Export a Citation 
Print View
hide main text 
show main text 
hide table of contents
show table of contents
previous
b. Whether all the Words belong to the Form of Consecration of the Blood
82. On the supposition that the above is certain, do all the words (up to “Do this...”) belong to the form of the consecration of the blood?
α. Opinion of Others and its Rejection
83. One assertion [Alexander of Hales, Aquinas] is that they do.
First about the words “which is shed for you.”, because the relative pronoun involves what precedes and is part of a single whole speaking.
84. Likewise they say this much more about the words “of the New and eternal Testament,” because this is a sort of specification of what precedes, when it is said “chalice of my blood, of the New and eternal....”
85. Now all these words, which seem to belong to a single speech, seem to belong to a single form; therefore both the words “of the New and.,” which it is certain belong to a single speech, and the words “which is shed for you.,” which, because of what they imply, seem to belong to the same speech, all belong to the form of the consecration of the blood.
86. But these arguments are not probative:
For it is possible that many things are added in the words of consecration and that the whole consecration would be obtained even if these many things were not expressed (just as Christ could have said, “This is my body, assumed from a Virgin and hung upon the cross,” as he said of the blood “which is shed for you.”); and then although the words would, by reason of devotion, need to be said, yet they would not have been strictly necessary for the form, even if they belonged to the same speech.
87. Also the words “which is shed for you” seem to be much less the same assertion as the preceding than do the words “of the New and eternal.”, because the words could be understood in the sense of composition and division (just as the sophism ‘every man who is other than Socrates is running’ is distinguished) - even if the implication, in the sense of composition, is part of the same assertion. And thus could it be understood in the matter at hand, so that before the ‘which is shed for you’ the complete statement would not be understood, or that by the ‘which is shed for you’ a statement added on jointly to the preceding in the sense of division would begin, and the ‘which’ would, following Priscian [Grammatical Instruction XVII 4 nn.27-32], be expounded by ‘and it’.1
88. Likewise too the words “of the New Testament” are commonly understood, in accord with the saints, as a confirmation of the remark in which what is implied by “chalice of my blood” is understood - “chalice of my blood, I say, which blood confirms the New and eternal Testament etc.”
β. Scotus’ own Opinion
89. About this article I say in brief that it has not altogether been handed down to us with certitude whether the words after ‘of my blood’ belong to the form of the consecration of the blood or to some of the other words that continue up to “Do this etc.” So it is dangerous to be assertive of that about which there is no sufficient authority. But it is not dangerous to be ignorant, for the ignorance seems invincible.
90. Herefrom follows a disproof of something said by a less discrete doctor [Richard of Middleton], that it is necessary in the case of any sacrament to know precisely what are the words belonging to the form in order for anyone to confer the sacrament. For this is manifestly false, not only in the issue at hand, but also in baptism and in penance and in the sacrament of Orders. For perhaps there is no one who knows for certain - neither a bishop nor an ordained minister - what words belong precisely to ordination to the priesthood, and yet one must not say that no one in the Church has been ordained to the priesthood.
91. What then is my advice?
I say that when a priest intends to do what the Church does and reads distinctly the words of the canon from beginning to end, he does truly perform the sacrament; nor is it safe for anyone, who reckons himself especially skilled, to rely on his knowledge and say “I wish to use the precise words for the consecration of the blood;” but simplicity is more secure, “I wish to speak the words with the intention with which Christ instituted that they be spoken, so that what by Christ’s institution belongs to the form I say as belonging to the form, and what by his institution belongs to reverence, I say for reverence.”
92. But what if the priest happens to hesitate before all the words are spoken; is the blood to be held truly consecrated?
I say here what was said in a case set down above [n.66], which is that if a priest begins to speak as follows, “this is my body” and does not state all the aforesaid words in their totality, I say that in all such cases the sacrament is not to be adored save under the condition ‘if it is truly consecrated’.
93. Are the words to be repeated then?
I say not absolutely.
94. But surely under a condition?
I say that there is not here the same sort of necessity as in baptism, because in baptism, when there is doubt about the baptizing, there is doubt about salvation; and so it is necessary sometimes to give baptism under a condition. But if here, in either of the cases mentioned [n.92], there is probable doubt whether the consecration is complete, no danger of salvation threatens if no repetition is made, whether absolutely or under a condition.
95. What then? Is the matter to be always or perpetually preserved?
I say no, because it would putrefy; but, after the communion during mass, the priest can receive the matter under some such conditional intention: “if this is consecrated I receive it as consecrated; if not, not, but I receive it as something about which there is uncertainty.” Nor can there be danger here, because he is fasting before receiving the cleansing wine. And if it is not blood that he receives, he yet does no irreverence to the body and blood already received, because we too after receiving the blood at once perceive pure [unconsecrated] wine [left] on the altar.