28) the reader will find the point discussed. Several hold the affirmative opinion, and quote St. Thomas in their favour, who says (29): "Et ideo ilia quæ sequuntur sunt essentialia sanguini, prout in hoc Sacramento consecratur, et ideo oportet, quod sint de substantia Formæ;" the opposite opinion, however, is more generally followed, and those who hold it deny that it is opposed to the doctrine of St. Thomas, for he says that the subsequent words appertain to the substance but not to the essence of the form, and hence they conclude that these words do not belong to the essence, but only to the integrity of the form, so that the priest who would omit them would commit a grievous sin undoubtedly, but still would validly consecrate.  

52. We should remark here that the Council of Trent (Sess. xxii), condemned in nine Canons nine errors of the Reformers concerning the Sacrifice of the Mass, as follows: First that the Mass is not a true Sacrifice, and that it is only offered up to administer the Eucharist to the Faithful. Second That by these words, "Do this in commemoration of me," Christ did not institute the Apostles Priests, or ordain that the Priests should offer up his body and blood. Third That the Mass is only a thanksgiving or remembrance of the Sacrifice of the Cross, but not a propitiatory Sacrifice, or that it is useful only to those who communicate at it. Fourth That this Sacrifice is derogatory to the Sacrifice of the Cross. Fifth That it is an imposture to celebrate Mass in honour of the Saints, and to obtain their intercession. Sixth That there are errors in the Canon. Seventh That the ceremonies, vestments, and signs used in the Catholic Church are incentives to impiety. Eighth That private Masses, in which the Priest alone communicates, are unlawful. Ninth That the practice of saying part of the Canon in a low voice should be condemned; that it all ought to be said in the vulgar tongue, and that the mixture of water with the wine in the Chalice should also be condemned. All these errors I have refuted in my work against the Reformers. (26) Tournell. loc. cit. p. 191, v. Dices. 1. (27) St. Thorn. 3 p. 9, 78, a. 1, ad 4. (28) Liguor. Theol. Moral t. 2, dub. 6 de Euch. &c. (29) St. Thom, in 4 Dist. 8, q. 2, ar. 2, q. 2.

bottom of page