Part II, Chapter I: Matter and Form of the Holy Eucharist

Part II: The Holy Eucharist as a Sacrament

That the Holy Eucharist is a Sacrament follows from the fact that it is a visible sign of invisible grace instituted by Jesus Christ. It has been so regarded through all the centuries of the Christian Church.

The essence of the Holy Eucharist does not consist in the Consecration, nor in the Communion, since the former is a sacrificial action, while the latter is merely the reception of the Sacrament, not the Sacrament itself. The Sacrament consists neither in the Eucharistic species as such, nor in the Body or Blood of Christ alone, but in the union of both in one moral whole. The species belong to the essence of the Sacrament, since it is by means of them that the Eucharist becomes the outward sign of grace; and the Body and Blood of Christ are of the essence of the Sacrament, because it is not the mere unsubstantial appearances that are given for the nourishment of souls, but Christ concealed beneath them. It is only on account of the Real Presence of Christ in the Blessed Sacrament that we are allowed and in duty bound to adore it.

This description, however, is incomplete without mention of the sacramental form, which can only consist in the words of Consecration, considered as morally continuing their effect.

Passing over the institution, which we discussed in Part I in connection with the Real Presence, the essential point is the outward sign, i.e. matter and form. By matter (materia ex qua remota) we understand the Eucharistic elements, namely, the bread and wine which are to be converted into the Body and Blood of Christ, and by form, the words of Consecration which effect this conversion. The “inward grace” must be identical with the effects of holy Communion, since it is only through Communion that the recipient becomes sanctified, whereas the Consecration has for its sole object to make the Author of grace present under the Eucharistic species. In regard to the persons concerned, we distinguish between the minister of the Eucharist, i.e. the consecrator or dispenser (minister conficiens), and its subject, i.e. the recipient of holy Communion.

Chapter I: Matter and Form

§1. The Matter, or the Eucharistic Elements

The fact that there are two distinct Eucharistic elements, i.e. bread and wine, no more interferes with the unity of this Sacrament than the different stages of ordination interfere with the unity of Holy Orders.¹

Sacred Scripture represents the Holy Eucharist as a celestial banquet, at which both meat and drink are dispensed.² Besides, the separate species of bread and wine also symbolize the mystic separation of Christ’s Body and Blood, i.e. the slaughtering of the Eucharistic Lamb of sacrifice.³

1. Wheaten Bread as the First Element

The first element of the Sacrament of the Holy Eucharist is wheaten bread. This is theologically certain from the dogmatic Decretum pro Armenis of Pope Eugene IV, which says: “Materia est panis triticeus et vinum de vite.”⁴ The Roman Missal says that “without wheaten bread there is no conversion of the elements into the Body and Blood of Christ.”⁵

Since the bread required is that made of wheaten flour, not every kind of flour is allowed, such, e.g., as is ground from rye, oats, barley, Indian corn or maize, though these are all classified as grain (frumentum). On the other hand, the different varieties of wheat (spelt, amel-corn, etc.) are valid matter in so far as they can be proved botanically to be genuine wheat.

The necessity of wheaten bread is deduced immediately from the words of institution: “The Lord took bread.” The Greek text says: ἔλαβε τὸν ἄρτον. Now in Scriptural usage ἄρτος, without any qualifying adjective, always signifies wheaten bread.⁶ No doubt, too, that Christ at the Last Supper adhered to the Jewish custom of using only wheaten bread in the Passover, and by the words “Do this for a commemoration of me,” commanded its use for all succeeding time.

This view is confirmed by an uninterrupted tradition, embodied in the writings of the Fathers and the constant practice of the Church. Clement of Alexandria and Origen, in comparing the Catholic Church to wheaten bread, as distinct from the inferior bread ground from barley, to which they liken the Jewish Synagogue, plainly indicate that genuine wheaten bread was considered the only valid element of the most sublime mystery of the Christian religion. St. Irenaeus traces the use of wheaten bread in the Eucharist to an express command of our Lord and His Apostles.

2. The Question Regarding Unleavened Bread

Wheaten bread can be prepared in a twofold way: either with leaven or yeast, or without it. Bread baked with yeast is called leavened (fermentum, ζύμη); bread made of wheaten flour and water without yeast, unleavened (azyma, ἄζυμα).

After the Patriarch Michael Caerularius of Constantinople had sought to palliate the renewed rupture of the Greeks with Rome by means of the controversy concerning the use of unleavened bread in the Holy Eucharist (A.D. 1053), the two Churches, in the Decree of Union adopted at Florence, in 1439, came to the decision that the question was of no dogmatic importance, but that the Latin Rite was bound to use unleavened, while the Greek might continue to use leavened bread.⁷ As the validity of leavened bread has never been questioned, we may confine ourselves to a defence of the Latin custom of using unleavened bread in the Holy Eucharist.

a) According to the synoptic gospels,⁸ the Last Supper was celebrated “on the first day of the azymes” (ἐν τῇ πρώτῃ τῶν ἀζύμων), that is, at the beginning of the period of seven days during which the Jews partook exclusively of the so-called mazzoth as bread.⁹ Therefore we may rightly claim that the custom of the Western Church received its solemn sanction from Christ Himself. This was pointed out as early as 1054 by Pope Leo IX in his protest against Michael Caerularius.¹⁰

The schismatic Greeks object that, according to the Fourth Gospel,¹¹ our Divine Saviour celebrated the Last Supper per anticipationem “before the festival day of the pasch.” This is refuted by Estius¹² with the remark that no doubt He also by anticipation obeyed the legal prescription regarding unleavened bread, especially since the Jews were accustomed to do away with all the leaven which chanced to be in their dwellings on the day before the fourteenth of Nisan.¹³

b) Tradition is neither very clear nor uniform on this subject. Without attempting to settle the ancient dispute whether or not in the first six or eight centuries the Latins also celebrated Mass with leavened bread,¹⁴ or whether they have observed the present custom ever since the time of the Apostles, we merely call attention to the fact that in the Orient the Armenians and Maronites have used unleavened bread from time immemorial and that, according to Origen,¹⁵ the people of the East “sometimes” (therefore not as a rule), made use of leavened bread in their liturgy. We may also ask how Justin Martyr¹⁶ could have regarded the unleavened bread offered by the lepers of the Old Testament as a figure of the Eucharist, if unleavened bread had not been regarded as valid matter for Consecration in his time?

c) Besides, there is considerable force in the philosophical argument that the fermenting process with yeast and other leaven does not affect the substance of the bread, but merely its quality.¹⁷ Reasons of congruity can be urged in favor of either custom, though they are not, of course, decisive. The Greeks rightly maintain that leavened bread is a beautiful symbol of the Hypostatic Union — the compenetration of Christ’s humanity with the Godhead¹⁸ — as well as an attractive representation of the savour of this Heavenly Food. Nevertheless St. Thomas finds the Latin practice more appropriate, first, because of the example of Christ; secondly, because of the aptitude of unleavened bread to be regarded as a symbol of His pure Body, free from all corruption, and thirdly, because of St. Paul’s exhortation to keep the Pasch “not with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.”¹⁹

3. Wine of Grapes as the Second Element

The second Eucharistic element required is wine. “Wine” (vinum, οἶνος), without any qualifying addition, has always meant, as it means today, wine of the grape (vinum de vite). Hence are excluded as invalid the juices extracted and prepared from other fruits (cider, perry, etc.), as well as all the so-called artificial wines, even if their chemical constitution should happen to be identical with the genuine juice of the grape. Origin and color are, however, indifferent, though some hold that our Lord Himself employed red wine. The necessity of wine of grapes for the validity of the Holy Eucharist has never been authoritatively defined by the Church, but it is presupposed by her, e.g., in the decrees of the Fourth Lateran Council,²⁰ the Council of Florence,²¹ and the Council of Trent.²²

a) Though the words of institution contain no direct reference to wine, but merely speak of the “chalice” (calix, ποτήριον), there can be no doubt that the chalice blessed by our Lord at the Last Supper contained genuine wine.

This can be deduced partly from the rite of the Passover, which required the head of the family to pass around the “cup of benediction” (calix benedictionis) containing wine of grapes, and partly from Christ’s own express declaration, Matth. XXVI, 29: “I will not drink from henceforth of this fruit of the vine (genimine vitis), until that day when I shall drink it with you new in the kingdom of my Father.”

There is no need of elaborating the argument from Tradition, as the Catholic Church has always been at one in this matter with the Greeks. We need but peruse the utterances of the Fathers on the Real Presence and Transubstantiation, as cited in the first part of this treatise,²³ to be convinced that both in the East and in the West wine of grapes was always considered necessary for the validity of the Blessed Sacrament. The Hydroparastatae or Aquarians, who used water instead of wine, were regarded as heretics. Harnack’s contention²⁴ that the ancient Church was indifferent as to the use of wine, and more concerned with the action of eating and drinking than with the elements, is absolutely unfounded.²⁵

b) An ancient ecclesiastical law²⁶ prescribes that a little water should be added to the wine before the Consecration. As the rubrics of the Mass forbid the addition of water after the Consecration, this obviously has nothing to do with the validity of the Sacrament. The rigor with which this law is enforced is attributed by the Tridentine Council²⁷ to three motives: (1) because Christ Himself probably added some water to the wine in celebrating the Last Supper; (2) because blood and water flowed from His side on the Cross; and (3) because the mingling of water with wine fittingly symbolizes the intimate union of the faithful with Christ.

The ceremony of adding water to the wine before the Consecration derives its dogmatic interest solely from the fact that the Council of Trent enjoins the practice under pain of anathema.²⁸ This decision may be traced to an ancient custom, common alike among Greeks, Romans, and Jews, of mixing water with the strong southern wines,²⁹ which custom was most probably retained by our Divine Saviour at the Last Supper, since the paschal rite expressly prescribed that the wine should be mixed with one-third water. This also explains the fact that the ancient Fathers, notably St. Justin Martyr,³⁰ St. Irenaeus,³¹ and St. Cyprian,³² speak of the “calix mixtus” (ποτήριον κεκραμένον), and that the third provincial Council of Carthage ordained that “in the Sacrament of the Body and Blood of the Lord nothing more be offered than what the Lord Himself handed down, i.e. bread and wine mixed with water.”³³ The Council in Trullo, of 692, went so far as to depose certain Armenian bishops and priests who, following the example of the Monophysites, employed wine without water at the Consecration.

c) The question has been asked: What becomes of the water added to the wine after the Consecration? This question, once debated with much ardor, is purely theoretical. St. Thomas mentions three different opinions that were held in his day on the subject.³⁴ The first is, that “the water remains by itself when the wine is changed into blood.” The second, that “as the wine is changed into blood, so the water is changed into the water which flowed from Christ’s side.” The third, that “the water is changed into wine, and the wine into blood.” The last-mentioned opinion, which the Angelic Doctor considers “the more probable,” was favored by Pope Innocent III (1198-1216).³⁵ It is no longer tenable in so far as it assumes that the water is chemically changed into wine,³⁶ since modern physics teaches that the phenomena of osmose and diffusion are not a chemical but a physical process.³⁷ But there is no objection to the theory propounded by Cardinal De Lugo³⁸ that the mixture of wine and water in the chalice is immediately transformed into the Precious Blood of Christ. This theory is quite plausible in view of the fact that pure wine contains no less than ninety per cent. of water.³⁹

§2. The Sacramental Form, or the Words of Consecration

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.

There remains, however, another question of considerable importance, viz.: whether the priest consecrates solely by virtue of the words of institution, or also by means of the so-called Epiklesis, which occurs in the Oriental liturgies shortly after the words of institution and expresses a petition to the Holy Spirit, “that the bread and wine may be converted into the Body and Blood of Christ.”

Thesis I: Christ did not consecrate by a mere inarticulate act of His omnipotent will, but by pronouncing the words, “This is my Body, … this is my Blood.”

This proposition may be qualified as sententia certa.

Proof. The question at issue is not: Could Christ, had He so willed, have consecrated by a mere “blessing,” without the use of words? but: Did He actually consecrate by pronouncing the words of institution?

The Council of Trent defines: ”… after [not by or through] the blessing of the bread and wine, He testified in express and clear words that He gave them His own very Body and His own Blood; words which, recorded by the holy Evangelists, and afterwards repeated by St. Paul …”⁴⁰ Though the Council in this declaration does not clearly enunciate the proposition contained in our thesis, yet it is perfectly clear that the Fathers of Trent believed that Christ consecrated by pronouncing the words of institution.

a) 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 Himself consecrated by pronouncing the words, “This is my Body, … this is my Blood.”

b) Whatever may be thought of the cogency of the above interpretation, there can be no doubt that it was defended by some of the early Fathers and ecclesiastical writers. Thus Tertullian says: “Christ converted the bread which He had taken and distributed to His disciples, into His own Body by saying: ‘This is my Body.’”⁴¹ Similarly the pseudo-Ambrose, whose writings are probably a transcript of sermons delivered by St. Ambrose in the Cathedral of Milan: “The speech of Christ effected this Sacrament.”⁴² St. Chrysostom writes: “As the words which God [Christ] pronounced are the same as those which the priest utters today, so, too, the sacrifice is exactly the same.”⁴³

The Scholastic view of the matter is expressed thus by Suarez: “Christ consecrated by pronouncing the words just quoted, as they are reported by the Evangelists. This in my opinion is so certain that it would be temerarious to defend the contrary; it is the common opinion of theologians, including St. Thomas and Peter Lombard.”⁴⁴

Pope Innocent III, before his elevation to the pontificate, held the opinion which Suarez, in common with most later theologians, branded as “temerarious,” viz.: that Christ consecrated without words by means of a mere “benediction.”⁴⁵ Not many theologians, however, followed him in this view, among the few being Ambrosius Catharinus,⁴⁶ Cheffontaines,⁴⁷ and L. A. Hoppe.⁴⁸ By far the greater number preferred to stand by the testimony of the Fathers. Ambrosius Catharinus and Cheffontaines went farther. They maintained that in the Mass the Consecration is not effected by the words of institution, which are merely declaratory, but through the instrumentality of other prayers. This view, though a logical deduction from the one previously quoted, is untenable, as we shall show in our next thesis.

Thesis II: By the articulate utterance, on the part of the priest, of the words of institution: “This is my Body, … this is my Blood,” Christ becomes immediately present on the altar.

This proposition is fidei proxima.

Proof. Passing for the present over the question whether or not the words of institution constitute the sole form of the Sacrament,⁴⁹ we have here merely to prove that the words “This is my Body, … this is my Blood,” are truly words of Consecration, and therefore belong to the sacramental form of the Eucharist.

The dogmatic teaching of the Church on this head may be deduced from the following declaration of the Council of Trent: “This faith has ever been in the Church of God, that immediately after the Consecration the veritable Body of our Lord and His veritable Blood, together with His soul and Divinity, are under the species of bread and wine; but the Body indeed under the species of bread, and the Blood under the species of wine, by the force of the words.”⁵⁰ The phrase “by the force of the words” (ex vi verborum) plainly points to a twofold group of words — the one referring to “the Body under the species of bread,” the other, to “the Blood under the species of wine.” Both groups are embodied in the words of institution: “This is my Body, … this is my Blood.” Consequently, it is the teaching of the Tridentine Council that the words of institution constitute the form of Consecration and that they are at least the partial form of the Sacrament.

The schismatic Greek Church refuses to accept this teaching. It holds that the priest does not consecrate by virtue of the words of institution, but by means of the Epiklesis. In taking this attitude the Greeks not only contradict the Council of Trent, but likewise the dogmatic Decretum pro Armenis of Eugene IV, promulgated at the Council of Florence, which says: “The form of this Sacrament are the words of the Saviour, by means of which He effects this Sacrament; for the priest, speaking in the person of Christ, effects this Sacrament.”⁵¹ This was the common doctrine of both Churches until Peter Mogilas in his famous “Confessio Fidei Orthodoxa” (A.D. 1642),⁵² declared that the words of institution possess no intrinsic consecratory force. Mogilas was followed, in 1672, by the Council of Jerusalem and, ultimately, by the entire schismatic Church.

The late Dr. H. Schell tried to reconcile the teaching of the schismatic Greeks with that of the Latin Church by arguing that the priest who says Mass according to the Roman rite consecrates by virtue of the words of institution, while the priest who offers up the Holy Sacrifice according to the Greek rite consecrates by virtue of the Epiklesis, except among the Uniates.⁵³ However, this view is untenable.

a) For the argument from Holy Scripture we refer the reader to Thesis I, above.

The teaching of Tradition may be gathered from the writings of the Fathers and the practice of the Church. As we are arguing against the Greek schismatics, we shall confine ourselves to the Greek Fathers and liturgies.

α) The Greeks can be shown the error of their present teaching from their own writings. They themselves formerly placed the form of the Blessed Sacrament in the words of institution. St. Justin Martyr (A.D. 150) describes how the priest consecrates the “meat blessed by the word of prayer” and quotes the Gospel account of the Last Supper as the source of that word.⁵⁴

St. Irenaeus of Lyons (born about 140) speaks of an “invocation of God” over the bread,⁵⁵ but he identifies this “Epiklesis” with the “word of God,” saying that “the chalice and the bread receive the word of God.”⁵⁶ The only “word of God” occurring in the Gospel in connection with the institution of the Eucharist is that pronounced by Christ, whereas the Epiklesis of the Greek Church is a purely ecclesiastical institution.

St. Gregory of Nyssa teaches: “This bread, as the Apostle says, is sanctified by the word of God and the prayer, converting itself into the Body of the Logos not by eating and drinking, but passing in one moment into the Body of the Logos, as it was spoken by the Logos Himself: ‘This is my Body.’”⁵⁷

A weighty witness is St. Chrysostom, in whose liturgy the Epiklesis plays an important role. He says: “It is no [mere] man who causes the [bread and wine] to be changed into the Body and Blood of Christ, but Christ Himself, who was crucified for us. Taking the part of Christ, the priest stands there, pronouncing those words; but it is the power and grace of God. ‘This is my Body,’ he declares. This word converts that which lies before him. And as the command, ‘Increase and multiply and fill the earth’ was uttered but once, communicating permanent fertility to the human race, so, too, this word [of Christ], spoken but once, causes the perfect victim [to be present] upon all the altars of the churches from thenceforth to the present, and until the last day.”⁵⁸

St. John Damascene writes: “As God by the exclamation ‘Let there be light!’ created the light, so He effects this mystery by the words, ‘This is my Body.’”⁵⁹

β) The Greek Cardinal Bessarion,⁶⁰ at the Council of Florence (1439), called the attention of his fellow-countrymen to the fact that in the ancient liturgies of SS. Basil and Chrysostom supreme adoration and homage are given to the Holy Eucharist as soon as the words of institution have been pronounced, whence it follows that the Consecration is effected by those words. By way of example we will cite the Ethiopian liturgy: after the celebrant repeats Christ’s words over the bread, “this bread is my Body,” the people respond thrice, “Amen. We believe and are sure of it. We praise Thee, O Lord, our God, this is truly, we believe it, Thy Body”; and similarly over the chalice.⁶¹ Only then follows the famous Epiklesis, asking that the Holy Spirit “convert” the bread and chalice into the Body and Blood of Christ.

b) It remains to discuss the intention of the consecrating priest and to determine exactly in what words the form of Consecration consists.

α) How can the mere recitation of the words of institution, taken from the narrative of the Last Supper, possess consecratory force? There can be no question that, in order to convert bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ, the priest must have the intention to consecrate. There would be no Consecration if, in repeating the words of institution, he merely intended to relate an historical event. He must pronounce them, therefore, with the practical purpose of effecting the conversion; nor is it indifferent which words he employs. The effect will depend on his employing those words which Christ has instituted as the sacramental form, and which He Himself employed in consecrating, i.e. the words of institution. Hence if the priest, in celebrating Mass, says: “This is my Body,” he speaks and acts not in his own name and person, but “in the Person of Christ,” as His minister, and as an instrument of the Divine Omnipotence.⁶²

Scotus⁶³ demands for the validity of the Consecration the recitation of the words “Qui pridie quam pateretur,” which precede the formula of Consecration in the Canon. We cannot share this view, for the words in question are purely historical and narrative, and, according to the general principles regarding the intention of the minister,⁶⁴ the validity of the entire Eucharistic act in its last analysis depends on the intention of the priest to consecrate with the words of Christ, which intention might be present even if the words demanded by Scotus were omitted.⁶⁵

What if a schismatic priest would say Mass with the express intention of consecrating not by the divine words of institution, but by the Epiklesis? If the minister of a Sacrament performs the prescribed rite conscientiously and with the proper intention, the Sacrament is validly administered and will produce its effects regardless of any erroneous notions the minister may harbor concerning the essential or non-essential character of this or that part of the form. Though the Greeks may in the best of faith go on erroneously maintaining that they consecrate exclusively by the Epiklesis, nevertheless, as in the case of the Latins, they actually consecrate by means of the words of institution contained in their liturgies, provided they really intend to celebrate Mass, of which as a rule there can be no reasonable doubt. Only in the imaginary supposition that a schismatic priest were so filled with hatred against Rome that he would rather not consecrate at all than consecrate by means of the words of institution, should we be justified in concluding that there was a lack of genuine intention and that, consequently, the Mass was invalid.⁶⁶

β) Which particular words are essential in the form of Consecration? All theologians agree that “Hoc est corpus meum — hic est sanguis meus” are undoubtedly essential. The majority further hold that these words are sufficient to insure the validity of the double Consecration, though to omit the other words prescribed by the Church, especially in the consecration of the chalice, would be a grievous sin. The principle on which this opinion is based may be stated as follows: That, and that only, belongs to the essence of the sacramental form, which precisely designates the effect of the Sacrament. Now, the words, “This is my Body, this is my Blood,” effect the real presence of the Body and Blood of Christ under the appearances of bread and wine. Therefore, these words effect the presence and constitute the essence of the sacramental form of the Eucharist.

With regard to the consecration of the bread this is quite clear, as the Roman Canon of the Mass, unlike the Greek, employs no other words besides “This is my Body.” The case is somewhat different with regard to the consecration of the wine. St. Thomas says: “Some have maintained that the words ‘This is the chalice of my Blood’ alone belong to the substance of the 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.’ …”⁶⁷ Some of the later Thomists attempt to reconcile their master’s opinion with the common teaching, by drawing a distinction between essentia formae and substantia formae, referring the above-quoted passage only to the “substance,” i.e. the integrity of the form, not to its “essence.”⁶⁸ The older Thomists took substantia formae and essentia formae as synonymous terms and held that without the words insisted on by Aquinas there is probably no conversion of the wine. This latter view is utterly untenable, first, because of the parity existing between the consecration of the bread and that of the wine, and, secondly, for the reason that the words on which St. Thomas insists do not occur in the Greek liturgy.⁶⁹

Thesis III: The words of institution contain the only and wholly adequate form of the Eucharist, and consequently the Epiklesis possesses no consecratory value, nay it does not even constitute a part of the form of the Sacrament.

This thesis may be technically qualified as sententia certa.

Proof. In the foregoing thesis we showed that the words of institution belong to the sacramental form of the Eucharist. It remains to prove that they constitute the only and wholly adequate form, and that the Epiklesis is therefore not essential.

The contention that the words of the Epiklesis have a joint essential value and constitute a part of the form of the Eucharist, was first made by Archbishop Kabasilas of Thessalonica (about 1354). It was repeated by the bitterly anti-Roman controversialist Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus (d. about 1447), by Samonas of Gaza, and other Greek writers. A few Latin theologians, notably Touttée,⁷⁰ Renaudot,⁷¹ and Lebrun⁷² adopted this view. It cannot be condemned as heretical, since it allows to the words of institution their essential, though only a partial, consecratory value; but it is intrinsically improbable. The act of Consecration cannot remain, as it were, in a state of suspense, but is completed in an instant of time, and hence there arises the dilemma: Either the words of institution alone, and, therefore, not the Epiklesis, are productive of the conversion, or the words of the Epiklesis alone have such power, and not the words of institution. At the Council of Florence (1439) the Catholic Church made it plain that the words of institution alone constitute the sacramental form of the Eucharist. In 1822, Pope Pius VII declared in a letter to the Antiochene Patriarch of the Melchites, that “in virtue of obedience” no one was permitted to defend the schismatic teaching on this subject, either publicly or in private.⁷³

a) We have already adverted to the fact that the whole question came up for discussion in the Council of Florence, where the Greeks were invited to explain their position on the Epiklesis. Eugene IV urged them to come to an agreement with the Latins and to drop the contention that the Epiklesis possesses consecratory force. The Council originally intended to define it as of faith that the Consecration is effected solely by the words of Christ: “This is my Body, this is my Blood.” But when the Greeks pleaded that they had always believed in the consecratory power of the words of institution, and that a dogmatic decision would reflect upon their whole ecclesiastical past,⁷⁴ the Council desisted from its purpose and declared itself satisfied with the oral declaration of Cardinal Bessarion,⁷⁵ that the Greeks follow the universal teaching of the Fathers, especially of “Blessed John Chrysostom, familiarly known to us,” according to whom “the divine words of our Redeemer contain the full power of Transubstantiation.”⁷⁶

In view of these facts it will not do to attribute the efforts made by Eugene IV and the Council of Florence to a mere desire to bring the Greek rite into closer conformity with the Latin.⁷⁷ The Council of Florence, which in the question of unleavened bread and other matters had shown itself so considerate in meeting the demands of the Greek Church, based its decision in regard to the Epiklesis on the firm conviction that the words of institution alone effect the Consecration, and consequently constitute the sole form of the Eucharist.⁷⁸

b) The dogmatic aspects of the Epiklesis, its peculiar position in the Oriental rite, and its venerable antiquity, have given rise to a vast literature, which has not, however, led to a definitive conclusion.

The Epiklesis would offer no theological difficulties if it preceded instead of following the words of institution in the Canon of the Mass. In that case it would clearly be nothing but the expression, in the form of a prayer, of the priest’s intention of converting the bread and wine into the Body and Blood of Christ. In matter of fact, however, the Epiklesis in all the Oriental liturgies — with the exception of the Syriac liturgy of Addai and Mari, which omits it entirely — invariably follows the words of institution.⁷⁹ This gives rise to the question how the Epiklesis may be made to harmonize with the words of Christ, which alone possess consecratory power. Two explanations have been suggested.

α) The first considers the Epiklesis to be a mere declaration of the fact that the conversion has taken place, or that in the conversion an essential part is to be attributed to the Holy Spirit as co-Consecrator, just as in the mystery of the Incarnation.⁸⁰ According to this theory the Epiklesis possesses only a declarative value, dramatically recalling an historic event to the imagination, but nevertheless refers to the Consecration as such.⁸¹ The priest, at the moment of the Consecration, cannot actually express all the thoughts that move the heart of the Church. Therefore, lest the important part of the Holy Ghost in the act of the Consecration be passed over in silence, he goes back in imagination to the precious moment and speaks and acts as if the Consecration were just about to occur. Thus in the Epiklesis liturgical art conspires with psychology to draw out, as it were, the brief but pregnant moment of the Consecration into a series of vivid dramatic acts. A similar purely retrospective transfer is met with in other portions of the liturgy, as in the Mass for the dead, when the Church prays for the departed as if they were still capable of being rescued from the gates of hell.⁸²

β) A second explanation refers the Epiklesis, not to the enacted Consecration, but to the approaching Communion, inasmuch as the latter, being the means of uniting us more closely in the organized body of the Church, makes us members of the mystical Christ. The invocation of the Holy Spirit has for its object, not to produce the sacramental Christ by Transubstantiation, but by a sort of spiritual transformation wrought in holy Communion, to fructify the Body and Blood of Christ for the benefit of priest and people, as we read in the Roman Canon of the Mass: “Ut nobis corpus et sanguis fiat dilectissimi Filii tui Domini nostri Iesu Christi.”⁸³ It was in this purely mystical manner that the Greeks themselves explained the meaning of the Epiklesis at the Council of Florence.⁸⁴

Since, however, much more is contained in the plain words of the Epiklesis than this mysticism, it is desirable to combine both explanations into one.

Critical Appreciation of the Two Theories. Both liturgically and in point of time the Epiklesis stands as a significant connecting link between the Consecration and Communion. In its relation to the Consecration, it is an attempt to bring time to a standstill, as it were, to fix the precious moment in the imagination, and to emphasize the part taken by the Holy Spirit as co-Consecrator. In its relation to Communion, it is a petition to the Holy Ghost to obtain the realization of the true presence of the Body and Blood of Christ by their fruitful effects in the souls of priest and people. Here we have the mystical, there the real Christ — these are the two underlying ideas of the Epiklesis, which may therefore be defined as “the ritual development of the content of the Holy Eucharist, both in respect of faith and grace, with particular reference to the Holy Spirit, for the purpose of glorifying Him as co-Consecrator and Dispenser of all graces, and for the spiritual benefit of priest and people.”⁸⁵

Readings: V. Thalhofer, Handbuch der kath. Liturgik, 2nd revised and enlarged edition by L. Eisenhofer, 2 vols., Freiburg 1912. — Hilarius a Sexten, O. Cap., Tractatus Pastoralis de Sacramentis, Mayence 1895. — P. Gasparri, Tractatus Canonicus de SS. Eucharistia, Paris 1897. — J. E. Pruner, Lehrbuch der Pastoraltheologie, Vol. I, 2nd ed., Paderborn 1904. — G. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, St. Louis 1913. — A. Devine, C.P., The Sacraments Explained, pp. 175 sqq., 3rd ed., London 1905. On the elements: Giese, Erörterung der Streitfrage über den Gebrauch der Azymen, Münster 1852; Funk, “Die Abendmahlslehre bei Justin,” in Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, Vol. I, pp. 278 sqq., Paderborn 1897; A. Scheiwiler, Die Elemente der Eucharistie in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Mayence 1903. On the Epiklesis: I. A. Orsi, Dissertatio de Invocatione S. Spiritus in Liturgiis Graecis et Orientalibus, Milan 1731; C. Henke, Die kath. Lehre über die Konsekrationsworte, Treves 1850; L. A. Hoppe, Die Epiklesis der griechischen und orientalischen Liturgie, Schaffhausen 1864; J. Th. Franz, Der eucharistische Konsekrationsmoment, Würzburg 1875; Watterich, Der Konsekrationsmoment im hl. Abendmahle, Heidelberg 1896; A. Fortescue, art. “Epiklesis” in Vol. V of the Catholic Encyclopedia; A. M. Lepicier, Tractatus de SS. Eucharistia, Pars I, Paris 1916.

Footnotes

1. Cfr. the dogmatic treatise on Holy Orders, Vol. XI of this series. ↩

2. Cfr. John VI, 56; 1 Cor. X, 17. ↩

3. This symbolism is explained by St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 73, art. 2, and, with considerable detail, by Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 39, sect. 3, and De Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 2, sect. 1 sqq. The student may also consult Gihr, Die Lehre von den hl. Sakramenten, Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 505 sqq., and F. Schmid in the Innsbruck Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie, 1903, pp. 230 sqq. ↩

4. Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 698. ↩

5. De Defect., 3: “Si panis non sit triticeus …, non conficitur sacramentum.” ↩

6. Bread made of barley flour is called panis hordaceus, or ζειά. ↩

7. Cfr. Conc. Flor.: “Definimus in azymo sive fermentato pane triticeo corpus Christi veraciter confici sacerdotesque in altero ipsum Domini corpus conficere debere, unumquemque scil. iuxta suae ecclesiae sive occidentalis sive orientalis consuetudinem.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 692). ↩

8. Matth. XXVI, 17; Mark XIV, 12; Luke XXII, 7. ↩

9. Cfr. Ex. XII, 15 sqq. ↩

10. See his letter in Migne, P.L., CXLII, 775. ↩

11. Cfr. John XVIII, 28. ↩

12. Estius, Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 8, §8. ↩

13. Cfr. 1 Cor. V, 7. For a harmonization of the synoptic Gospels with that of St. John on this point, see De Augustinis, De Re Sacramentaria, 2nd ed., Vol. I, p. 631, Rome 1889; Bellarmine, De Sacr. Euchar., IV, 7-9; Chwolson, Das letzte Passahmahl Christi und der Tag seines Todes, St. Petersburg 1892; J. Belser, Die Geschichte des Leidens und Sterbens, der Auferstehung und Himmelfahrt des Herrn, pp. 306 sqq., Freiburg 1903; J. Schneid, Der Monatstag des Abendmahles und Todes unseres Herrn Jesus Christus, Ratisbon 1905. ↩

14. Sirmond, Döllinger, and F. X. Kraus hold that they did; Mabillon, Probst, and others maintain that unleavened bread was used in the Western Church from the beginning. ↩

15. Origen, In Matth., t. XII, n. 6. ↩

16. Justin Martyr, Dial. c. Tryph., 41. ↩

17. Cfr. Catechismus Romanus, De Eucharistia, qu. 14. ↩

18. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, Christology, 2nd ed., p. 227, St. Louis 1916. ↩

19. 1 Cor. V, 8. ↩

20. A.D. 1215. Cap. “Firmiter” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 430). ↩

21. See above, no. 1. ↩

22. Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 4 (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 877). ↩

23. See above, Ch. I, §2. ↩

24. Harnack, Texte und Untersuchungen, new series, VII, 2 (1891), 115 sqq. ↩

25. Cfr. Funk, Die Abendmahlselemente bei Justin, Paderborn 1897; O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, Vol. I, p. 238, Freiburg 1902; A. Scheiwiler, Die Elemente der Eucharistie in den ersten drei Jahrhunderten, Mayence 1903. ↩

26. Cfr. Decretum pro Armenis: “Ante consecrationem aqua modicissima admisceri debet.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 698). ↩

27. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, cap. 7. ↩

28. Conc. Trident., Sess. XXII, can. 9: “Si quis dixerit, aquam non miscendam esse vino in calice offerendo, eo quod sit contra Christi institutionem, anathema sit.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 956). ↩

29. Cfr. Prov. IX, 12 (LXX): “Bibite vinum quod miscui vobis.” ↩

30. St. Justin Martyr, Apol., I, c. 65. ↩

31. St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., V, 2, 3. ↩

32. St. Cyprian, Ep. 63 ad Caecil., n. 13 sq. (ed. Hartel, II, 710). ↩

33. Third Council of Carthage, can. 24: “In sacramento corporis et sanguinis Domini nil amplius offeratur quam ipse Dominus tradidit, h.e. panis et vinum aqua mixtum.” ↩

34. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 74, art. 8. ↩

35. Innocent III, De Sacro Altaris Myst., IV, ch. 6; cfr. X. Decret., tit. 41, c. 6: “Verum inter opiniones praedictas illa probabilior iudicatur, quae asserit aquam cum vino in sanguinem transmutari.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 416). ↩

36. Cfr. Billuart, De Eucharistia, dissert. 3, art. 4. ↩

37. Cfr. L. Dressel, S.J., Lehrbuch der Physik, Vol. I, 3rd ed., pp. 149 sqq., 413 sqq., Freiburg 1905. ↩

38. De Lugo, De Eucharistia, disp. 4, sect. 3-4. ↩

39. On the congruity of the two Eucharistic elements cfr. Oswald, Die hl. Sakramente der kath. Kirche, §12. ↩

40. Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 1: “Post panis vinique benedictionem se suum ipsius corpus illis praebere ac suum sanguinem disertis ac perspicuis verbis testatus est, quae verba a sanctis Evangelistis commemorata et a divo Paulo repetita …” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 874). ↩

41. Tertullian, Contra Marcionem, IV, 40: “Acceptum panem et distributum discipulis [Christus] corpus suum fecit ‘hoc est corpus meum’ dicendo.” ↩

42. Pseudo-Ambrose, De Sacram., IV, 4 (Migne, P.L., XVI, 440): “Ergo sermo Christi hoc conficit sacramentum.” ↩

43. St. Chrysostom, Hom. in 2 Tim., 2, sub finem. ↩

44. Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 58, sect. 1, n. 4: “Dicendum est Christum consecrasse praedictis verbis semel prolatis, prout ab Evangelistis referuntur. Haec ita certa est meo iudicio, ut contraria non possit absque temeritate defendi; est communis theologorum cum D. Thoma (S. Theol., 3a, qu. 78, art. 1) et Magistro.” ↩

45. Innocent III, De S. Altaris Myst., IV, 6: “Sane dici potest quod Christus divina virtute confecit et postea formam expressit, sub qua posteri benedicerent; ipse namque per se propria virtute benedixit, nos autem ex illa virtute, quam indidit verbis.” ↩

46. Ambrosius Catharinus, Quibus Verbis Christus Eucharistiae Sacramentum Confecerit, 1552. ↩

47. Cheffontaines, Varii Tract., I, 1 sqq., 1586. ↩

48. L. A. Hoppe, Die Epiklesis der griechischen und orientalischen Liturgie, Schaffhausen 1864. This view was also defended by Huguccio (d. 1210), Praepositinus (about 1200), Odo of Cambray (d. 1113), Stephen of Autun (d. 1139), et al. ↩

49. See Thesis III, below. ↩

50. Conc. Trident., Sess. XIII, cap. 3: “Semper haec fides in Ecclesia Dei fuit, statim post consecrationem verum Domini nostri corpus verumque eius sanguinem sub panis et vini specie una cum ipsius anima et divinitate existere; sed corpus quidem sub specie panis et sanguinem sub vini specie ex vi verborum.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 876). ↩

51. Decretum pro Armenis: “Forma huius sacramenti sunt verba Salvatoris, quibus hoc conficit sacramentum; sacerdos enim in persona Christi loquens hoc conficit sacramentum.” (Denzinger-Bannwart, n. 698). ↩

52. Peter Mogilas, Confessio, qu. 107. Cfr. Kimmel, Monum. Fidei Eccles. Orient., I, p. 180, Jena 1850; Michalcescu, Die Bekenntnisse und wichtigsten Glaubenszeugnisse der griechisch-orient. Kirche, p. 72, Leipzig 1904. ↩

53. Schell, Kath. Dogmatik, Vol. III, 2, pp. 539 sqq. ↩

54. St. Justin Martyr, Apol., I, 66 (Migne, P.G., VI, 426). ↩

55. St. Irenaeus, Adv. Haer., IV, 18, 5. ↩

56. St. Irenaeus, op. cit., V, 2, 3. ↩

57. St. Gregory of Nyssa, Or. Catech., c. 37 (Migne, P.G., XLV, 94). ↩

58. St. Chrysostom, Hom. de Prod. Iudae, I, n. 6 (Migne, P.G., LIX, 380). ↩

59. St. John Damascene, De Fide Orth., IV, 13 (Migne, P.G., XCIV, 1147). These Patristic texts are differently explained by Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, pp. 115 sqq., St. Louis 1913. ↩

60. Cardinal Bessarion, Bibl. Patr., Vol. XXVI, p. 795. ↩

61. Apud Renaudot, Lit. Orient., Vol. I, p. 517. ↩

62. Cfr. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 146 sqq. ↩

63. Scotus, Comment. in Sent., IV, dist. 8, qu. 2. ↩

64. Pohle-Preuss, The Sacraments, Vol. I, pp. 175 sqq. ↩

65. Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 78, art. 1, ad 4. ↩

66. On the effect of contrary intentions see De Lugo, De Sacramentis in Genere, disp. 8, sect. 8. ↩

67. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 3a, qu. 78, art. 3: “Quidam 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, i.e. sanguinis Christi; unde pertinent ad integritatem eiusdem locutionis. Et propter hoc sunt alii, qui melius dicunt quod omnia sequentia sunt de substantia formae usque ad hoc quod postea sequitur: ‘Haec quotiescunque feceritis,’ etc.” ↩

68. Thus Billuart, De Eucharistia, diss. 5, art. 3, §2. ↩

69. Cfr. Suarez, De Eucharistia, disp. 60, sect. 1. Billuart’s interpretation has found a modern defender in De Augustinis, De Re Sacrament., Vol. I, 2nd ed., pp. 655 sqq. ↩

70. A. Touttée, O.S.B., Opera S. Cyrilli Hierosol., Praef., diss. 3, ch. 12. ↩

71. Renaudot, Lit. Orient., Vol. I, pp. 96 sqq., 238 sqq., Paris 1716. ↩

72. Lebrun, Explication de la Messe, diss. 10, art. 17, Paris 1726. ↩

73. Pius VII, letter to the Antiochene Patriarch: ”… formam, qua vivificum Sacramentum perficitur, non in solis Iesu Christi verbis consistere.” (Laemmer, Decreta Conc. Ruthenor. Zamosciensis, p. 56, Freiburg 1865). ↩

74. Cfr. Hardouin, Collect. Concil., Vol. IX, p. 981. ↩

75. This declaration is recorded in the minutes of the Council for July 5, 1439. ↩

76. “Quoniam ab omnibus sanctis doctoribus Ecclesiae, praesertim ab illo B. Ioanne Chrysostomo, qui nobis notissimus est, audimus verba Dominica esse illa quae mutant et transsubstantiant panem et vinum in corpus verum Christi et sanguinem, et quod illa verba divina Salvatoris omnem virtutem transsubstantiationis habent, nos ipsum sanctissimum doctorem et illius sententiam sequimur de necessitate.” (Migne, P.G., CLXI, 491). ↩

77. H. Schell, Kath. Dogmatik, Vol. III, 1, p. 547. ↩

78. On the attitude of the Armenians see Hefele, Conciliengeschichte, Vol. II, 2nd ed., p. 656 sqq., Freiburg 1890. On the whole subject-matter of this section, cfr. Franzelin, De SS. Eucharistia, thes. 20. ↩

79. Of the occidental liturgies only the so-called Mozarabic has the Epiklesis following the words of institution. ↩

80. On the analogy between the Eucharist and the Incarnation see Lessius, De Perfect. Moribusque Divinis, XII, 16, 129. ↩

81. This is denied by Bellarmine, Suarez, De Lugo, Simar, and others. ↩

82. Cfr. Card. Bessarion’s declaration (Migne, P.G., CLXI, 517): “Oportet haec aliaque huiusmodi non tamquam in tempore, in quo dicuntur, sed tamquam in tempore, pro quo dicuntur, ita intelligere, ac si tempus illud maneret minimeque defiueret.” ↩

83. For a number of similar passages in ancient liturgies see Heinrich-Gutberlet, op. cit., pp. 729 sqq. ↩

84. Asked for their opinion, the Greeks declared in the twenty-fifth session: “Fateri nos diximus, per haec verba [scil. hoc est corpus meum] transsubstantiari sacrum panem et fieri corpus Christi; sed postea, quemadmodum et ipsi [Latini] dicitis: ‘Iube haec perferri per manus sancti angeli tui in sublime altare tuum’ (this prayer, however, is hardly an Epiklesis), ita nos quoque oramus dicentes: ‘ut Spiritus S. descendat super nos et efficiat in nobis panem hunc pretiosum corpus Christi tui, et quod in calice isto est, pretiosum sanguinem Christi tui transmutetque ipse Spiritu S. suo, ut fiant communicantibus in purgationem animae,’ etc.” ↩

85. Scheeben-Atzberger, Handbuch der kath. Dogmatik, Vol. IV, 2, p. 619, Freiburg 1901. See also Scheeben, “Studien über den Messkanon,” in the Katholik, of Mayence, 1866, 2, pp. 526 sqq., 679 sqq.; Scheeben, Die Mysterien des Christentums, 3rd ed., pp. 449 sqq., Freiburg 1912; E. Lingens, S.J., “Die eucharistische Konsekrationsformel,” in the Innsbruck Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie, 1896, pp. 745 sqq.; 1897, pp. 61 sqq.; G. Rauschen, Eucharist and Penance in the First Six Centuries of the Church, pp. 115 sqq., St. Louis 1913; G. Semeria, The Eucharistic Liturgy in the Roman Rite, its History and Symbolism, tr. by Berry, pp. 157 sqq., New York 1911. ↩