1. About the Words for the Consecration of the Body

63. About the second point [n.59] I say the words of consecration of the body of Christ are four: the pronoun ‘this’, the verb ‘is’ and, as the predicate in apposition, ‘my body’.

64. “The conjunction ‘for’ is not of the essence of the form,” according to one doctor [Richard of Middleton, Sent. IV d.8 3 q.1], “but is put to designate the ordering of the consecration of the sacrament to the use of the sacrament.” This is plain from the words, “Take, this is my body etc.”, as if one were to say, “Since the consecration is of this sort, use thus the thing consecrated.”

65. But another reason can be given, namely that the ‘for’ is put to show that the words that belong to the form are not spoken without what precedes.

66. But there is here a doubt, whether the priest would complete the sacrament by means of these four words [n.63] when omitting the preceding words.

67. One statement [Richard of Middleton] is that he would, because the four words are the form and the others are for reverence or for preceding with a prayer.

68. But one can, against this, argue that the sacramental words, by the force of the words, should signify what is done there by the force of the sacrament; but the existence of the true body of Christ is effected there by the force of this kind of consecration; therefore the words should adequately signify this by their own force, namely that the body of Christ is contained there. But the words “This is my body,” when spoken without the preceding ones do not signify this absolutely, because the ‘my’ signifies that it refers to the person of the speaker, for although the minister could be intending to speak in the person of Christ, yet the thing signified by the words would, for this reason, not be that the word ‘my’ would denote the body of Christ but that it would denote the body of the speaker. It would be just as if I were to begin speaking thus: “my doctrine is not mine;” for although I would be intending to speak in the person of Christ, yet one would not get from the force of the words that this is the doctrine of Christ, but rather that it is the doctrine of him who is speaking. It is like when the angel said in the person of God, “I am the God of Abraham” [Exodus 3.2-6]; the proposition was not false in the sense in which it was spoken, yet the proper significance of this sentence is that the ‘I’ would be standing for the person of God.

69. This is also confirmed by the words of Ambrose (On the Sacraments IV ch.4 n.17, ch.5 n.21 [Decretum p.3 d.2 ch.55]), “The words of Christ alter the creature,” and there follows, “With what words is the consecration done? Hear what the words are: ‘Take and eat all of you of this, for this is my body’,” where Ambrose seems to conjoin the preceding words, namely ‘Take.’, as if they were words of consecration. But this is not to be understood as if they essentially pertained to the necessity of the consecration, but as if they were necessarily to be placed first; and not only these words but several others that precede in the canon. And therefrom can be got that, by the force of the words, ‘this is my body’ are said in the person of Christ.

70. Hence not without cause did the Church thus connect the whole canon of the mass, because from the place “Having communion with.” up to the place “Humbly we pray thee, almighty God.” there is no section that is not connected with the preceding, either by a copulative conjunction (as “We therefore beseech thee.this oblation” and the like), or by an indefinite pronoun (as is plain from the words “Which oblation do thou, O God.,” and “Who the day before he suffered...” and, after the consecration, “Deign to regard them.”) or by relation (as “In like manner.”).

71. There will, as to this article, be a general discussion about what things will have to be observed, together with other doubts. [nn.89-91].