B. What the Form of the Eucharist is

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].

2. About the Words of Consecration of the Blood

a. Two Doubts and their Solution

72. About the words of consecration of the blood there is more doubt, because there are two things for doubt:

The first is that none of the Evangelists recites the form that we use;     therefore , based on the Gospel, the form does not seem certain. The Greeks too use another form saying, “This is my blood of the New Testament, which is shed for you and for many for the remission of sins etc     .;” and consequently our form is not exact.

73. I reply that I do not doubt but that our form is certain, according to the authority of Innocent [n.58], because many things have been handed on to the Church by the Apostles that, however, are not thus written in the Gospels.

74. Nor is what is said about the Gospels a problem, because the Evangelists intended to narrate what was done, and not to hand on the form of consecrating.

75. But even about the form of the Greeks the Church does not say that they do not perform the sacrament.

76. Hence some say that their form and ours (and whatever is written in the Gospels) is sufficient for consecration, but in the Roman Church the form that we use is a necessity for the minister.

77. The second doubt is whether to the form we use belong all the words from the place “In like manner.” up to “Wherefore, Lord, we.mindful.”

78. But it is commonly held that the words “Do this in memory of me” do not belong to the form.

79. The proof is shown in this way, that “Take.this [in memory of me]” does not more relate to the blood than the body, for Christ commanded that the consecration of the body as of the blood be done in memory of him; therefore if these words belong to the consecration of the blood, by equal reason they belong to that of the body as well, and consequently, when the host is elevated, the body of Christ has still not been consecrated and so it is idolatry (which is not to be said).

80. The point is also plain because the precept about the use of consecration is not the form of the consecration; but this precept, when “Do this in memory of me” is said, is about the use of the consecration, as the words show;     therefore etc     .

81. Again, by these words Christ conferred on the Apostles the power of performing the sacrament; for he ordained them priests; but the conferring of power to consecrate is not done by words pertaining to consecration, because the words of consecration have regard to the matter that is consecrated, or to the term for which it is consecrated; but the words conferring power have regard to the power they confer and to him on whom it is conferred.

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’.‘Every man who is other than Socrates is running’ can be understood, in the sense of composition, to mean that among the men Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Theophrastus, all are running save the man Socrates; or it could be understood, in the sense of division, to mean that all men are other than Socrates, so that Socrates is not a man. In the context of the canon of the mass the words ‘which is shed for you’, if taken in the sense of composition would mean ‘my blood, that is, the blood which is shed for you’. In the sense of division, it would mean, ‘my blood, and it is shed for you’. 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.