FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   909   910   911   912   913   914   915   916   917   918   919   920   921   922   923   924   925   926   927   928   929   930   931   932   933  
934   935   936   937   938   939   940   941   942   943   944   945   946   947   948   949   950   951   952   953   954   955   956   957   958   >>   >|  
the consecrated matter belongs to a certain perfection of the sacrament, in the same way as operation is not the first but the second perfection of a thing, consequently, the whole perfection of this sacrament is expressed by all those words: and it was in this way that Eusebius understood that the sacrament was accomplished by those words, as to its first and second perfection. Reply Obj. 3: In the sacrament of Baptism the minister exercises an act regarding the use of the matter, which is of the essence of the sacrament: such is not the case in this sacrament; hence there is no parallel. Reply Obj. 4: Some have contended that this sacrament cannot be accomplished by uttering the aforesaid words, while leaving out the rest, especially the words in the Canon of the Mass. But that this is false can be seen both from Ambrose's words quoted above, as well as from the fact that the Canon of the Mass is not the same in all places or times, but various portions have been introduced by various people. Accordingly it must be held that if the priest were to pronounce only the aforesaid words with the intention of consecrating this sacrament, this sacrament would be valid because the intention would cause these words to be understood as spoken in the person of Christ, even though the words were pronounced without those that precede. The priest, however, would sin gravely in consecrating the sacrament thus, as he would not be observing the rite of the Church. Nor does the comparison with Baptism prove anything; for it is a sacrament of necessity: whereas the lack of this sacrament can be supplied by the spiritual partaking thereof, as Augustine says (cf. Q. 73, A. 3, ad 1). _______________________ SECOND ARTICLE [III, Q. 78, Art. 2] Whether This Is the Proper Form for the Consecration of the Bread: "This Is My Body"? Objection 1: It seems that this is not the proper form of this sacrament: "This is My body." For the effect of a sacrament ought to be expressed in its form. But the effect of the consecration of the bread is the change of the substance of the bread into the body of Christ, and this is better expressed by the word "becomes" than by "is." Therefore, in the form of the consecration we ought to say: "This becomes My body." Obj. 2: Further, Ambrose says (De Sacram. iv), "Christ's words consecrate this sacrament. What word of Christ? This word, whereby all things are made. The Lord commanded, and the hea
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   909   910   911   912   913   914   915   916   917   918   919   920   921   922   923   924   925   926   927   928   929   930   931   932   933  
934   935   936   937   938   939   940   941   942   943   944   945   946   947   948   949   950   951   952   953   954   955   956   957   958   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

sacrament

 

Christ

 

perfection

 

expressed

 

aforesaid

 

Ambrose

 

intention

 
consecration
 
effect
 
consecrating

priest

 

accomplished

 

Baptism

 

understood

 

matter

 

Proper

 

Whether

 

ARTICLE

 
supplied
 

spiritual


partaking

 

necessity

 

thereof

 
Augustine
 

Eusebius

 

SECOND

 

Sacram

 

consecrate

 
Further
 

commanded


things

 

Therefore

 

proper

 

operation

 
Objection
 
consecrated
 

substance

 

belongs

 

change

 

Consecration


Church

 

quoted

 

exercises

 

places

 
essence
 

contended

 

parallel

 

uttering

 
leaving
 

portions