Kwasniewski Addai and Mari PDF

Nova et Vetera, English Edition,Vol. 4, No.
2 (2006): 31380
313
Doing and Speaking in the Person of Christ:

Eucharistic Form in the Anaphora
of Addai and Mari*
P ETER A. K WASNIEWSKI
International Theological Institute
Gaming, Austria
I. Introduction
W HEN THE Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity
declared in 2001 that faithful of the Chaldean rite may, in certain pastoral
situations, receive communion at liturgies of the Assyrian Church of the
East, one aspect of the decision caused a considerable stir: the assertion of
the validity of an anaphorathe ancient Assyrian anaphora of the Holy
Apostles Addai and Marithat contains no institutional narrative. How
could an institutionless rite be valid, when for centuries Catholic theologians, often basing their arguments on those of St. Thomas Aquinas, had
been convinced that the form1 of the Eucharist is none other than the very
*
At the very start I wish to express my thanks to Jeremy Holmes and David Bolin,
OSB, with whom an exchange of letters led to the writing of this article and who
have assisted much with later revisions. Thanks are also due to Bernhard
Blankenhorn, OP, Cassian Folsom, OSB, Joseph Bolin, and Matthew Levering.
In this article I shall sometimes speak of the form of a sacrament and sometimes
of its formula.The latter is perhaps a more idiomatic rendering, since for Aquinas
forma refers in this context to the precise wording of the sacramental rite. On
Thomass sensitive approach to questions of sacramental wording and ritual action
as delivered by ecclesial tradition, see Liam G.Walsh, OP,Sacraments, inThe Theology of Thomas Aquinas, eds. Rik van Nieuwenhove and Joseph Wawyrkow (Notre
Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005), 32664, esp. 33242; on
linguistic issues in particular, see Irne Rosier, Signes et sacrements. Thomas
dAquin et la grammaire spculative, Revue des Sciences philosophiques et thologiques
74 (1990): 392436, and the same authors more detailed study La Parole efficace:
Signe, rituel, sacr (Paris: ditions du Seuil, 2004). Some of the confusion that exists
314
Peter A. Kwasniewski
words spoken by Christ at the Last Supper? Had not the ecclesia docens,
moreover, appropriated Aquinass teaching as her own on several solemn
occasions, notably the councils of Florence and of Trent? An indication
of the intense thoughts and feelings aroused by this decision is a recent
special number of the journal Divinitas, devoted entirely to the Anaphora
of Addai and Mari, with six articles more or less supporting the decision
of July 2001, and four opposing it.2 It would take nothing less than a
book-length study to evaluate the multitude of theories, of objections,
and attempted solutions found in these and other recent discussions of
the anaphora. As might be expected, the literature on this anaphora is
vast; many authorities have debated its origins, the manuscript tradition,
the possibility of earlier versions, the content and construction, and, of
course, the theology it embodies.3
concerning our topic may be due to the double meaning of the word form as
used by Thomas in connection with sacraments. Sometimes form means everything that in any way determines the matter; at other times it means that which
is essential to that which determines the matter. So, if one were to say:The form
of the Eucharist is Hoc est enim corpus meum, quod pro vobis tradetur, another could
respond:Yes, in the broad sense, that is the form, but in the narrow sense, the form
is: Hoc est corpus meum, since neither enim nor the phrase quod pro vobis tradetur is
essential for signifying transubstantiation, and thus neither is required for validity.
A double meaning attaches also to materia: sometimes matter means everything
that in any way is put to use in the sacramental action; at other times it means
that which is essential among the things put to use.As we shall see, St.Thomas is
well aware of these different levels of generality or essentiality and allows them an
important place in his account, though in many passages he does not spell out
which meaning he has in mind, leaving it to be determined from context by the
careful reader.
SullAnafora dei Santi Apostoli Addai et Mari, ed. B. Gherardini, Divinitas 47 (2004).
The issue is tripartite: part I (525) consisting of an editorial, an Italian translation
of part of the liturgy, and the two documents of the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity; parts II and III (29137 and 141285) containing historical
and doctrinal studies. The documents themselvesGuidelines for Admission to
the Eucharist Between the Chaldean Church and the Assyrian Church of the East
( July 20, 2001) and Admission to the Eucharist in Situations of Pastoral Necessity (October 26, 2001), the latter functioning to clarify the context, the content,
and the practical application of this provisionare available on the Vatican
website, www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/
rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20011025_chiesa-caldea-assira_en.html.
A bibliography of studies prior to 1968 is found in Prex Eucharistica, eds.A. Hanggi
and I. Pahl (Fribourg: Editions Universitaires, 1968), 375; and of works up to 1972
in The Study of Liturgy, eds. C. Jones, G.Wainwright, and E.Yarnold, SJ (New York:
Oxford University Press, 1978), 17677. A key contribution was made by
Anthony Gelstons oft-cited monograph The Eucharistic Prayer of Addai and Mari
(Oxford: Clarendon, 1992). More recent research includes: Peter Hofrichter,
The Anaphora of Addai and Mari
315
In this article, my method will be largely speculative, insofar as my interest lies in the question: Could one explain and defend, on Thomistic
grounds, an anaphora without words of institution?Thus I shall be more
concerned with St. Thomass account of the form and minister of this
sacrament than with issues in the history of liturgy or the textual redaction
of the anaphora in question. I am not arguing as a liturgical historian but
as a Thomist who sees in the writings of the Angelic Doctor insights and
distinctions favorable to the Vaticans decision. I shall sketch an account that
explains, with Thomistic principles, how the peculiar Assyrian anaphora
may be considered to contain a valid consecration. After summarizing
Aquinass position on the form of the Eucharist, I will turn to his account
of how the priest accomplishes the consecration. Here I will propose that
certain modifications in this account would yield a plausible univocal
explanation of the form as it appears diversely in the Roman rite, the
Anaphora of Addai and Mari, and other non-Latin rites such as the Liturgy
of St. John Chrysostom.4 I shall identify where modifications are necessary
Lanaphore dAddai et Mari dans lglise de lOrient: Une eucharistie sans rcit
dinstitution? Istina 40 (1995): 95105; Sarhad Jammo,Le Quddasha des Aptres
Addai et Mari. Un lien avec lpoque apostolique, Istina 40 (1995): 10620; M.
Smyth, Une avance oecumnique et liturgique. La note romaine concernant
lAnaphore dAdda et Mari, La Maison-Dieu 233 (2003): 13754; Stephen B.
Wilson,The Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari, in Essays on Early Eastern Eucharistic Prayers (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1997), 1937; Stylianos
Muksuris,A Brief Overview of the Structure and Theology of the Liturgy of the
Apostles Addai and Mari, Greek Orthodox Theological Review 43 (1998): 5983;
Thomas Mannooramparampil, The Anaphora of Addai and Mari: Its Origin,
Development, and Theology, Christian Orient 20 (1999): 97108 (cf. also the same
authors Epiclesis in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, Christian Orient 9 [1988]:
13447); Sarhad Jammo,The Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari:A Study
of Structure and Historical Background, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 68 (2002):
735; Robert Taft, SJ, Mass Without the Consecration? The Historic Agreement
on the Eucharist Between the Catholic Church and the Assyrian Church of the
East Promulgated 26 October 2001, Worship 77 (2003): 482509; Guy Vanhoomissen, SJ, Une Messe sans paroles de conscration? propos de la validit
de lAnaphore dAdda et Mari, Nouvelle revue thologique 127 (2005): 3646.To
this list should be added the articles published in the special number of Divinitas
mentioned in the preceding note, as well as the two articles by Lugmayr cited in
note 5 below.
In this article,Roman rite may be taken as shorthand for any Western rite that
follows the basic plan and fixed portion of the liturgy of the Church of Rome, at
least in regard to the Canon. Moreover, when I use the term anaphora in
explicit or implicit connection with the Assyrian rite in question, I intend to refer
not only to the particular (and brief) part of the liturgy that scholars sometimes
identify as the anaphora technically speaking, but also to the entire Eucharistic
liturgy, or, as it is called by the Assyrian Church, the Order of Hallowing. I
316
in Aquinass account of the relevant issues and why there is no need to

interpret the Holy Sees decision as contradicting traditional Catholic
teaching.5 The cumulative effect will be to support the Holy Sees decision
on this matter of gravest importance for Chaldean Catholics and, by extension, for all Catholics who venerate the mystery of the Eucharist.
A preliminary question arises: Why pay attention to Aquinas in this
connection? He had little exposure to Eastern liturgies, far less to something as exotic, for the medieval west, as the Syrian tradition. His theology of the Eucharist and of the liturgy, admittedly rich and nuanced,
emerges from and speaks in reference to the Roman rite and its medieval
offshoots. Is it not possible that here we need to recognize his limits and
leave the Summa to one side when we think about the Anaphora of Addai
and Mari? But it is neither easy nor desirable to do so. For on the one
hand, the Churchs own self-understanding of the Mass and of her sovereign sacrament is deeply indebted to St. Thomass theological analysis,
which has no rival in the history of the Western Church; and on the
other hand, this analysis contains profound insights that invite application
to new problems, precisely to clarify those problems in the modern
context. If the Vaticans decision implies a development of doctrine, one
urgent task would be to carry out a dispassionate theological analysis that
makes use of the best resources available. It may turn out that St.Thomas
has already enunciated principles that support a new development, even
if his works secundum litteram exclude the same view.6
incline to the view that one could defend the validity of the rite even from that
particular portion, too, but it is easier and safer if one takes the liturgy as a whole,
the way it is celebrated and experienced (and therefore understood) by the
community of the faithful who use it; and indeed this is also a more authentic
way of arguing, since we are not dealing with a rationalistic view of liturgy as
composed of separable and interchangeable discrete units (for example, Penitential Rite A, B, or C; Eucharistic Prayer I, II, III, or IV; etc.), but a more ancient,
and superior, view of liturgy as a theological whole, a dwelling in Gods presence
from start to finish, with the Eucharistic sacrifice and communion as the summit
of this mystical ascent.
Martin Lugmayr, FSSP, has published two defenses of the decision from the viewpoint
of traditional dogmatic theology. I do not differ with him, but offer my thoughts as
complementary to his: see his Die Anaphora von Addai und Mari und die
Dogmatik, Una Voce Korrespondenz 33 (2003): 3047, www.stjosef.at/artikel/
anaphora_addai_mari_dogmatik.htm; idem,Eine Anaphora mit Wandlungsworten
aber in anderer Form: Historische, liturgische und dogmatische Anmerkungen
zur Anaphora von Addai und Mari,www.stjosef.at/artikel/anaphora_addai_
kirchliche_umschau.htm.
In this article I will draw almost exclusively upon the third part of the Summa
theologiae, which contains St.Thomass most mature account of the sacraments in
317
II. The Traditional View

Rginald Garrigou-Lagrange, whose classic commentaries on the treatises of the Summa theologiae furnish great help to students of the Angelic
Doctor, can be taken as a model of the traditional approach to the topic
at hand. In his commentary on the treatise on the Eucharist, we find the
following summary:
To begin with, we have before our eyes the definitions of the Church.
The Church has declared that the form of this sacrament is the words
of Christ, not the epiclesis. . . .The Council of Florence says:The form
of this sacrament is the Saviors words, with which he confected this
sacrament; the priest then speaking in persona Christi, confects this
sacrament. For by the power of those words the substance of bread is
converted into the body of Christ and the substance of wine into his
blood. . . . The Council of Trent says: By the force of the words [of
consecration], the body of Christ is under the appearance of bread and
the blood under the appearance of wine. Innocent IV, in the year
1254, concerning the Greek rite, declares: The Greeks should be
permitted to celebrate Masses at the hour which is according to their
own custom, provided that they observe, in the confection or consecration, the very words expressed and handed down by the Lord.7
From the fourteenth century on, schismatic Greeks say that the
Eucharist is confected by the prayers which are spoken after the words
This is my body, this is my blood have been pronounced, according to
the prayer of their liturgy: We beseech you, Father, to send your spirit
over us and over these gifts set before us and make this bread the
precious body of your Son and that which is in the chalice the precious
general and of the Eucharist in particular.To enter into questions of Thomass own
doctrinal development is, however, far beyond the scope of the present article. For
a solid introduction that points out the main lines of development, see John P.
Yocum,Sacraments in Aquinas, in Aquinas on Doctrine:A Critical Introduction, eds.
T. Weinandy, D. Keating, and J.Yocum (London/New York: T & T Clark, 2004),
15981; cf. also Pierre-Marie Gy, OP, Avances du trait de lEucharistie de S.
Thomas dans la Somme par rapport aux Sentences, Revue des Sciences philosophiques
et thologiques 77 (1993): 21928.Translations from the Summa theologiae are either
my own or those of Jeremy Holmes, but at times I have drawn upon the English
Dominican translation (New York: Benziger, 19121936, 19471948). Unless
otherwise expanded, citations are from the responses.
R. Garrigou-Lagrange, OP, De Eucharistia et Paenitentia (Turin: Marietti, 1948),
172, commenting on ST III, q. 78, translation my own. The primary passages
Garrigou-Lagrange has in mind are, of course, those of Florence and Trent.After
these lines he mentions decisions of Pius X and other pontiffs in regard to the
epiclesis. Msgr. Gherardini has conveniently gathered the key magisterial statements in a postscript to his article Le parole della Consacrazione eucaristica,
Divinitas 47 (2004): 16768.
318
blood of your Son.To say that this prayer is necessary for consecration
is to affirm that the Masses celebrated in the Roman church are invalid
and is, moreover, contrary to the declaration of the Council of Florence.
The chief proponents of this error were Cabasilas, Mark of Ephesus, and
Simeon of Thessalonica, who were refuted by Cardinal Bessarion in his
work De Eucharistia, as well as by Allatius and Arcudius. . . .
The second explanation [of the postconsecration epiclesis], which
is more common, was the following, proposed by Cardinal Bessarion.
The epiclesis invokes the Holy Spirit exactly inasmuch as the consecration, being a work ad extra, is common to the three divine Persons,
and accordingly the Holy Spirit is invoked, so that, with the Father and
the Son already having been invoked, he himself [in unity with them]
may bring about transubstantiation. Indeed, this transubstantiation is
accomplished in an instant, by the words of consecration already
pronounced; but because, by our human speech, all these things cannot
be expressed in one and the same instant,things which are completed
in an instant are declared one after another. Bessarion, Bossuet,
Ferraris, Cagin, Franzelin, Salaville all hold this view.8
Garrigou-Lagranges remarks are meant as a preface to St.Thomass question on the form of the Eucharist (ST III, q. 78), the first article of which
asks: Whether the following is the form of this sacrament: This is my
body and This is the cup of my blood? Here is Aquinass response:
It should be said that this sacrament differs from the other sacraments
in two respects. First, as regards the fact that this sacrament is accomplished9 in the consecration of the matter, while the other sacraments
8
Garrigou-Lagrange, De Eucharistia, 17374. He notes that a similar principle is

at work in the narrative of the Last Supper, where Jesus takes bread, blesses it,
breaks it, and speaks the words: Narration is successive and announces words
after facts, when really the words spoken are simultaneous with the facts. The
reason why this kind of temporal disjunction happens is not hard to see. We
humans can only speak of an instantaneous coming-to-be in language of change
and therefore of time duration; consider the troubles Thomas has to face when
speaking of creation ex nihilo (cf. ST I, q. 46).Thus the liturgy speaks at length of
the instantaneous conversion of the gifts: It calls down the Spirit, recalls or repeats
the institution, offers up the gifts to the heavenly Father, and so on, in different
sequences for different rites; but in reality all these things occur simultaneously.
This is something we cannot express with our time-bound language. Cf. the
appendix to this article: The Formal Structure of the Eucharistic Rite with
Respect to Transubstantiation.
Thomas uses the verb perfected, but in this context the meaning is to bring
something to its proper completion, its intended terminus. A sacrament is not
perfected in the sense that it was something imperfect in need of improvement,
but in the sense that it consists of a variety of things waiting to be employed in
a certain way, so that a certain term may be attained. Hence one might better speak
319
are accomplished in the use of the consecrated matter. Second, because

in the other sacraments, the consecration of the matter consists only in
a certain benediction, by which the consecrated matter receives instrumentally a certain spiritual power, which through the minister, who is
an animated instrument, can pass to an inanimate instrument. But in
this sacrament the consecration of the matter consists in a certain
miraculous conversion of the substance, which can only be accomplished by God. Hence in the accomplishing of this sacrament, the
minister has no other act but the pronunciation of the words.
And since a form should be fitting to the thing, for this reason the
form of this sacrament differs from the forms of the other sacraments
in two things. First because the forms of the other sacraments bring in
the use of the matter, such as baptizing or signing; but the form of this
sacrament brings in only the consecration of the matter, which consists
in transubstantiation, as when it is said: This is my body or This is
the cup of my blood. Second, because the forms of the other sacraments are pronounced in the person of the minister; either after the
manner of one who carries out the act, as when it is said, I baptize
you or I confirm you or after the manner of one who commands,
as it is said in the sacrament of orders:Receive the power, etc. or after
the manner of one who intercedes, as when it is said in the sacrament
of extreme unction:Through this anointing and our intercession, etc.
But the form of this sacrament is pronounced in the person of Christ
himself who speaks [profertur ex persona ipsius Christi loquentis], that one
may be given to understand that the minister in the accomplishing of
this sacrament does nothing except pronounce the words of Christ.
Thomass reply introduces the all-important concept of the ministerial

priest functioning in the Mass as a living icon of Jesus Christ, eternal
High Priest.10 In confecting the Eucharist, the priest does nothing except
10
of the accomplishing of a sacrament, which occurs in two ways: either, as with

the six other sacraments, in the application of the sacrament to its recipient in order
to sanctify him, or, as in the unique case of the Eucharist, in the very consecration
of the matter itself in order to change it, after which the consecrated gifts may then
be used by recipients (that is, applied to their bodies and souls) as a sanctifying
food and drink.
On this theme, see the brilliant article by John Saward, The Priest as Icon of
Christ, in Priest 50 (1994): 3748; see also Josef Pieper,What Makes a Priest? in
idem, In Search of the Sacred, trans. Lothar Krauth (San Francisco: Ignatius Press,
1988), 5181; and Peter A. Kwasniewski, Incarnate Realism and the Catholic
Priesthood, Homiletic & Pastoral Review 100, no. 7 (April 2000): 2129. In his article Representation or Self-Effacement:The Axiom In Persona Christi in St.Thomas
and the Magisterium (Theological Studies 55 [1994]: 195224), Denis Ferrara argues
that there is disjunction, even contradiction, between how this phrase is employed
by the saint and how it is exploited in contemporary Church documents. For a
potent critique of Ferrara and an exposition of the authentic Thomistic doctrine,
320
speak the words with right intention.11 This remark should not be
construed as pure occasionalism. If the priests person and actions were
merely an occasion for the event of transubstantiation rather than a true
albeit partial and instrumentalcause, the spiritual power conferred by
ordination would be unnecessary. St.Thomas holds, on the contrary, that
this power is chiefly ordered to performing the Eucharistic conversion and
only secondarily to conferring other sacraments or doing other works of
Christian ministry.Yet St.Thomas goes out of his way to emphasize that
the priest cannot do anything to effect the sacrifice, except lend his intention, his voice, and his hands; the sacrifice is effected by God, acting
through the sacred humanity of Christ that acts, in turn, through the
priests recitation of the appointed words.12 These words have efficacious
power because they emanate from a man vested with the priestly character of Christ, the High Priest.13 This character permits Christ to act
directly through the minister, whose words and actions become instruments of the properly divine action of the incarnate Word.14 What makes
the priest able to consecrate is that through his own consecration, through
11
12
13
14
see Guy Mansini, OSB,Representation and Agency in the Eucharist, Thomist 62

(1998): 499517. Mansinis fine study treats at length some important points that
I can only mention in passing, particularly the exact concept of instrumentality at
work when the priest is called an instrument of Christ and is said to function
instrumentally in the perfecting of sacraments.
On priestly intention, see the exhaustive treatment in Bernard Leeming, SJ, Principles of Sacramental Theology, 2nd ed. (Westminster, MD: The Newman Press,
1960), 43596.
St. Thomass doctrine of instrumental causality, far from being an outmoded
construct of scholasticism, is crucial to attaining insight into the manner in which
the ministerial priesthood, or priesthood by participation, neither augments nor
diversifies the ontological priesthood of Christ. Bound up with this question are
a thousand questions in biblical theology, dogmatic theology (particularly
concerning truths disputed by Protestants), and pastoral practice. Cf. ST III, q. 64,
a. 1:The interior sacramental effect, sanctification, can be the work of man, insofar as he works as a minister, that is, as an instrumental cause in the hands of the
principal cause; q. 64, a. 5, ad 2: It is thus that Christ works in the sacraments,
both by wicked men as lifeless instruments and by good men as living instruments. Concerning the Eucharist as image or representation of the once-for-all
sacrifice of Christ on the Cross, see Matthew Levering, Aquinas on the Liturgy
of the Eucharist, in Weinandy et al., Aquinas on Doctrine, 18397; idem, John
Paul II and Aquinas on the Eucharist, Nova et Vetera (English) 3 (2005): 63760,
esp. 646 ff.; Thierry-Dominique Humbrecht, OP, LEucharistie, reprsentation
du sacrifice du Christ, selon saint Thomas, Revue Thomiste 98 (1998): 35586.
Cf. ST III, q. 74, a. 4.
See Gilles Emery, OP,The Ecclesial Fruit of the Eucharist, Nova et Vetera (English)
2 (2004): 53.
321
the priestly character therein conferred, he has been enabled to function

transparently as Christs own voice and hands. He is a separate,animate
instrument, intelligent and free, but the emphasis is on his instrumentality, not his personality. As Charles Journet writes:
If, at the moment of consecration, the priest does not say: This is the
Body of Jesus; this is the Blood of Jesus, but, rather,This is my Body;
this is my Blood, it is in order to confess that, at that awesome instant,
his own personal mediation is but a pure instrument and that it is
entirely effaced before Christ.The supreme function of the priest, such
as it is, is to disappear, as it were, before Christ, whom he offers to God
and whom he gives to the world.15
For St. Thomas, to be an instrument of a spiritual cause for a spiritual

effect is itself a special power one has to receive, and the greater the cause
or the effect with which the instrument is bound up, the mightier a
power it has to receive.16 Thus, the paradox of priestly consecration is
that, far from increasing a mans presence in the functions of ecclesial
life, it actually strips away something of his opaque creatureliness, giving
him a superhuman capacity to be a passive, transparent instrument in the
hands of the divine Savior, for the accomplishment of the high-priestly
act of sacrifice.17 What is most special about the priest is least his to boast
15
16
17
Theology of the Church, trans.Victor Szczurek, O. Praem. (San Francisco: Ignatius

Press, 2004), 113. It is Jesus himself who, by his ministers, baptizes and consecrates. Jesus is a priest in a way no other will ever be.Those whom we call priests
today are but the vehicles, as it were, of his irreplaceable priesthood, the
dispensers of his redemption. . . .The power of order is a permanent quality that
is in no way active by itself; rather, it is likened to an instrument, which always
needs to receive from Christ the power to produce its effect (ibid., 114). The
ministers of the sacraments are pure transmitters of motions that come from
Christ himself, motions that, in prepared souls, bud forth into graces (ibid., 142).
For further reflections along these lines, see Jordan Aumann, OP, Ministerial
Priesthood, Angelicum 49 (1972): 3053.
Cf. ST III, q. 71, a. 4.
So much is the priest at the altar simply his masters representative that, argues
Aquinas, if the minister happens to die or suffer debility right after consecrating
the host, another priest must take his place and proceed to the chalicethe Mass
nevertheless remaining a single Mass because its principal offerer is Jesus Christ
(q. 83, a. 6, ad 1). Elsewhere,Thomas uses similar reasoning to uphold the custom
of concelebration on certain occasions: If any priest worked in his own power,
the other celebrants would be superfluous, one priest celebrating sufficiently. But
since a priest only consecrates in the person of Christ, and the many are one in
Christ, for this reason it makes no difference whether this sacrament is consecrated through one or through many; except that [in any case] it is necessary to
observe the ritual of the Church. ST III, q. 82, a. 2, ad 2.
322
about. What is deepest in his sacramental character is not a work, but a

gift of being-worked-through, a silence inhabited by anothers words. St.
Thomass thoughts on the priesthood are rich indeed, if their implications are pondered.18
III. The Act of Consecration: Doing, Speaking, or Both?
However, the argument of the Summa theologiae III, question 78, article 1,
is not entirely satisfying, and we will see that St.Thomas is aware of the
need to say more. Anyoneeven someone who is not a priestcan
speak ex persona Christi in the sense of impersonating Christ, simply by
speaking the words of Christ in an appropriate situation, with the intention of speaking them as Christ did. A layman about to be martyred can
say: Father, forgive them, they do not know what they are doing; a
missionary sister can repeat the Beatitudes in a catechism class; a professor of liturgical theology can recite the words of institution in a lecture
comparing different anaphoras. In all of these cases there is a speaking of
the Lords words, with his meaning in mind, with belief in their truth, and
with an intention of passing on that truth to others. If, therefore, speaking ex persona Christi is the central feature of the words of consecration,
it is no small matter to find out exactly why only an ordained priest, and
not just any baptized person, can say these words efficaciously.
When St.Thomas deals with this question in the Summa theologiae III,
question 82, article 1, he begins his response with a premise already established: So great is the dignity of this sacrament that it is not confected
except in the person of Christ. But he continues: Now, it is necessary
that whoever acts in the person of another do so by a power conceded
from the other.19 Here St. Thomas introduces a new idiom, agere in
persona alicuius.20 The phrase clearly means to act as the representative or
18
19
20
An impressive synopsis of the priestly office is given by St. Thomas in Summa

contra Gentiles IV, 74. It is not enough for the minister of the Eucharist simply to
be like Christ according to human nature (this is why an angel cannot be a priest,
but only a man); the minister must also be made to share his Godhead in order
to have part in a strictly divine operation. One of the finest presentations of the
Catholic (and Thomistic) doctrine of the priesthood is to be found in Pius XIIs
encyclical letter Mediator Dei: see esp. nos. 4043, 6869, 8284, and 9293.
Hoc sacramentum tantae est dignitatis quod non conficitur nisi in persona
Christi. Quicumque autem aliquid agit in persona alterius, oportet hoc fieri per
potestatem ab illo concessam.
He has already used this idiom at ST III, q. 64, a. 8, ad 2:The minister of the sacrament acts in the person of the whole Church, whose minister he is; whereas in the
words he pronounces, he expresses the intention of the Church, which suffices for
a sacraments perfecting, unless the contrary be outwardly expressed on the part of
323
vicegerent of someone, to act with the power or authority of someone

else. So while anyone can speak the words of consecration (the physical
speech-act), only a priest can say the words that also do what they signify
(the moral speech-act).21 St.Thomass argument that only a priest can
confect the sacrament thus depends more fundamentally on the fact that
the priest does something in persona Christi than on the fact that he says
something in persona Christi.The argument of question 82, article 1 shows
that in St. Thomass mind, doing the sacrament in persona Christi and
speaking the words in persona Christi are not separate; what the priest is
doing is nothing other than speaking Christs words with a spiritual
power to say them authoritatively, a power he received through priestly
consecration.22 Nevertheless, it may well be that we should separate, at
least in concept, doing as Christ does and speaking just as Christ spoke
21
22
the sacraments minister and recipient (Minister sacramenti agit in persona totius
ecclesiae, cuius est minister; in verbis autem quae proferuntur, exprimitur intentio
ecclesiae; quae sufficit ad perfectionem sacramenti, nisi contrarium exterius exprimatur ex parte ministri et recipientis sacramentum). On the notion of acting in
the person of the Church, see the illuminating remarks of Jacques Maritain, On
the Church of Christ:The Person of the Church and Her Personnel, trans. Joseph W. Evans
(Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 1973), 14446; cf. BernardDominique Marliangas, OP, Cls pour une thologie du ministre: In persona Christi,
In persona Ecclesiae (Paris: Beauchesne, 1978, 1997).
Compare: only a police officer can say Youre under arrest! in such a way that
they make the criminal to be (legally) in a state of captivity. If an ordinary civilian said that to another civilian, the words would be the same, but they would
not have the same effect. This is obviously a feeble example, but it shows a real
difference in the power of words, derived from a difference in office.
In the same article, ad 1: The consecrative power exists not only in the words
themselves, but also in the power of the priest given to him at his consecration
or ordination, when it is said to him by the bishop: Receive the power to offer
sacrifice in the Church both for the living and for the dead. In ad 2, Thomas
contrasts this special power with the power of the universal priesthood of all the
faithful:a just layman is united to Christ [as priest] by a spiritual union through
faith and charity, but not through a sacramental power [to do as he does]. And
so he has a spiritual priesthood, for offering spiritual victims, namely for offering
up himself in union with Christ on the cross. This is no small matter, since for
Thomas the essence of the Christian life consists not primarily in doing something, but in receiving Gods healing and elevating grace poured out in the
Passion. Hence, the sacrament that is and will always be of greatest moment for
every Christian is his baptism, which grafts him as a branch into Christ, the lifegiving vine.Without the baptismal character, that is, the power to receive divine
gifts, no other sacrament would avail. On these points, see the incomparable
synthesis of Pius XII, Mediator Dei, nos. 4043 and 78104, esp. nos. 8388, 93,
and 98100; on the phrase in persona Christi, cf. John Paul II, encyclical letter
Ecclesia de Eucharistia, nos. 2829, and the works cited above in note 20.
324
and hold that the priest receives the power of doing this sacrament in
Christs name with words suited to the action, whereas speaking in the
Mass just what Christ spoke at the cenacle is, in a way, accidental to the
form.That is, it might be the case that the speech-act by which a priest
indicates his intention to act in persona Christi toward the bread and wine
need not be a mimetic speech with Christs very words as its content; it
may suffice if the verbal content unambiguously points to the reality of
the sacrificial banquet that was established at the cenacle in anticipation
of the Cross. Such a priestly prayer could remain a case of acting in the
person of Christ by a power conceded from him.
If the priests prerogative of confecting the sacrament has to do not only
with speaking in the person of Christ, but also, and principally, with acting
in the person of Christ, one might be tempted to entertain the opposite
extremethat the account given by Thomas and adopted by the Roman
church is simply mistaken: Confecting the Eucharist has only to do with
acting in the person of Christ. A text that is very helpful for exposing this
as an extreme is found in Thomass commentary on the Sentences. The
objector argues that the consecration as it is phrased in the Mass cannot
work. If the priest tells the story of the Last Supper, the pronoun this
refers to the bread that was on the table back at the time of the supper, and
not to the bread actually on the table now. On the other hand, if the priest
were to speak in his own person when he said This is my body, then sure
enough,this would refer to the bread actually on the table now, but my
would not refer to Christ! In short, the sentence is at odds with itself, a
temporal disjunct. St.Thomas responds to the objection as follows:
This sacrament directly represents the Passion of the Lord, by which
Christ, as Priest and Victim, offered himself to God on the altar of the
cross. Now, the victim that the priest offers is really one with that victim
Christ offered, because it really contains Christ; but the minister offering
is not really the same; hence it is necessary that he be the same by way
of a representation. And therefore the priest, doing the consecration as if
taking the role of Christ, pronounces the words of consecration recitatively in the person of Christ, lest the victim seem to be other [sacerdos
consecrans prout gerit personam Christi, profert verba consecrationis recitative ex
persona Christi, ne hostia alia videatur]. And since through what he does
with respect to exterior matter he represents the person of Christ, therefore those words are held to be simultaneously a recitation and a signification with respect to the matter present, which is a figure of the matter
that Christ had present before him; and on account of this it is more
fittingly said This is my Body than This is the Body of Christ.23
23
In IV Sent. d. 8, q. 2, a. 1, qa. 4, ad 4.
325
Moving from the Sentences to the Summa should not be done carelessly,
since in the time between them much occured in Thomass thinking, but
the point made in this reply seems timeless. Thomas is arguing that the
context of the priests words is not only the surrounding words in the institution narrative, but also the priests physical gestures. He describes Christ
picking up bread, and he himself picks up bread; he describes Christ taking
up the cup, and he himself takes up a cup; and so forth.The priest is not
only the narrator of a story, but also the lead actor in a drama. As narrator,
he says Christ said . . . , clearly distinguishing himself from the one speaking; as lead actor, he assumes the role of Christ, the one who says,This is
my body. Because the priest clearly takes on the dramatic role of Christ,
the other props on the stage become part of the story:The bread takes
on the role of the original bread at the Last Supper, and the chalice takes
on the role of whatever cup Christ used.As a result, the words This is my
body, even though quoted as words spoken thousands of years ago, are
understood as applying to the bread on the table here and now.
This argument helps us to maintain a middle position so that we do not
misunderstand ex persona Christi as having to do only with acting in a certain
way or only with speaking in the name of Christ. While the priest is not
claiming to be Christ (the surrounding narrative makes it clear that the
minister knows himself to be announcing the words of another), yet he does
take the role of Christ in the liturgy, and so it is as if he himself were Christ.24
He is both speaking and doing ex persona Christi, at once distancing himself
he said to his disciples . . .and daring to quote and to act in the first
person:Take this, all of you, and eat it:This is my Body. . . .25 Certainly the
effect, transubstantiation, occurs only because Christ is acting through the
ministerial priest, once more showing how great an assimilation to the High
24
25
At one point during Thomass commentary on the Mass, he treats of the priests
gestures during the celebration, most of which are described as Christomimetic:
That the priest stretches out his arms after the consecration signifies the stretching out of Christs arms on the cross. . . .And that he sometimes joins his hands and
bows is proper to one who suppliantly and humbly prays and indicates the humility and obedience of Christ out of which he suffered. ST III, q. 83, a. 5, ad 5.
Aquinas draws a fine distinction between the priest acting qua representative of
the Church, which offers up prayers to God and begs for his gifts, and the priest
acting qua representative of Christ, the Mediator who bestows gifts upon the
Church (and thus upon the priest, too, as an individual Christian in need of salvation, a member of the Church). As with so many other seemingly subtle distinctions, this one is pastorally crucial, for it helps explain why a schismatic priest can
consecrate the gifts (he acts then in virtue of the priestly character, that is, Christ
acts through him) but cannot pray effectively for himself or others, because he is
not able to represent the Church, whose unity he spurns. ST III, q. 82, a. 7, ad 3.
326
Priest occurs in the celebration of the Eucharist, without destroying the

separateness of the minister, who remains himself and remains a minister.
Since Christ in a certain sense acts through or by the minister in order to make
his own substance present under the appearances of bread and wine, it is
really as if the priest were Christ, for he imitates, in his intention, words, and
deeds, the deeds, words, and intention of Christ.The ministerial priest and
the High Priest are, as it were, overlapping at the climax of the Mass, the
former standing symbolically in the latters place, while the latter acts through
the former.26 It is obvious, moreover, in light of the greatness of the reality
brought about by consecrationnothing less than the Lords personal presencethat a man must be given explicit permission by Christ, or better, a
spiritual power or authority, to act in this manner, so as to function even instrumentally in accomplishing this sacrament.27 It would be an act of supreme
presumption for a man or woman to say over a piece of bread, seriously
intending to effect the Eucharistic conversion: This is my body, without
having the power to make it so from him whose body it is. Of course, nothing would happen, yet a sin would be committeda kind of mockery. On
the other hand, if one were acting in a stage drama, a medieval miracle play,
and one of the scenes was the Last Supper, there would be no mockery in a
dramatic re-enactment of the Eucharist. For here, it is obvious that no intention of really doing the thing is involved, but only an intention of depicting
something that once happened.28
26
27
28
Consider how vigorously Thomas himself makes this point in one of many texts
that might be cited:Nor is it an obstacle [to the efficacy of the words of consecration] that the priest pronounces them in the manner of a narration, as said by
Christ [at the Last Supper]. For owing to Christs infinite power, as from the
contact of his flesh a regenerative force came not only to the waters Christ
touched [in the Jordan river] but to all waters everywhere on earth for all future
ages, so too by Christs own pronunciation of these words they obtained a consecratory power by whatever priest they may be said, as if Christ were to
pronounce them while present himself. ST III, q. 78, a. 5.
See ST III, q. 82, a. 5:a priest consecrates this sacrament not in his own power,
but as a minister of Christ, in whose person he consecrates this sacrament; q.
82, a. 7, s.c.: it is by the force of ordination [ex vi ordinationis] that a priest is
able to consecrate the Eucharist; ibid., obj. 2: no one can consecrate the
Eucharist unless he have the dignity of the priesthood; q. 83, a. 4, ad 6: Some
things pertain only to the priest, such as the offering and the consecration [of the
gifts]. The larger context is the discussion of sacramental character, which, in
general, is a certain participation in the priesthood of Christ, derived from
Christ himself. Cf. ST III, q. 63.
For a perceptive discussion of the role and words of the priest at Mass, see Robert
Sokolowski, Eucharistic Presence: A Study in the Theology of Disclosure (Washington,
DC:The Catholic University of America Press, 1994), 1321, 2733, 82100.Also
pertinent is the same authors Praying the Canon of the Mass, Homiletic & Pastoral
327
Even if we say that the priests power is more fundamentally a power

of doing in the person of Christ than of speaking in the person of Christ,
it seems that St.Thomass account of the Eucharist is the account necessary for the Western rites. In the west, the priest clearly intends to confect
the sacrament when he says This is my body, and Thomass account in
the Sentences does seem to be the only explanation of how these words
can signify a change in the bread actually on the altar here and now. The
Latin priests power to act in the person of Christ takes its concrete form
in the power to speak certain words in the person of Christ.Yet it must be
asked: Are the words of institution the only way to agere in persona
Christi? If doing the consecration in the person of Christ and speaking
the words spoken at the Last Supper are, in principle, distinct (though
they are never found to be separated in the dominant liturgical rites), it
should be possible, again in principle, for a liturgical rite to exist in which
the priest does in the person of Christ all that is necessary for the
Eucharistic sacrifice to take place, and yet not by speaking the familiar
words. Provided the local church that makes use of this rite retains apostolic succession and thus a valid priesthood, would it not suffice for the
priest to speak some words that unambiguously manifested the conversion
of the gifts as well as his intention to effect it?
A qualification is necessary. It is true but perhaps misleading to say that
the priest receives power to act in the person of Christ rather than the
power to speak in the person of Christ. The speaking of the words of
institution is a feature of all Eucharistic rites except for the Anaphora of
Addai and Mari. Hence, if this rite is valid, the words of institution, materially considered, cannot be of the essence of the priestly act of consecration. Nevertheless, the priests acting in the person of Christ will always
involve his speaking with the authority of Christ, even when he does not
recite the words used at the Last Supper. In this extended sense, the priest
must speak in the person of Christ in order to act liturgically on behalf of
the High Priest.
IV. Magisterial Teaching on the Form of the Eucharist
The most commonly cited magisterial support for identifying the form of
the Eucharist as the words of institution is a passage from the Decree for
Review 95, no. 10 ( July 1995): 815. Thomass line of argument applies also to the
sacrament of penance. Only a priest equipped with a power conceded from another
to forgive sins in the name of Christ could pronounce without blasphemy the words:
I absolve you from your sins. . . . For anyone else to do so, except in the manner of
a dramatic depiction, would be sinful presumption. Cf. Mk 2:7; Lk 5:21; Jn 20:2223;
and 2 Cor 5:1820, as well as Aquinass opusculum De forma absolutionis.
328
the Armenians of the Council of Florence.29 However, the same decree

contains the statement that the matter of priestly ordination is found in the
handing over of the instruments (traditio instrumentorum), implying that the
priesthood is conferred by the handing over of the chalice and the
diaconate by the handing over of the book of the Gospels. Pope Pius XII
explicitly decided that whatever was the case in the past these actions are,
at least in the present, not necessary for the validity of the sacrament of
Order.30 On this account, some theologians affirm that the Decree for the
Armenians is not a document of faith.31 If this is true, then the same
could be true of other statements within it.The document was, however,
issued under the authority of an ecumenical council and was approved by
the regnant pope. What are we to make of these apparently conflicting
facts? The most plausible solution is to recognize that even the matter and
29
30
31
DS, no. 1321, cited above in the quotation from Garrigou-Lagrange.The Decree
for the Armenians, also known as the Bulla unionis Armenorum, dated November
22, 1439, was the fruit of session VIII of the Council of Ferrara-Florence and
sought (as the document says) to hand down, within a sort of brief compendium,
the truth of the orthodox faith professed by the Roman church. For a critical
text in Latin and Armenian with English translation, see Decrees of the Ecumenical
Councils, vol. 1, ed. Norman P.Tanner, SJ (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 1990), 53459; the pertinent section on the Eucharist may be found on
pp. 54547. Ludwig Ott identifies the proposition The form of the Eucharist
consists in Christs words of institution, uttered at the consecration as sent. certa
(Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, trans. Patrick Lynch, ed. James Bastible [Rockford, IL:TAN Books, 1974], 392)that is, sententia ad fidem pertinens theologice certa,
which Ott defines as a doctrine on which the teaching authority of the Church
has not yet finally pronounced, but whose truth is guaranteed by its intrinsic
connection with the doctrine of revelation (theological conclusions) (ibid.,
910). Ott further says:The Catholic Church adheres firmly to the view that the
priest consummates the transubstantiation solely by the uttering of the words of
institution (ibid., 392), citing for support the same lines of the Decretum pro Armenis. As we shall see, however, this decree is capable of being read either as nondefinitive or as definitive but limited to certain liturgical-ritual traditions. (The
decree does not specify this limitation, but neither does it specify the lack of a
limitation, which is not an irrelevant point.) The same observation holds for
certain statements of the Council of Trent.
Apostolic constitution Sacramentum Ordinis, nos. 34. For the relevant texts of
Florence and Pius XII side by side, see J. Neuner, SJ, and J. Dupuis, SJ, The Christian Faith in the Doctrinal Documents of the Catholic Church, 6th ed. (New York:Alba
House, 1996), nos. 1705 and 1737.
Cf. Neuner-Dupuis, The Christian Faith, no. 1305i:The document is neither an
infallible definition nor a document of faith. It is a clear exposition of the sacramental theology commonly held at that time in the Latin church.The limits of
its authority must be borne in mind, especially with regard to the question of
the essential rite of the sacrament of Order. Cf. no. 1737i.
329
form of (at least some, if not all) the sacraments contain something essential
and something accidental and, thus, that the handing over of the instruments was an accidental element of the matter.32 Hence the Decree for the
Armenians was right to identify the traditio instrumentorum as an element of
the matter, even if it did not make explicit the distinction between essential and accidental parts. A supporting argument may be drawn from the
fact that the same decree identifies the matter of the Eucharist as wheat
bread and grape wine with a small amount of water mixed in before the
consecration. Now, it is certain that this mixed-in water is not an essential
part of the matter, for the wine could still be validly consecrated without
it.33 Therefore, the matter can contain something accidental. Such accidentals will be subject to the determination of the Church, whereas the
essentials are subject to the power of Christ alone.
The Catechism of the Council of Trent and the Roman Missals De defectibus
affirm that Hoc est corpus meum and Hic est calix sanguinis mei . . .
are the forms for the consecration of the bread and the wine. In keeping
with the discussion up to this point, one could argue that while this judgment is perfectly true, it does not express the pure essence of the form, but
the form as it exists concretely within the Roman rite. It may be that the
form consists essentially in words that signify transubstantiation. Now,
words do not signify transubstantiation unless they attribute being-thebody-and-blood-of-Christ to that which appears to be bread and wine. For
this reason, the pontifical councils document asserts that the words of
Eucharistic institution are indeed present in the Anaphora of Addai and
Mari, not in a coherent narrative way and ad litteram, but rather in a
dispersed euchological way, that is, integrated in successive prayers of
thanksgiving, praise, and intercession34that is, that what the words of
institution signify and, in the Western rites, accomplish, is indeed really
signified and accomplished by this Anaphora, but dispersedly, elliptically,
not in a concise and direct way.This should be taken to mean that what is
signified by the words This is my bodynamely, that that which was
bread ceases to be bread and becomes the substance of the body of Christ,
the appearances of bread alone remaininghas to be at least implicit in the
prayers actually said in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, so that the intention of the minister can be ascertained. In other words, the content of the
prayers that compose the anaphora must unambiguously indicate the
consecratory intention and finality of the entire Eucharistic prayer.
32
33
34
See note 55 below.

ST III, q. 74, a. 7.
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unity,Guidelines for Admission to
the Eucharist, no. 3.
330
To say this is not, of course, to settle all relevant questions. For instance,
there cannot be a vague sweep of time during which the gifts of bread
and wine are being transformed, a kind of metaphysical twilight.There
must be some moment of transubstantiation, before which it is true to say
the bread on the altar is just bread, and after which it is true to say that
it is the body of the Son of God, deserving adoration.We need to know
when to begin adoring.35 Substantial change is instantaneous,36 and so
there is a nunc temporis when bread ceases to be and, at once, the body of
Christ begins to be present under the appearances of bread.37 Surely it is
not defensible to say that the Lord comes to be present on the altar at
some unknown point, which falls after the start of the liturgy but before
the reception of communion. It must be a knowable point after which the
gifts are adored as the Lord himself, present in body, blood, soul, and
divinity.The early Latin scholastics were cautious and sometimes ambiguous about the moment of consecration, since they had not yet found an
argument that could settle the question decisively. In a statement typical
of many, Simon of Tournai (1201) wrote in his Disputatio LXXI that he
does not know, only God knows, whether transubstantiation takes place
at the beginning, in the middle, or at the end of the prayer of consecration; he only knows that when all is said and done, transubstantiation has
taken place.38 However, this kind of approach would not satisfy the
scholastic mind, since it seemed odd that such a momentous question as
When is the bread no longer mere bread? should prove insoluble. If it
is mere bread, to adore it is idolatry; if it is truly the body of Jesus, not to
adore him is impiety.39 Edward McNamara underlines this point:
The concept of a gradual transformation from bread to Eucharist is no
more sustainable than the idea of a nonhuman embryo becoming an
35
36
37
38
39
Cf. ST III, q. 75, a. 2; q. 78, a. 6. It was, at least in part, concern over rightful
worship of the Eucharist that impelled theologians and eventually bishops of the
early thirteenth century to insist on the elevation of the host not prior to the
breads consecration (as had been the custom in some places), nor after the consecration of the wine (according to the theory of some who held that consecration
only took effect after the words had been spoken over both gifts), but immediately after its own consecration. See V. L. Kennedy, CSB,The Moment of Consecration and the Elevation of the Host, Mediaeval Studies 6 (1944): 12150.
ST III, q. 75, a. 3.
For further arguments in defense of the instantaneity of the change, cf. ST III, q.
75, a. 7; q. 78, a. 2 and a. 5.
Kennedy, Moment of Consecration, 126.
On the growing desire of the faithful to worship the host at Mass, see Kennedy,
Moment of Consecration, 14850.
331
almost human, or a not quite human, fetus, gradually transforming itself

into a human being.There can be no stages in the Eucharistic mystery:
It is either bread or it is Christ, there is nothing in between.
This truth is also indicated by the rubrics of the Mass which
explicitly state that the priest genuflect in adoration after consecrating
the bread and again after the consecration of the wine. This rubric
would be senseless, not to say idolatrous, if Christ were not already fully
present from that moment.40
It is probable that the moment of transubstantiation in the Anaphora of

Addai and Mari comes during the epiclesis, which has power to signify
transubstantiation in virtue of the dispersed words of the entire liturgy.
Without this fuller context, or at least the better part of it, the epiclesis
alone would be insufficient in sign-power.41
Even before the pontifical councils decision, there were already good
reasons for supposing that, in principle, words other than the words of
institution are capable of confecting the Eucharist. Although there is
disagreement over the question among liturgical scholars, it does seem
that the original authors of a number of rites intended that transubstantiation be signified and effected by the epiclesis, despite the fact that in
them it comes after the words of institution. In the Divine Liturgy of St.
John Chrysostom, the epiclesis goes out of its way to emphasize the real
changing of the gifts at that moment. After the words of institution have
been spoken, the priest implores God:
We pray and beseech and implore thee to send down thy Holy Spirit
upon us and upon these gifts . . . and make this bread the precious
body of thy Christ. . . .And that which is in this chalice the precious
blood of thy Christ. . . . Changing them by thy Holy Spirit.42
40
41
42
Is the Consecration Gradual? Zenit, November 25, 2003, www.zenit.org/english/

visualizza.phtml?sid=45171.
The epiclesis and other texts from the anaphora will be quoted and discussed
below, in section VI. For further precisions concerning the moment of transubstantiation, see the appendix to this article.
The text is from Eastern Catholic Worship, ed. Donald Attwater (New York: DevinAdair, 1945), 36. Earlier we saw Garrigou-Lagrange naming western theologians
who interpret the epiclesis differently. The account of the learned Cardinal
Bessarion is worthy of being taken seriously. Nevertheless, it does not seem to be
necessitated by sacramental theology, and that is the point here. Arguments of
fittingness, on the other hand, are a different matter; the western position has
powerful Christological and pneumatological reasons in its favor. See BenotDominique de La Soujeole, OP, La forme de leucharistie, Revue Thomiste 103
(2003): 93103.
332
Similarly, in the Maronite rite, the priest kneels down after the words of
institution and calls upon God to change the bread and wine into the
body and blood of Christ, in much the same way as Elijah called down
fire from heaven:
Have mercy upon us, O my Lord, and send down on us thy Holy Spirit,
the creator of life. (Kneeling and touching the altar) Hear me, O my Lord
(thrice) and may thy living Holy Spirit come down and dwell in me and
in this oblation. . . . (Standing) May he make this mystery the body of
Christ our God, to be for our salvation. . . . May he also make this cup
the blood of Christ our God, to be for our salvation.43
Priests celebrating the Maronite rite or the liturgy of St. John Chrysostom
might have originally had an explicit intention to confect the Eucharist
not with, but after, the words of institution. In recent centuries, such priests,
if they wished to be faithful to Rome, have intended to confect the
Eucharist by the words of institution. But the liturgical texts would seem
to be a testimony from tradition indicating that the Roman theory may
have its limits.44 Western theologians have always been confronted by
difficult questions concerning the Byzantine rite, such as how to explain
the custom of pouring warm water into the chalice after the wine has
already been consecrated. A number of such difficulties would evaporate
if the Roman model were not superimposed on all rites.The question is
rendered complex by the role of ecclesiastical authority, from which it is
not permissible to prescind. If the sacraments have been entrusted to the
Churchmeaning, to her leaders in accordance with their place in the
apostolic hierarchythen it follows that the pope, as vicar of Christ, has
the authority to specify what is to be taken as a Christ-given sacramental
form or matter, as Pius XII did in the case of priestly ordination.Thus, the
pope could lay it down that in the Greek ritesregardless of the tenor of
the text or the original intention of the authors of the liturgy, which, in
any case, is not always easy to ascertainthe words of institution are the
Eucharistic form, in such a way that a priest must intend to consecrate
43
44
Attwater, Eastern Catholic Worship, 15253.

Moreover, unlike various Eastern rites where the dispute centers around the relationship of the epiclesis to the words of institution, most scholars today hold that
the Assyrian rite under discussion never contained the words of institution, even
when the Assyrian church was in communion with the Roman church. If this is
so, there could be no more reason to call their rite into question than any other
rite of a church in communion with Rome. For opinions for and against this
view of the original wording of the rite, see the bibliography in U. M. Lang,
Eucharist Without Institution Narrative? The Anaphora of Addai and Mari Revisited, Divinitas 47 (2004): 23233, nos. 16 and 17.
333
when pronouncing those words.This the pope has power to do, but there
would be cause for doing it only if some heretical misunderstanding
threatened, as occurred when it was common for some among the Eastern Orthodox to dismiss the Latin rite as invalidated by its lack of an
explicit epiclesis. There is no similar justification for making a final and
universal determination about all possible liturgical rites, nor do I believe
that such a determination has, in fact, been made.45
There is thus good reason to believe that earlier theologians in the
west may have been too hasty in concluding that a specific set of words
are the necessary, exclusive cause of transubstantiation. What can be
affirmed without the slightest hesitation is that certain formulas, when
spoken by the priest with the Churchs intention (and other relevant
conditions being satisfied), do have, of themselves, such power of causality. In other words, one may conclude: Whenever the familiar formula
(with due conditions met), then transubstantiation, but one is not entitled to conclude the converse, Whenever transubstantiation, then the
familiar formula. If one asserts that X accomplishes Y, this does not mean
Y can be accomplished only by X. (Illustration: If baptism with water
incorporates a person into the Mystical Body, this does not mean a
person can be incorporated into the Mystical Body only by way of
baptism with water, for he can be incorporated by desire for baptism with
water or by enduring martyrdom.)46 So, whenever the words of institution are spoken by a validly ordained minister with the correct intention
within a Western rite, they accomplish what they signify; but this does
not mean that what they signify, namely transubstantiation, cannot be
accomplished except by means of such words. It would mean, however,
that within the Roman or similar rite, transubstantiation occurs in no
other way. Each rite has its own integrity, and hence what is true of one
rite cannot, ipso facto, be held true of another rite, although it may turn
out to be true in some cases. I will return to this key point later.
To summarize: St. Thomass criterion that the priest speak ex persona
Christi need not require that the priest, in order to consecrate validly,
liturgically adopt certain words attributed to Christ. It necessitates that he
act on behalf of Christ, with due authority from him, and for the purpose
of doing what the High Priest intends. This recasting of the criterion
does not imply disagreement with Thomass explanation of why only a
priest can consecrate.47 Acting from the person of Christ must be
understood as including the idea of acting with the authority of Christ,
45
46
47
My reasons for asserting this will become clearer as the argument proceeds.
Cf. ST III, q. 66, aa. 1112.
Cf. ST III, q. 82, a. 1.
334
which is given only to priestswhatever mode of speaking may happen

to be used, as long as it has its origin in apostolic tradition (of which
more anon). Furthermore, drawing a distinction between essential and
accidental elements in the form and matter of the sacraments makes it
possible to reconcile the past teachings of the magisterium with the argument of this article and with otherwise baffling evidence from approved
non-Roman rites.
V. St. Thomas on the Flexibility of Sacramental Form
The reader may be thinking: All this is very interesting (or worrisome)
speculation, but are there any grounds in the ipsissima verba of St.Thomas
for holding the position put forward here? Does he have anything to say
about a certain flexibility of sacramental form?
There can be no question about Aquinass general approach to the
issue at hand: There is one and only one form of the Eucharist, the
formula confided by Christ to the apostles at the Last Supper, when he
instituted the sacrament with full determination of due matter and form.
But if we stop at this general level (as many do), we will miss some of the
more interesting aspects of his treatment. First, it is clear that due
matter is bread and wine, not leavened or unleavened bread, red or white
wine, regardless of whether we know just which of these Christ used. So
it is not a photographic imitation of Christ that is demanded, but an
imitation of the essentials of his actions. Second, due form is undoubtedly, for St. Thomas, the words of institution; but which words, and why
these? The exact liturgical words are not taken verbatim from any of the
four New Testament accounts, but seem rather to derive from oral tradition delivered by the apostles to the churches they or their disciples
founded.48 Moreover, as St.Thomas knows, Mass is celebrated in languages
48
The four institution accounts are Mt 26:2629; Mk 14:2225; Lk 22:1720; and

1 Cor 11:2326. Commentary on these passages is endless, but one may profitably consult Pierre Benoit, OP, The Holy Eucharist, in idem, Jesus and the
Gospel, trans. Benet Weatherhead, vol. 1 (New York: Herder and Herder, 1973),
9597; Joseph Ratzinger, The New Covenant, in idem, Many ReligionsOne
Covenant, trans. Graham Harrison (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), 5867;
and Robert J. Daly, SJ, Eucharistic Origins: From the New Testament to the
Liturgies of the Golden Age, Theological Studies 66 (2005): 322. As Daly shows,
the New Testament data and the knowledge at our disposal concerning early
Church history demand a nuanced approach to the details of institutionan
approach that need not, of course, deny that our Lord really did institute the
sacrament of the Eucharist at the close of his earthly life. Even the positions of
some of the more critical scholars agree with that of Aquinas when it comes
to the substance of the words and actions of Jesus at the cenacle. Ibid., 69.
335
that have nothing to do with the language Jesus himself spoke at the Last
Supper; once again, we see a focus on equivalent meaning, not exact
quotationor to put the point more technically, between res significata
and modus significandi. It will prove illuminating, therefore, to examine
more closely what Aquinas has to say about the divinely instituted forms
of the sacraments, especially with regard to the Eucharist.
1. There Must Be a Definite Form or Verbal Formula
Words are necessary in the sacraments, St.Thomas explains, because sensible signs by themselves are insufficiently determinate.In the sacraments,
words and things, like form and matter, combine in the formation of one
thing, in so far as the signification of things is completed by means of
words.49 Water (or better, the use of water) can signify both cleansing
and refreshment, and although both of these effects are relevant to
baptism, it is the former that is occurring spiritually; hence the words I
baptize [that is, wash] you specify the meaning of the material and ritual.
As Thomas puts it:
When a thing is indifferent to many uses, it must be determined to one,
if that one has to be effected. Now those things that are done in the
sacraments can be done with various intent; for instance, washing with
water, which is done in baptism, may be ordered to bodily cleanliness,
to the health of the body, to amusement, and many other similar things.
Consequently, it needs to be determined to one purpose, that is, the
sacramental effect, by the intention of him who washes. And this intention is expressed by the words which are pronounced in the sacraments;
for instance, the words,I baptize thee in the name of the Father, etc.50
This passage establishes a minimum condition for the accomplishment of

any sacrament: The intention behind the sacramental action must be
discernible in words employed during its course.51 Even if Jesus could
have instituted an efficacious washing that was accompanied by no
words, it would have been unworthy of his wisdom to do so, since this
action would not be indicative of a definite effect. But the converse also
49
50
51
ST III, q. 60, a. 6, ad 2.
ST III, q. 64, a. 8, emphasis added. In the phrase that has been emphasized, note
the three distinct concepts: (a) the right intention; (b) its expression or manifestation; and, (c) words as the suitable means for expressing intention. What is
hidden in intention is made manifest in words.
In saying this, I do not deny that our Lord could have conferred (and did confer)
the effect of certain sacraments without conferring the sacraments as such: see, for
example, ST III, q. 64, a. 3; q. 72, a. 2, ad 1; q. 84, a. 5, ad 3. My point is rather
that sacramental word and deed are inseparable.
336
holds: Any words clearly indicative of the definite effect in question could
have been suitably employed, although some would be more suitable
than others. A general theological principle can be deduced: Precisely
such words are necessary as suffice to complete the sacramental signification, that is, to specify the meaning of the material and ritual.52
St.Thomas holds, as does the entire Catholic tradition, that the sacraments of the New Lawphysical signs (and causes) of the full perfection
of human holiness53were instituted directly by Jesus Christ. God, and
no mere man, is the author of holiness, and Christ reserves to himself the
authority to determine the channels of grace in his Church.54 Nevertheless, it is one thing to believe that Christ instituted a given sacrament,
and another to hold that he instituted also a precise verbal formula.55 It
is easy to conceive of several formulas that are capable of adequately
determining or specifying the signification of material and ritualan
obvious example being the substitution of synonyms or paraphrase.56
52
53
54
55
56
For sacramental validity, of course, more than a sufficiency of signification is

required.
Cf. ST III, q. 60, a. 2, ad 3; the exact phrasing is worth attention: res denominantur a fine et complemento. Dispositio autem non est finis, sed perfectio. Et
ideo ea quae significant dispositionem ad sanctitatem, non dicuntur sacramenta
. . . sed solum ea quae significant perfectionem sanctitatis humanae.
Cf. ST III, q. 60, a. 5; q. 64, aa. 2 and 4.
On the complex question of Christs personal institution of the sacraments, see
Leeming, Sacramental Theology, 393 ff. After showing the impossibility of holding
a merely mediate or general institution, Leeming then defends and explains the
proposition: An immediate institution by Christ of all the sacraments does not
necessarily involve his specific determination of the matter and form of the rite
of each sacrament (417, emphasis added; cf. 41731).The common theological
opinion has tended to be that Christ left virtually no room for ecclesiastical
determination in regard to the two greatest sacraments, baptism and Eucharist
these being the alpha and omega of the spiritual life, its initiation and consummation (ST III, q. 73, a. 3; cf. q. 65, a. 3)but did leave some room in regard to
the other five sacraments.As Journet summarizes:Christ instituted all the sacraments immediately; some, namely baptism and the Eucharist, in all their details;
otherssuch at least is the opinion of many theologiansby giving the Church
power to determine what matter and form should be valid. It was thus, according to the Council of Florence (Denz., nos. 698 and 701), that, in the sacrament
of Confirmation, the imposition of hands was replaced, in East and West, by the
application of chrism; and that, in the sacrament of Order, the imposition of
hands was replaced, in the West, by the tradition of the instruments. . . .This again
may be explained by the fact that in the Middle Ages the indicative formula of
the sacrament of Penance replaced the deprecatory. The Church of the Word Incarnate, trans. A. H. C. Downes (London: Sheed & Ward, 1954), 170.
In q. 60, a. 7, ad 2,Thomas maintains that synonyms can be ranked as more or less
common, and that the more common words should be used in administering the
337
Thus, it is clear that the meaning of a certain action or element can be

announced more or less directly, more or less diffusely.
All the same, St.Thomas leaves no doubt about where he draws the line:
The dispensation of the sacraments pertains to the Churchs ministers,
but their consecration is from God Himself. And so the Churchs
ministers do not have anything to decree with regard to the form of
consecration, but [only] with regard to the use of the sacrament and the
manner of celebrating it.57
While for Thomas the consecration is accomplished only by the words

of Christ, still it is necessary to add other words for the preparation of
the people partaking.58 The differences in Eucharistic liturgies are
differences in the manner of building up to, receiving worthily, and
rendering thanks for the sublime mystery of the living, life-giving Word
of God, made present upon the altar by two simple sentences.
2. Some Diversity of Formulation Is Possible
As we might expect, therefore, we do not find exact uniformity of wording or ritual in the administration of sacraments in the various rites of the
Church.We find, rather, a general uniformity of verbal signification: All the
rites signify the same mystery to be accomplished by the same material
elements, but they go about signifying it in different ways.This is neither
surprising not problematic.As an example of the institution of determinate
words, Thomas points to the formula of baptism, which Jesus manifestly
imposed:Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in
the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit (Mt 28:19).59 It
is the italicized portion that is common to East and West, for the Latin
priest says I baptize you in the name of . . . , while the Greek priest says
57
58
59
sacraments. In general, he is right about synonyms; the words yawning or bread

making are much more familiar than their esoteric counterparts,pandiculation
and panification. On the other hand, in practice, it is not always easy to determine how things ought to be translated, as controversies over the translation of
the Missale Romanum have shown.When the priest says I baptize you. . . , he is
using a very familiar phrase; yet how many people know that baptize means
wash? In a sense,baptize is the remotest possible word to use in this situation,
yet most would not feel we should replace it with something else. How many of
the faithful know that Christ means anointed one or that Messiah could be
substituted for Christ? Familiarity does not, of itself, generate understanding.
ST III, q. 83, a. 3, ad 8.
ST III, q. 83, a. 4, ad 1.
ST III, q. 60, a. 7, s.c.
338
The servant of God, [N.], is baptized in the name of. . . .60 There is no
essential difference between these formulas, though the Latin one accentuates the instrumental causality of the priest who speaks as agent, while the
passive mood of the Greek emphasizes the objectivity, as it were, of the
event taking placethe minister vanishes, while the servant, the new
Christian, is being baptized by Christ. (Since baptism is considered to be
a sacrament whose form and matter are rigidly determined from the start
by divine institution,61 we can complicate matters further by noting that
Thomas was one among many who allowed the possibility that, through a
special divine provision on their behalf, the apostles may have baptized in
the name of Christ alone.)62 Thomas maintains that a determinate form is
even more required than determinate matter, since matter is for the sake of
form and form gives being to matter, as we see in all natural things.63 Still,
the conclusion that follows is that there must be determinateness of form, not
that there can be only one formula. In the same article,Thomas states that
the crucial point is the sense of the words:
As Augustine says in Tractates on John (tract. 80, on Jn 15:3), the word works
in sacraments not because it is spoken, that is, not according to the exterior sound of the voice, but because it is believed, that is, according to
the sense of the words that is held by faith [sensum verborum qui fide tenetur]. And this sense indeed is the same among all men, although they are
not the same utterances as regards sound. And therefore if such a sense is
set forth in the words of anyones language, the sacrament is perfected.64
60
61
62
63
64
ST III, q. 60, a. 8, s.c.: Certain words are inserted by some in the sacramental
forms, which are not inserted by others: thus the Latins baptize under this form
. . . whereas the Greeks use the following form. . . .Yet both confer the sacrament
validly.Therefore it is lawful to add something to, or to take something from, the
sacramental forms. Cf. ST III, q. 67, a. 6; In IV Sent. d. 3, q. 1, a. 2, qa. 2, arg. 1.
ST III, q. 60, a. 7, s.c.
Because the Acts of the Apostles speaks of baptizing done in the name of
Christ (apparently formulaic texts can be seen at Acts 2:38, 8:16, and 19:5),
some have argued that the early Church really baptized in this name, without
mention of the Father and the Holy Spirit. Modern scholars disagree over the
issue, but it serves well to illustrate the principle under discussion. (For arguments
against taking such texts to be formulaic and for bibliography, see Joseph A.
Fitzmeyer, SJ, The Acts of the Apostles: A New Translation with Introduction and
Commentary [New York: Doubleday, 1998], 26667). Aquinas discusses both this
possible apostolic custom and the Churchs Trinitarian formula at ST III, q. 66,
a. 6; see especially the responses to the first and second objections. If one may
judge from the tenor of the response, he does not seem particularly enthusiastic
about the idea.
ST III, q. 60, a. 7.
ST III, q. 60, a. 7, ad 1.
339
Here he is thinking of translation into different languages, but his point

would accommodate also the use of different phrases, provided they
signify the selfsame mystery with no ambiguity.
A number of interesting points emerge from an article (q. 60, a. 8) on
whether it is lawful to add anything to the words in which the sacramental form consists. In Thomass mind, the first objection overshoots the
mark by equating sacramental words with the wording of divine revelation, while the second objection overshoots the mark by comparing the
exact wording of a sacramental formula with natural or numerical
species, so that the least change would be enough to obliterate the
essence.65 The reply to the latter is particularly helpful:
Words pertain to the form of a sacrament by reason of the sense signified
by them [ratione sensus significati].And so, whatever addition or subtraction
of words may be made that does not add to or take away from the due
sense [debito sensui] does not destroy the essence of the sacrament.66
Similarly, in the reply to the third objection, Thomas considers whether

change of word order and interruptions invalidate a sacrament and
concludes that if the order is changed in such a way that the sense of the
words does not vary or if the interruptions do not destroy the ministers
intention, the sacrament is not invalidated.Though his argument is about
moving around or interrupting words within a traditional formula, the
general principle seems to be that what is crucial is the sense or meaning
of the words employed in the formula and that this sense can be
preserved even under a variety of modifications. It is fair to assume that
in Thomass mind, as a rule, one formula will prove superior to another
legitimate one (for example, he values the Latin baptismal formula more
65
66
The first objection contains the premise:these sacramental words are not of less
importance than are the words of Scripture, but as it is not lawful to add to or
subtract from the latter, so too with the formerimplying that the exact words
by which sacraments are conferred are unique and fixed.This is obviously false at
the verbal level, since several sacraments are conferred through varying formulas
that convey essentially the same meaning, as Thomas was well aware (the Greek
and Latin formulas of baptism are the example he mentions in the sed contra of
this article). In reply he says, pointedly:if anyone were to pretend that something
is essential to a sacramental form that is not so, it would amount to the same
(namely, forgery of the sacred text). Of course,Thomas himself believes that Jesus
expressly revealed the exact and unchanging form of the Eucharist. But it will be
the burden of my argument that from the fact that our Lord employed a definite
form,Thomas need not have concluded that there could not be another form.
ST III, q. 60, a. 8, ad 2.
340
than the Greek,67 and strongly implies that while a formula adding flourishes to the Trinitarian persons or adding an invocation of the Virgin
Mary may be valid, it is not desirable).68 In the body of this article, our
attention is turned to two aspects, both relevant to my overall argument:
With regard to all the variations that may occur in the sacramental
forms, two points seem to call for our attention. One is on the part of
the person who says the words, and whose intention is essential to the
sacrament. Wherefore if he intends by such addition or suppression to
perform a rite other from that which is recognized by the Church, it seems
that the sacrament is invalid: because he seems not to intend to do what
the Church does.The other point to be considered is the meaning of the
words. For since in the sacraments, the words produce an effect according to the sense that they convey, as stated above,69 we must see whether
the change of words destroys the essential sense of the words, because
then the sacrament is clearly rendered invalid. (ST III, q. 60, a. 8)
For Thomas, then, the question of forms resolves to these two issues: the
ministers intention (does he intend to do what the Church intends to do,
which can be verified by his correct use of a rite recognized by the
Church)70 and the meaning of the words he employs. Notably, the words
are said to produce their effect according to the sense they convey, not
according to their accidental featuresotherwise, for their validity the
words of consecration given by our Lord would have to be spoken in
Aramaic, with a certain timbre of voice.Aquinas himself goes on to say that
the essential sense is destroyed if any substantial part of the sacramental
form be suppressed.71 For example, if one of the names of the Trinitarian
67
68
69
70
71
At least he appears to prefer it, because it expresses both the principal agent (the
Trinity) and the instrumental agent (the minister): cf. ST III, q. 66, a. 5, ad 1.
ST III, q. 60, a. 8.The question of what is desirable or not, or more technically
what is licit or not, is most often presented by Aquinas in terms of the custom
of the Church, which is held, as a matter of faith, to be derived from Christ and
the apostles. In other words, whatever the Church legislates to be done, is
assumed, ipso facto, to be what Christ and his apostles willed and continue to will.
We will meet this view in several passages cited below.
A reference to ST III, q. 60, a. 7, ad 1.
ST III, q. 64, a. 8, ad 2: The minister of a sacrament acts in the person of the
whole Church, whose minister he is; while in the words uttered by him, the
intention of the Church is expressed; and that this suffices for the validity of the
sacrament, except the contrary be expressed on the part either of the minister or
of the recipient of the sacrament.
Si diminuatur aliquid eorum quae sunt de substantia formae sacramentalis. ST
III, q. 60, a. 8. And so, as always, we seem to be brought back to the fundamental
question: By whom or by what authority is the substantiality or essentiality of a
341
persons is omitted, baptism is invalid.72 Then he gives an example of an

omission that does not invalidate the sacramentthe omission of the word
enim in the form of the Eucharist (Hoc est enim corpus meum).This seems an
obvious point because the omission is so incidental to the meaning of the
phrase, but we have to ask why it should be seen as incidental, if, per hypothesis, the entire formula comes from the Lord himself. Surely, on that
hypothesis, every word needs to be spoken. (Here is one place where St.
Thomas could have argued that an equivalent phrase or description, if our
Lord had permitted it to be handed down by the apostles, would also be
valid.)73 Thomas then argues that additions follow the same rule: If the
addition does not affect the substance of the form, it does not invalidate the
sacrament, though it may reflect irreverence or impertinence to introduce
things not included in the rite of the Church; but if they change the meaning of the form, then it is invalidated.
The word enim in the formula for the consecration of the bread is
admitted to be inessential, yet deserving of honor because it is in accord
with the custom of the Roman church derived from the blessed apostle
Peter.74 Such a remark recognizes the role of apostolic tradition in
preserving sacramental form, even if Thomas does not seem to think that
there is, or could be, notable difference in the forms; for him it would be
a question of having or lacking a word like enim, or exhibiting a variation in word order, not a question of having or lacking the decisive
sentence from the Last Supper.75
72
73
74
75
given sacramental form determined? It is the Church herself who must determine
this, in any and every case where a dispute arises. Earlier conciliar and papal teaching is also subject to continual authoritative interpretation that clarifies it and
applies it to new situations.
That is, such a baptism could not be valid in ordinary circumstances. If, for the
sake of argument, we grant that a single-name formula was used (cf. note 62
above), a baptism performed thusly was valid only because it was done according
to a ritual vouchsafed to the apostles as a temporary and exceptional measure. If
one were now to return to this manner of baptizing, the baptism would not be
valid, precisely on account of historical discontinuity. The Churchs method of
determining presently the validity or invalidity of various forms of baptism
stands in agreement with this; no form of baptism is now accepted that does not
mention the three Persons of the Trinity.
Cf. ST III, q. 64, a. 2, ad 1, quoted below at note 98.
ST III, q. 78, a. 2, ad 4.
Were he writing now, he would have to reckon with the fact that the Roman
church has modified both the formula for the bread (by adding back to it the
phrase which will be given up for you, lacking in the older Ordo Missae ; cf. ST
III, q. 78, a. 3, obj. 7) and that for the wine (by removing the phrase mystery of
faith to after the elevation of the chalice). Here it is not my purpose to argue
342
What we have seen, then, is a willingness to recognize variability of

form if the difference does not amount to anything substantive. The
question is: Just how much variability is compatible with substantial unity?
The enim is as incidental as can be. Less incidental is a variation Thomas
observes in the form of confirmation. He poses the objection thus:
Just as the sacrament is the same among all, so also the form should be
the same, for any given thing has unity, as also being, from its form. But
not all use this form; for some say: I confirm you with the chrism of
sanctification [instead of chrism of salvation]. Therefore this is not
the fitting form of this sacrament.76
In his reply, he does not say actually, the different versions are identical.
Rather, because sanctity is the cause of salvation, it follows that what
is saidchrism of salvation and chrism of sanctificationboth go back
to the same thing.77 Here, a logical structure is brought to bear on the
problem; it is no longer a question of simple translation, but of a conceptual relationship between cause and effect. A similar point is made when
Thomas accepts Ambroses argument that the apostles were permitted to
baptize in the name of Jesus because this name signifies the Son of God,
and implicit in any mention of the Son is the Father and the Holy Spirit.78
3. The Churchs Tradition Is a Fundamental Norm
Aquinas is convinced both by tradition and by reason that there is, in fact,
no other form of the Eucharist, and maybe even that there could not be
76
77
78
for or against this modification, but only to point out that the Churchs authority extends to more aspects of the form than Aquinas recognized. In the apostolic constitution Missale Romanum of April 30, 1969, Paul VI wrote: We have
ordered that the words of the Lord be one and the same in every formula of the
Canon. Accordingly, We will that in each Eucharistic Prayer that formula be
pronounced thus: over the bread: Accipite et manducate [etc.]; and over the
chalice: Accipite et bibite [etc.]. The words The mystery of faith (mysterium
fidei), however, have been taken out of the context of the words of Christ the
Lord. Pronounced by the priest, they constitute as it were an occasion for an
acclamation of the faithful.
ST III, q. 72, a. 4, obj. 2.
In idem redit quod dicitur chrismate salutis, et sanctificationis. ST III, q. 72,
a. 4, ad 2.
ST III, q. 66, a. 6, ad 2, cited and discussed in note 111 below; cf. notes 62 and
72 above.
343
another.79 The Gospel of Matthew is an obvious witness.80 The Fathers

are regularly invoked on this point, for example, St. Hilary (by Christs
own declaration, and by our faith, his flesh is food indeed and his blood
is drink indeed)81 and St. Ambrose (The consecration happens by the
words and sayings of the Lord Jesus. . . . [W]here the sacrament is
confected, then the priest does not use his own words, but uses the words
of Christ).82 The Last Supper formula is taken as an undisputed premise in many arguments. For example, the view that the substances of bread
and wine continue to exist after consecration is rejected as contrary to
the form of this sacrament, in which it is said: This is my body. This
would not be true if the substance of bread remained there; for the
substance of bread is never the body of Christ. But rather it would have
to be said: Here is my body. 83
However, there are times when St.Thomas speaks in a way that is less
exclusive.The main response in the very article in which he defends the
customary formula begins: This is a fitting form of the consecration of
the bread;84 if he had wanted to single out the formula as the only suitable form, he could easily have done so. He defends the form on the basis
of its significatory value: [T]he form of a sacrament must signify that
which is effected in the sacrament. Hence, too, the form of the consecration of the bread should signify the very conversion of bread into the
body of Christ. We have here a perfect account of what a Eucharistic
form must be and do.The remainder of the account, closely scrutinized,
establishes only that the customary formula fulfills its function most
admirably;85 it leaves open the possibility of another formula whose validity would be guaranteed by a like fulfillment of function.What does the
form need to express? The conversion of the gifts as a completed fact [in
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
St. Thomas, of course, holds that Christ instituted the Eucharist with determinate words that ipso facto count as the only form of the sacrament (ST III, q. 60,
a. 7, and elsewhere, esp. q. 78). While it is obvious that our Lord did employ
determinate words, as does anyone who speaks his thoughts, it is not so obvious
that what he enacted can be signified in no other words than the ones he used.
ST III, q. 78, a. 2: The Lord used this form in consecrating, as is clear in
Matthew 26:26. See also q. 78, a. 4.
ST III, q. 75, a. 1, s.c.
ST III, q. 78, a. 1, s.c.
ST III, q. 75, a. 2; cf. q. 78, a. 2.
[H]aec est conveniens forma consecrationis panis. ST III, q. 78, a. 2.
St.Thomas does offer a convincing defense of the unsurpassable fittingness of the
words spoken by Jesus at the Last Supper and preserved in the vast majority of
liturgical rites. For an excellent summary of how Aquinas derives his Eucharistic theology from these words, see Jeremy Holmes, St.Thomas Aquinas on the
Eucharist, Homiletic & Pastoral Review 103, no. 6 (March 2003): 2431.
344
facto esse], the terminus a quo, and the terminus ad quem.86 For the chalice,
the terminus ad quem has to specify not only the blood of Christ, but the
blood of the new covenant poured out for the remission of sins, because
it is precisely the effect of the Passion that is being signified in the separate consecration of the wine. Put differently, the form of the Eucharist
viewing both consecrations together as one totality87ought to signify:
(1) what occurs, namely, a change in substance; (2) the sacraments efficient
cause in the past, namely the Passion; (3) the present sanctification of the
believer; and (4) the future glory to which the sacrament leads.88
St.Thomas sometimes overdetermines the form. For example, he takes
the phrase mysterium fidei to be part of the form of the consecration of
the wine89a position no longer defensible after the promulgation of
the Missale Romanum of Paul VI.What is more interesting is an observation he makes to explain why the phrasing of the prayers is not to be
found verbatim in the Gospels: The Evangelists did not intend to hand
down the forms of the sacraments, which had to be kept hidden in the
early Church, as Dionysius says. . . . Rather they intended to put together
the history of Christ. The various elements can, however, be gathered
either from Scripture or from the tradition of the Lord, which comes to
86
87
88
89
Further nuances are added, for example that the conversion has to be signified
by a substantive verb in the indicative mood and the present tense (ST III, q. 78,
a. 2, ad 2). It would take us too far afield to consider how this is verified in the
Anaphora of Addai and Mari, but it is interesting to note how many of Thomass
desiderata for an ideal Eucharistic form can be verified in this anaphora as a
whole. What it lacks, of course, is a single simple statement of the conversion,
which it rather describes at length, beseeching the Lord to make it happen.
Nevertheless, the priest is asking that it happen to the sacramental gifts of bread
and wine present before him. Hence nothing essential appears to be lacking from
the scenario.
ST III, q. 73, a. 2.
ST III, q. 78, a. 3, ad 2 and ad 3; cf. q. 82, a. 3, ad 1.
See, for example, ST III, q. 78, a. 3, esp. ad 9. This opinion is taken up by the
Roman Catechism: We are then firmly to believe that it [the form] consists in
the following words (stating then the formula as printed in the missal prior to
1969). Concerning this form no one can doubt. . . . It is plain that no other
words constitute the form (The Catechism of the Council of Trent, trans. John A.
McHugh, OP, and Charles J. Callan, OP [Rockford, IL:TAN Books, 1982], 225;
cf. 22528).We have here one indication among many that this catechism does
not possess inherent magisterial authority, but only as much authority as any
given proposition in it bears from the approval of the ordinary or extraordinary
magisterium. See the judicious remarks on the Roman Catechism in James
Likoudis and Kenneth D. Whitehead, The Pope, the Council, and the Mass (West
Hanover, MA:The Christopher Publishing House, 1981), 10512.
345
the Church through the apostles.90 This intriguing contrast between

evangelical history and ecclesial tradition is made several times in the
saints writings, and each place is worth a look.
In the commentary on Matthew, we read:
For this is my blood, etc. These are the words of consecration. And
notice that there is a difference between these words [in Matthew] and
the words used by the Church [in her liturgy].The Church adds,This
is the cup. Likewise, where he says,of the new testament, the Church
adds,of the new and eternal testament.And where he says,for many,
the Church adds for you and for many, etc. So where does the Church
get this form from? One should say that, as Dionysius says, the evangelists did not intend to hand down the forms of the sacraments, but
kept them as secrets; hence they meant only to recount the history. So
where does the Church get it from? From the apostles ordinance [a
constitutione apostolorum]. Hence Paul said:I will arrange the rest when
I come (1 Cor 11:34).91
The quotations from the Pseudo-Dionysian Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and 1

Corinthians 11:34 are often yoked.92 For instance, when it is objected
that the formula of confirmation is nowhere recorded in Scripturethe
sort of objection that was to become especially influential at the time of
the Reformation, with its novel doctrine of sola scripturaThomas
90
91
92
ST III, q. 78, a. 3, ad 9: Evangelistae non intendebant tradere formas sacramentorum, quas in primitiva ecclesia oportebat esse occultas, ut dicit Dionysius, in
fine Ecclesiasticae Hierarchiae. Sed intenderunt historiam de Christo texere. Et
tamen omnia haec verba fere ex diversis Scripturae locis accipi possunt. . . . Quod
autem additur, aeterni, et iterum, mysterium fidei, ex traditione Domini
habetur, quae ad ecclesiam per apostolos pervenit, secundum illud 1 Cor 11,ego
accepi a Domino quod et tradidi vobis.
Super Matthaeum 26, lec. 4, no. 2200 in the Marietti edition. The reportatio on
Matthew, though it has come down to us in a state that leaves much to be
desired, is still a valuable resource when used in conjunction with other more
reliable texts.
The RSV renders 1 Cor 11:34: About the other things I will give directions
when I come. It should be noted that the context (1 Cor 11) is Pauls reproof
of the church of Corinth for its careless and even scandalous manner of celebrating the Lords Supper (cf. vv. 1722), his teaching about the mystical significance of this meal (vv. 2332), and his partial advice for clearing up the
difficulties (vv. 3334). He concludes with the statement (v. 34) that St.Thomas
often quotes, and rightly, to show that the apostle left many matters of teaching
and governance for his personal visitations and had no intention of committing
everything to paper (cf. v. 2). In short, there are few better chapters in St. Paul
for showing the inseparable connection between apostolicity, oral tradition, and
sacramental life.
346
replies:When the apostles acted as ministers of this sacrament,they used

both matter and form according to Christs command. For the apostles,
in conferring the sacraments, observed many things which are not
handed down in the Scriptures that are in general use.93 He then cites
the familiar text from Dionysius about the secret traditio of the mysteries
and concludes with 1 Corinthians 11:34 as a proof text.
A parallel passage occurs within the commentary on the same chapter
of 1 Corinthians, where St. Paul speaks of what he received from the Lord
and delivered to the Church, as regards the celebration of the Lords
Supper (cf. 1 Cor 11:20).Thomas cites a view (quidam dicunt):The words
sufficient for consecration are the ones recorded in Scripture, so any of the
scriptural formulations, as such, could be taken up and employed at Mass.94
But instead of introducing an Augustinian harmonization of texts to minimize the differences in accounts,Thomas appeals to oral tradition:
It seems more probable to say that consecration is accomplished only
by those words that the Church, built from the tradition of the apostles, uses. For the Evangelists intend to recount the words of the Lord
as far as this pertains to the notion of history, but not according as they
are ordered to the consecration of sacraments, which were held in
secret in the primitive Church on account of infidels.95
93
94
95
ST III, q. 72, a. 4, ad 1.
Here as elsewhere, Thomas shows himself a sensitive reader of Scripture, fully
alert to the verbal differences, both obvious and subtle, in different accounts. He
knows, moreover, that the words of consecration used in the liturgy are a synthesis and interpretation, not a straightforward quotation from a single Gospel or
from 1 Corinthians. Cf. ST III, q. 78, a. 3, ad 9 (a text partially quoted above),
which shows where in the New Testament each part of the formula is derived
from, except for phrases attributed to oral tradition.
Super I Cor., 11, lec. 6, no. 680 in the Marietti edition.The first sentence reads in
the original: Probabilius autem dici videtur quod illis solis verbis perficitur
consecratio, quibus ecclesia utitur ex traditione apostolorum structa. The last
phrase could also be construed to be saying that the formula itself is constructed
from an apostolic tradition. It is compatible with such ideas in Aquinas to assume
that since the Eucharist is first and foremost a mystery celebrated in the liturgy,
we can expect to find some slight differences depending on the liturgical practices of different churches that trace their origins (directly or indirectly) to the
apostles. As Louis Bouyer summarizes: It does seem that [Joachim] Jeremias was
right in explaining the divergencies of detail in the institution accounts that the
New Testament has handed down to us by the fact that these were already different local liturgical formulations (Eucharist:Theology and Spirituality of the Eucharistic Prayer, trans. Charles Underhill Quinn [Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre
Dame Press, 1968], 157). Dom Leclercq gathers evidence for no fewer than
eighty-nine variations in the formulas for consecration over the course of the
Churchs history: cf. Dictionnaire darchologie Chrtienne et de liturgie, col. 73050.
347
This account from Super 1 Cor. has some relevance for the Anaphora of
Addai and Mari, which all historians and theologians accept as a rite of
apostolic origin (however much they may disagree about its initial structure and content),96 but which appears to embody a sacramental form
that does not correspond closely to any of the formulaic elements in the
written records of revelation. As for its content or res significata, it nevertheless corresponds in a dispersed way to the evident meaning of the
written recordsof that there can be no doubt.
Closely related to apostolic tradition is the custom of the Church,
which for St. Thomas constitutes a potent argument employed many
times, notably in his commentary on the rite of the Eucharist.97 Here,
five out of six articles invoke the practice or custom of the Church as the
sed contra arguments: Against objections to the times for celebrating Mass
is the custom that the Church observes in accord with the statutes of
the canons (a. 2); against objections to sacred building and vessels, the
things that are decreed by the Church are ordained by Christ himself
(a. 3); against objections to various ritual actions is the custom of the
Church, which cannot err, as being instructed by the Holy Spirit (a. 5);
against objections to the Eucharistic ritual on the grounds of various
problems that might arise during it is the fact that the Church, like God,
does not command anything impossible (a. 6).The sed contra of article 4,
which expounds the text of the Mass, is particularly telling:
96
97
Of this anaphora Bouyer says: undoubtedly by reason of its great age, the original text of these prayers was practically entirely respected. . . . And everything
leads us to believe that this prayer is the most ancient Christian Eucharistic
composition to which we can have access today. It represents a model that is
quite different from the prayers of the patristic period. On the other hand,
although all these expressions [in it] are Christian, it is still molded after the
pattern of the Jewish prayers for the last cup of the meal (Eucharist, 14647).
Bouyer himself agrees with Botte and other scholars that, on the basis of internal and external evidence, the original form of the anaphora must have
contained words of institution. Ibid., 15058.
ST III, q. 83. But it is a commonplace throughout St.Thomass works.Thus the
sed contra to q. 66, a. 10whether the Church observes a suitable rite in baptizingreads: The Church is ruled by the Holy Spirit, who does nothing inordinate.This is quite similar to other favorite sed contra strategies:The authority of
Scripture suffices (for example, ST I, q. 69, a. 1; all articles of qq. 7072; q. 91,
a. 4; and q. 108, a. 5); The authority of our Lord [or of Christ] suffices (for
example, ST I, q. 16, a. 5; and q. 27, a. 1; III, q. 3, a. 4; and q. 18, a. 1; IIII, q.
83, a. 9). Christopher Kaczor also recognizes the importance of the type of argument that appeals to local liturgical custom: see Thomas Aquinas on the Development of Doctrine, Theological Studies 62 (2001): 29091.
348
It says in On Consecration [of the Decretals], dist. 1: James, the Lords
blood relative, and Basil, bishop of Caesarea, redacted [ediderunt] the
celebration of the Mass. From their authority it is evident that everything said in connection with the Mass is fittingly said [Ex quorum
auctoritate patet convenienter singula circa hoc dici].
In a comment on the nature of liturgy and its ancient roots, St.Thomas

appraises the purpose of everything said and done at Mass:
Human institutions observed in the sacraments are not essential to the
sacrament, but belong to the solemnity that is added to the sacraments
in order to arouse devotion and reverence in their recipients. But those
things that are essential to the sacrament are instituted by Christ
himself, who is God and man. And although they are not all handed
down in the Scriptures, yet the Church holds them from the intimate
tradition of the apostles [ex familiari apostolorum traditione], as the Apostle says: The rest I will set in order when I come (1 Cor 11:34).98
Although Thomas considered that the form of the Eucharist had been
precisely and singly determined by the Lord, he knew, at least to some
extent, that there were different traditions when it came to the rite of
Mass and the manner of conferring various sacraments.99 In regard to
such traditions, his position is simple and sound: If it is an ancient traditionif, that is, it stems from the apostlesit is valid.100 More than that,
98
99
100
ST III, q. 64, a. 2, ad 1. There are many such statements in the treatise on the
sacraments, but they all come back to the same fundamental intuition: there is a
worthy manner of celebrating the mysteriesany of the sacramental mysteries,
especially the Eucharist.The more devotion we bring to the sacrament, the more
we are rendered apt to receive its fruits.
Did he know, one wonders, that the liturgy redacted by St. James and St. Basil (see
the sed contra of q. 83, a. 4, quoted just above) was not the Roman rite he knew, but
an oriental rite? Either he is saying, with a pardonable navet, that there is basically
only one rite and it goes back to James, the cousin of Jesus, and Basil, bishop of
Caesarea, or his argument is meant to imply that all the Churchs rites are, by extension, traceable back to such apostolic roots. As my approach here is intended to be
predominantly speculative, I leave aside many intriguing questions about the
sourcesand limitsof Aquinass knowledge of liturgical rites and their history. For
indications, see two classic studies from the septicentennial harvest: Liam G.Walsh,
OP,Liturgy in the Theology of St.Thomas, Thomist 38 (1974): 55783; and Pedro
Fernandez, OP, Liturgia y Teologia en la Summa de santo Tomas, Angelicum 51
(1974): 38318. More recently there is David Bergers Thomas Aquinas and the
Liturgy, trans. Christopher Grosz (Naples, FL: Sapientia Press, 2004), cf. 1126.
See Thomass remarks on the Eastern custom of using leavened bread (ST III, q.
74, a. 4). One of his rare mistakes in sacramental theology concerned the adding
of water to the consecrated chalice. He argued that this should not be done
349
one sins gravely by not observing ones own rite in its fullness, as required
by ecclesiastical authorities.101 In question 83 we find an important elaboration on the role of tradition, with Aquinas taking the opportunity to
identify, once again, the words that truly, in his view, constitute the form:
As is said in John 21:25, many things were done or said by the Lord
which the Evangelists did not write down.Among these was the fact that
the Lord lifted his eyes up to heaven at the supper, which nevertheless
the Church receives from the tradition of the apostles. For it seems
reasonable that the one who lifted his eyes to the Father at the resurrection of Lazarus (as is found in Jn 11:41) and in the prayer he made for
the disciples ( Jn 17:1) would do this all the more in the institution of this
sacrament, as in a more potent thing.And the fact that it [the text of the
Mass] says manducate and not comedite makes no difference as regards the
meaning [non differt quantum ad sensum]. Nor does what was said [in the
objection] amount to much, especially since those words [Take and
eat] do not belong to the form, as was said above.102 And the all of
you which is added is implied in the words of the Gospel, although it is
not expressed, for Jesus himself had said:Unless you eat the flesh of the
Son of Man, you shall not have life in you ( Jn 6:54).103
In most cases, Thomas does not pause to consider where a given rite
of the Church comes from or how it acquired canonical force; enough
for him is the common knowledge that it is the rite she approves and
requires, for the benefit of all.104 He takes it for granted, and rightly so,
101
102
103
104
because the dilution would corrupt some part of the species of wine, and thus
remove the condition for the possibility of Christs presence under those species
(ST III, q. 77, a. 8; q. 83, a. 6, ad 4). For many centuries, however, the Church has
allowed the Greek custom of pouring the zeon or warm water into the consecrated chalicea custom of which Thomas does not seem to have been aware.
Pope Benedict XIV (17401758) expressly willed that this and similar rites be
preserved: see his encyclical Allatae sunt of July 26, 1755, no. 26; cf. note 108 below.
See, for example, ST III, q. 78, a. 1, ad 4.
A reference to ST III, q. 78, a. 1.
ST III, q. 83, a. 4, ad 2. The last point is this: Jesus is reported to have spoken to
you, clearly all of you, about the necessity of eating the flesh of the Son of
Man.Therefore, it is fitting to say in the liturgy:Take this, all of you, and eat of it.
It is relevant at this point to recall a key theme of Thomass moral theology,
namely the theme of obedience to lawful ministers, sacred and secular, as a pathway to spiritual perfection. For Thomas it is far more important, more an expression of charity, that we do what we are asked or commanded to do by our
superiors than that we do something that may be objectively superior. (It goes
without saying that no one has authority to command us to do something sinful,
and hence there is no obligation to fulfill such a command. It would not even
be a command, but an act of violence.)
350
that the Churchs traditional practice as such is worthy of acceptance.105

For example, arguing in support of the Roman ritual of confirmation:
Our Lord promised his faithful (Mt 18:20) saying: Where there are
two or three gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of
them. And therefore we must hold firmly that the Churchs determinations [ordinationes] are directed by the wisdom of Christ. And for this
reason we must look upon it as certain that the rite observed by the
Church, in this and the other sacraments, is appropriate.106
Now, it is not enough to say that some practice has always been done; one
must consider whether it is being done as inherited from the apostles, and
in communion with the other churches, especially the church of Rome,
105
106
Perhaps the most forceful text in this regard is a famous statement at ST IIII, q.
10, a. 12: The Churchs custom has the greatest authority and ought to be jealously observed in all things [maximam habet auctoritatem ecclesiae consuetudo, quae
semper est in omnibus aemulanda], since the very doctrine of catholic doctors derives
its authority from the Church; hence we ought to abide by the Churchs authority rather than by that of an Augustine or a Jerome or of any doctor whatever.
(See the similar remark at ST IIII, q. 11, a. 2, ad 3, where the Churchs authority
is said to reside chiefly in the Sovereign Pontiff [in summo pontifice] . . . against
whose authority neither Jerome nor Augustine nor any of the holy doctors
defended their opinion.) The Churchs doctrine and practice constitute the
supreme measure for the believer, above all for the theologian who dares to probe
into the mysteries of faith (taking mysteries in its double sensethe content of
worship and the content of revelation).This in itself constitutes a point of departure for a powerful critique of the liturgical reform in the manner in which it was
carried out after the Second Vatican Councilnamely, by the adroit scheming of
a clique of avant-garde specialists far out of touch with ordinary believers, and
guided by theories incompatible with Catholic tradition. But this is quite a distinct
topic. It is surely possible, at any rate, to raise grave objections against prudential or
disciplinary decisions without violating the spirit of obedience praised in the
preceding note. We have no meager example of this in the prepapal writings of
Pope Benedict XVI.
I owe the two citations above to Edward A. Synans suggestive article Brother
Thomas, the Master, and the Masters, in St. Thomas Aquinas, 12741974:
Commemorative Studies, vol. 2 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies,
1974), 21942. Synan discusses how Aquinas, throughout his career, showed a
willingness to contest or dismiss the authority of this or that theologian or
faculty if he judged it to be in conflict with what he found recorded in Scripture or in collections of papal or conciliar writings. In this habitual way of acting,
as in his latent ecclesiology, he shows himself a defender of the primacy of a
transnational and transtemporal Roman (that is, papal and conciliar) magisterium over against the idiosyncrasies of locality and period.
ST III, q. 72, a. 12. The sed contra in this article is also worth quoting: On the
contrary is the use of the Church, who is governed by the Holy Spirit.
351
mother and mistress of all churches. Nevertheless, a certain presumption in

favor of validity can be made for the sacramental rituals of apostolic
churches, unless it can be demonstrated that a corruption entered in at a
certain point. And since this may not be discoverable by mere historical
research, one must turn to theological argumentation and discernment.
Similarly, concerning the appropriate matter of the Eucharist,Thomas
writes:But it is suitable that every priest observe the rite of his church in the
celebration of the sacrament. Now in this matter there are various
customs of the churches (going on to speak of the Latins who use
unleavened bread and the Greeks who use leavened bread).107 He
concludes that it would be wrong to do anything contrary to the rite
stipulated by ones own church. In supporting the validity of traditional
rites and the respect due to them, St. Thomas only gives voice to the
common teaching of the Catholic Church.108
4. What the Form Must Be to Be Valid
These things being said, however, the traditional rites of the sacraments
remain precisely thatrites handed down by the successors of the apostles,
rites whose roots go back to Christ the Lord. As we have seen throughout,Thomas is uncompromising on this point: [T]he sacraments derive
their efficacy from Christs institution. Consequently, if any of those
things be omitted which Christ instituted in regard to a sacrament, it is
invalid. He continues, speaking with regard to baptism:
Now Christ commanded the sacrament of baptism to be given with
the invocation of the Trinity. And consequently whatever is lacking to
the full invocation of the Trinity, destroys the integrity of baptism. Nor
does it matter that in the name of one Person another is implied, as the
name of the Son is implied in that of the Father, or that he who
mentions the name of only one Person may believe aright in the Three;
because just as a sacrament requires sensible matter, so does it require a
sensible form. Hence, for the validity of the sacrament it is not enough
107
108
ST III, q. 74, a. 4.
There is abundant evidence that the Roman church has strenuously defended
the validity of ancient rites and the honor due to them, but as an illustration
one may consider two remarkable encyclicals of Benedict XIV, Allatae sunt of
1755, www.ewtn.com/library/ENCYC/B14ALLAT.HTM; and Ex quo of 1756,
www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0247m.htm. In both, the pope rails against
efforts made by Catholic bishops and missionaries to abolish or modify the rites
and customs of the Eastern Christians. Some examples he cites: the discipline
permitting married clergy; the use of leavened bread; the pouring of warm water
into the chalice after consecration; bestowing chrismation and the Eucharist upon
infants immediately after baptism; communion under both species.
352
to imply or to believe in the Trinity, unless the Trinity be expressed in sensible words.109
At first, this argument may seem to speak against my position. In fact,

however, the opposite is true. The point of departure is not a particular
formula as such, but the command of Christ. Now, what Christ
commanded in the case of the Eucharist was:Do this in memory of me.
What is the referent of the this? If we draw out from the context and from
tradition what Jesus means, it could be phrased:Celebrate with bread and
wine the sacred mysteries of the Eucharist, as a living memorial of my
passion, death, resurrection, and ascension into glory, as the sign, cause, and
pledge of your salvation.110 Implied would be that only certain ones,
namely those to whom he is speakingbishops and (later) presbyters
are empowered to enact this commemoration.Thus, to return to Thomass
argument and apply it to the Eucharist, one could say that whatever is
lacking to the full commemoration of the paschal mystery destroys the
integrity of the sacrament. Now, what is required for a full commemoration? In addition to other obvious requirements (a validly ordained minister with an intention to perform the rite, the correct matter), what
Thomas focuses on here is the explicit, that is, sensible, expression of the
truth or meaning of the sacramental rite performed. It is not enough to
imply one thing by another, or to believe aright but not to speak aright.
No, that which signifies the commemoration must be spoken. It seems
difficult to maintain that the precise commemoration commanded by our
Lord, as described above, is not expressly signified in the words of the
Anaphora of Addai and Mari.The words by which the act and fact of transubstantiation are signified may be diffuse and not concentrated into one
sentence, but they are still explicit rather than implicit and so do not fall
prey to Aquinass critique against inadequate or corrupted formulas.111
109
110
111
ST III, q. 66, a. 6.
Cf. the Roman Canon.
When Thomas comes around to replying to the second objection here (q. 66, a.
6), he agrees with Ambroses view that in the early Church sacramental baptism
could have been permitted in the name of Christ alone because the whole Trinity is implied in the name of Christ, and therefore [when the apostles baptized in
this name] the form prescribed by Christ in the Gospel was observed in its integrity, at
least implicitly (emphasis added). This is a striking statement. After having said
that what is required should be explicit, he then seems to say that it is enough
for validity, in special circumstances, if what one says explicitly clearly implies
what should otherwise be explicit.At this point, one is risking excessive subtlety,
but Thomass view should be taken seriously: At times, one formula manifestly
includes the meaning of another, though it does not formulate the latter in words.
353
A discussion that amplifies these conclusions is the fifth article of question 78, on whether the consecratory formulas are actually true. The sed
contra is simplicity itself: These words are pronounced in the person of
Christ, who says of himself in John 14:6, I am the truth. We know
already that Christ is truly present in the Eucharist.Therefore a form of
the sacrament, or an interpretation of the form, that resulted in a denial
of the Lords real presence in the consecrated gifts would be ipso facto illegitimate. In the context,Thomas is attacking a false understanding of the
customary form, but his comments admit of a wider extension: If you
have a form that rightly signifies the effect, it is orthodox. He goes on to
say that the truth of this expression [This is my body] does not presuppose the thing signified, but rather causes it; for this is how Gods word
stands to things made by that word (emphasis added). Gods word is a
word of power. If you have an utterance duly signifying its effect together
with the authority to pronounce it, then, by the very power of God
acting through the completed utterance, the effect is infallibly
produced.112 At this point, the only way to refute the application of this
argument to the Eucharist is to prove that it is impossible that any other
utterance signify the effect of transubstantiation, or that Christ has
revealed it to his Church that no other utterance exists under which the
effect is accomplishednot just within the Latin and Greek traditions,
but for any and every church with valid sacraments. To my knowledge,
the magisterium has never made either of these claims.113
Recall the point raised earlier about baptism. Since a man may be
washed with water for several reasons, the purpose for which it is done must
be expressed by the words of the form. . . . Wherefore unless the act of
baptizing be expressed, either as we do, or as the Greeks do, the sacrament
is not valid.114 The criterion identified here for validity is a manifest clarity of purpose of the sacramental action: The ministers words and actions
must make plain his intention to do what Christ and the Church intend.115
112
113
114
115
Cf. ST III, q. 82, a. 5, s.c., and ad 2.

I shall return to this point in the next subsection, 5. The Need for Ecclesiastical Determination.
ST III, q. 66, a. 5, ad 2.
According to P. Benoit, philology does not support the claim that the words of
institution sufficiently express, of themselves, a real transformation of the gifts
(The Holy Eucharist, 112). Nevertheless, as Benoit shows, other truths
adduced in Scripture make it highly implausible to interpret these words differently, and more decisively, the Church teaches us their true meaning, since revelation has been entrusted to her guardianship. Still, it is important to recognize
that the words accomplish what the Church understands them to signify because
they are intended to do so by their speaker.
354
Note well, it is a question of doing:[T]he words uttered in the sacramental

forms are said not merely for the purpose of signification, but also for the
purpose of efficiency, inasmuch as they derive efficacy from that Word by
whom all things were made. 116 So the priestly words of consecration are
words that exercise and apply divine power, in addition to signifying it. Hence
any valid sacramental rite must exhibit an awareness of precisely this efficiency. It is not enough to express an intention that something occur in
some way; it must be an intention to bring it about, and to do so by means of
a verifiable prayer, not by means of something altogether hidden.117
In his discussion of the ministers of baptism, Thomas notes that some
argue that a plural formula for baptism (We baptize you . . .) would be
invalid because it differs from the form of the Church (I baptize you . . .).118
But he counters this by observing that the Greek form of baptism is much
more dissimilar to the form we use than if someone said:We baptize. He
then argues against the plural form on different grounds, namely that it
undermines the symbolism of the minister of the sacrament, who must be
one in order to represent the one Christ who chiefly baptizes. In other
words, the reason a form is invalid is not to be sought for in how similar or
different it may be from the customary form in use in the Church, but rather,
in whether or not it rightly expresses the mystery taking place. In baptism, the
mystery is that God, by the power of the Spirit, immerses a human being in
the death and resurrection of Christ. If the form fails to convey adequately
this mystery of unity and unification, it is invalid. Similarly, if an anaphora
were to contradict or to omit the signification of transubstantiation, it would
be invalid for the same reason. Earlier I cited a text on why the form of
confirmation goes unreported in Scripture.The sed contra in the same article
(q. 72, a. 4) is, as so often in St.Thomas,the authority of the Church, which
commonly uses this form.The analytic argument in favor of the form used
in the Roman church is presented, also typically, in terms of its fittingness:
[A]s the form of a natural thing gives its species to it, so the form of a sacrament should contain whatever pertains to the species of the sacrament.This
is as much as to say that the form must, at a minimum, signify the essence of
what is being done or accomplished in the sacrament. It may signify this
more or less fully, more or less plainly, but should it fail to signify the essential event, the peculiar mystery, it fails simply.
116
117
118
ST III, q. 66, a. 5, ad 3.
The anaphora in question satisfies this condition, though it may not be as easy
to pinpoint a moment of consecration as it is in the Roman rite.We know that
there must be such a moment; probably our best witness to it is to watch how
the worshipers who use the rite behave, according to their traditional practices.
ST III, q. 67, a. 6.
355
Thomas argues that transubstantiation occurs precisely upon the completion of the signification of the words by which this mystery is effected.119
Though Thomas has in mind the familiar words of the Mass, his principle
is wider. If there be some other verbal formula by which the conversion is
unambiguously signified, thenprovided the other conditions I have
discussed are adequately metthe successful completion of this formula,
too, would effect what it signifies, namely transubstantiation.120 Thus
Aquinas states, The various words that are in the form of the consecration of the bread constitute the truth of one expression.121 The many
words constitute one (partial) instrumental cause, inasmuch as out of
them, taken together, a single meaning emerges:This (thing that you see)
is my body. It is hard to see that the same mystery of transubstantiation
could not in principle be expressed by any other words, for there would be
other ways of stating that what was once bread and wine is now, owing to
the power of the Holy Spirit as invoked by legitimate priestly power, the
body and blood of Christ, and is to be venerated and received as such.
From a remark made about why the priest says This is my body and not
This is my flesh,122 we can deduce that the form of the Eucharist has to
be such that it signifies the whole body of Christ, that is, all that pertains
to the human body of the Lord except for its blood,123 and not merely
some part of his body (such as flesh). Again, while the customary form
reveals itself to be perfectly suited to its purpose, who is to say that there
could not be different words able to convey the same mystery of the totality of the Lords presence, effected by the power of the Spirit transforming the gifts?
Whatever form it takes, it remains true that a verbal formulation of the
119
120
121
122
123
ST III, q. 75, a. 7, ad 3.
Is it a glimpse of some flexibility when Thomas speaks as if the words he is
considering are a certain case that illustrates the rule? Forma huius sacramenti
importat solam consecrationem materiae, quae in transubstantiatione consistit;
puta cum dicitur,Hoc est corpus meum, vel,Hic est calix sanguinis mei (ST III,
q. 78, a. 1, emphasis added). Similarly, he concludes q. 78, a. 2 with the remark:
Unde haec forma est convenientissima, hoc est corpus meum (emphasis
added). In the first of the questions on penance we find a parallel phrase: haec
est convenientissima forma huius sacramenti, ego te absolvo (ST III, q. 84, a. 3,
emphasis added). A remark more suggestive still comes in the opusculum De
forma absolutionis, no. 2:Now in the sacraments the words have efficacy from the
divine institution. Therefore, the determinate words consonant with the divine
institution are to be retained [tenenda sunt verba determinata consonantia divinae
institutioni] (emphasis added).
ST III, q. 78, a. 6, ad 3.
ST III, q. 76, a. 1, ad 2.
Cf. ST III, q. 76, a. 2, ad 2; q. 76, a. 7, ad 2; q. 78, a. 2.
356
Eucharistic mystery is absolutely required. If we imagine a hypothetical

liturgy in which all expression of faith in the mystery of the real presence
and the sacrifice were limited to internal intention and a presumed traditional belief, or in which this faith was expressed in ambiguous language
open to contrary interpretations, this would not be enough to constitute
a valid rite; indeed it would be enough to invalidate a rite. With the
Anaphora of Addai and Mari, the priest manifestly verbalizes the mystery
he intends, and since he is empowered by Christ to act in persona eius, the
gifts are therefore consecrated. It remains a challenge to ascertain which
particular set of words in this anaphora brings the intended change to its
completion, in contrast to the evident primacy of the words of institution in the Roman rite.
Here, again, it is more important that the minister be acting as Christ
acts, that is, in his words and actions doing what the Lord has done and
with lordly authority to do so, than that he speak exactly as Christ spoke.
One may object that to do what Christ did necessarily involves saying
what he said; but this does not seem to follow. If one says what he said,
then one is doing as he did; but one might do what he did without saying
what he said.The reason is that there is more than one way to signify one
and the same truth or action. Granting that equivalency is theoretically
possible, it would still be desirable to trace the substance of any formula
to Christ himself, as to its historical origin. In other words, while obviously Jesus spoke only one set of words at the Last Supper (anything
beyond that would have been superfluous and, in fact, ridiculous), he
must have approved, in principle, at that very moment, the eighty-nine
or so variations of the same words that liturgical scholars have identified
in the anaphoras of orthodox Christianity.124 These variations are just
what one would expect in the rapidly growing Christian Church as it
took root in different localities through the ministry of different apostles
and their successors.
It is true that in the response of question 78, article 1,Thomas considers, and rejects, the view that Christ might have consecrated the
Eucharist at the Last Supper with certain other words unknown to us.
Here, the argument assumes that if the consecration was not done then
through these words, neither would it happen now. But this is a lapse of
logic;Thomas never proves that Christ had to specify one, and only one,
exact verbal formula for the perfecting of a sacrament, and historically it
is impossible to sustain such a hypothesis, as we have just seen in the large
number of formulas. Rather, one could take for granted that Christ had
124
Cf. note 95 above on the research of Leclercq.
357
established the sacraments and their nascent rites in such a way that there
could be no doubt in the Church about the precise nature, effects, and
minister of any given sacrament. In this way, all sacraments are instituted
by Christ, and even their necessary form and matter determined, but not,
as it were, super-determined.125 This is compatible with a large leeway not
only of sacramental rites or ceremonies, but also even with the exact
formulas under which the sacraments are administered. Thus, it seems
that Thomas fails to catch the equivocation involved in saying that such
words [namely, those of consecration] only have force by Christs
pronunciation of them.126 This is indeed true, but in the sense that
Christ truly pronounces any word of blessing that he authorizes his
ministers to speak on his behalf, not merely a word that he himself has
first pronounced. Something similar could be said of another comment:
No creature can do miraculous works as a principal agent; yet it can do
them instrumentally, as the very touch of Christs hand healed a leper.
And in this way the words of Christ convert bread into his body.127 The
words of Christ need not be restricted to a few particular words; all the
words he continues to speak authoritatively through the priests of his
mystical body are really his words. In the Eucharist it is not only the sacrament that is an image but the priest, too, bears the image of Christ, in
whose person and by whose power he pronounces the words that
125
126
127
128
Example: That wheaten bread and wine of the grape must be employed is
beyond doubt; but that the bread must be leavened or unleavened, or the wine
red or white, stronger or weaker in alcoholic content, was not determined by
Christ. Or rather, he determined that there was more than one possibility within
the genera he established.
Indeed, St. Thomas may have thought that the only way the priest can consecrate is for him to say exactly the formula that Christ historically said (albeit translated as neatly as possible into Latin or another tongue), so that the words
empowered by Christ at the cenacle and delivered secretly to his apostles could
once again have their identical effect through the minister. We have seen
evidence that Thomas believed that the variants found in the four Scriptural
narratives of the institution (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and 1 Corinthians) do not
touch the sacramental formula as such, which he appears to believe is one and
the same everywhere. If he held such a simplistic idea, it was surely owing to the
lack of a detailed knowledge of the wealth of liturgical rites and their varying
formulations. Nevertheless, as Kaczor shows (Thomas Aquinas on the Development of Doctrine), St.Thomas does have a nuanced understanding of how a
certain variety and evolution of expression are compatible with an essential
stability of content.
ST III, q. 78, a. 4, ad 2.
Etiam sacerdos gerit imaginem Christi, in cuius persona et virtute verba
pronuntiat ad consecrandum. ST III, q. 83, a. 1, ad 3. For commentary on this
text and others like it, see Mansini, Representation and Agency, 51417.
358
accomplish consecration.128
5. The Need for Ecclesiastical Determination
The overriding doctrinal objection to my position could be taken
succinctly from St. Thomas himself: Some heretics in conferring sacraments do not observe the form prescribed by the Church: and these
confer neither the sacrament nor the reality of the sacrament.129 Add to
this the minor premise that Christ expressly instituted a single formula
for the Eucharist, namely the words of institution, and one will
conclude that any liturgical rite, no matter how ancient or venerable, that
lacks these words thereby lacks the form and thus lacks something essential to the confecting of the Eucharist. It is an argument persuasive in and
of itself, and should it prove true that the Catholic Church has defined the
minor premise, it could not belong to the sphere of mere theological
opinion, but would belong to the domain of faith, or at very least, would
be a sententia ad fidem pertinens. But this view begs two questions. First,
must there be, either in principle or in practice, precisely the same form
in all ancient liturgical traditions? Second, and more importantly, has the
Church actually defined that one and only one form is efficacious?
St.Thomas argues that although Christ could have shared his power of
excellence with the apostles such that they would be able to institute
sacraments, he chose not to share it, for wise reasons.130 Nevertheless, the
argument in that place is about the power to institute sacraments as such
(and to lend them their efficacy); it is not about ecclesiastical regulation
of the exact form and matter within preset bounds. Wheaten bread has
to be used for validity, and the Church can never change this; but must
the bread be leavened or unleavened? Wine has to be used, but does it
have to be white or red? Water has to be used in baptism, but does it have
to be fresh water or can it be salt water? Must the minister of baptism
express his ministerial role in the words used (I baptize you . . .) or is
it possible to say The servant of God, [N.], is baptized . . .? All the more
129
130
131
ST III, q. 64, a. 9, ad 2.
Cf. ST III, q. 64, a. 4.
Indeed, marriage continues to be a topic of considerable disagreement between
Eastern and Western theologians; and while the Catholic Church has taught
definitively that the consent of the spouses is constitutive of the sacrament, the
separated Eastern churches have by no means been convinced that this position
accords best with the evidence from tradition, not to mention dogmatic issues. I
mention this not to call into question the Catholic teaching (far from it) but
merely to indicate how complex is the history of the sacraments and how challenging are the problems it continues to pose.
359
evident from historical research is an evolution in the administration of

other sacraments, such as holy orders, penance, and marriage.131 Now
this shows, if anything does, the need for definitive doctrinal authority in
the Church, because such things should not be left indeterminate if the
salvation of souls could be in any way jeopardized by a lack of clarity. But
it also shows that the determinations made by such an authority should
not be overinterpreted in favor of a clarity that may not in fact exist. It
has long been a habit of Western theologians to interpret everything
decided within the sphere of the Latin church as if it admitted of immediate universal application across all frontiers. In some cases this is true, in
others it is not.132
There are countless Neo-Scholastic commentators who overshoot the
mark of what may be concluded with certainty from the magisterial
statements. Passages from Garrigou-Lagrange and Ott come to mind,133
as do the words of Tanquerey:
It is certain that for the valid consecration of the bread Christs words
are required: This is my body; similarly for the consecration of the
wine, the words: This is the chalice of my blood; or This is my
blood. The Lord employed the aforesaid words. The Council of
Florence declared:The words of the Savior, by which he instituted this
sacrament, are the form of this Sacrament. It is also certain that for a
valid consecration the epiclesis is not required, the prayers through
which the priest asks that the bread be changed into Christs body, the
wine into Christs blood.134
There is here a palpable oversight in logic.We have already seen how the
authority of the decree from the Council of Florence is not entirely unambiguous. But what can be concluded as a matter of fact, pace Tanquerey and
others, is that for the Roman rite, as for many other rites too, the traditional
words of consecration are necessary and sufficient. The words Hoc est
corpus meum are indeed the form of the sacrament as celebrated in the Latin
church; and barring a dogmatic teaching that speaks explicitly, and intends
to speak, of any and every rite whatsoever, this is all that we are entitled to
132
133
134
The popes of modern times, among them Benedict XIV in the eighteenth
century, have been adamant in opposing men who sought to impose Western
liturgical and sacramental practice on the Eastern churches. See notes 100 and
108 above.
See the quotations from Garrigou-Lagrange (at notes 7 and 8 above) and from
Ott (in note 29 above).
Manual of Dogmatic Theology, trans. John J. Byrnes, vol. 2 (New York: Desclee
Company, 1959), 285, emphasis in original.
360
assume.The Churchs teaching to date does not exclude the possibility of

another valid form of the sacrament having been bequeathed to a nonWestern church during the apostolic period.135 Moreover, that Christ
employed such words as these does not, of itself, mean that he excluded
other words or that only such words could be efficacious. Finally, that the
epiclesis is not strictly necessary in Western rites does not settle the question of whether it may not once have been or may still be necessary in
other rites at some time or in some circumstances, according to the intention of the celebrants of those rites, and provided the Roman church had
not or has not yet decided in a contrary sense.
On the general level at which we are moving, there is little more to be
said about St.Thomass views on sacramental form and its flexibility.We
have seen that while he himself does not think there has been or could be
much in the way of variety, he nevertheless articulates wide-ranging principles that enable clear distinctions to be drawn between the res significata
and the modus significandi, and, as regards the latter, between what is essential and immutable in the signification and what is incidental and variable.
In summary, one might draw together the subheadings from this section:
(1) There must be a definite form or verbal formula; (2) but some diversity of formulation is possible. Moreover, while (3) the tradition of the
Church is a fundamental norm, nevertheless, this is not to be understood
in a positivistic or relativistic way, because (4) there are objective requirements as to what the form must be if it is to be valid. Finally, what this entire
discussion reveals time and again is (5) the need for ecclesiastical determination. Unless the magisterium (1) can guide us as to the nature, number,
origin, and purpose of the sacraments and how they are administered,
(2) can approve or correct sacramental rites should any question of validity arise, (3) can define or clarify not only the particular norms that may
be drawn from Tradition, but even define what really counts as apostolic
Tradition, as opposed to an ancient and stubborn deviation, and (4) presupposing divinely established foundations, can establish and uphold canonical criteria of validity and licitnessunless, to repeat, the magisterium can
do all this, we will be unable to start a fruitful discussion of the sacraments,
135
136
Edward McNamara recognizes the same point: While the Church has defined
what is essential for the consecration in her own rites she does not thereby
declare that this is the only possibility. Communion Hosts at Papal Masses,
Zenit, December 9, 2003, www.zenit.org/english/visualizza.phtml?sid=45923.
On the larger questions raised by my final remarks, see Louis Bouyers opusculum The Word, Church, and Sacraments in Protestantism and Catholicism, trans. A. V.
Littledale (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1961, 2004), in which Bouyer expounds
the necessary mutual relationship between Scripture,Tradition, Church authority, and sacramental life.
361
much less nudge a disputed question toward its resolution.136

VI. Criteria for Validity
Drawing upon classical sacramental theology and the foregoing discussion
of form in St. Thomas, I propose four criteria for the validity of a
Eucharistic rite or celebration, including the Anaphora of Addai and Mari:
1. The intention to confect the sacrament according to the Churchs
orthodox understanding of it, namely, to transubstantiate bread and
wine into Christs body and blood, with an unambiguous, express
signification of the fact that this is being intended;137
2. An identifiable accomplishment of the intended effect, bringing to
completion the sacramental significationa practical indication of
which would be that after this moment the priest and the faithful can
and should begin to adore the Lord present under the sacramental
species;
3. The priestly authority to intend and to accomplish this; and,
4. Historical continuity with apostolic tradition.
The first and third criteria are obviously necessary, but if the second
were lacking, the first and third would not suffice, in and of themselves. For
one might have a validly ordained priest, with a right intention, who indicates his intention with liturgical words or gestures, as well as his belief that
his intention has been realized; yet if there were not a recognizable transition from the intentional order to the real order, his belief that the sacrament had been confected would remain unverifiable, even to himself. In
such a case, it might have happened or it might not; yet this is already proof
that it cannot have happened.This argument rests entirely on the fact that it
should be possible to know that a sacrament or sacrifice has been accomplishedthat one is dealing with an extramental reality and not a figment
of the imagination.This would still be a knowledge in the order of faith,
of course, because one does not see with ones eyes or ones intellect that
the sacrifice of Christ our Pasch has been truly made present on the altar
through the consecration of the gifts. Nevertheless, if a priest could not say
137
To put it more technically, one could say that, on the one hand, a valid formula
for consecration must always suitably express, without error, ambiguity, or deficiency, the res significata, the thing meant to be signified by the words; but, on the
other hand, that the modus significandi, the manner in which this reality is signified in words, permits of variation, from incidental (enim, mysterium fidei) to
extensive (as in the case under discussion).
362
with certainty that there has been a transition during the liturgy, even if he
may not think he could specify a given word as the point of separation,
then it is questionable whether he could have orthodox faith in the real
presence and the sacrificial nature of the Mass. Put simply, if the form is not
clear, there is no form, since it must be unambiguously pronounced to be
a form at all. All this may be confidently asserted without prejudice to a
forms being brief or long, concentrated or dispersed. Evidently, if there
were a Eucharistic prayer so lengthy and so dispersed in its conceptual
components that it could not be grasped as a single intelligible whole by
at least the priest, it could not be valid. But the Anaphora of Addai and
Mari would certainly not fit this description, as anyone can see who reads
it.138 Note that the need for a lack of ambiguity about the real presence of
the Lord under the sacramental species does not demand the adoption of
a linear conception of time, as though no reference could be made to the
body and blood of Christ until these are actually present on the altar.The
liturgy circles around and around the central mystery from start to finish,
even though that mystery comes to be present in its full reality at a definable moment or at some moment within definable limits.139 In all liturgies
we find the conflation of temporal dimensions, for example, the bread and
wine being referred to, by anticipation, as an immaculate victim (suscipe . . .
hanc immaculatam hostiam) in the offertory prayers of the ancient Roman
rite. Such examples are plentiful.Thus, the requirement of definiteness is a
theological requirement, not a linguistic one.Transubstantiation must occur
at some point; it is spoken of throughout.This is particularly important when
it comes to the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, which, almost from the start,
speaks as if the holy and life-giving mysteries were already present on the
altar and the oblation had been offered, when in fact the change is likely
to be occurring at the epiclesis.140
The fourth criterion differs from the other three in specifying an
external source and guarantee of the authenticity of a liturgical rite: its
continuity with Tradition. Joseph Ratzinger emphasizes that it is impossible for the Church to compose a new rite in the strict sense, because
the Church must preserve apostolicity, and this can only happen if the
138
139
140
141
See below, where I quote several passages from the anaphora to verify these criteria.
See note 8 above.
For further analysis of the criterion discussed in this paragraph and of its implications for the structure of any Eucharistic rite, see the appendix below.
Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger, The Spirit of the Liturgy, trans. John Saward (San Francisco, Ignatius Press, 2000), 15970.The point is made succinctly on p. 169: We
saw above that each of the various ritual families grew out of the apostolic sees,
the central places of the apostolic Tradition and that this connection with apostolic
363
Church in her life of faith and worship preserves historical continuity

with apostolic tradition.141 A genuine historical continuity of liturgical
rite is necessary for validity; one could not create a new liturgy ex nihilo
that possessed validity simply because it fulfilled the other three criteria
mentioned.This last criterion explains why the Council of Trent insisted
on the essentiality of the words of institution:These words are absolutely
necessary for validity in the family of the Roman riteEuropes liturgical
heritage, which that council had the momentous task of defending
against unlawful modification or even repudiation at the hands of Protestants. This rite cannot be modified in such a way as to preserve validity
without these words, though there may be another rite, with a quite different historical origin and cultural context, that is valid but has no such
words.Were one to reconfigure the Roman rite by removing the words
of institution, it would ipso facto lose the constitutive element of historical continuity, and thus lose its validity, regardless of any other prayers that
might be added on to it.
One must take seriously historical continuity, or at least what one might
call historical veracity. The prayers we use are part of a tradition that
bequeaths them to us, they cannot be manufactured on demand. Nevertheless, two qualifications have to be added. First, evidently there was a time
when any particular prayer was new, even if inspired by or based upon past
prayers.142 And surely we should say that as long as the author was authorized to be an author, and the new composition does not represent a break
but a development (in Newmans sense), the new prayer may become part
of the tradition. Second, the Church has authority to institute prayers on the
same condition. For example, we only had one anaphora or canon in the
Roman rite for over a thousand years, but in the postconciliar reform three
more canons were approved (Eucharistic Prayers II, III, and IV), and later
on, still more.143 What do we say about anaphoras that do not show the
142
143
origins is essential to what defines them. From this it follows that there can be no
question of creating totally new rites.
According to some historians, a certain freedom of regulated improvisation in
worship persisted through the third century (see Gelston, Eucharistic Prayer, 11).
One has good reason to be troubled by the situation prevailing in the sphere of
the Roman rite, which witnessed the academic fabrication of a plurality of
anaphoras discontinuous with its own heritage. No question can be raised about
the theological soundness of the new anaphoras nor about the popes authority
to give them due force of law, but a question must be raised about the attenuation (or even repudiation) of the principle of tradition implicit in this development. See the lucid account given by Cassian Folsom, OSB, From One
Eucharistic Prayer to Many: How It Happened and Why, in Adoremus Bulletin 2,
nos. 46 (Sep.Nov. 1996), www.adoremus.org/9-11-96-FolsomEuch.html.
364
expected connection with the past? Are they invalidated by being composed
from scratch? This would seem to call into question the indefectibility of the
Church vis--vis the sacraments, the custody of which pertains to her
essence if anything does. This raises the question: Who determines what
counts as sufficient continuity with apostolic tradition? If one answers the
Church herself, then it seems the argument is circular, or rather, the Church
has carte blanche to determine the criteria of continuity.144 If one answers
the testimony of tradition, then that opens up a hornets nest of problems.
Who is the trustworthy spokesman for the testimony of tradition? Who will
find out just what it is and discern it without error?
A solution would be to say that the only words strictly necessary for the
accomplishment of the Eucharistic sacrifice in the Roman rite are the
words of institution. Admittedly this is a radical position, but it seems to
be what St.Thomas himself holds: If a priest walks into a church-supplies
store and, with an intention of consecrating, speaks the words of Christ
over thousands of packaged hosts, he would at that moment effect transubstantiation.
Some have said that this sacrament cannot be accomplished if the aforesaid words [of consecration] are pronounced but the others [in the
Missal] are omitted, especially those that are found in the canon of the
Mass. But this is clearly false, as can be seen both from the words of
Ambrose cited above [in the sed contra], and also because the canon of the
Mass is not the same among all, nor at all times, but different things are
added by different ones. Hence it is to be said that if a priest pronounced
only the aforesaid words with the intention of confecting this sacrament,
this sacrament would be accomplished; for the intention would cause
that these words be understood as pronounced in the person of Christ,
even if they were not recited with the preceding words.145
And inasmuch as St.Thomas holds that the Mass is a true and proper sacrifice precisely in and through the representative double consecration, which
144
145
146
Indeed, this is one of the principal objections of the Orthodox as well as of some
Protestants, who believe that they can find objective criteria either in Scripture
or in Tradition that measure the pronouncements of later ecclesiastical authorities,
even the popes. And surely in some sense there have to be criteria that bind the
pope; he is not simply free to pronounce or legislate as he pleases.
ST III, q. 78, a. 1, ad 4.
Cf. Pius XII, Mediator Dei, no. 70, which synthesizes St.Thomass doctrine in this
regard. Aquinas and Pius argue that both consecrations are required for a proper
representation of the sacrifice of the Cross. If the bread alone or the wine alone
were consecrated, the sacrifice of Calvary will still have been offered, yet it will
not have been duly represented.
365
symbolizes the real separation of Christs body and blood on the altar of the
Cross,146 the sacrifice of the Mass will have taken place in that churchsupplies storealbeit, as Thomas immediately adds in the same passage,
with massive illicitness: Yet the priest would sin gravely confecting this
sacrament in this way, as not preserving the ritual of the Church [utpote ritum
ecclesiae non servans]. It would be a sort of ultra-thin Mass of the Roman
riteagainst all Church legislation, yet still a Mass.147 Whereas, looking to
the rites wording, the Byzantine divine liturgy relies on the epiclesis as an
intention-expressive component of the miracle of transubstantiation, and so,
a Byzantine priest in an Eastern Christian supplies store who said the words
of institution but not the epiclesis would effect nothing. The bread in its
packaging would remain mere bread, though undoubtedly the priest would
147
148
Thomas envisions the scenario several timesfor example, ST III, q. 74, a. 2, obj.
2, and ad 2; q. 78, a. 1, ad 4 (just quoted); q. 83, a. 3, ad 8.The last text leaves no
room for doubt about Aquinass position:If the priest pronounces the words of
consecration over the proper matter with the intention of consecrating, then,
without every one of the things mentioned abovenamely, without house [that
is, a church building], and altar, consecrated chalice and corporal, and the other
things instituted by the Churchhe consecrates Christs body in very truth; yet
he is guilty of grave sin, in not following the rite of the Church. (For background, see Pierre-Marie Gy, OP, Les paroles de la conscration et lunit de la
prire eucharistique selon les thologiens de Pierre Lombard S. Thomas
dAquin, in Lex orandilex credendi: Miscellanea in onore di P. Cipriano Vagaggini,
eds. G. J. Bks and G. Farnedi [Rome: Pontificio Ateneo SantAnselmo, 1980],
22133.) Nevertheless, this position has always had its opponents, and there are
few today who would defend it without nuance. Most authors want to say that,
in some sense, the entire liturgy or at least the entire canon is a single prayer, even
if transubstantiation occurs at the moment of consecration. That is, while the
sacrificial victim of Calvary is made present in time at a given moment and
through a determined formula, yet the prayers before and after are essential to
the meaning of what is being said and done at that moment.The conclusion: A
priest actually could not have the right intention outside of some kind of authorized liturgy (though he may deceive himself into thinking that he does); cf.A. M.
Henry, OP, Christ in His Sacraments, trans. A. Bouchard (Chicago: Fides, 1958),
109. For a recent statement of the view that the entire canon is consecratory, see
Vanhoomissen, Une Messe sans paroles de conscration? 3943. However,
there are still reasons to believe that in the Roman rite the only words strictly
necessary for effecting transubstantiation are the words of institution. As usual,
the Catechism of the Catholic Church has a balanced perspective: while the special
efficacy of the words of consecration is affirmed (nos. 137577), the institution
narrative is viewed in the context of the entire Eucharistic prayer and of the
celebration as a whole (nos. 134855).
Bear in mind that this example prescinds from relevant ecclesiastical determinations. In the final analysis, it belongs to the Church to determine, if there be any
doubts, what is and is not necessary in the formula of a sacrament.
366
have committed a sin of mockery if he had really intended to effect something.148 Finally, if an errant Assyrian priest walked into the shop, he might
have to recite nearly the entire Anaphora of Addai and Mari before something could be effected.What this example is intended to illustrate is the fact
that different liturgical rites seem to have irreducibly distinct consecratory
formulas that are more or less self-contained, more or less explicit, owing to
a diversity of origin and evolution.149
If I am right, this would be a solution to the Church authority question raised earlier. One could argue that the Roman rite is so minimalist
in its essential content (not, take note, in all the accidents required for its
full splendor) that the patriarch who has jurisdiction over the faithful of
this ritethe popehas power to authorize or validate a rite of Mass
that was newly composed in every respect except for the words of institution. If the same pope attempted to give force to an Assyrian liturgy lacking any of the elements that seem to be required to make the priests
intention of transubstantiation clear, then these rites would be invalid and
no amount of legislation from any number of popes or councils could
endow them with validity.Therefore, arguing a priori, it is impossible that
the Holy Spirit would allow a pope to attempt to give force to such a
deformed Byzantine or Assyrian rite. Arguing a posteriori, any rite to
which the pope has given force must accordingly be valid, but only within
the liturgical tradition to which the rite belongs.
Now, let us return to the Anaphora of Addai and Mari to see how
these five elements or conditions are verified.
1. The intention to confect the sacrament as the Church understands it
can be gleaned from the abundant references to the Eucharist as oblation or sacrifice commemorative of the sacrifice of the Cross, as divine
and life-giving mysteries, and so on. In fact, this order of hallowingif we review the entire liturgy, as we should do, and not merely
the portion that scholars are wont to identify as the anaphora in
isolationcontains more explicit references to the reality of the Body
and Blood of Christ both as sacramental nourishment and sacrificial
immolation than are to be found in most liturgical rites of East or
West. Some examples:
149
It seems difficult to deny a certain irreducible diversity of liturgical approaches

originating in the early centuries, nor does this fact, by itself, present any serious
challenge to a comprehensive theological account of the sacraments. See Daly,
Eucharistic Origins: From the New Testament to the Liturgies of the Golden Age.
367
The poor shall eat and be satisfied. The body of Christ and his
precious blood are on the holy altar. In awe and love let us all
draw near to him.And with the angels let us cry aloud unto him,
Holy, holy, holy Lord God.150
Let us lift up praise to your glorious Trinity always and for
ever. May Christ, who was sacrificed for our salvation, and who
commanded us to make a remembrance of his death, burial, and
resurrection, accept this sacrifice from our hands in his grace and
mercies for ever, amen.
By your command, our Lord and our God, these glorious,
holy, life-giving, and divine Mysteries are placed and arranged
upon the absolving altar until the coming of our Lord the second
time from heaven, to whom be glory always and for ever, amen.
Our hearts being sprinkled and cleansed of an evil conscience,
may we be deemed worthy to enter the holy of holies, high and
exalted. May we purely, worthily, and in holiness stand before
your holy altar and offer to you spiritual and reasonable sacrifices
in true faith.
And may this oblation be accepted with confidence. May it be
hallowed by the word of God and by the Holy Spirit, that it may
be a benefit to us, and salvation and life for ever and ever in the
kingdom of heaven through the grace of Christ.
Glory to you, my Lord, for you have called me, even feeble
me, in your grace, and have brought me near unto you in your
compassion, and have established me as a designated member in
the great body of your holy catholic Church, to offer before you
this living, holy, and acceptable sacrifice, which is the memorial
of the passion, death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord and
Savior, Jesus Christ, through whom you were well-pleased and
reconciled to forgive the sins of all men.
The people say to the priest: May Christ hear your prayers. May
Christ accept your oblation. May Christ adorn your priesthood
in the kingdom of heaven, and may he be well-pleased with this
sacrifice which you offer for yourself, for us, and for utterly all
the world which looks for and awaits his grace and mercies for
ever. The priest then says softly: We give thanks, O my Lord, for the
150
All quotations are taken from the translation made by M. J. Birnie from the
Aramaic original of Mar Addai and Mar Mari, The Order of the Hallowing of
the Apostles, www.cired.org/liturgy/apostles.html. The descriptions of the
detailed gestures and a number of other rubrics are omitted here for simplicitys
sake. Another translation of the fixed portions of this liturgy is furnished in
Attwater, Eastern Catholic Worship, 16384. Shortly after the Sanctus, Attwater
adds in a footnote: From here to the end of the consecration [the text] is
borrowed from the Roman rite, the Chaldean form in this hallowing being no
longer extant (175).Attwater does not entertain the possibility that this rite was
always missing the kind of consecratory formula found in the Roman rite.
368
abundant riches of your loving kindnesses toward us, for though
we are sinners and unworthy, you have deemed us worthy to
administer the Holy Mysteries of the body and blood of your
Christ. We ask for help from you for the strengthening of our
souls, that with perfect love and true faith we may administer
your gift to us.
Stand aright and look upon those things which are done in
the fearful Mysteries being hallowed. The priest draws near to
pray, that by his mediation peace may be multiplied for you.
Lower your eyes, and stretch out your mind to heaven. . . . O Lord
God of hosts, assist my weakness in your mercifulness, and
through the assistance of your grace, make me worthy to offer
before you this living and holy sacrifice, for the aid of the whole
community and for the praise of your glorious Trinity, O Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit for ever.
Yea, our Lord and our God, according to your mercies and the
abundance of your kindness, deal with your people and with my
misery, not according to my sins and offenses, but may weI and
thesebe deemed worthy of the pardon of debts and the
forgiveness of sins through this holy body which in true faith we
receive through the grace which is from you. Amen.
The priest says: The mercifulness of your grace has brought us
near, O our Lord and our God, to these glorious, holy, life-giving,
and divine Mysteries, though we are not worthy. The deacon answers:
In truth, my Lord, we are not worthy. Pardon us, O my Lord,
though we are not worthy because of our many sins. The priest
continues: Praise to your holy name, O our Lord Jesus Christ, and
worship to your Lordship at all times for ever. Amen. For [this is]
the living and life-giving bread which descended from heaven and
gives life to utterly all the world, for those who eat of it do not
die and those who receive it are saved by it and by it are pardoned
and live for ever. Amen. Glory to you, O my Lord. Glory to you,
O my Lord. Glory to you, O my Lord, on account of your ineffable gift to us for ever. Amen.We draw near, O my Lord, in the
true faith of your name toward these holy Mysteries, and we break
in your compassion and sign in your mercifulness the body and
blood of your Beloved, our Lord Jesus Christ, in the name of the
Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit for ever. [And after
the fraction and careful arrangement of the body and its commingling with the blood, the priest continues:] These glorious, holy,
life-giving, and divine Mysteries are set apart, hallowed, perfected,
fulfilled, united, commingled, joined, and sealed, one with another,
in the worshipful and glorious name of the glorious Trinity, the
Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, that they may be to us, O my Lord,
for the pardon of debts and the forgiveness of sins, for the great
hope of the resurrection from the dead, and for new life in the
369
kingdom of heaven, to us and to the holy Church of Christ our

Lord, here and everywhere, now, always, and for ever and ever.
[And near the time for communion, the deacon proclaims:]
Let us all with awe and reverence approach the Mystery of the
precious body and blood of our Savior.With a pure heart and true
faith let us recall his passion and consider his resurrection. For on
our behalf the Only-begotten of God took from men a mortal
body and a rational, sentient, and immortal soul, and by his lifegiving laws and holy commandments brought us from error to
the knowledge of the truth. And after all his dispensation for us,
the First-fruits of our nature was tested by the cross, rose from the
dead, and ascended to heaven. And he committed to us his holy
Mysteries, that by them we might recall all his grace toward us.
Let us, then, with overflowing love and a lowly will, receive the
gift of eternal life, and with pure prayer and manifold sorrow,
partake of the Mysteries of the Church in the hope of repentance,
turning from our offenses and sorrowing for our sins, and asking
for mercy and forgiveness from God, the Lord of all. . . . [Meanwhile the priest says quietly:] Through him you have loosed and
destroyed the dominion of death, and have given us eternal life
which is indestructible. And now that you have made us worthy
to stand before your pure and holy altar, and to offer to you this
living, holy, and unbloody sacrifice, make us worthy in your
mercifulness to receive this, your gift, in all purity and holiness.
And may it not be to us for judgment and vengeance, but for
mercy and the forgiveness of sins, for resurrection from the dead,
and for eternal life.And may we all serve your glory, and be made
pure sanctuaries and holy temples for your dwelling, that when
we have been united to the body and blood of your Christ we
may appear with all your saints at his great and glorious manifestation, for to you, and to him, and to the Holy Spirit belong
glory, honor, confession, and worship, now, always, and for ever
and ever.
In truth, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari is one of the richest liturgical expressions of faith in the Eucharistic mystery in all its dimensionsthe sublime miracle of transubstantiation; the making present
of the sacrifice of Calvary with its saving power; the ineffable gift of
the Lords own flesh and blood, really, truly, and substantially present;
divinization in Christ by holy communion. There can be no question about the orthodoxy of the Assyrian Eucharistic confession; and,
since beauty is a handmaid of truth, it is not irrelevant to point out
that this anaphora has no rivals when it comes to the ravishing beauty
of its dogmatic poetry.
370
In the rite there are, as already noted, manifold and manifest expressions of the priests intention to confect, and his having confected, the
sacrament that the Church understands the Eucharist to be: the spiritual nourishment of the true Body and Blood of Christ under the
appearances of bread and wine, re-presenting in an unbloody manner
his immolation on the Cross.
2. Confronted with so complex a liturgy, one might be initially at a loss
to identify a moment of consecration. A careful evaluation of the
structure of the whole and the content of its parts leads to a strong
presumption in favor of the epiclesis.151 The priest stretches himself
out upon his face before the altar and says:
We too, my Lord, your feeble, unworthy, and miserable servants who
are gathered in your name and stand before you at this hour, and
have received by tradition the example which is from you, while
rejoicing, glorifying, exalting, and commemorating, perform this
great, fearful, holy, life-giving, and divine Mystery of the passion,
death, burial, and resurrection of our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.
And may there come, O my Lord, your Holy Spirit, and may
he rest upon this oblation of your servants. May he bless it and
hallow it,152 and may it be for us, O my Lord, for the pardon of
debts, the forgiveness of sins, the great hope of resurrection from
the dead, and for new life in the kingdom of heaven with all who
have been well-pleasing before you. And for all this great and
marvelous dispensation towards us we will give thanks to you and
praise you without ceasing in your Church, which is saved by the
151
152
This article is primarily concerned with the anaphora as it exists now, and so
with the validity of the anaphora in its present form. For attempts at recovering
earlier forms of the text of the epiclesis, see Gelston, Eucharistic Prayer, 12023;
and the creative approach of Jammo,Anaphora of the Apostles Addai and Mari.
While past forms of the anaphora are not my central concern, I maintain, with
Ratzinger (cf. note 141 above), that some continuity of the present with the past
is a requirement for sacramental validity. Hence it is not irrelevant to note that
scholars say the phrase May he bless and hallow it was probably not present in
the earliest versions of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari. While many see the
addition of the phrase as bestowing a consecratory meaning on the epiclesis, it
does not seem to us that the presence or absence of this particular phrase necessarily changes the substance of the text. Indeed, it seems reasonable to conjecture that the phrase in question was added to express more forcefully the
meaning of the epiclesis as it was already understood by those using the anaphora
at the time. See Wilson,Anaphora of Addai and Mari, in Bradshaw, Early Eastern Eucharistic Prayers, 3435; Gelson, Eucharistic Prayer, 112; Bryan D. Spinks,
Eucharistic Offering in the East Syrian Anaphoras, Orientalia Christiana Periodica 50 (1984): 352.
371
precious blood of your Christ, with unclosed mouth and open

face, while lifting up praise, honor, confession, and worship to your
living, holy, and life-giving name, now, always, and for ever and
ever. And he signs over the Mysteries, and they respond: Amen.
Shortly after this the priest prays:

I give thanks to you, my Father, Lord of heaven and earth, Father,
Son, and Holy Spirit, for though I am a sinner and feeble, because
of the abundance of your mercy you have deemed me worthy by
your grace to offer before you these fearful, holy, life-giving, and
divine Mysteries of the body and blood of your Christ, that I may
minister to your people, the sheep of your pasture, the pardon of
their debts, the forgiveness of their sins, the salvation of their souls,
the reconciliation of all the world, and the tranquility and peace of
all the churches.
Most of the prayers that follow after this point either refer in the past
tense to an offering already made (for example,The mercifulness of
your grace has brought us near, O our Lord and our God, to these
glorious, holy, life-giving, and divine Mysteries) or make preparation for the communion of the clergy and the faithful, suggesting
that the epiclesis is the crucial moment in the liturgyan assumption all the more secure given the unquestionable place and function
of the epiclesis in many other liturgical rites.
3. The priestly authority is there, since the Assyrian Church of the East
has preserved apostolic succession and valid ordination, as the Holy
See recognizes.
4. The final criterion, historical continuity with apostolic tradition, is
manifestly demonstrable in the case of the Assyrian church of the East,
which cherishes the belief that its first members were evangelized by
the apostles Addai and Mari, two of the seventy (or seventy-two)
disciples sent out by the Lord.While the veracity of this legend is questioned by scholars, the foundations of the Assyrian church are, on all
accounts, extremely ancient.153 The origin of the Anaphora is lost in
the mists of time, but some form of it was in use well before the separation of the churches after the Council of Ephesus in 431.154 The
Holy See had no difficulty admitting that it was dealing with an
153
154
See Gelston, Eucharistic Prayer, 2122.

For a summary of what is known about the history of the anaphora, see Lang,
Eucharist without Institution Narrative? 22760, esp. 23334.
372
ancient Christian community of apostolic roots. The tragic state of

separation was only partially overcome in the sixteenth century when
a portion of the Assyrian church entered into full communion with
Rome (the Chaldean Catholic Church). In recent decades significant progress has been made in clearing away even the largest of obstacles to the reunion of the Assyrian Church of the East with the Church
of Rome.155
Discussion of the history of the anaphora has centered largely
around the presence or absence of the institution narrative. Many
scholars in the past maintained that the narrative must have been
present at one point but later dropped, while the current majority
opinion holds that the anaphora never contained the narrative.156
Certainty does not seem attainable on this point. But the historical
question that is really necessarythe one regarding continuitycan
be answered beyond reasonable doubt.
VII. The Danger of Undue Assumptions
It may be helpful to consider, for a moment, the consequences of a
simplistic approach to the issues at hand.An article published in The Latin
Mass,Ecumenical Agendas and Liturgical Anarchy?, aiming to show the
danger (if not heresy) of the pontifical councils decision, succeeds rather
in exemplifying the egregious misinterpretation shared by traditionalists
and neo-modernists alike. Already in the second sentence, the articles
author, Romano Tommasi, formulates the topic in a skewed manner:
The document advanced the worrisome proposition that the words of
institution (This is My Body/Blood) are not at all necessary in the valid
composition of Eucharistic prayers (the Eastern equivalent of the
Roman Canon). . . .The words of institution are no longer considered
essential in the consecration of bread and wine for the valid celebration
of the Sacrifice of the Mass.157
But the document never asserts anything like this, nor could it have done
so.158 It renders a decision about one special case, the reasoning for which
155
156
157
158
See the Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unitys Admission to the
Eucharist in Situations of Pastoral Necessity, no. 2.
See note 44 above.
Latin Mass 13, no. 4 (Fall 2004): 38.
Indeed, no. 4.4 of the Guidelines for Admission to the Eucharist explicitly states
that the above considerations on the use of the Anaphora of Addai and Mari and
the present guidelines for admission to the Eucharist are intended exclusively in
relation to the Eucharistic celebration and admission to the Eucharist of the faithful from the Chaldean church and the Assyrian church of the East, in view of the
373
not only does not but cannot apply to rites of non-Assyrian provenance.
As I have argued (and as the pontifical councils document evidently
assumes), each liturgy has its own integrity, its own specific nature; they
are not interchangeable, much less infinitely malleable. A Roman rite or
Byzantine rite liturgy sans words of consecration would be absolutely null
and utterly void, because the apostolic tradition that delivers this liturgy to
us includes these words in the rites ordinary, and as a consequence, the
ministers intention to do as Christ did, to accomplish what the Church
intends to accomplish, is bound up with these words. As I have argued,
moreover, there is no reason to think that, in principle, there could not be
any other way to do as Christ did, to accomplish what the Church intends
to accomplish. But should there be another way, a decision concerning
this special case could have nothing to say to the other casesto the
Roman rite, or the Byzantine rite, and so on, where the sacramental form
is already fixed by tradition and by the Churchs judgment. The special
case would remain forever a mere theological hypothesis unless a true
instance of it exists. It does appear to exist in this anaphora. The only
authority that can recognize its validity is the Catholic Church. In so
recognizing it, the Church effectively declares that this rite constitutes an
exception to a rule that is sovereign and immutable for other rites. In all
this, there is no logical contradiction whatsoever, contrary to Tommasis
claims. By no means can the pontifical councils argument about euchological dispersion in itself ever support the view that all sacraments could
take on any form whatsoever according to the mind of the minister; even
less is it true to say that the argument seems to assume the absolute change-
159
pastoral necessity and ecumenical context mentioned above.This does not sound
like a blanket endorsement even of the anaphora itself, but a pastoral concession
in times of necessity (cf. nos. 4.1 and 4.3). In other words, nothing is further from
the content and tenor of the July and October 2001 documents than a general
approbation of Eucharistic prayers without an institution narrative. On the
contrary, the Assyrian anaphora is being treated as something extraordinary,
unusualand, therefore, worthy of being questioned, investigated, and judged.
The conclusion, then, is as narrow and specific as can be: This prayer is exceptional and, as such, may be employed as it is customary to employ it in the church
to which it belongs, and only in that church.
Tommasi, Ecumenical Agendas, 41, original emphasis. The fact that some
theologians immediately announced that the decision amounted to a dissolution
of the concept of fixed sacramental form does nothing to prove that this was, or
could have been, the mind of the pontifical council. Distortion of promulgated
texts has been the rule, not the exception, since the Second Vatican Council, as
one can see in regard to the famous no. 8 of Lumen Gentium on the one Church
of Christ subsisting in the Catholic Church.
374
able nature of the form of sacraments.159

Such misunderstandings are not infrequent. A similar assertion was
posted in an online newsletter of the Society of Saint Pius X:The consequences of this decision are very weighty, for it completely overthrows the
sacramental theology ratified by the Council of Trent. For a sacrament to
be valid three elements are necessary: the matter, the form, and the intention of the priest to do what the Church intends. Here the form (the
words of consecration) is lacking.160 We see, in more primitive guise, the
same begging of the question that characterizes both traditionalist and
neo-modernist interpretations of the pontifical councils decision.
Although the weightiest problem in contemporary theology is amnesia of tradition and contempt for the magisterium, still it is not uncommon to find a traditionalist reaction that overdetermines the magisterium
and overaccentuates one or another aspect of Catholic tradition, at the
expense of other legitimate aspects. In our zeal for defending Church
teaching, we have to be on guard against assuming that certain issues have
been determined once and for all when the Church has not, in fact, given
such closure.
VIII. Conclusion
If St.Thomass explanation of Eucharistic form is adapted to exploit the full
significance of the distinction between speaking from the person of Christ
(that is, speaking the words of institution at the behest of Jesus) and doing
from the person of Christ (that is, enacting or carrying out, with authority
conceded by the Lord, a symbolic ritual that must be accompanied by some
adequate traditional formula but not necessarily the words of institution),
it becomes evident that the latter, the doing-as-Christ-did, is the genus,
while the speaking-as-Christ-spoke is a particular way of performing the
act of the High Priest. It is probable that this particular way of performing
the high-priestly act is the most sublime inasmuch as it conforms the
minister most intimately to his Lord, collapsing, as it were, the gap
between servant and master.The mystery of the priestly character permits
and even demands that the instrument, at the high point of the liturgy, the
victims immolation, be transparently an instrument.The customary formula
160
161
From The Anaphora of Addai and Mari, or the Revolution in Sacramental

Theology, DICI 46 (2002), cited in Communicantes ( July 2002) of the Society of
Saint Pius X, www.sspx.ca/Communicantes/July2002/Brief_News_from_here_
and_there.htm.
Nevertheless, the liturgy is more than the consecration, as Thomas frequently
notes, and so on the balance, the Anaphora of Addai and Mari, with its lavish
poetry of praise and thanksgiving, makes up for its deficiency in regard to the
375
conveys this with an awesome simplicity.161 Moreover, although a simple

overlapping of the speaking and the doing has always been the standard
approach in liturgical ritesthat is, the priest does now what Jesus did at the
Last Supper, precisely by speaking now what Jesus spoke thennevertheless
it is possible that they might also be separated in a certain liturgical rite, so
that the priest does what the Lord did, and with the same intention, but not
by speaking the phrases that the Lord spoke when doing it. Granted, there
is something obvious and fitting about keeping the two dimensions
together, as there is something counterintuitive about separating them.162
Hence, even prior to knowing how the facts stand, one might guess that
the vast majority of rites will conflate the two dimensions, and that a
minority, or maybe none at all, will display the doing without the saying,
even if it is theoretically possible.163 Our hypothetical observer would not
be surprised to find out that, in actual fact, of the dozens of liturgical rites
known to us, only one exhibits this trait. Still,in a dispersed euchological
way, that is, integrated in prayers of thanksgiving, praise, and intercession,
162
163
sacramental symbolism of the institution narrative. If anything, this anaphora, like

the Eucharistic prayers of the East in general, challenges us in the West to recover
the riches of our own tradition, the birthright we have bartered away for modern
pottage.
This is why St.Thomass account of the form of the Eucharist is close to being
a universal account, applicable across the board.Thomas was able to craft such an
account because, while looking to a particular rite, he was always thinking of the
principles of the sacramental sacrifice as such. If he errs at all, it is by having identified as intrinsic to liturgy elements specific to the rite of Mass he knew and
loved. This can be readily forgiven if we consider the comparative poverty of
knowledge about non-Western rites in the Latin Middle Ages.
It needs to be said in this connection that the Anaphora of Addai and Mari does
meet the requirements set forth by Aquinas in ST III, q. 78, a. 1 (quoted above):
The words of the anaphora treat of the consecration rather than the use of the
sacrament, and the priest does nothing but speak the words that signify this
consecration. One could even say that the priest who recites this anaphora
distances himself further than a Roman priest does from the idea that he accomplishes anything in and of himself.The Roman priest takes on the role of Christ
and dares to speak as though he were Christ, while the Assyrian priest in this
prayer simply asks God to work the miracle for him. Nevertheless, it would not
follow that this anaphora is superior to others. On the contrary, one can identify
at least two weaknesses from the standpoint of dogmatic theology: Because the
anaphora does not clearly express the identity of the clerical priesthood with
Christs own priesthood, it fails, first, to represent visibly the unity of priest and
victim in the sacrifice of the Mass, and fails, second, to symbolize the unity of the
ministerial priesthood (see Thomass comments on why concelebration does not
amount to a superfluous multiplication of agents: ST III, q. 82, a. 2, ad 2, quoted
in note 17 above).
376
this anaphora accomplishes what the others accomplish.

After discussing St. Thomass thoughts on flexibility in formulas and
having gleaned from his observations some insights into our question, I
then identified four criteria of a valid Eucharistic rite, and argued that
they are verified in the Anaphora of Addai and Mari.
We are therefore in a position to conclude that the decision of the
Pontifical Council for Promoting Christian Unitynamely, to allow, in
some circumstances, intercommunion between Chaldean Catholics and
members of the Assyrian Church of the East, thereby endorsing the validity of the Anaphora of Addai and Mariis reasonable and defensible.The
decision rests on firm theological principles. It furnishes no grounds for
asserting that St. Thomass theology of the Eucharistic conversion has
been undermined or proved inadequate; for this theology has more
resources, and more room for development, than we might have thought.
Neither does it entail that the Church has implicitly abandoned what she
taught at Florence and Trent, much less that the words of institution are
seen as no longer necessary for consecration.These conclusions are false
because they fail to recognize the manner in which the exact form of the
sacrament is deeply embedded in the context of a specific liturgical rite
deriving from a definite tradition and proposed by a definite apostolic
authority. The rite embodies a certain approach to the mystery of the
ministerial priests impersonation of the High Priesthis saying and
doing on behalf of, as empowered by, and as instructed by the one definitive priest of the New Covenant. The manner in which he is to speak
and act is set before him by the ritual of the Church. Hence, we may
confidently believe that when a validly ordained priest intends, says, and
does at the altar what an apostolic church asks him to intend, say, and do,
even he, lowly sinner though he is, will make present anew the paschal
mystery of Jesus Christ, the bread come down from heaven, the Lamb of
God who surrendered himself for the life of the world.
Appendix
The Formal Structure of the Eucharistic Rite
with Respect to Transubstantiation164
An anaphora (as well as the larger rite of which it is a part) is divisible into
three parts; the first part signifies transubstantiation as something to be
164
I owe much of the analysis found in this appendix to Joseph Bolin. The argument presented here can be applied to any Eucharistic rite, but it is meant to
shed light on the problem of when transubstantiation occurs in a rite that does
not announce this moment in an obvious way.
377
accomplished; the second part signifies transubstantiation as something that

is accomplished; the third part signifies transubstantiation as something that
has been accomplished. Such a division seems to follow necessarily from
two principlesfirst, that it is clear that there is a transition; second, that
sacraments effect what they signify by signifying.165 For if it is clear that
there is a transition, there must be some point when it is clear from the rite
that the bread is not yet Christs body, and some point when it is clear from
the rite that the bread is Christs body. References to transubstantiation
made before any point of the first kind, taken in context, must then signify
it as something to be accomplished, or by anticipation, while references to
transubstantiation made after any point of the second kind, taken in
context, must then signify it as something that has been accomplished.
Now, speaking theoretically, (1) every point might fall into one or the
other of these divisions (that is, to be accomplished or has been accomplished), or there might be a middle period. If there is a middle period,
the transubstantiation could be (2) signified as something that will be, is,
or has been, but indeterminately; or could be (3) signified as something
that is accomplished.The first two options would be consistent with the
principle that there must be a recognizable transition. However, they are
not consistent with the principle that sacraments effect by signifying. For
what signifies something as future or as past does not and cannot bring it
about, nor what signifies it as something merely possible but quite uncertain.166 Therefore there must be some section of the anaphora that, taken
as an integral whole, determinately signifies transubstantiation as something
presently effected.
It does not follow, however, that we can be absolutely certain about
165
166
167
See John F. Gallagher, Significando causant: A Study of Sacramental Efficiency

(Fribourg: University Press, 1965).
Although anointing of the sick has a reference to the future, it must be understood also as implying something effected now, for example, that the sick person
receives Gods grace as something to help him continually, especially through the
duration of the sickness.
For example, a section recalling the manna from heaven; a section recalling the Last
Supper, a section imploring reconciliation with God, a section imploring God to
come down to us, etc.All such texts are conversion prayers in the broad sense
that is, they are about the conversion of the gifts (and, interpreted spiritually, of
ourselves through partaking of the gifts), and they are, directly or indirectly, asking
God for this conversion; even a commemoration of blessing, in the context of a
prayer, is a form of thanksgiving and a petition for further blessing.Therefore on
the basis of textual content alone, apart from the guidance offered by a living liturgical tradition or the Churchs determination in cases of doubt, it can be difficult
to judge the moment of transubstantiation. It was for this reason that I suggested
earlier that we would do well to judge the commencement of the real presence
378
precisely which part of the anaphora this middle section encompasses,167

since it is Christ who instituted the sacrament, and it is primarily his signification, not ours, that brings about the effect. In other words, the one
who institutes the sacrament is the one who signifies through it and effects
what it signifies.This is just a way of repeating the truth that Christ is the
principal celebrant of each sacrament and the author, according to his
divinity, of its effects.Therefore what is required of the human minister,
strictly speaking, is that he lend himself freely to Christ by saying and
doing what the Church asks him to say and do. In this way, even if the
minister is not certain exactly when and how Christ is acting in and
through him (indeed, how could he ever really understand such a
profound mystery?), he can nonetheless be absolutely certain that Christ
is so acting, and that certain effects occur in definite ways. Regarding the
Eucharistic liturgy in particular, he knows as he begins that transubstantiation will occur; he knows, from the rubrics instructing him to adore and
to receive heavenly food, that after a certain point it has occurred; and he
knows that during the peak of the liturgy it is occurring. That is enough
for him to know in order to fulfill his ministerial role worthily.
An argument that aims at some measure of specificity and certainty
will have to be based more upon fittingness than upon a necessity following from the essential nature of the sacraments. Obviously the manifestness of the time of the change pertains to the nature of the sacraments as
sensible signs, but not in such a way that the time must be very specifically manifest with very great certitude in order to preserve the essential
nature of a sacrament. If, say, a liturgical rite has the priest ascending the
altar at a given moment to begin the most solemn portion of the prayer,
and a few minutes later has him fall down in adoration before the altar,
the congregation is not likely to mistake the visible lesson:The Lamb of
God is now present on the altar.They are certain of that and regard it as
manifest to their believing eyes.
In oriental liturgies, where the ministers, somewhat hidden from the
people, are gathered around an altar, whispering and chanting prayer after
prayer, bowing and signing themselves, it is difficult to point to a
moment when all is, as it were,said and done; there tends to be a kind
of plasticity and flow of liturgical time that makes it a less urgent question.
One adores the Lord in his multifarious presencein the temple of
worship, in the priests, in the people, and ultimately, of course, in the blessed
during a liturgy employing the Anaphora of Addai and Mari by watching how the
Christians who customarily worship in this rite behave, or what the better-catechized among them believe to be the case.This, too, is no infallible guide, but it is
often the best witness we have.
379
sacrament itself, where the mode of presence is the most real, the most
exalted.168 In the Western rites, on the other hand, there tends to be a
dramatic emphasis placed on consecration as such, which at a certain point
compelled theologians and pastors to seek a resolution to the dilemma
about when to begin adoring the gifts.169 Due to the desire for worshiping the Lords Body and Blooda natural supernatural response that led
to and strengthened the custom of elevating the hostan answer had to be
given to the question: Is the bread, immediately after its consecration,
already the Body of Christ, even before the wine has been consecrated?
Thus it was desirable to settle the issue with certainty and to affirm that the
conversion is effected by Christs own words from the Last Supper,
precisely when spoken over each gift. The Anaphora of Addai and Mari
could not be more different from Western rites in this regard and hence
N&V
must be approached from a different angle.
168
169
On the various modes of real presence, cf. Paul VI, Mysterium fidei, nos. 2023.
On this matter I have already referred in note 35 above to Kennedys valuable
study, The Moment of Consecration and the Elevation of the Host.

Kwasniewski Addai and Mari PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kwasniewski Addai and Mari PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Kwasniewski Addai and Mari PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Nova et Vetera, English Edition,Vol. 4, No.

Doing and Speaking in the Person of Christ:

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

in Aquinass account of the relevant issues and why there is no need to

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

II. The Traditional View

Garrigou-Lagrange, De Eucharistia, 17374. He notes that a similar principle is

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

are accomplished in the use of the consecrated matter. Second, because

Thomass reply introduces the all-important concept of the ministerial

of the accomplishing of a sacrament, which occurs in two ways: either, as with

see Guy Mansini, OSB,Representation and Agency in the Eucharist, Thomist 62

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

the priestly character therein conferred, he has been enabled to function

For St. Thomas, to be an instrument of a spiritual cause for a spiritual

Theology of the Church, trans.Victor Szczurek, O. Praem. (San Francisco: Ignatius

about. What is deepest in his sacramental character is not a work, but a

An impressive synopsis of the priestly office is given by St. Thomas in Summa

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

vicegerent of someone, to act with the power or authority of someone

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

Priest occurs in the celebration of the Eucharist, without destroying the

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

Even if we say that the priests power is more fundamentally a power

the Armenians of the Council of Florence.29 However, the same decree

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

See note 55 below.

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

almost human, or a not quite human, fetus, gradually transforming itself

It is probable that the moment of transubstantiation in the Anaphora of

Is the Consecration Gradual? Zenit, November 25, 2003, www.zenit.org/english/

Attwater, Eastern Catholic Worship, 15253.

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

which is given only to priestswhatever mode of speaking may happen

The four institution accounts are Mt 26:2629; Mk 14:2225; Lk 22:1720; and

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

This passage establishes a minimum condition for the accomplishment of

For sacramental validity, of course, more than a sufficiency of signification is

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

Thus, it is clear that the meaning of a certain action or element can be

While for Thomas the consecration is accomplished only by the words

sacraments. In general, he is right about synonyms; the words yawning or bread

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

Here he is thinking of translation into different languages, but his point

Similarly, in the reply to the third objection, Thomas considers whether

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

persons is omitted, baptism is invalid.72 Then he gives an example of an

What we have seen, then, is a willingness to recognize variability of

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

another.79 The Gospel of Matthew is an obvious witness.80 The Fathers

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

the Church through the apostles.90 This intriguing contrast between

The quotations from the Pseudo-Dionysian Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and 1

replies:When the apostles acted as ministers of this sacrament,they used

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

In a comment on the nature of liturgy and its ancient roots, St.Thomas

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari

that the Churchs traditional practice as such is worthy of acceptance.105

The Anaphora of Addai and Mari